Raja Jasti’s Blog - Renaissance Thinking

October 17, 2009

Death of Cable TV

Filed under: Entertainment, Internet, Media — Tags: , — Raja @ 3:37 pm

Is there a need for cable TV in the world of ubiquitous broadband? If your broadband can give you access to all the TV content you need, who will pay for cable TV? I am afraid the writing is on the wall and the cable TV companies know it and are scared to death. John Biggs at CrunchGear has a fantastic article on this topic.

What I’m doing is downloading TV shows and sending them to a media player near my TV. I’m doing this because there exist two separate infrastructures that interface imperceptibly at one key point – the official cable and online distribution networks and the shady underworld of pirate distributors. Right now that interface is a trickle, but it will soon be, pardon the pun, a torrent.

The first infrastructure is the studio system. While I’m talking specifically about TV here, we can also extrapolate to talk about movies and music. This infrastructure is based on the advertising or distribution model in that they make all their money placing advertisements around their content or by placing their content onto physical media. But what is important to note is that the TV industry is in a completely different business from the music and movie industry. They’re not “selling” a product. They’re selling the space around a product. They they commission artists to make that product better in hopes of raising the price of the space around that product. They sell DVDs, sure, but that’s a sideline.

But when I take that content out of its context, like meat out of an oyster shell, I strip out their value and shuck the rest. But technology has outstripped that analogy and television has evolved into a processable set of events – shows – whereas before it was an event, each show linked together into infinity.

TiVo, to continue the analogy, created a way to sell jarred oyster sauce. The device contained the content, sure, but it tried to keep some of the advertising intact. However, what I’m attempting to do buffets into an entirely new infrastructure, one none of us wholly understand.

It consists of two disparate parts. The first is a shady underground that can offer these shows, stripped of commercials, a few minutes after they’ve aired. How they do it is a topic for another story, but needless to say popular shows are available in less than ten minutes after they air on the Eastern Seaboard. It is a testament to the dedication of a few TV lovers that these shows are available, for free, as they happen.

Then we have the web arms of the major TV studios as well as the clips cable stations post on their sites. These are, to a lesser extent, a re-canning of those same oysters in the hopes that the shorter advertisements wrapped around them will maintain the revenue offered by TV broadcasts.

So what’s my point? First, I believe some media will survive the move to the web better than others. Book publishing, for example, may change formats but the inherent problems of pirating a physical book make them weak targets for piracy. I also believe that the medium of television is also not conducive to large scale piracy because there is so much of it. I can shuck all the oysters I want but there will still be 24-hour news channels, old movie networks, and sitcoms that someone out there will watch even if the pirates are uninterested in recording and distributing them.

Now, back to that interface between the two worlds. Because pirates can’t steal everything at once there is no impetus to stop up this hole. The highly regimented and very well organized system of content capture that is going on exists as a labor of love and not as a money making venture. It allows guys like me, guys who no longer want to be beholden to a wonky TiVo, for example, to get HD content quickly and easily. However, there are more guys like me every day. To say that television as we know it won’t exist in a decade is quite far fetched but it is a possibility. How, then, should a TV broadcaster react?

First, I think TV broadcasters need to take a page from the pirates playbook and make their hit shows available online in downloadable form sooner than later – and not on iTunes for $2.99 an episode. The process I went through was relatively painless but decidedly nerdy. The next generation, however, will find new and better ways of doing the same thing, thereby stripping out the content with reckless abandon. TV studios still have some time to save their skins, just like the book industry, but it won’t be long before something comes along and ruins the party. They need to do what the music industry didn’t do – make getting sanction, high quality content convenient. It took me a week to set up my little Rube Goldberg DVR but there’s no telling how long it could take someone with a little more savvy.

Why not, for example, offer TV subscriptions to individual series. The era of channel surfing is almost near its end and discovery of new content through mere chance will soon be gone. This would allow for absoltute control over a series and reward popular series month after month. Sadly, cable companies just won’t do this. As Doug noted in our chat room “Cable companies keep saying a la carte wouldn’t work but in reality they’re saying it wouldn’t work for them because its too much work.”

Cable TV companies clearly know this and their TV everywhere initiative is aimed at addressing this trend. They want to control who watches their content online using technology which I think is a waste of time. If people want to watch TV online they will watch it. It is just a matter of who will provide it and monetize this. TV everywhere is not the answer.

May 2, 2009

Cable’s TV problem

Filed under: Entertainment, Media — Tags: , — Raja @ 8:44 am

Saul Hansell at NYT has a very insightful post on the cable business.

I’ve been looking closely at the recently announced first-quarter financial results of Comcast and Time Warner, the country’s two largest cable systems.

Matt Rourke/AP

Over all, these companies are doing quite well, making more money than ever, with lower capital investment. But if there was one weak spot jumping out of the numbers, it was not their Internet business but their traditional TV service, where the cost of paying for content to put on all those channels is rising faster than subscription fees.

Some observations:

Cable is a good business. Revenue at both Time Warner and Comcast rose 5 percent, a growth rate that many companies would kill for in these lean times. Their various measures of operating income and cash flow rose a bit faster than revenue because they’ve been able to keep a handle on costs.

The fastest-growing expense is programming. The money the cable operators pay for the rights to channels like MTV, CNN and ESPN eats up just under $4 of every $10 they take in selling video service. Programming cost $1.0 billion at Time Warner in the first quarter, up 8 percent. At Comcast, programming cost $1.8 billion, up 9.6 percent.

Both companies were able to persuade more customers to upgrade to digital tiers that offer more channels — and cost more. But costs to the cable companies have been rising for all sorts of programming, especially some of the new sports networks that have high monthly fees. For example, the National Football League is involved in contentious negotiations to renew its contract with Comcast. It is reportedly asking for 80 to 90 cents per subscriber per month (year-round, not just in football season), a hefty increase from the last contract signed four years ago.

Still, of all the services offered by cable companies — TV, Internet and telephone — the core television service has by far the lowest profit margins.

The operating cost of providing broadband service is low and getting lower. At Time Warner, the cost of connecting to the Internet and other direct costs of providing its high-speed data service fell to $33 million, down 18 percent. That represents just 3 percent of the revenue it collects for broadband service. But it doesn’t include the capital expenses needed to upgrade the network. Comcast reported $120 million of costs for high-speed data service, down 13 percent from a year ago. That represents 6 percent of its data revenue.

The biggest savings is coming from lower set-top box costs. Moore’s Law has come to rescue the cable video business. Time Warner spent only $360 million on boxes, cable modems and other equipment installed in customers’ homes in the first quarter, down 19 percent from a year ago. Overall capital spending, including building the network used to transmit video data and phone, fell at both companies.

The biggest future investment relates to expanding high-definition video. Both companies promised investors that they were going to keep a handle on their total capital spending, but they are also investing in projects meant to reconfigure their systems to offer more HD video channels. Comcast is going to eliminate most of the analog channels it now carries, which allow customers to get basic cable stations, like MTV, on old-fashioned “cable-ready” sets. This will inconvenience millions of customers who will now need set-top boxes, but it will reclaim a great deal of capacity for use by HD channels, Internet service and on-demand video.

Time Warner is solving the same problem in a different way. Since not everybody in a neighborhood is watching every channel at any given moment, it is deploying technology called “switched video” that will broadcast some channels only when people want to see them, making room for HD versions of the popular channels.

Prices for video services are going up, but data prices aren’t. In general, the cable companies have been able to pass through at least some of the costs of their increased programming costs to consumers. At Time Warner, for example, the average customer paid $66.02 for TV service, up 4 percent from a year ago. (That’s a combination of price increases and upgrades to more expensive packages.) But broadband service prices have been largely flat. Time Warner eked out a 1 percent increase in average revenue from data to $41.57.

There are two takeaways from all this. The broadband business is doing fine, as costs are coming down. Cable executives do worry that if costs rise as they expect because of surging online video use, they will need to find some way to get prices going up the way they are used to in their video business.

The bigger question is what happens to the video business. By all accounts, Web video is not currently having any effect on the businesses of the cable companies. Market share is moving among cable, satellite and telephone companies, but the overall number of people subscribing to some sort of pay TV service is rising. (The government’s switch to digital over-the-air broadcasts is providing a small stimulus to cable companies.) However, if you remember, it took several years before music labels started to feel any pain from downloads.

As the sour economy and the Web start putting more pressure on the cable companies, they may be forced to consider breaking up the big bundles of channels they now insist that consumers buy and instead offer individual channels or smaller groups of channels on an à la carte basis. Cable companies don’t like this because they want total monthly bills to keep rising. The networks don’t like this because they enjoy having the guaranteed revenue of a monthly fee for every basic cable subscriber. And even for consumers, the current system has some advantages, providing a big range of choices in programming and keeping down costs by avoiding the marketing and billing expenses of charging for each channel separately.

The wedge that breaks all this may well be sports. ESPN alone already accounts for nearly $3 of every monthly cable bill, industry executives say. With all these new sports networks pushing up cable rates, at some point people who aren’t sports fans might start turning in volume to Internet services like Netflix. We’re not there yet, but looking at the industry in the last quarter, you can see the pressures building. 

Powered by WordPress