Discovery has announced an exclusive agreement with BBC’s Natural History Unit that will open up decades of natural history and wildlife programming for on-demand viewing on Discovery’s forthcoming subscription streaming platform, planned for a 2020 launch.

“This is our largest-ever content sales deal,” said Tony Hall, BBC director general. “Global subscribers are in for a real treat — the best content on a great new platform.”

The BBC Natural History Unit is the world’s largest producer of radio, television, and online content dealing exclusively with natural history and wildlife programming. Launched in 1957, the department produces around 100 hours of television and 50 hours of radio programs annually. Some of that programming comes from well-known naturist Sir David Attenborough, himself responsible for hundreds of hours of award-winning BBC nature documentaries.

A limited amount of programming produced by the unit is already available on other platforms, like Netflix, usually branded as BBC Earth. But only a limited catalog of content is on offer, typically licensed for streaming for one year. The new agreement between Discovery and BBC will make Discovery’s forthcoming subscription video service the exclusive streaming home of all BBC nature and wildlife programs, except in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and China. More importantly, Discovery can make the full BBC catalog of nature programming available for viewing.

Discovery’s plans for its subscription streaming platform have quickly evolved since first announced last year. The original plan was to offer a $5-8/mo service showcasing programming from over 30 networks already operated or owned by Discovery worldwide. The well-known cable network announced its plans for a streaming service after completing its $14.6 billion acquisition of Scripps Networks Interactive in 2017. The acquisition allows Discovery to blend its own nature and history programs with lifestyle content from Scripps’ networks like HGTV, Food Network, and DIY.

Now, Discovery is planning several different tiers of its streaming service, each offering subscribers a very deep catalog of non-expiring content. The BBC Natural History programming add-on is expected to cost under $5 a month. Other planned add-ons may feature a rich catalog of educational videos for do-it-yourself home projects, a video cooking school, and others to teach people sports like golf or tennis.

Zaslav

Discovery CEO David Zaslav sees the opportunity for Discovery to launch the “Peloton of food,” a reference to the stationary bike manufacturer that also sells exercise routine subscriptions to owners. In such a scenario, a celebrity chef like Bobby Flay could host hundreds of hours of cooking content, teaching subscribers how to cook everything from a turkey to a complete cajun-style meal.

Discovery has already put its wheels in motion, launching streaming services with sports programming including cycling and golf which may feature products such as the SkyTrak+.

Zaslav envisions the future of Discovery’s streaming service to be the Netflix of factual content programming. He noted most of the huge entertainment companies are clashing head to head by competing with scripted entertainment programming. Discovery will differentiate itself with documentaries, education, sports, and nature specials.

“The scripted movie packagers are big boats, and they’re banging into each other,” Zaslav said. “They’re fighting over who can be the widest and who can be the fastest. Right now, we have some great lanes.”

Zaslav admits Discovery’s earlier forays into streaming, including its participation in TV Everywhere — offering a limited number of shows for streaming to authenticated cable or satellite subscribers — has not been very successful. Contract restrictions often limited how long series can remain available for viewing, and the catalog of options was never particularly deep. With the new ad-free streaming platform, Discovery envisions releasing a massive menu of content, frequently updated with new shows from its own production unit and its partners. Most of Discovery’s own programming was produced for its cable networks, but nothing stops Discovery from creating content specifically for its streaming platform. Discovery’s new agreements should also allow it to keep content available indefinitely.

Discovery plans on spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and market its new services. It will face the challenge of convincing customers that subscribing to yet another streaming service is worthwhile. A 2018 survey from Magid Research found consumers were willing to spend up to $38 a month on a combination of streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video. Discovery hopes to launch its new platform in time to grab subscribers before new competitors from Disney, WarnerMedia, and Apple take hold and possibly tap out would be customers.

The deal with the BBC is part of a larger transaction between the two programmers over their European networks. The BBC is spending $225 million and assuming $90 million in debt to acquire Discovery’s share of several UKTV networks, including Alibi, Dave, Drama, Eden, Gold, W, and Yesterday. In turn, Discovery assumes full control of lifestyle channels Home, Good Food, and Really.

Nearly every wireless provider in the United States is intentionally slowing down your data service, detrimentally affecting smartphone apps and video streaming.

That is the conclusion of researchers at Northeastern University, University of Massachusetts — Amherst and Stony Brook University, studying the results of more than 100,000 Wehe app users that have run 719,417 tests in 135 countries verifying net neutrality compliance, before and after the open internet rules were repealed in the U.S. earlier this year.

The raw data collected from the app is used as part of a validated, peer-reviewed method of determining which ISPs are throttling their customers’ connections and what services are being targeted.

Nearly Every Mobile Provider Is Throttling Your Speed, Even on “Unlimited” Plans

The researchers concluded that nearly every wireless provider is throttling at least one streaming video service, some reducing speeds the most for customers on budget priced plans while higher value customers are throttled less. No ISP consistently throttled all online video, setting up an unfair playing field for companies that benefit from not being throttled against those that are. Few customers noticed much difference in the performance of streaming video  after the repeal of net neutrality in the U.S., largely because the wireless companies involved — AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and others — were already quietly throttling video.

“Our data shows that all of the U.S. Cellular ISPs that throttled after June 11th were already throttling prior to this date,” the researchers wrote. “In short, it appears that U.S. Cellular ISPs were ignoring the [former FCC Chairman Thomas] Wheeler FCC rules pertaining to ‘no throttling’ while those rules were still in effect.”

Summary of Detected Throttling

For each ISP, the researchers included tests only where a user’s set of tests indicated differentiation (speed throttling of specific apps or services) for at least one app and did not detect differentiation for at least one other app. This helps to filter out many false positives. As a result, the number of tests in this table is substantially lower than the total number of tests Wehe users ran. The researchers sorted the Cellular ISPs based on the number of tests from users of each ISP. If they did not detect differentiation, researchers used the entry “Not detected.” The researchers claim that offers enough evidence that throttling is not happening. In some cases researchers do not have enough tests to confirm whether there is throttling, indicated by “No data.” 

The table has two column groups for the results: before the new FCC rules took effect on June 11th, and after. If behavior changed from after June 11th, it is highlighted in bold. 

Sprint’s Skype Throttle

The researchers found that video was not the only service impacted by speed throttles. Sprint (and its subsidiary, prepaid provider Boost), for example, is actively throttling Skype.

“This is interesting because Skype’s telephony service directly competes with the telephony service provided by Sprint,” the researchers wrote. But curiously, the throttle almost entirely impacts Android phone users, while iOS devices have less than a 4% chance of being speed throttled. But isolating the exact trigger for throttling remains elusive, the researchers claim.

“While we have strong evidence of Skype throttling from our users’ tests, we could not reproduce this throttling with a data plan that we purchased from Sprint earlier this year,” the researchers admit. “This is likely because it affects only certain subscription plans, but not the one that we purchased.”

When asked to comment, Sprint said: “Sprint does not single out Skype or any individual content provider in this way.” The test results indicate otherwise, suggest the researchers.

T-Mobile’s “Boosting” Throttle Can Mess Up Streaming Video

Some providers, like T-Mobile, attempt to sell their throttled speeds as pro-consumer. In return for reduced definition video, customers are free to watch more online content over their portable devices without it counting against a data cap. But T-Mobile’s video throttle is unique among providers as it initially allows a short burst of regular speed to buffer the first few seconds of a streamed video before quickly throttling video playback speed. Many video players do not expect to see initial robust speeds quickly and severely throttled. Consumers report video playback is often interrupted, sometimes several times, as the player gradually adapts to the low-speed, throttled connection. Consumers receive lower quality video as a consequence.

T-Mobile Plays Favorites

Through extensive testing, research found throttling begins after a certain number of bytes have been transferred, and it is not based strictly on time; below is a list of the detected byte limits for the “boosted” (i.e., unthrottled video streaming) period.

The impact of T-Mobile’s “boosting” speed throttle. Initial speeds of streaming video reach 25 Mbps before being throttled to a consistent 1.5 Mbps.

More concerning to the researchers is their finding that video apps are treated differently by T-Mobile.

“T-Mobile throttles YouTube without giving it a boosting period, while T-Mobile does not throttle Vimeo at all,” the researchers report. “Such behavior highlights the risks of content-based filtering: there is fundamentally no way to treat all video services the same (because not all video services can be identified), and any additional content-specific policies — such as boosting — can lead to unfair advantages for some providers, and poor network performance for others.”

The team of researchers had just one conclusion after reviewing the available data.

“Net neutrality violations are rampant, and have been since we launched Wehe,” the researchers report. “Further, the implementation of such throttling practices creates an unlevel playing field for video streaming providers while also imposing engineering challenges related to efficiently handling a variety of throttling rates and other behavior like boosting. Last, we find that video streaming is not the only type of application affected, as there is evidence of Skype throttling in our data. Taken together, our findings indicate that the openness and fairness properties that led to the Internet’s success are at risk in the U.S.”

The team “strongly encourages” policymakers to rely on fact-based data to make informed decisions about internet regulations, implying that provider-supplied data about net neutrality policies may not reveal the full impact of speed throttles and other traffic favoritism that is common where net neutrality protections do not exist.

A group largely funded by the telecommunications industry is among the latest to call on Congress to pass net neutrality legislation, just as long as the cable and phone companies that have fiercely opposed net neutrality as we know it get the chance to effectively write the law defining their vision of a free and open internet.

Broadband for America (BfA) has long pretended to represent the interests of consumers. It has tried to steer clear of partisan politics by representing itself as a bipartisan organization, claiming that since its formation in 2009, the Broadband for America coalition “has included members ranging from consumer groups, to content and application providers, to the companies that build and maintain the internet. Together these organizations represent the hundreds of millions of Americans who are literally connected through broadband.”

In this spirit, BfA has given top priority to adopting a new, bipartisan, federal net neutrality law that would eliminate the regulatory uncertainty changing administrations have introduced through agencies like the FCC.

The telecom industry shuddered under the Obama Administration’s FCC with Thomas Wheeler as chairman. Wheeler pushed for bright line net neutrality rules that cut off the industry’s ability to toy with paid fast lanes on the internet, potentially costing telecom companies billions in future revenue opportunities. Wheeler backed his regulatory authority by using Title II regulations that have withstood corporate court challenges since the 1930s, and made clear that authority also extended to blocking or banning future creative monetization schemes that unfairly favored some internet traffic at the expense of other traffic.

The incoming Trump Administration discarded almost every regulatory policy introduced by Wheeler through its appointed FCC chairman, Ajit Pai. With Republicans in firm control at the FCC, in the White House, and in Congress, the broadband industry and its political allies feel safe to draft and pass a new federal law that will give companies regulatory certainty. One proposal could potentially permanently remove the FCC’s future ability to flexibly manage changing broadband industry practices.

BfA’s “pro net neutrality” campaign directly targets consumers through its website while also pretending to represent their interests. It is a classic D.C. astroturfing operation — fooling unwitting consumers into pushing for policies against their best interests. BfA claims it supports “policies that align with the core principles of an open internet: no blocking, no throttling, no discrimination and most importantly, ensuring all consumers have access to internet. Further, despite state efforts, only Congress maintains the power to regulate the internet.”

Broadband for America’s campaign to block this legislative maneuver actually helps net neutrality opponents.

Since no phone or cable company in the country is seeking to block, throttle, or discriminate against certain websites, passing a law that prohibits this is not controversial. But BfA does not mention other, more threatening practices ISPs have toyed with in recent years that would be banned by robust net neutrality rules. At the top of the list is “paid fast lanes,” allowing preferred content partners to get preferential treatment on sometimes clogged internet pipes. As past controversies between Netflix and Google over interconnection agreements illustrate, if an internet provider refuses to continually upgrade traffic pipelines, all traffic can suffer. With paid prioritization, some traffic will suffer even more because of preferential treatment given to sponsored traffic. The industry does not call this throttling, and some ISPs have blamed content providers for the problem, suggesting Netflix and YouTube traffic unfairly takes a toll on their networks.

BfA also objects to state efforts to bring back net neutrality, claiming such regulatory powers only belong in the hands of the federal government (especially the current one). It is no coincidence BfA’s beliefs and policies mirror their benefactors. While claiming to represent the interests of consumers, BfA is almost entirely funded by: AT&T, CenturyLink, Charter, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Comcast, Cox, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and USTelecom-The Broadband Association. The only major American telecom company not on this list is Verizon, but their interests are represented by USTelecom, an industry-funded lobbying group that backs America’s top telephone companies.

Broadband for America shares a list of some of its members — all a part of the cable, wireless, and telephone industry.

Under the guise of the midterm elections, BfA issued a new call for federal legislation enforcing the telecom industry’s definition of net neutrality, and not just on telecom companies. BfA also wants regulation of “edge providers,” a wonky term that means any website, web service, web application, online content hosting or online content delivery service that customers access over the internet. In reality, the only edge providers the industry is concerned with are Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook — companies that often directly compete against telecom company-backed content ventures and lucrative online advertising. Ironically, many Republicans that have strongly argued for deregulation have supported imposing new laws and regulatory oversight on some of these companies — notably Google and Facebook. Amazon joined the list as a result of President Trump’s ongoing feud with Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO and owner of the Washington Post.

Backing the BfA’s lobbying push for a new net neutrality law are results from a suspect BfA-commissioned (and paid for) study by a polling firm that claims “87 percent of voters ‘react positively to arguments for a new legislative approach that sets one clear set of rules to protect consumer privacy that applies to all internet companies, websites, devices and applications.’” A full copy of the study, the exact questions asked during polling, and more information about the sampling process was not available to review. Instead, the conclusions were posted as an opinion piece by Inside Sources, a website that provides D.C. strategy, public relations, and lobbying firms with a free home to publish OpEds on behalf of their clients. Newspapers are allowed to reprint Inside Sources wire service content for free, sometimes without full disclosure of the financial arrangements behind the studies or author(s) involved.

The BfA campaign for a federal net neutrality law is not in isolation. The telecom industry has been on an all-out push for a new net neutrality law since Ajit Pai led the campaign to repeal the FCC rules. The industry’s campaign for pseudo-net neutrality has even won over some in the media like the editorial board of the Washington Post, that published its own OpEd in early October calling Wheeler’s use of Title II authority a regulatory overreach. The Post also has no patience for lawsuits being filed by telecom companies and the Justice Department against the state of California after passing its own statewide net neutrality law. The industry pushback in court is part of the Post’s argument for a new national law to ‘end confusion’:

The fight over net neutrality today can be reduced to a single sentence: Everyone is suing everyone else. Congress should step in.

The Justice Department said Sunday it will take California to court over its law requiring Internet service providers to treat all traffic equally. Those ISPs were already primed to sue states on their own. And California is one of more than 20 states suing the Federal Communications Commission over its repeal of the Obama administration’s rules. “We’re not out to protect the robber barons. We want to protect the people,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) told us.

The FCC abdicated its responsibility on net neutrality when it repealed the old rules with no adequate replacement. Now, without setting forth its own rules, the federal government is seeking to block states from creating their own. That may be frustrating to Americans who want an Internet where providers do not dictate what information reaches them and how fast. But a nationwide framework governing net neutrality would be preferable to a patchwork of state regulations establishing local regimes for systems that transcend borders. And creating that framework is up to Congress.

But not all are confused. California resident Bob Jacobson defended his state’s interests in a rebuttal to the Post’s editorial:

Absurd reasoning emanating from the nation’s capital of corruption, Washington, DC. California has always led the nation — including the Federal government — in the sensible, productive regulation and consequent growth of its telecom and information economy, now the world’s largest. The Moore Universal Telecom Services Act, passed in reaction to the breakup of the old AT&T, is still the nation’s only comprehensive, progressive telecom policy, its success reflected in California’s robust technological and social infrastructure. Rather than supersede California’s policies, our national and other state legislature’s and regulatory agencies should learn from and adapt them to better serve equally all the American people. (And get rid of that mockery known as the Trump FCC.)

Rupert Murdoch’s slimmed-down television empire will refocus on targeting America’s red states and live sports fans who may have wagered on those popular online casinos.

In a world where online casinos have become a sensation, captivating sports enthusiasts and gaming aficionados, games like แทงบอล are well-poised to cater to the preferences of this dynamic audience.

As Murdoch’s television empire reorients itself to embrace the fervor of live sports fans and the potential of online wagering through platforms such as Daftar Slot88 Online, it’s clear that the world of sports betting is now a prominent player in the realm of entertainment, making its mark alongside the fervent political landscapes of the red states, ushering in a new era of viewer engagement and excitement.

After Murdoch completes the sale of most of 21st Century Fox and its studios to either Disney or Comcast, the “New Fox” that will remain will include Fox News Channel, Fox Business Channel, the Fox television network, MyNetworkTV, some sports channels, and 28 owned and operated local television stations. In short, it will be a $23 billion company focused almost entirely on legacy television.

To maximize the value of those remaining assets, “New Fox” will double down on live television to attract and hold the “core Fox viewer,” one who instinctively watches Fox News, enjoys live sports, and more than likely lives in a conservative-leaning state.

Brandon Ross, an analyst at BTIG Research, believes “New Fox’s” crown jewel will be the Fox News Channel, not the Fox television network.

“The strongest asset that’s in their portfolio going forward is Fox News,” Ross said, noting that dedicated viewers of the network will likely see promotions from other Fox-owned networks that will increasingly cater to the interests of the average Fox News viewer. Research shows Fox News attracts an older, conservative, and very loyal audience that is more likely than other demographic groups to also watch live television sports and pay for cable television.

Murdoch’s recent content deals hint he intends to increase Fox’s focus on live sporting events. Last week, CNN reported Fox acquired the rights to broadcast “WWE SmackDown” for the next five years. Earlier this year, it signed another five-year deal to air Thursday night NFL games.

Fox’s scripted television shows will likely take a hit as a result, as investments shift towards live news and expensive sports programming. Murdoch may be signaling it won’t continue trying to keep up in the battle between Amazon, Hulu, and Netflix vs. traditional linear/live television over scripted dramas, original movies, and other pre-produced content. Murdoch’s ability to rely on traditional scripted shows for revenue may also be waning as online content companies break the traditional 24-26 week ad-supported television season.

Netflix’s original content budget was around $6 billion in 2017, more than CBS spent on its own shows. This year it expects to spend up to $8 billion, more than CBS, FOX, and ABC. Fox can still fall back on the two strengths network television still commands — live news and sports. News programming, particularly the kind of political opinion shows Fox airs during the evening, are extremely cheap to produce and attract a loyal audience. Sports programming, in contrast, is extremely costly to acquire. But like news, surveys show more than 90% of viewers watch live, commercials and all.

Jay Rosenstein, a former CBS Sports executive, told CNN that is what makes sports so valuable for a legacy business like Fox.

“There’s been a certainty about sports programming that doesn’t exist with scripted or unscripted programs,” he added. “With sports, you have a known quantity.”

Live sports is one of the few types of programming left where viewers don’t instinctively reach for the remote to fast forward through advertising. Scott Rosner, the academic director of Columbia University’s Sports Management Program, said networks like Fox depend on that to make money.

“What that means is you are sticking around as the viewer,” Rosner said. “You’re far more likely to watch advertising that is being put in front of you.”

That adds up to a lot of advertising revenue because no other programming comes close to beating the ratings of live football games, according to Ross. Networks spend a lot on sports programming, but also earn a lot from lucrative and frequent ad breaks.

Networks opening their checkbooks to spend billions on sporting rights prefer long-term, stable contracts even if they have to spend more to get them. The streaming services, as well as some social media sites, are also dabbling in live sports streaming, and with their deep pockets, traditional broadcast networks could eventually be outbid. At Fox, they have about five years before they need to worry about renewing the contracts they just signed.

“New Fox” will also recoup some of their recent investments from viewers like you. Many expect Fox and their television stations will raise retransmission consent fees charged to your cable, phone, satellite, or online provider to carry Fox-owned networks and stations on the lineup.

Your bundle is bigger than ever.

A-la-carte TV is still dead. Long live the super-sized bundle!

If AT&T and Time Warner wanted to deliver a message to the cable industry as a result of their now-approved blockbuster merger deal, it is one that promises hundreds, if not thousands of more TV channels, movies and shows headed your way in the coming days, bundled into super-sized pricier packages of television, telephone, and internet service.

Despite the fact consumers claim they want to pick and pay only for the entertainment options they specifically want, in reality people are paying for more bundled packages and services — usually from multiple online streaming services — than ever before, with no possibility they will ever watch everything these services have to offer.

AT&T and Time Warner are well aware customers are now subscribing to cable television -and- streaming video services like Hulu and Netflix. But many customers are also buying streaming live cable TV alternatives, despite the fact they already subscribe to a cable television package. Given the option of selling you an inexpensive package of a dozen cable channels you claim to want or selling you much larger and more expensive bundles of services many are actually buying, AT&T will follow the money every time.

What will be different as a result of this merger is where you buy that programming. Before, you may have purchased AT&T Fiber internet access, AT&T wireless mobile phone service, a HBO GO subscription through DirecTV Now, a cable TV alternative, and Netflix. Now, with the exception of Netflix, all of that money will go directly to AT&T. The company will also be able to enhance their bottom line by monetizing content viewed over mobile devices. After taking control of Time Warner’s vast entertainment offerings, which range from HBO to Turner Broadcasting networks like CNN and TNT, AT&T will generously bestow liberal (or possibly free) access to this content for its broadband and wireless customers, while those served by other providers will have to pay up to watch. AT&T will ultimately set the terms of its licensing agreements. AT&T Wireless customers with unlimited data plans already have a sample of this with a free year of DirecTV Now, which customers of other wireless companies have to pay to watch.

AT&T plans to offer the best deals to customers who bundle everything through AT&T. The “quad play” bundle of TV, internet, home phone, and wireless phone will offer customers discounts on each element of the package, but some may experience sticker shock even with the discounts.

The Wall Street Journal noted a premium AT&T customer could pay more than $500 a month for AT&T’s best package — that’s more than $6,000 a year. Most bundled AT&T customers will pay about half that — around $246 a month for a package of 100 Mbps internet, a home phone line, wireless phone and a limited TV package bundling Time Warner content, including HBO. The entry level ‘poverty’ package will still cost around $115 a month.

By controlling each element of the package, AT&T can discourage a-la-carte package pickers by substantially raising the price of standalone services, to encourage bundling. That explains why many customers take a promotional TV offer priced just $10-20 more than the $70 broadband-only package some customers start with. If broadband-only service costs $40 a month and the TV package also costs $40 a month, those leaning towards cord-cutting would find it much easier to pass on cable television.

With Comcast on the verge of picking up much of 21st Century Fox’s content library and studio, Comcast will be able to defend its own turf creating similar giant bundles of content to keep its customers happy. Wall Street is already putting pressure on Verizon to respond with an acquisition of its own to protect its base of FiOS and Verizon Wireless customers.

Companies likely left out in the cold of the next wave of media and entertainment consolidation include online content companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple, which will be stuck licensing someone else’s content or bankrolling many more original productions. Charter Communications, which has a small deal with AMC for content, is also stranded, as are smaller cable companies like Cox, Altice, and Mediacom. Independent phone companies like CenturyLink, Windstream, Consolidated, and Frontier are also in a bad position if Wall Street determines telecom companies without content divisions are in serious trouble.

Netflix stands alone as the behemoth content company, and is not likely to be impacted by the current wave of consolidation. Hulu will most likely end up in the hands of a telephone or cable company, most likely Comcast, if it successfully acquires Fox’s ownership share of Hulu.

For customers, your future choice of provider is about to get more complicated. In addition to pondering speed tiers and wireless coverage maps, you will also have to decide what content packages are the most valuable. Your choices will range from basic company-owned networks to third-party services like Netflix and Hulu, as well as full cable TV lineups ranging from DirecTV Now to XFINITY TV. Then get ready for the bill, which will likely include charges for most, if not all, of these services.

The Wall Street Journal explains the current wave of media consolidation. (2:44)