Wall Street analysts are predicting the end of free video streaming in the near-term as media and cable companies regain control over online content for themselves.

Cable companies are partnering with content producers to move a growing amount of streamed video content behind paywalls in an effort to protect their core business profits.

The trend is evolving so rapidly, analysts like Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predict the end of free streaming is imminent.  Either customers will pay upfront or use TV Everywhere “authentication platforms” that require evidence of a pay television subscription before being able to watch.

Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford Bernstein, perennially sees cable operators as the most likely winners in the billion-dollar entertainment battle.

“They’re winning the broadband wars,” Moffett says of the cable industry. “Broadband is increasingly the flagship product, not the video distribution business.”

Cable networks and program producers are growing increasingly alarmed at the impact video streaming services like Hulu and Netflix are having on their bottom lines.

Case in point: the fall of Nickelodeon, a popular children’s cable network that used to guarantee high ratings and lucrative ad revenue.  Recently the network has fallen off the ratings cliff.  Some careful analysis found the reason why: Netflix.  Nickelodeon, along with many other cable networks, licensed a number of their series to Netflix for on-demand viewing. In households with young children, parents increasingly choose the on-demand Netflix experience for family viewing over the traditional cable channel.

Moffett

That’s a major problem for content producers and networks, and Moffett quotes industry insiders who predict licensing deals for Netflix streaming will increasingly not be renewed (perhaps at any price) as networks retrench to protect their core business.  What is left will soon be behind paywalls, limited to customers who already subscribe to a pay television service.

That line of thinking is already apparent at Time Warner (Entertainment), Inc., where CEO Jeff Bewkes rarely has a good thing to say about Netflix.  His company refuses to license a significant amount of their content for online streaming because it erodes more profitable viewing elsewhere.

Time Warner only licenses older content and certain “serialized dramas” that have proven difficult to syndicate on traditional broadcast television or cable outlets.  But the company keeps kid shows to itself and its own distribution platforms, like Cartoon Network.

When it does let shows go online, it wants them behind paywalls.

Bewkes applauded Hulu’s recently announced plans to move its service away from free viewing.  Authenticating viewers as pay TV subscribers before they can watch “makes sense” to Bewkes.

“Hulu is moving in the right direction now,” Bewkes said.

Big media companies do not want significant changes to the viewing landscape, where major networks front the costs for the most expensive series, and cable networks commission lower budget programs and repurpose off-network content.  Pay television providers bundle the entire lineup into an enormous package consumers pay to receive. That is the way it will stay if they have their say.

“Just because consumers would rather get individual channels a-la-carte, on-demand, and streamed — only what they want to pay for — [if they think] that is inevitably the way the world if going to evolve, not so fast,” Moffett said. “It may be the way consumers want it and it may be the way technologists want it, but the media companies have a say here.”

“There is no way they are going to voluntarily unbundle themselves,” Moffett said.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Moffett on Cable Operators 4-30-12.mp4[/flv]

Craig Moffett talks about the current state of the media business on Bloomberg News.  He sees trouble ahead for online video streaming, as powerful media and entertainment content distribution companies reposition themselves to better control their content… and the revenue it earns.  The big winners: Cable operators, Hollywood, and major cable networks.  The losers: Consumers, Netflix, Hulu, and free video streaming. (11 minutes)

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Martin Sees End of Free Streaming TV Content 5-4-12.mp4[/flv]

Laura Martin with Needham & Co. predicts the imminent demise of free video streaming. Media companies can’t handle the loss of control over their programming, and the erosion of viewers (and ad revenue) it brings.  Martin tells Bloomberg News she sees a future of paywalls blocking access to an increasing amount of online video content.  (5 minutes)

If you thought paying an average of $86 a month for basic pay television and premium movie channels in 2011 was out of line, just wait.  A new report predicts you could pay $123 by the year 2015 and $200 by 2020 — and that only includes the TV portion of your bill.

That is in keeping with typical annual rate increases, typically blamed on “increased programming costs,” which currently run an average of six percent a year.

The NPD Group, who published the findings, predicts consumers may not sit still for that kind of monthly cable television bill, especially as household incomes for the middle class continue to remain stagnant, even as high fuel and health care prices continue to march higher.

The pay television industry isn’t entirely responsible for the annual rate hikes that nearly always outpace the rate of inflation.  The real money is in programming production and distribution, which is why giant companies like Comcast, Bell, Rogers, and Viacom are buying up programming studios, distributors, and networks at a rapid pace.

With new players like Netflix, Amazon, and Redbox joining traditional pay television and broadcast network bidders, auctions for exclusive licensing agreements bring higher and higher bids.  Ultimately, consumers pay the price in the form of higher bills.  Even cable networks, sensing an increase in the value of their programming, are extracting higher monthly fees at contract renewal time.

The last to arrive at the programming money party?  Local over-the-air broadcasters that used to beg cable companies to carry their channels on the local lineup.  Now some are demanding as much as $5 or more per month per subscriber to allow the cable operator to keep carrying the stations.

“As pay-TV costs rise and consumers’ spending power stays flat, the traditional affiliate-fee business model for pay-TV companies appears to be unsustainable in the long term,” said Keith Nissen, research director for The NPD Group. “Much needed structural changes to the pay-TV industry will not happen quickly or easily; however, the emerging competition between video on demand and premium-TV suppliers might be the spark that ignites the necessary business-model transformation of the pay-TV industry.”

In other words, the more consumers cut cable’s cord and go find other ways to watch their favorite shows, the more unsustainable the traditional pay television business model will become.  Some industry watchers believe cord-cutting is not a major issue.  Others believe continued rate increases will drive customers to cancel service, particularly when alternatives are available. But NPD believes economic factors are the biggest reason for cable cord-cutting.  Those ex-customers are switching back to free “over the air” television, which now delivers better picture quality and often includes additional channels that increase the number of viewing options.

NPD Group research shows most consumers don’t want to exert too much effort to hunt down online programming. Most will put up with their current provider as long as they deliver the shows they want at a price they can afford.  What could change that?  Easy-to-access to a-la-carte programming, perhaps available from services that may soon come built-in with the newest television sets.

“Pay-TV providers offer a convenient, one-stop shop for subscribers, and the majority of customers like it that way,” said Russ Crupnick, senior vice president of industry analysis for The NPD Group. “There is an open window for the industry to meet consumer needs and become to television what iTunes is to music; however, there is also a definite risk if pay-TV providers don’t capitalize on the opportunity — and soon.”

"You are not subscribed... to any channels."

An angry commentator on WHP-TV in Harrisburg summed up his recent misadventures with Verizon’s customer service on the 6pm nightly news:

“Verizon Service Sucks!”

R.J. Harris was just one of thousands of Verizon FiOS customers across the northeast who found themselves without FiOS television service March 23rd, forcing many to miss NCAA basketball tournament games and the season premiere of “Mad Men.”

Because of a software glitch, Verizon’s media hubs in Buffalo and Harrisburg, Pa., shut off cable networks in FiOS cities across the northeast.  Viewers were told they were “not authorized” to receive cable networks, which brought many to the phones to call Verizon for help.

Harris joined enormous call queues that extended one, two, even three hours before most gave up.  Even worse: Verizon’s automated customer service agent provided voice synthesized non-answers regarding the FiOS outage.

“Lots of ‘press one,’ ‘press three,’ blah blah blah and then a talking computer,” Harris recounts. “One day later I tried to use Verizon’s ‘in home agent’ on my PC to get help.  Verizon took almost two hours to update my software before I could use the agent.”

Harris finally ended up in a chat session with “Sandeep,” half a world away.  But Harris found the offshore customer service agent was the first person to actually explain the problem.

“I told Sandeep I wanted management to know how I felt about my customer service experience,” Harris said. “He obliged by getting his boss Muhammad to join the chat. Muhammad — the manager — added one word to the chat: ‘OK.’ That’s it.”

“If you are starting a new company in America and you want the worst customer service policy you could possibly have, model your company after Verizon.”

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHP Harrisburg Common Sense 3-29-12.mp4[/flv]

WHP-TV commentator R.J. Harris is furious at Verizon for its FiOS and customer service failures.  (3 minutes)

Customers around the northeast shared one thing in common: they couldn’t talk to anybody at Verizon about the mishap.

Barbara Adams in Latham, near Albany, found that to be the case.  Adams called the local newspaper for help instead, which they gave her.  A Verizon FiOS customer near Buffalo ended up getting technical support from a friend’s Facebook page.

Harris

Verizon’s technical glitch required customers to follow a fairly complex set of instructions to fix the problem:

1. With the TV and set-top box on, press Menu on the remote.
2. On the TV screen scroll to Customer Support, selecting In-Home Agent.
3. Select STB Auto Correct and follow any directions after that.
4. The process should take several minutes.

Last week, Verizon began rebooting its home set top boxes remotely to reset them to working order without customer intervention.

But many customers were left without service all weekend long, unable to reach anyone at Verizon to understand why.

The company would not make a definitive statement about providing affected customers with service credits, but if you were affected, we recommend you call or write and ask for yours.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WNLO Buffalo Verizon FiOS Problems 3-27-12.mp4[/flv]

WIVB in Buffalo talked to a local Verizon FiOS customer who found a solution to Verizon’s technical snafu, from a friend on Facebook.  (2 minutes)

An ad in the Syracuse Post-Standard announces a new invention -- a bow tie antenna design originally designed in the 1950s.

Back in December, Stop the Cap! alerted readers about the “revolutionary razor thin” HDTV antenna Clear-Cast that promised salvation from high cable and satellite TV bills forever.  No article published here has attracted as much attention as that one, drawing more than 40,000 new readers to find out whether the product is truly a scientific breakthrough, or razor thin hype.

Readers have overwhelmingly agreed with our review of the product — it did no better than a $1.49 antenna we bought years earlier from Radio Shack.  But plenty of readers also shared their disappointment with the company advertising Clear-Cast: Canton, Ohio-based Universal Media Syndicate, Inc.

The Canton Regional and Greater West Virginia Better Business Bureau reports it has received “numerous” complaints about Clear-Cast’s marketing practices, refund policies, and advertising claims.  Indeed, we’ve heard from hundreds of readers who assumed we sold the product, and a lot of choice words were included in the angergram e-mails mistakenly sent our way.  Among the claims many found deceptive — Clear-Cast’s marketing stretch that users can receive up to 953 shows (not channels).

Our story has been linked from a number of other websites, so many in fact our review of the product often appears higher in Google’s search rankings than the company selling the product itself.

Clear-Cast’s advertising, designed to look like an authentic newspaper article, has appeared in dozens of newspapers around the country.  Many readers report the price has increased as well, now selling for as much as $50, not including the high-pressure sales tactics to throw in “warranty protection” ($5 buys you two years) and shipping and handling (add another $10).  We found readers who spent $110 for two bow-tie antennas that used to be included with televisions until the 1980s for free.

Our findings: Clear-Cast is an antenna capable of receiving local broadcast channels, but no better or worse than other basic antennas we have tested that sell for $4-9.

Returning the product for a refund also proved nightmarish.  We received a working antenna from one of our readers if we’d agree to return to it the company when we were finished.  It was returned by Priority Mail in late January and was received by them in two business days.  Our reader reports a credit for the return finally posted to his credit card statement this morning — nearly four months later.

The BBB received such a substantial number of complaints, they met with the company in January to discuss their product and how it is sold:

The BBB found that the product does provide channels without cable or satellite. However BBB inquiries indicate that because the headline states that you can get rid of cable or satellite bills, consumers are under the impression that they will receive the same type of channeling as they would with their current provider.

Additionally, there seems to be some confusion as to what is actually being given away for free. In the company ad it states in the headline “Free TV” and “gets rid of cable or satellite bills.” Some inquiries indicate that consumers are under the impression that they will be receiving a free television. Also there seems to be confusion as to how many possible channels a consumer may get when using the ClearCast Digital HDTV. The company ad has indicated that consumers can receive up to 953 “Shows” and up to 53 “channels” depending on where you live.

The company has added disclosures that outline and explain what the consumers are actually getting, however the overall impression of the ad seems to imply differently.

The basic principles of the BBB code of advertisement states that an advertisement as a whole may be misleading although every sentence separately considered is literally true. Consumers are encouraged to read the ad in its entirety and despite deadlines and restrictions, to make sure the company and product is researched prior to purchase in order to make an educated buying decision.

We were not surprised to learn readers were still complaining about Clear-Cast as late as this weekend.

Universal Media Syndicate, which is responsible for its marketing, also pitches:

• the so-called “Amish-Made” Heat Surge Fireplace (all parts from China, with only the wood frame made by “Amish” employees);
• “three hundred ninety-eight dollars and shipping”-portable air conditioner ArcticPro;
• coin peddler World Reserve Monetary Exchange;
• PatentHEALTH, a Canton-based provider of something called “nutraceuticals” that include an FDA warning suggesting their products are “not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.”

Variation on the traditional bow-tie UHF antenna

Our advice for cord cutters remains the same:

Antenna design really has not changed much in 50 years. Here is a good and credible site to explore: http://www.antennaweb.org/Info/AntennaInfo.aspx

Start out with something basic. The best antennas allow you to orient them in different directions towards the signal you want. For UHF, try a set top loop-style antenna that can be rotated (Wal-Mart probably has one). You might also find playing around with some aluminum foil attached behind the antenna or even to it can make some difference. Experiment… a lot, until you find the ideal position for your antenna. If you are thinking of spending $38 on Clear Cast, remember it will probably cost you at least $5 to mail it back if you find it not worth keeping.

For the absolute best results, seriously consider a traditional outdoor or attic antenna. Channel Master and Winegard are quality manufacturers with a long history. They sell online and UPS can deliver it straight to your home already assembled in many cases.

But always hire a professional installer if you are absolutely not certain of your rooftop skills.  A frequent cause of rooftop falls and other accidents used to be attributed to do-it-yourself antenna installers who didn’t appreciate the risks.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTVQ Lexington Clear-Cast HDTV Antenna 3-28-12.mp4[/flv]

WTVQ in Lexington, Kentucky investigated viewer complaints about Clear-Cast and talked with the Better Business Bureau about the company and its marketing tactics.  (3 minutes)

Comcast has changed its explanation why the company’s XFINITY TV service, streamed over Xbox 360 has been made exempt from the company’s 250GB usage cap.

Last week, the company claimed the service traveled over the company’s “private IP” network, exempting it from usage restrictions.  That created a small furor among public interest groups and Net Neutrality supporters because of the apparent discrimination against streamed video content not partnered with the country’s biggest cable operator.

Stop the Cap! argued what we’ve always argued — usage caps and speed throttles are simply an end run around Net Neutrality — getting one-up on your competition without appearing to openly discriminate.

Now Comcast hopes to make its own end run around the topic by changing the language in its FAQ:

Before:

After:

Although the words have changed, the story stays the same.

The key principle to remember:

Data = Data

Comcast suggests its Xbox XFINITY TV service turns your game console into a set top box, receiving the same type of video stream its conventional cable boxes receive.  The cable company is attempting to conflate traditional video one would watch from an on-demand movie channel as equivalent to XFINITY TV over the Xbox.  Since the video is stored on Comcast’s own IP network, the company originally argued, it creates less of a strain on Comcast’s cable system.

AT&T's U-verse is an example of an IP-based distribution network.

But the cable industry’s inevitable march to IP-based delivery of all of their content may also bring a convenient excuse to proclaim that data does not always equal data.  They have the phone companies to thank for it.

Take AT&T’s U-verse or Bell’s Fibe.  Both use a more advanced form of DSL to deliver a single digital data pipeline to their respective customers.  Although both companies try to make these “advanced networks” sound sexy, in fact they are both just dumb data pipes, divided into segments to support different services.  The largest segment of that pipe is reserved for video cable TV channels, which take up the most bandwidth. A smaller slice is reserved for broadband, and a much smaller segment is set aside for telephone service.

AT&T and Bell’s pipes don’t know the difference between video, audio, or web content because they are all digital data delivered to customers on an IP-based network.  Yet both AT&T and Bell only slap usage caps on their broadband service, claiming it somehow eases congestion, even though video content always uses the most bandwidth. (They have not yet figured out a way to limit your television viewing to “maintain a good experience for all of their customers,” but we wouldn’t put it past them to try one day.)

What last mile congestion problem?

Comcast’s argument for usage limiting one type of data while exempting other data falls into the same logical black hole.  Comcast’s basic argument for usage caps has always been it protects a shared network experience for customers.  Since cable broadband resources are shared within a neighborhood, the company argues, it must impose limits on “heavy users” who might slow down service for others.

We've heard this all before. Former AT&T CEO Dan Somers: "AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of (its) veins."

But in a world where DOCSIS 3 technology and a march to digital video distribution is well underway or near completion at many of the nation’s cable operators, the “last mile” bandwidth shortage problem of the early 2000s has largely disappeared.  In fact, Comcast itself recognized that, throwing the usage door wide open distributing bandwidth heavy XFINITY TV over the Xbox console cap-free.

As broadband advocates and industry insiders continue the debate about whether this constitutes a Net Neutrality violation or not, a greater truth should be considered.  Stop the Cap! believes providers have more than one way to exercise their control over broadband.

Naked discrimination against web content from the competition is a messy, ham-handed way to deal with pesky competitors.  Putting up a content wall around Netflix or Amazon is a concept easy to grasp (and get upset about), even by those who may not understand all of the issues.

Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles can win providers the same level of control without the political backlash.  Careful modification of consumer behavior can draw customers to company-owned or partnered content without using a heavy hammer.

Simply slap a usage limit on customers, but exempt partnered content from the limit.  Now customers have a choice: use up their precious usage allowance with Netflix or watch some of the same content on the cable company’s own unlimited-use service.

Nobody is “blocking” Netflix, but the end result will likely be the same:

• Comcast wins all the advantages for itself and its “preferred partners”;
• Customers find themselves avoiding the competition to save their usage allowance;
• Competitors struggle selling to consumers squeezed by inflexible usage caps.

It is all a matter of control, and that is nothing new for large telecom companies.

Back in 1999, AT&T Broadband owned a substantial amount of what is today Comcast Cable.  Then-CEO Dan Somers made it clear AT&T’s investment would be protected.

“AT&T didn’t spend $56 billion to get into the cable business to have the blood sucked out of [its] veins,” Somers said, referring to streamed video.

Obviously Comcast agrees.