Home » online video » Recent Articles:

Subscription Internet Television: Represents the Majority of Viewing by 2015

Phillip Dampier June 6, 2011 Competition, Online Video, Video 2 Comments

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Swinburne Sees Most TV Revenue from Subs by 2015 6-2-11.mp4[/flv]

With the advent of high speed broadband and streamed online video, an analyst at Morgan Stanley is predicting that by 2015, more than half of all television revenue will come from subscription fees charged to access it.  Ben Swinburne says the entire television model is being turned on its head by broadband video, with cable, phone and satellite companies scrambling to protect the average $85 Americans spend every month for broadband Internet and television service.

Among Swinburne’s predictions:

  • Cable and telephone broadband will increasingly be the delivery platform for television programming with at least 50% of all televisions connected directly to the Internet by 2015;
  • Advertising revenue will continue to lose prominence, with networks and programmers seeking direct payments from consumers in the form of monthly subscriptions or pay-per-view to access even traditional over-the-air programming;
  • Satellite television is at a distinct disadvantage not offering broadband Internet access, something satellite companies are trying to change;
  • Cable companies will face the potential of “online cable” competitors delivering multichannel video packages over broadband connections;
  • Content producers, networks, and the cable industry will continue to maintain a united front against a-la-carte television, which could dramatically reduce the revenue the entertainment industry earns from selling multi-hundred channel cable and satellite video packages.

Swinburne speaks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.”  (4 minutes)

Understanding Customer Defections: The Value Perception of Cable Television

Phillip Dampier May 5, 2011 Competition, Consumer News, Data Caps, Online Video 2 Comments

Click to enlarge

Your cable company has a problem.  Collectively, the cable industry has lost more than 2 million video customers over the past year, and the problem may be getting worse.  Some of the largest cable companies in the United States are making excuses for the historic losses:

  • The bad economy
  • Housing and foreclosure crisis
  • High unemployment
  • Family budget-cutting

But cable companies should be rethinking their excuses, according to a new report from Strategy Analytics.

“Throughout the past seven consecutive quarters of subscriber losses, the inclination of cable has been to point the finger at various external factors,” said Ben Piper, Director of the Strategy Analytics Multiplay Market Dynamics service. “Our analysis shows that neither the economy nor the housing market is to blame for these subscriber defections. The problem is one of value perception.”

Value perception.  That’s a measurement of whether or not one feels they are getting good value for the money they pay for a product or service.  Value comes in several different forms, starting with emotional — do I feel good, safe, secure, or nostalgic using the service?  Can I imagine life without it?  What about my friends and family — will I stand out if I am not buying this product?  It’s also practical — Can I afford this?  Can I find a cheaper or better alternative?  Do I really need this service anymore?

Tied into value perception is customer goodwill.  If you have an excellent experience with a company, letting go of their products comes much harder.  If you feel forced to deal with a company that has delivered poor and expensive service for years, pent up frustration will make it much easier (and satisfying) to cut them loose at the first opportunity.

Embarq used to be Sprint's pathway to prosperity in the local landline business, until cord cutting put landlines into a death spiral.

In the telecommunications industry, value perception is a proven fact of life.  It began with phone companies.  Formerly a monopoly, landline providers have been forced to try and reinvent themselves and become more customer-friendly.  First long distance companies like Sprint and MCI moved in to deliver cheaper (and often better quality) long distance service.  Sprint even got into the landline business themselves, forming EMBARQ, which at its peak was the largest independent phone company in the United States.  When Voice Over IP providers like Vonage and the cable industry’s “digital phone” products arrived, they promised phone bills cut in half, and introduced the concept of unlimited long distance calling.

The value perception among consumers became clear as they began disconnecting their landlines.  The alternative providers offered cheaper, unlimited calling services, often bundled with phone features the local phone company charged considerably more to receive.  Even though VOIP is technically inferior in call quality in many instances, the value the services provided made the decision to cut the phone cord easier.

But local phone company landline losses would only accelerate with the ubiquity of the cell phone, but for different reasons.  What began with high per-minute charges for wireless calls evolved into larger packages of calling allowances, with plenty of free minutes during nights and weekends, and often free calling to those called the most.  Most Americans end the month with unused calling minutes.  As smartphones gradually take a larger share of the cell phone market, the accompanying higher bills have forced a value perception of a different kind — ‘I can’t afford to keep my landline –and– my cell phone, so I’ll disconnect the landline.’

The cable industry has traditionally faced fewer competitive threats and regularly alienates a considerable number of customers, but still keep their business despite annual rate increases and unwanted channels shoveled into ever-growing packages few people want.

This pent up frustration with the cable company has led to perennial calls for additional competition.  That originally came from satellite television, which involved hardware customers didn’t necessarily like, and no option for a triple play package of phone and broadband service.  The cable industry offers both, and by effectively repricing their products to discourage defections from bundled packages, customers soon discovered the resulting savings from satellite TV were often less than toughing it out with the cable company.

As a result, satellite television has never achieved a share of more than 1/3rd of the video market.  Many satellite customers are in non-cable areas, signed up because of a deeply discounted price promotion, were annoyed with the cable company, or didn’t care about the availability of broadband or phone service.  When the price promotion ends or technical issues arise, many customers switch back to cable.

More recently, researchers like Strategy Analytics have discovered some potential game-changers in the paid video marketplace:

  • The impact of broadband-delivered video content
  • The Redbox phenomena
  • Competition from Telco TV
  • The digital television conversion

Strategy Analytics studied consumer perceptions and found customers braver than ever before about their plans to cut cable’s cord.  According to the consumers surveyed, nobody scores lower in value perception than cable companies.  Citing “low value for money,” over half of the cable subscribers surveyed told the research firm they intended to disconnect their cable TV package in the near future.

While other researchers dismiss those high numbers as bravado, there are clear warnings for the industry.

“Much ink has been spilled on the topic of cord cutting and even skeptics are now admitting that it can’t be ignored,” said Piper.

Indeed, Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein who almost never says a discouraging word about his beloved cable industry, told Ad Age Mediaworks the issue of cord-cutting was real.

“It’s hard to pretend that cord cutting simply isn’t happening,” Moffett said.

Craig E. Moffett, perennial cable stock booster, even admits cord-cutting is real.

The most dramatic impact on the cable industry has been in the ongoing erosion of the number of premium channel subscribers, those willing to pay up to $14 a month for HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, or Starz!.  The reason?  Low value for money.  As HBO loses subscribers, Netflix and Redbox gain many of them.  Netflix still delivers a considerable number of movies by mail, but has an increasingly large library of instant viewing options over broadband connections.  Strategically placed Redbox kiosks deliver a convenient, and budget-minded alternative.

The loss of real wage growth, the housing collapse, and the down-turned economy do put pricing pressures on the industry, but some cable executives hope the time-honored tradition of customers howling about rate increases without ever actually dropping cable service continues.

But as new platforms emerge, some delivering actual pricing competition to the cable TV package, increasing numbers of customers are willing to take their video business somewhere else.  Some are stopped at the last minute with a heavily discounted customer retention pricing package, but that doesn’t keep them from sampling alternative online video options.  Among those who actually do leave, some are satisfied with the increased number of channels they get for free over-the-air after America’s digital television conversion.

Many others are switching to new offerings from telephone companies.  Both AT&T and Verizon deliver video packages to many of their customers, often at introductory prices dramatically lower than their current cable TV bill.  When considering a bill for $160 for phone, video, and broadband from the cable company or $99 for the same services from the phone company, $60 a month in savings for the first year or two is quite a value perception, and the inevitable disconnect order is placed with the cable company.

Ad Age‘s own survey, more skeptical about cord-cutting, confirmed that many former cable TV customers left for budgetary reasons, but many also kept their triple play packages.  They just bought them from someone else.

Also confirmed: a dramatic upswing in online viewing, sometimes paid but often ad-supported or free.

Strategy Analysts concludes in its report, available for $1,999, that the ongoing erosion of cable TV subscribers isn’t irreversible, but it requires urgency among providers to become more customer-friendly and increase the all-important value perception.

In other words: respecting the needs and wishes of your customers.

Thankfully, the cable industry is dealing with competitors like AT&T, who are willing to assassinate their current lead in value perception by slapping Internet Overcharging pricing schemes on their broadband service.  That will certainly raise the ire of their DSL and U-verse customers, many who are treating the customer unfriendly usage limits as an invitation to leave.  Their former cable companies are waiting to welcome them back.  The real question remains, will cable customers now be treated better?

Netflix Canada Turns Down the Bandwidth So You Don’t Turn Down Being a Customer

Phillip Dampier March 29, 2011 Canada, Data Caps, Editorial & Site News, Online Video 3 Comments

Netflix continues to get a lesson on broadband economics from the Internet Service Providers out to scare their customers away from spending too much time watching the company’s online streaming service.  As some Canadian ISPs lowered usage caps in response to Netflix’s imminent arrival, the video streaming service just announced it was letting customers turn down the bit rate of online videos to conserve their monthly usage allowance.

Neil Hunt, Netflix Chief Product Officer, told customers about the bit rate reduction in a company blog post:

Starting today, watching movies and TV shows streaming from Netflix will use 2/3 less data on average, with minimal impact to video quality.

Now Canadians can watch 30 hours of streaming from Netflix in a month that will consume only 9 GBytes of data, well below most data caps.

We made these changes because many Canadian Internet service providers unfortunately enforce monthly caps on the total amount of data consumed.

In the past, viewing 30 hours of Netflix could consume as much as 70 GBytes, if it was all in HD, and typically about 30 GBytes. While there is some lessening of picture quality with these new settings, the experience continues to be great.

Video compression reduces data consumption, but also sacrifices video quality and enjoyment. An example of high video compression on the left can be more than noticeable.

Unfortunately for Hunt, providers can continue to lower data caps to the point where Netflix would have to present their video library as a slideshow to keep customers under their limits.

Stop the Cap! responded directly to Hunt imploring Netflix to get involved in the battle that consumers have thus far fought alone:

While some customers appreciate Netflix for turning down the video bitrates, I am here to tell you it’s not nearly enough.

For nearly three years, our consumer group — Stop the Cap! has fought Internet Overcharging schemes in both Canada and the United States.

Whether it’s Bell’s proposal to eliminate flat rate broadband across all of Canada, Time Warner’s 2009 pricing experiment to limit broadband users to just 40GB of usage per month, or AT&T’s 150-250GB cap taking effect this spring, your competitors are on a mission to scare customers away from using your online video streaming service.

[…] The fact is, Netflix MUST engage in this fight. Consumers cannot do it alone, especially when up against billion dollar companies spending millions on lobbyists trying to convince lawmakers usage caps are about “fairness” when they are really about monetizing broadband traffic and scaring off cord-cutting.

BitTorrent CEO Willing to Appease Providers for Unproven ‘Bandwidth Congestion’

Phillip Dampier March 24, 2011 Broadband "Shortage", Broadband Speed, Consumer News, Data Caps, Editorial & Site News, Online Video Comments Off on BitTorrent CEO Willing to Appease Providers for Unproven ‘Bandwidth Congestion’

BitTorrent, the company behind the popular file sharing protocol routinely blamed by providers for overburdening broadband networks and by Hollywood for distributing pirated content, took a tentative step today to oppose Internet Overcharging schemes.

Eric Klinker, CEO wrote a guest piece for GigaOM calling out AT&T for its announced 150-250GB usage caps:

While the trend toward metered bandwidth is not inherently pro-consumer, ISPs have staked out a singular public rationale: data caps are necessary to limit the consumption of “bandwidth hogs” in order to protect the network experience for everyone else. Such concepts are simplistic and easy to imagine. They are also completely wrong.

And with that, Klinker stumbled into a public relations and marketing effort defending the company’s culpability for increasing broadband traffic, and proposing a resolution for their ‘part of the problem’:

Since any data traffic that doesn’t induce congestion on a fixed cost network is essentially free; applications can voluntarily play a role in traffic prioritization. And since BitTorrent is a high percentage of global Internet traffic, we have a responsibility to be a part of the solution.

This was the primary motivator around our release of a new protocol a year ago, called µTP. The protocol essentially senses congestion and self-regulates to avoid contributing to Internet traffic jams.

Because µTP can never induce network congestion, it doesn’t contribute to an ISP’s cost. An ISP still has regular network maintenance expenses, but remember, with a fixed-cost network, traffic only becomes an economic burden if it contributes to congestion and forces the need for expansion.

As a result, µTP is exceedingly friendly to ISPs and their business model. µTP is open-source, and we invite application and cloud services providers to work with us directly or in the IETF’s LEDBAT working group in the ongoing innovation and usage.

Klinker

Some providers and their allied interest groups have disputed the diminished impact Klinker cites as a benefit of µTP, but in provider-world, the BitTorrent “problem” is rapidly becoming yesterday’s news anyway — online video is the new boogeyman.  NPD Research just released numbers showing peer-to-peer use has dropped from 16 percent of all U.S. Internet users to 9 percent over the last three years.

After making a spirited sales pitch for what he hopes will represent peer-to-peer 2.0, Klinker surrenders on behalf of everyone else, arguing the solution to America’s ‘broadband crisis’ is speed throttles during peak usage periods, and time of day pricing.  Klinker suggests broadband users might need to plan their “on-demand” viewing well ahead, or face the kind of “congestion pricing” Londoners face if they attempt a journey by car into the city center at high noon.  Klinker suggests Netflix customers should pre-schedule downloads of their movies the night before watching them, or else pay a fee for instant gratification.

That assumes, of course, you know what you want to watch the day before you do, that you can download Netflix content (you cannot), and that you didn’t remember you could accomplish the same thing if Netflix shipped the DVD out to you by U.S. Mail.

Are broadband rationing coupons far behind?

Klinker’s willingness to submit his own company’s peer to peer technology to provider speed throttles is likely to earn him a dressing down by investors wondering what the future holds for a protocol that can be dosed with Xanax at provider will.  Handing over the power to make your file sharing technology painfully slow and frustrating is likely not going to win new converts, either.

Before willing to subject everyone to solutions for broadband providers’ scary predictions of a broadband exaflood, would it not be better to actually obtain verifiable evidence there is a congestion issue in the first place?

An Open Letter to Content Producers: Netflix, Hulu, Valve, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo

Dear Content Producer:

Your money train is leaving the station.

Customers are about to start making some very important choices about what they do on the Internet. AT&T announced this month they are going to start capping their DSL customers at 150GB per month and their fiber-to-the-neighborhood U-verse customers at 250GB per month, with overlimit fees for those who exceed them.

Comcast already has a 250GB per month cap, currently loosely enforced. Time Warner Cable has strongly advocated usage-based billing for years. Other telecommunications companies are all either supporting or considering these Internet Overcharging schemes for one reason, and one reason only:

It makes them absolute boatloads of cash.

Canada already lives with this reality. So does Australia, although they’re backing away from it. South Korea? Japan? Europe? Nope. Flat-rate Internet service is the norm there.  In Europe, mobile customers are demanding the removal of bandwidth caps American providers are still trying to attach to customers’ bills.

So how does this impact you? 250GB a month is a lot, and you’ll be fine? Sure. For now.

But what happens when Sony introduces the Playstation 4, or Microsoft announces the Xbox Next? Games aren’t exactly going to get smaller, and online distribution is far and away the future of games and software in general. Right now a game for the 360 or PS3 can be as large as 20GB. PC game enthusiasts routinely cope with 10-12GB game upgrades, and woe be unto you if you have to reinstall your Steam library and have 20-30 (or more) games to restore.

Internet Overcharging schemes make providers, and the lobbyists who do their bidding, very wealthy.

For the “Massively Multiplayer Online” game universe, incremental software updates and upgrades often come through BitTorrent, which exposes users to peer-to-peer traffic well beyond the size of the update itself.  In fact, as games increasingly turn towards Cloud storage and distribution, the traffic adds up.

For online video companies, your very business model could be at risk.  Netflix? Hulu? People are no longer satisfied with grainy, compressed video.  They want HD content, and you’ve answered the call.  But as consumers increasingly face 8-10GB per movie (at 720p, 15GB+ for 1080p), the usage racked up is going to blow past all of these caps.

Who knows what happens in the next five years, or ten.  Considering Canada, where a similar duopoly of broadband providers have lowered usage allowances, do you really expect anything different down here?  The only thing likely to be raised is the monthly price, which remains higher here than in most places around the world.

Google has the right idea with their experimental 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home network. The problem is, that’s only going to serve one (or perhaps a few) communities in the U.S.  The rest of the country will have to survive with ‘Ultra’ cable broadband packages serving up 10-20Mbps service or DSL that barely manages 6Mbps.  If you don’t live in an urban area, tough luck.  You will be lucky to get 3Mbps service.

Broadband service upgrades come painfully slow in the absence of robust competition.  Time Warner Cable and other providers are slowly starting to roll out DOCSIS 3, which allows speeds up to 100Mbps, assuming the average consumer can afford the Cadillac price that comes with it.  Many phone companies continue to bet the farm on their DSL service, which can also be expensive when it’s the only broadband service in town.

Against this backdrop, the rest of the world marches on, and beyond, North America.

South Korea? They’re promising national speeds of 1Gbps by 2013 — for $27 a month!

How has this happened?  Where have we gone wrong?

For starters, the broadband providers have very powerful lobbyists — quite a few of which are ex-legislators. Together, they wage their public policy battles on both the state and federal level, often writing the bills a compliant legislator is willing to introduce as their own.

Washington regulators take a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach to regulating super-sized corporations who can cause them trouble.

The Federal Communications Commission has adopted a “see no evil, hear no evil” approach to broadband, capitulating when a chairman occasionally strays too far into the industry minefield laid to protect their business agenda.  As a result, the agency is a toothless dog.  It recently adopted a “Net Neutrality” policy all but written by Verizon, who ironically is now spending money to fight the rules they helped write.  As a backup, virtually every Republican and several Democrats have teamed up to pass a Resolution of Disapproval seeking to overturn the weak-kneed Net Neutrality rules the FCC adopted.  Lobbyists are well paid to cover every contingency.

Consumers — your customers — can’t do much about this beyond writing their members of Congress and complaining.  But because they did not enclose a check or money order made payable to the respective politician’s campaign fund, the result will be a form letter response weeks, if not months later… after the corporate agenda is enacted into law.

We just cannot fight this battle all by ourselves.  Recognizing the realities of today’s politics, we need your help to fight money and power with money and power.

The video game industry earns billions yearly. You have already faced battles in Washington, so you know how this works. You can fight for your interests while protecting ours by ensuring broadband service is cheap, plentiful, and unlimited. The same story applies to other content producers, such as online video, software, and any other company that wants to move to online distribution to power their business. You cannot succeed if customers are too afraid of using your service because of a bandwidth cap.

The remarkable thing is that countries many Americans cannot find on a map are now beating the United States with better and cheaper broadband while we hand over our digital economic future to a duopoly. That will not buy us better service, just bigger bills for “fast enough for you” Internet access.

So that’s it. Act now. Act strongly. If you cannot stand up for your customers, you may not have any.

Signed: A gamer. A movie watcher. A music listener. An enjoyer of entertainment. A lover of the Internet.

Broadband consumer and reader Jason Ballew penned this guest editorial, with some editing and additions from Stop the Cap! editor Phillip M. Dampier.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!