Posts for 'Cable TV Operators'

Another day, another flurry of announcements from Comcast with news of more networks participating in its On Demand Online technical trial. Newly on board are CBS (also the first broadcast network to participate) and 17 more cable networks such as A&E, AMC, BBC America, Food Network, History Channel, Sundance and others. Together with those already announced, there are now over 20 networks in the trial.

The cable networks' interest isn't surprising. I've been saying for a while that On Demand Online will be a real boon to them, providing a secure, scalable on-ramp to online distribution, new ad impressions and most important, significant enhanced value to their viewers. Still, despite all of Comcast's progress, most of the big cable network groups (e.g. NBCU, Fox, Disney, Viacom, Discovery) have not yet publicly signed on. I think that's just a matter of time.

There's no question Comcast is building real industry momentum for On Demand Online. But given the trial hasn't even begun yet, all of these announcements are really raising the visibility of the trial - and of course the pressure to make sure its "authentication" processes work as intended. No doubt each of these announcements is creating a lot of sweaty palms among Comcast's technical staff - the people who are responsible for proving authentication works. With all the PR buildup, if for some reason all does not go according to plan, Comcast will have lots of people looking for answers.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

The list of cable networks participating in Comcast's upcoming technical trial of On Demand Online continues to grow. This afternoon HBO and Cinemax announced that initially they will provide 750 hours a month of programming, which will expand over time.

Full length episodes of True Blood, Hung, Entourage, etc, along with recent movies such as Transformers, The Dark Knight, Atonement and classics like Jurassic Park, Speed and Rosemary's Baby will all be available. Some programs will be available in HD and immediately after they're shown on the linear networks.

HBO/Cinemax follows last week's announcement that Starz is on board with the trial, which itself followed the launch announcement that Time Warner networks TNT and TBS were participating. The list will no doubt grow further in the coming weeks.

I've been bullish on Comcast's On Demand Online initiative from the outset, and HBO/Cinemax's perfectly illustrates the power of the model. As the most popular premium TV network, HBO would confer a lot of additional value to its subscribers by making its programs conveniently available online. But to date the only real option for doing so has been to sell them on a per program download basis through outlets like iTunes. The problem is that HBO subscribers end up paying twice for the same content.

On Demand Online gives HBO a mechanism, finally, to give its subscribers online access without additional fees. This is accomplished through Comcast's "authentication," which queries its database to enable online viewing privileges. The upcoming technical trial is intended to prove that the authentication process actually works. It must, as the stakes are quite high when premium networks like HBO are in the mix. The last thing they want is to have unauthorized broadband users watching their coveted shows instead of subscribing to the monthly service.

All of the details of On Demand Online are not yet understood, but I continue to believe that if it's executed properly, it will be a game-changer for the cable and broadband industries.

I'm back in the saddle after an amazing 10 day trip to Israel with my family. On the assumption that I wasn't the only one who's been out of the office around the recent July 4th holiday, I've collected a batch of industry news links below so you can quickly get caught up (caveat, I'm sure I've missed some). Daily publication of VideoNuze begins again today.

Hulu plans September bow in U.K.

Rise of Web Video, Beyond 2-Minute Clips

Update on New Channels

ABC Content Now on Hulu

Nielsen Online: Kids Flocking to the Web

Amid Upfronts, Brands Experiment Online

Clippz Launches Mobile Channel for White House Videos

Prepare Yourself for iPod Video

Study: Web Video "Protail" As Entertaining As TV

In-Stat: 15% of Video Downloads are Legal

Kazaa still kicking, bringing HD video to the Pre?

Office Depot's Circuitous Route: Takes "Circular" Online, Launches "Specials" on Hulu

Upload Videos From Your iPhone to Facebook Right Now with VideoUp

Some Claims in YouTube lawsuit dismissed

Concurrent, Clearleap Team on VOD, Advanced Ads

Generating CG Video Submissions

MJ Funeral Drives Live Video Views Online

Qik Raises $5.5 Million

Why Hulu Succeeded as Other Video Sites Failed

YouTube's Pitch to Hollywood

Invodo Secures Series B Funding

Comcast, USOC Eye Dedicated Olympic Service in 2010

Consumer Groups Push FTC For Broader Broadband Oversight

Crackle to Roll Out "Peacock" Promotion

Earlier Tests Hot Trend with "Kideos" Launch

Mobile entertainment seeking players, payment

Netflix Streams Into Sony Bravia HDTVs

Akamai Announces First Quarter 2009 State of the Internet Report

Starz to Join Comcast's On-Demand Online Test

For ManiaTV, a Second Attempt to be the Next Viacom

Feeling Tweety in "Web Side Story"

Most Online Videos Found Via Blogs, Industry Report

Cox to Turn "MyPrimeTime" Dial to 100

How to Start a Company (and Kiss Like Angelina)

Clearleap announces Atlantic Broadband as first public customer - Clearleap, the Internet-based technology firm I wrote about here, announced Atlantic Broadband as its first public customer. Atlantic is the 15th largest cable operator in the U.S. I spoke with David Isenberg, Atlantic's VP of Products, who explained that Clearleap was the first packaged solution he's seen that allows broadband video to be inserted into VOD menus without the need for IT resources to be involved. Atlantic initially plans to use Clearleap to insert locally-oriented videos into its local programming lineup. It also has special events planned like "Operation Mail Call." which allows veterans' families to upload videos, plus coverage of local sports, and eventually filtered UGC. By blending broadband with VOD, Isenberg thinks Clearleap gives him a "giant marketing tool" to raise VOD's visibility. As I've said in the past, VOD and broadband are close cousins which can be mutually reinforcing; Clearleap facilitates this relationship.

New Balance's "Made in USA" video - Have you seen the new 3 minute video from athletic shoemaker New Balance? Yesterday I noticed a skyscraper ad for it at NYTimes.com and a full back-page ad in the print version of the Boston Globe. New Balance's video promotes the fact that it's the only athletic shoemaker still manufacturing in the U.S. (though it says only 25% of its shoes are made here). There's also a fundraising contest to win a trip to one of its manufacturing facilities. Taking ads in online and offline media to drive viewership of a brand's original video is another way that advertising is being reimagined and customers are being engaged.

Joost - R.I.P.-in-Waiting - There's been a lot written this week about Joost's decision to switch business models from content aggregation to white label video platform provider. Regrettably, I think this is Joost's last gasp and they are in "R.I.P.-in-waiting" mode. Joost, which started off with lots of buzz and financing ($45M) by the co-founders of Skype and Kazaa, is a cautionary tale of how quickly the broadband video market is moving, and how those out of step can get shoved aside. Joost made a critical strategic blunder insisting on a client download based on P2P delivery when the market was already moving solidly in the direction of browser-based streaming. It never recovered. Given how crowded the video platform space is, I'm hard-pressed to see how Joost will carve out a substantial role.

Cablevision wins its network DVR case - Not to be missed this week was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to refuse to hear an appeal from programmers regarding cable operator Cablevision's "network DVR" plan. The decision means Cablevision can now deploy a service that allows subscribers to record programs in a central data center, rather than in their set-top boxes. This leads to lower capex, fewer truckrolls, and more storage capacity for consumers. There's also an intersection point with "TV Everywhere," as cable subscribers will potentially have yet another remote viewing option available to them. Content is increasingly becoming untethered to any specific box.

Below is the 22nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 26, 2009.

This week Daisy and I discuss the TV Everywhere and OnDemand Online initiative that Comcast and Time Warner unveiled this week. As I wrote in this post on Wednesday, the companies are beginning a trial in July for 5,000 Comcast subscribers, who will gain online access to a selection of TNT and TBS programs. The primary purpose of the trial is to test security of the content. The companies anticipate that other cable networks will join the trial too, and that other video service providers will begin their own trials in the near future.

In the podcast we explore further why granting cable subscribers online access is an important step forward in the evolution of the broadband video medium, and what it means to the overall ecosystem. There are a lot of unknowns about how TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online will work; Time Warner's and Comcast's CEO were candid about that. For now they released a set of "principles" to guide their pursuits. There will be much more to come on this story.

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 27 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Move Networks, the well-funded Internet television technology company which has been virtually silent for the last 60 days since acquiring Inuk Networks and bumping former CEO John Edwards to Executive Chairman, is pursuing a major repositioning. Earlier this week I met with Marcus Liassides, Inuk's former CEO and founder who joined Move's management team, who previewed the company's new strategy to be a wholesale provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks.

Broadband video industry participants know Move best for its proprietary adaptive bit rate (ABR) technology and player, which power super-high quality live and on-demand video streams for broadcasters like ABC and Fox. Move gained a lot of attention by raising over $67M, including a $46M Series C round in April '08 from blue chip investors.

Despite all this, Marcus explained that coming into 2009 Move had at least 3 significant problems, symbolic of how fluid the broadband video market remains.

First, its core business of charging content providers in the range of $.30/GB of video delivered was being pressured by the fact that advertising-only business models couldn't support this pricing. Content providers loved Move's quality; they just couldn't afford it, particularly given the alternative of plunging CDN delivery rates.

Second, Move's pricing and business model were being challenged by both Microsoft and Adobe entering the market with ABR streaming features of their own (I wrote about this here). But because both were enabled on the server side (IIS and FMS respectively), the cost of ABR moved from content providers to CDNs, who might or might not choose to charge extra for these features. Either way, Move's direct cost looked comparatively more expensive, especially as the recession pounded ad spending.

Last, but not least, Marcus explained that Move's product development approach was undisciplined, leading to resources being spread too thin in too many directions. That was reflected by the market's ongoing difficulty in categorizing which business Move was really in.

Meanwhile, U.K.-based Inuk, which had been on its own funding and product development roller-coaster, was delivering its Freewire IPTV service to about 200K university students in the UK, Ireland and Canada. Because Inuk needed to serve these students when they were off campus, it had developed a "virtual set-top box" application that duplicates on the PC the IPTV service that had traditionally been delivered via an expensive IPTV set-top box. Inuk was using Move's ABR technology to power video delivery to the PC. Recognizing potential synergies and trying to address its other issues, Move acquired Inuk in April.

Move's new positioning as a provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks essentially replicates what Inuk has been doing, except that going forward services will be offered wholesale, not retail like with Freewire. Move's strategy starts from the proposition that to get cable TV networks online requires that they be paid consistent with the norms, rather than expecting them to free and ad-supported only. It also anticipates that consumers demand not just VOD offerings, but a full linear lineup as well (as an aside, that aligns with Sezmi's thinking too). While Move will continue supporting existing customers like ABC and others, its new wholesale model is a major shift in that it uses the company's core technology to support packaged multichannel video services, instead of a la carte web-based video.

Marcus explained that Move is targeting 3 verticals: (1) telcos which haven't traditionally offered video services (or have through direct satellite partnerships), (2) broadband ISPs looking to get into the video business, and (3) existing video service providers looking for a lightweight capex approach for extending their service either for remote access (a la "TV Everywhere") or in other rooms in the house (a model which has traditionally required another set-top box and truck roll for installation).

Marcus demo'd the Freewire service to me using his PC and a large monitor, and it looks great. There's instant channel changing, HD (when available), a great looking guide and auto-DVR of every program, all in the cloud. Freewire also offers targeted advertising, and HTML-based apps like Twitter integration, etc. My caveat is that I have no idea how well the service would scale to millions of homes.

Move's new positioning puts it in the middle of tectonic video industry shifts. For example, what's the appetite of 3rd parties like telcos and ISPs for new video solutions? Will other, well-suited consumer brands like Google, Netflix, Yahoo enter the multichannel video business, and if so how? What approach will cable operators like Comcast use for emerging, "TV Everywhere" services that would benefit from Move's lightweight capex model (note Comcast said it was using Move in its 5,000 subscriber technical trial yesterday)? How will major cable TV networks expect to get compensated in the broadband era where individuals, not homes, are the new unit of measurement? How will local ISPs, over whose networks remotely-accessed video will run, expect to be compensated? It's way too early to know the answers, but if Move's technology works as intended, and its costs are reasonable, it will likely find itself in the middle of a lot of very strategic industry discussions.

Another big change is that Marcus said the company's messaging will be focused more around business cases and services than its specific technologies. That seems smart given giants like Microsoft and Adobe are closely circling these waters with lots of their own technology, which could easily swamp Move. If all this wasn't enough, Move is also in the midst of hiring a new CEO and implementing a new management team, all of which will be announced imminently. One thing Move isn't doing for now is raising additional capital, which Marcus said is not needed.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Move Networks is a current sponsor of VideoNuze)

This morning I listened in on the press conference with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Time Warner Inc. CEO Jeff Bewkes where they announced a 5,000 subscriber technical trial of TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online starting in July along with a set of "principles" guiding their efforts. Primarily the trial will test the security of the authentication technology.

TW will make available TNT and TBS programs in the trial, and will offer additional programs over time. Comcast plans to bring in other networks too. Both executives emphatically stated that for cable subscribers there will be no additional charge for online access. The companies clearly hope to use the trial and the publicity that will surround it to galvanize interest from other cable operators and programmers.

The partnership effectively unifies the companies' disparate initiatives so that paying video subscribers will be "authenticated" to receive certain cable network programming online. Up until now Comcast has been pursuing its own vision of online access under a plan it dubbed "OnDemand Online," while TW has been pursuing a plan it called "TV Everywhere." The essential difference between the two, as I wrote about here, was that Comcast planned to only make programs available on its owned sites (at least initially), which TW talked of multiple third parties gaining access as well, right off the bat.

I've been critical of TW's approach to date as I thought it was wildly ambitious and under-estimated the technical challenges involved in pulling off third party integration. On the other hand, Comcast's walk-before-you-run attitude seemed far more practical. On the call, Mr. Bewkes in particular continued to downplay the difficulty of authenticating third parties, a position I think is unrealistic.

Regardless, I've been supportive of the general idea that paying video subscribers gain online access to cable programs. While some decry this as antithetical to the open, free-flowing Internet ethos, and a plot by evil cable companies to control video on the 'net, I've seen it differently.

The key is finding a model that's attractive to cable programmers (e.g. MTV, USA, CNN, etc) and consumers. Programmers benefit because they'd be provided with a viable online extension of their proven hybrid (monthly affiliate fee + advertising) business model. Until now they've been largely shut out of online distribution. That's because doing so for free would antagonize their cable/satellite/telco distributors who pay them around $25B/year. And that's before the point that free, ad-supported premium sites like Hulu have not yet proven themselves economically viable. Meanwhile, aside from a la carte paid download sites like iTunes/Unbox/others there hasn't been an online subscription model available to programmers.

These are some of the real, but often not well-understood business issues. Everyone wants something-for-nothing, and the Internet has too often set those expectations. But cable programmers need to get paid for their efforts so they can continue to deliver the quality programming consumers have grown accustomed to. The newspaper industry's woes offer tangible proof of what happens to an industry when its proven business model gets stripped away.

Despite what some skeptics say, consumers also stand to gain. All that great cable programming that's been locked to the set-top box in the home would now be available online. It sort of like cable's version of on demand Sling, but without any upfront or monthly charge (at least that's what we're hearing for now).

With TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online, Comcast and Time Warner are taking a solid step forward in delivering more value to their subscribers who increasingly live their lives online. Now they need to tamp down the hype and just focus on executing in a logical, user-friendly way.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Looking back over the past week's news, there are at least 4 industry items worth noting. Here are brief thoughts on each:

Remember "two great tastes that taste great together," the slogan from the classic Reese's ads featuring the mixing of peanut butter and chocolate? Recent developments suggest that independently produced/made-for-broadband video and Video-on-Demand could be another Reese's-like combination, bringing together two disparate worlds that have attracted loyal audiences in an offering that could have significant consumer appeal.

Consider, last week Multichannel News reported that Verizon plans to bring over 7 million broadband video clips from providers like blip.tv, Veoh and Dailymotion to its FiOS service, which users can browse with their set-top boxes. Also last week, AnySource Media, a software company that powers broadband-connected TVs, announced content deals with TheStreet.com, Break.com, Revision3 and Next New Networks, creating hundreds of "virtual VOD channels." And yesterday, Clearleap, a startup technology platform I recently profiled, announced its own deals with blip.tv, Revision3 and Next New Networks, providing content that cable operators can meld with their VOD offerings.

This push among made-for-broadband producers, technology companies and incumbent video service providers is not coincidental. While they each have their own motivations, their alignment could signal a winning proposition for viewers.

For the indie content producers, on-demand access on TVs augments their viewing experience and access to their programming. Given how difficult the environment has become for independents (Daisy had a good piece on this topic yesterday) on-demand access is a real differentiator. For cable operators and telcos, popular indie video gives them a targeted pitch to the tech-savvy, younger audiences who have become loyal fans of indie content. Down the road this group is probably most up-for-grabs for alternative "over-the-top" services, so focusing on defending them is smart. And for technology providers, a big market opportunity looms trying to connect the previously disparate worlds of broadband and VOD.

In fact, in a conversation I had last week with Braxton Jarratt, CEO/founder of Clearleap, he explained that cable operators get all this. They're looking for quality "mid-tail" video from broadband producers, including clips and short-form programs. The company's technology is currently feeding broadband video to a couple hundred thousand cable VOD homes, with a backlog of "double digit" markets pending deployment. Braxton has a lot of content deals on Clearleap's docket, creating a menu for its cable customers to pick and choose from to incorporate into their VOD offerings. Clearleap also offers an ad insertion platform, so indie video can be monetized, not just offered as a value add.

Meanwhile, VOD has long proven itself popular with viewers. Comcast recently announced it has delivered 11B views since it launched VOD. It has continued to augment its library and add more HD titles. While VOD hasn't really been a money-maker itself, it has become a strong part of the digital value proposition and a defensive move against other viewing alternatives. By incorporating popular broadband video into its VOD choices, its appeal is only strengthened.

While the tectonic plates of "convergence" continue to shift, examples of broadband video making its way to the TV continue to happen. TiVo has been at this for a while with its "TiVoCast" service, along with technology providers like ActiveVideo Networks and others. The likelihood for independently-produced broadband video and VOD to get together seems poised to increase.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Below is the 16th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for May 15, 2009.

This week I provide some further detail on a post I wrote earlier this week, "Comcast's Sam Schwartz Offers Some Insights into OnDemand Online Authentication Plans." Comcast's and Time Warner Cable's intention to make cable programs available online to their paying subscribers would be a big leap forward for the video and broadband industries. A key piece of how to bring this to life is "authentication" - how to ensure users are who they are, and that they gain access to programs they're supposed to. Sam explains how Comcast is approaching authentication and what we can expect later this year.

Meanwhile Daisy talks about her post on Beet.tv, "CBS Expanding Original Web Video for New Personal Finance Site," which explores how CBS is pulling video together from its online content group, news division and local stations to beef up the video available at its recently-launched financial destination site, CBSMoneyWatch.com. Also, with the demise of TV Week as a print publication, Daisy talks about the range of industry coverage she's providing at other online and print pubs.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 40 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

I've written a number of times (here, here, here) over the last few months about the recently disclosed plans from Comcast and Time Warner to deliver cable programs online to their paying subscribers. In general I'm a big fan, as these plans offer the potential for users to watch cable shows online that are mostly available through in-home set-top boxes only today. I'm also encouraged that cable operators seem to be going on the offensive to satisfy their subscribers' desire for anytime, anyplace access to content they're already paying for. Being offensive will certainly help mitigate "cord-cutting" tendencies.

However, if there's a fly in the ointment in these plans, it's how the cable subscriber will be "authenticated," or recognized as qualified to access that particular content at the web site where he/she's trying to watch. This is a crucial step because again, these cable operators only plan to provide access to paying subscribers of their traditional video services. To understand this how Comcast is approaching authentication, last week I spoke to Sam Schwartz, Comcast Interactive Media's EVP of Strategy and Development, and president of Comcast Interactive Capital, who is a point man for the company's OnDemand Online initiative.

Overall, Sam explained that the company is still working through how best to authenticate online users and keep content secure. Users will need to log in and then have their credentials checked to ascertain what programming they're entitled to. So the crucial step here is opening up traditional cable billing systems for access by web sites serving up the desired content. This isn't trivial because these billing systems weren't originally built to do this. Therefore there's a need for some type of entitlement database which must be pinged with the user's credentials to verify content access.

To prevent leakage in the authentication process Sam said the company is studying best practices from other digital providers. iTunes is one model which limits content availability to 5 devices. Alternatively, if access is within the home, then Comcast, as a large broadband ISP, would be able to verify IP addresses. Yet another method would be to require a credit card, which would disincent credentials sharing by subscribers. Two Comcast companies, thePlatform and Plaxo are playing key roles in supporting both the content management/distribution and user identification.

All of this is magnified because Comcast's programming partners rightfully expect that any content Comcast is distributing will be done so in a fully secure manner. In the digital TV realm, this has traditionally been handled by the set-top box and "conditional access" software in the headend (a cable operator's distribution hub). Paid online services which are connected to incumbent video services present new issues which free ad-supported sites like Hulu and YouTube haven't had to address.

Sam said pulling all of this together has been a major project, involving 100+ people throughout the company. The complexity becomes quickly apparent as this initiative touches so many different areas - video product management, technology, operations, billing, content acquisition, customer service, online media, etc. Partly as a result of this complexity, Sam explained that at the outset simply enabling its own sites like Fancast or Comcast.net is the goal. Other 3rd party sites may come on board later, only after the model is proven in.

Though it's evident that Comcast is taking a "walk before we run" approach, Sam emphasized the company is moving this along as fast as possible. Its goal is to be in the market this year with OnDemand Online. While the utopian gadflies are already decrying these kinds of paid access services, I think they balance multiple interests well, and will help to preserve the multi-billion dollar video value chain from decomposing into a free but profitless quagmire (like other media sectors have already). If all this ends up working properly, it will be a major milestone for the video industry in general and broadband video specifically.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Side note: I was also encouraged to see Time Warner move Turner Broadcasting System veteran Andy Heller to vice chairman yesterday overseeing its networks' push for "TV Everywhere." His role as champion of TV Everywhere gives the initiative added heft. Still, the bottom line here, as explained above, is that the back-end technology must be in place before any programming starts to flow. I hope he has this priority in his new role.)

Last week, Time Warner Cable tried turning the page on a public relations debacle of its own making. Glenn Britt, TWC's CEO announced that it would postpone for now the company's Consumption Based Billing trials planned in 4 U.S. markets. The move came in response to a massive negative reaction in the blogosphere, at the grass-roots customer level, and in Congress.

On the one hand, it continues to astound me that the cable industry, which has invested billions of dollars of its own capital over the last 15 years to lead the deployment of broadband Internet access across America, receives virtually no credit for this. Instead it is the constant object of derision and conspiracy theories about its uncompetitive behavior. Unfortunately, TWC's Frick and Frack handling of its planned changes to its broadband billing practices explains why this is so.

Having observed the TWC billing melodrama play out over the last month or so, here are 5 lessons I think TWC and other broadband ISPs should learn:

1. A trial must be legitimate, with well-understood objectives that are communicated clearly

It may seem basic, but when a company runs a trial, it needs to have well-understood objectives that are communicated clearly to all constituencies. My sense is that TWC thought it was doing this, but in reality it wasn't. For example, were the trial's objectives to see how user behavior changes in response to the new billing practices? Or how TWC's network loads and costs are altered? Or maybe provide data to guide its strategy vis-a-vis new online video competitors? None of these things are cited. Rather TWC mentions "bandwidth consumption is growing exponentially," "increasing variable costs" and "Internet brownouts." OK, but what are the trial's objectives and how do they address these concerns?

By definition a trial also needs to be legitimately trying something new to see how it works. Instead TWC makes its "trial" look more like the kickoff of a new pricing plan. So why even bother calling this a "trial" when in fact there's no indication the company is seeking to learn something through some kind of testing? If TWC wants to change its pricing, then just call this step what it is - the first phase of rollout of new billing practices. Whiffs of disingenuousness are easily smelled.

2. Make changes in increments, targeting priority user segments first

A core part of the reason TWC and other broadband ISPs want to switch to consumption-based billing is because some users' online video viewing is surging and ISPs justifiably want to get compensated extra for this heavier network burden.

But if broadband ISPs are most worried about these heavy users, then they should address them first. TWC's mistake was to instead simultaneously also introduce lower price tiers and accompanying consumption caps and overage charges. As a result, instead of a contained minority of its users being affected by the new policy, everyone was. That type of comprehensive approach may have seemed smart in the planning process, but in the execution stage, it's very hard to pull off. Comprehensiveness dissipates the main issue - addressing heavy users - while drawing in outside advocacy groups and politicians to plead for everyone. That's a no-win position.

3. Be prepared to justify the billing changes with specific financial information

TWC argued vaguely that rising network costs were behind the need to change its billing practices. That may well be true, but by not disclosing more specifics, the company left itself vulnerable to naysayers. For example, in this NY Times interview, TWC COO Landel Hobbs was thrown some questions about whether in fact much of TWC's costs are fixed. He should have been prepared to respond in detail, citing specific capex or opex numbers that can be correlated with heavy video usage. Instead he ducked the questions, deferring them to a subsequent interview with an engineer. All of that leaves the reader suspicious about his arguments' legitimacy.

If a senior executive is going to be offered up for a NY Times interview, he should use the opportunity to make the strongest case possible for the planned change. In the wake of the Wall Street financial crisis, people increasingly expect accountability and transparency from senior executives. Poorly understood corporate decisions by fiat are prime for backlash.

4. If billing is to be metered, make sure customers have the ability to measure

Here again is PR 101 - if you're going to change to metered billing, customers need to know how they can measure and modify their usage. But TWC offered no specifics about the availability of a useful meter, or any demo of how it would work. Instead it said it would offer a grace period of 2 months on overage charges.

Talk about an impractical plan. I think most people understand and like the idea of variable pricing - paying just for what's used. But if they don't have to right tools to measure their usage, the model looks hollow. TWC ultimately acknowledged it is "working to make measurement tools available as quickly as possible." Hallelujah.

5. Billing changes need to be tied to online video policy

Simmering just below the surface of the billing change backlash is a suspicion that TWC is introducing these caps to constrain online video usage. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that if an ISP like TWC charges more for access to 3rd party delivered video it will limit is use. TWC should have known it was prime for this allegation and been proactive about how it relates these 2 issues.

For example, what if TWC had acknowledged that some users prefer online program access, and that if they select its top capped rate of $150/mo now they will be forever grandfathered into that rate, even as their video usage grows further? Only a minority of users would have likely taken the plan, but it would have helped TWC demonstrate acceptance of 3rd party delivery.

Conclusion

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Yet when I read Mr. Bewkes's comments about TV Everywhere and its implementation, he inevitably points to what Time Warner Cable (btw, not the company he runs any longer with the spinoff now almost complete) is doing with HBO in Milwaukee. By continuing to do so, I believe he is trivializing how complicated implementing something like TV Everywhere would be across the industry and across the country.

Mr. Bewkes's sketchiness with the details of how TV Everywhere would work is obvious in his interview with PaidContent's Staci Kramer here and here. There are plenty of generalizations and descriptions of the end-state, but little offered about how this would all be accomplished. One example: "...all of the video providers would have a link in their software where they could be pinged to see if the person is a video subscriber. That's not a complicated thing. It's simply a software program that asks does anybody have Staci as a sub and then Charter says, yes, I've got her and bang."

Meanwhile because the details have been so sparse, the media has been left to come to its own confusing and often conspiratorial conclusions about what TV Everywhere really means to consumers. Here's a sample of the recent headlines: "TV Everywhere - As Long As You Pay for It," "Time Warner Goes Over the Top," "Some Online Shows Could Go Subscription-Only" and "Pay Cable Tests Online Delivery." Talk about message mismanagement...

Meanwhile cable networks are also being hurt by TV Everywhere's hype. They are being forced to respond in public (as Disney's Bob Iger did in his keynote yesterday) to these vague ideas. But it is a PR nightmare-in-the-making for them, as they need to defend why consumers will have to continue paying subscription fees to watch their programs online, while broadcast TV network programs are freely available. That's a thankless job for them, and reading through Mr. Iger's speech yesterday, you could almost sense his resentment at being forced into this position.

Why Mr. Bewkes isn't modulating his comments about TV Everywhere in light of all this eludes me. Anyone who's ever created a product knows about "roadmaps," where product features are added over time, and customers are methodically messaged about enhancements to come. With TV Everywhere, it's as if all that matters to Mr. Bewkes is talking about the glorious end state, thereby erasing meaningful online benefits that can be delivered along the way. Contrast this with Comcast's OnDemand Online plan that offers the simple, but still highly-valuable near-term proposition of online cable programs on its own sites, and possibly the networks' as well.

Happy Friday the 13th...

Below is the 10th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for March 13, 2009.

This week Will adds some detail to his recent post, "Clarifying Comcast's and Time Warner's Plans to Deliver Cable Programming via Broadband to Their Subscribers." These plans are not fully locked in, but since there have been a lot of questions about them, it seemed worthwhile to provide a quick update.

Also, Daisy discusses a recent article she wrote about Clearleap, a new broadband-to-the-TV technology company that recently announced its platform. The whole broadband-to-the-TV area has been really hot recently and we expect a lot more activity to come.

Since this is the 10th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, we thought it would be a good time to check in with listeners and get you reactions. What do you think of the format and length? We thought the most meaningful content approach would be to provide some additional insight about what we've written recently, but does this feel fresh and substantive enough? Would it be better if we discussed recent market activities that we haven't necessarily written about yet? Or maybe answered some listener questions? Or something else?

The podcast format is very flexible and Daisy and I view the VideoNuze Report as a work in progress. We'd love to hear what listeners think and how we can change and improve. Either drop me an email (wrichmondATvideonuze.com) or leave a comment.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 29 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Last Friday, Leichtman Research Group released is quarterly roundup of broadband subscription growth sorted by major cable operators and telcos. LRG, run by my former colleague and friend Bruce Leichtman, has long been the bible for many in the industry for tracking broadband subscriber growth. LRG's numbers continue to demonstrate why broadband video has become such an exciting new distribution medium while adding context to Comcast's and Time Warner's recent moves to begin making online access to cable programming available to their subs.

To highlight a few key numbers, at the end of '08 the top broadband ISPs had 67.7 million subscribers, with top cable operators accounting for about 54.5% and top telcos the remainder. Top cable operators continue to maintain their edge in subscriber acquisition as well, grabbing 59% of all new broadband subs in '08.

And no surprise to anyone, with the rising penetration levels, the annual increases in total new subs have continued to slow: in '06 top cable and telco ISPs added 10.4M subs, in '07, 8.5M subs and in '08, 5.4M subs. Still, in the teeth of harsh economic downturn in Q4 '08, these ISPs were still able to add over 1M subs, growth that contracting industries like autos, retail and home-building would no doubt have killed for.

Broadband has long since become a utility for many American homes, a service that is as much expected as essentials like electricity and plumbing. A key reason broadband video is enjoying the success it is owes to the fact that broadband subscriptions have been driven for other reasons (e.g. faster email access, music downloads, always-on connectivity) over the years. Video has only recently become an additional and highly-valued benefit, which broadband ISPs now expect will drive interest in faster (and more expensive) broadband service plans.

Broadband's importance to the cable industry is demonstrated by the chart below showing #1 cable operator Comcast's performance over the last 2 years, which I originally posted on last November ("Comcast: A Company Transformed).

Note the company has now lost basic cable subscribers for 7 straight quarters, even as it continues to add digital video subs and broadband subs (and voice subs) at a healthy clip. I expect these trend lines will continue in their current pattern. No doubt this is the kind of picture that has helped spur Comcast (and #2 operator Time Warner Cable) to begin planning online distribution of cable programming, a feature that I believe will provide highly popular. Operators are in a tremendous position to capitalize on the shifting interests of their subscribers.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Last week a publicly-traded communications-equipment company invited me to speak to a group of investment analysts it had assembled for its annual "investor day." In the Q&A session following my presentation I took a question that I'm not often asked, nor do I give much thought to: "10 years from now, who will be the video industry's winners and losers?"

It's a far-reaching question that doesn't lend itself well to an impromptu answer. Also, while it's great fun to prognosticate about the long run, I've found that it's also a complete crapshoot, which is why my focus is much shorter-term. I've long-believed there are just too many variables in play to predict with any sort of certainty what might unfold 10 years into the future.

Still, as I've thought more about the question, it seems to me that there are at least 5 main factors that will influence the video industry's winners and losers over the next 10 years:

1. Penetration rate of broadband-connected TVs -There's a lot of energy being directed to "convergence" technologies and devices which connect broadband to the TV. Broadband to the TV is a big opportunity for video providers outside the traditional video distribution value chain. It's also a minefield for those who have dominated the traditional model, such as broadcasters. The Hulu-Boxee spat demonstrates this. A high rate of adoption of broadband to the TV technologies will result in more openness and choice for consumers. That's a good or a bad thing depending on where you currently sit.

3. How well the broadcast industry adapts to broadband delivery - The broadcast TV industry generates about $70 billion of ad revenue annually. But both broadcast networks and local stations are on the front lines of broadband's change and disruption, putting a chunk of that ad revenue up for grabs. With broadband-to-the-TV coming, broadcast networks must figure out how to make broadband-only viewership of their programs profitable on a stand-alone basis (i.e. when the online viewing is the sole viewing proposition). Local stations face bigger challenges. As the Internet was to newspapers, broadband delivery is to local stations. They face a slew of new competitors for ad dollars and audiences, while losing their exclusive access to network programming. To what extent they're able to reinvent themselves will determine how much share they hold on to and how much others peel off.

4. How aggressively today's video providers (cable/telco/satellite) and new paid aggregators pursue broadband video delivery - While anecdotes about "cord-cutting" will no doubt only intensify, the reality is that if today's video providers adapt themselves to broadband realities, they are likely to be as strong or stronger 10 years from now. The recent moves from Comcast and Time Warner are encouraging signs that the cable industry gets that being ostriches about the importance of broadband delivery is a road to nowhere. Consumers expect more flexibility and value; incumbents are in a tremendous position to deliver. Ownership of local broadband access networks that serve consumers' unquenchable bandwidth demands is going to be a very good business to be in. That all said, new paid aggregators like Netflix, Amazon and Apple could well steal some share if they aggressively beef up their content, offer a competitive user experience and deliver a better value. They could have a major impact on online movie distribution in particular.

5. The level of investment in startups - The venture capital industry, crucial to the funding of early-stage innovative technology companies, is going through its own turmoil. The industry's limited partners have been wounded by the market's drop, causing VCs to raise smaller funds (if they're even able to do this), limit the number of investments they make, and shy away from betting on big transformational startups. Plenty of strong video technology companies are still successfully raising money, but it's harder than ever. Lots of potentially promising ideas are going begging. The length and severity of the economic slowdown will have a big effect on just how much funding new technologies that can potentially reshape the video landscape over the next 10 years.

So there are 5 factors to consider in how the video landscape shapes up over the next 10 years. Now back to the here and now..

What's your crystal ball say? Post a comment now.

Summary:

What: Major cable operators Comcast and Time Warner intend to offer broadband access to cable programs for the first time, but they have provided few specifics to date, thereby creating a swirl of confusing interpretations. This post seeks to clarify their plans.

Important for whom: Cable networks, other content providers, cable operators, consumers

Potential benefits: Flexible access and first-time online availability of popular cable programs.

Background

Since the WSJ reported two weeks ago today that Comcast and Time Warner Cable plan to offer online access to cable TV programming to their subscribers, there has been a significant amount of confusion and misinterpretation about what these companies are actually planning to do. Absent official statements from either company, there has been an ongoing debate about whether cable operators, who want to defend their traditional model, were moving to choke off the largely open access to broadband video that users have grown accustomed to.

Things got more confusing this past Monday when AdAge ran an interview ("TV Everywhere -- As Long As You Pay For It") with Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner Inc. in which he elaborated on a company initiative dubbed "TV Everywhere" that major cable network owners such as Time Warner Inc. Viacom, NBCU, Discovery and others are said to be collaborating on. Bewkes outlined a broad online vision including the idea that cable programming could also be available on sites like Hulu, MySpace, Yahoo and YouTube as well, provided that users were paying a fee to some underlying service provider (cable/satellite/telco).

The NYTimes' technology reporter Saul Hansell then picked up on the interview and wrote a piece on the paper's widely-read "Bits" blog entitled "Time Warner Goes Over the Top," which provocatively began, "Just as soon as Time Warner has divested itself from the cable business, Jeff Bewkes, its chief executive, is preparing to stab the cable industry in the back. That's what I read in an interview with Mr. Bewkes in Advertising Age..."

Saul went on to describe his interpretation of one particular Bewkes comment as implying that Time Warner Inc. would offer its networks directly to consumers (or "over the top" of cable operators), thereby setting off a domino effect in which others' networks did the same, all of which would ultimately lead to the destruction of the cable industry business model.

The attention all of this received, particularly in the blogosphere, prompted a fair number of people to contact me and ask what's really going on here.

Time Warner's Plans

Yesterday I spoke with Keith Cocozza, TWI's spokesman, who said that Bewkes's comments do represent both TWI and TWC. Their mutual vision is to have cable programming offered not just at TWC's RoadRunner portal, but also at various third-party aggregators (Hulu, etc.) so long as they subscribe to any multichannel video service (whether from TWC, Verizon, DirectTV, etc.). They do envision offering a streaming-only service for those that don't want the traditional cable subscription, but it would only be available in their geographical footprint. All of that means that there's in fact no over-the-top threat involved here at all. TWI and TWC are "agnostic" about third-party aggregator access to the cable programs, because they recognize that people want to go to whatever sites make them most comfortable. And they do not plan to charge subscribers extra for online access.

From a consumer standpoint, all of this is quite enlightened. But from an operational standpoint, it feels incredibly complex. For example, I asked Keith about how a remote user, seeking to watch programs at a third party aggregator's site like Hulu, would be authenticated as an actual customer of a video service provider? While acknowledging it's too early to have all the answers, he said a test TWC has conducted in Wisconsin with HBO has shown this not to be a big technical problem. I don't agree. It's hard enough for companies to do a bilateral account integration (e.g. tying a user's Amazon account to a user's TiVo account); the idea of doing multilateral account integration (the numerous combinations of potential aggregators and service providers) is fraught with complexity and seems highly daunting.

Then there are financial issues to address. With no incremental subscriber payments, online program delivery needs to be sustained through ads alone. This would be quite workable if it were just cable operators and networks involved (they could split the ad avails proportionately as they've traditionally done with linear delivery), but by allowing third-party aggregators in too, a third mouth now needs to be fed. That will trigger a whole new negotiating dynamic, as each aggregator lobbies for a different share. And it's questionable whether there's even enough ad revenue for three parties to begin with, though Keith believes there is.

Comcast's Plans

Conversely, Kate Noel, Comcast's spokeswoman, told me yesterday that while it's still early to say anything definitive about Comcast's plans for distribution through third-party aggregators, their first priority is distribution of cable programs on their own sites (e.g. Fancast, Comcast.net) and the networks' own sites. Comcast seems to have more of a "walk, before you run" approach. It recognizes that protecting subscribers' privacy in any account integration is crucial so it plans to proceed carefully. I tried to pin Kate down on whether Comcast intends to charge for online access. Again she felt it was too early to be definitive, but it sounds like they're leaning toward a no-charge model as well. The timeline is to begin rolling out access in the 2nd half of '09.

Clearly there are a lot of moving pieces involved with these companies' plans. In general Time Warner has a more aggressive, yet I believe far less pragmatic, plan. They're trying to get all the way to the end zone right away, when just advancing the ball further downfield would be real progress for today's broadband users seeking improved access to premium content. Time Warner's "TV Everywhere" seems like a great vision, but it would take years to fully implement. Comcast's plan is probably achievable in a year or less. Either way, major cable operators finally seem to have the ball rolling toward broadband distribution of cable programming. As I pointed out last week, this can only be viewed as a positive.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(btw, if you want to learn more about all this, come to the Broadband Video Leadership Evening on March 17th in NYC, where we'll dig deeply into these issues with our top-notch panel)

Summary:

What: Clearleap has introduced a new technology platform for distributing broadband video content directly to TVs and an accompanying ad management system.

For whom: Incumbent service providers (cable/telco) and new over-the-top entrants (device makers, aggregators, etc.), content providers and advertisers

Benefits: For service providers, a flexible, cost-effective system for offering broadband content to their subscribers with minimal technology integration; for content providers a scalable system for distributing content across multiple providers and platforms; for advertisers a new method of targeting on-demand audiences.

More innovation is coming to the ongoing quest to bring broadband content to TVs as Clearleap, an Atlanta-based startup, pulled back the curtain yesterday on its ambitious technology platform. Last fall, CEO/founder Braxton Jarratt gave me a glimpse into what the company was working on and yesterday he explained it more fully.

Clearleap aims to do multiple things with its "clear|flow" and "clear|profit" products. For incumbent video service providers (cable and telco operators) and new "over-the-top" entrants (device makers, aggregators, etc.), Clearleap enables delivery of broadband and other video to the TV including integrating with existing Video-on-Demand infrastructure when present; for content providers, it improves the process of distributing of content across multiple providers and platforms; and for both service providers and content providers it offers an ad management solution that allows flexible ad insertion and business rules for ads running with Clearleap-delivered video.

That's a mouthful, so to break it down a bit, here's my interpretation. First the delivery side. Obviously there's been a lot of discussion, particularly just since CES in January, of new entrants delivering broadband content to TVs, thereby presenting potential alternatives for consumers to "cut the cord" on existing cable and telco providers. One way for incumbent to combat this is for them to offer the best of the web (like TiVo has been doing with TiVoCast for a while now) in one seamless package delivered through the existing set-top box.

To date incumbents haven't pursued this strategy much though. Braxton attributes this intransigence to lack of adequate technology, than to lack of interest. Braxton says Clearleap has a couple of small deployments active and other announcements pending. The key to success is allowing the incumbents to control the process of what content they acquire and to present it in context with other VOD offerings. clear|flow ingests video from content partners into Clearleap's data centers, transcodes it and properly formats it for target devices, adds metadata and business rules and then enables service providers to subscribe to whatever content they want. The video is either served from Clearleap's data centers or pushed to an incumbent's own hosting facility.

On the other side of the coin, another goal of clear|flow is to become the glue that allows content providers who want to distribute across all these emerging platforms to do so with minimal work. Just upload your content, specify business rules and the service providers take it from there. Of course, there's a "chicken and egg" challenge here that content providers will only take an interest when there's sufficient distribution. Braxton recognizes this issue as well and said they've been encouraged by the willingness of certain "friendlies" to get involved, which he hopes will provide validation for others to come on board soon.

Last, but not least, clear|profit allows ad avails to be created and properly divided between the content providers and service providers according to specified rules. Ad management and insertion has of course been the Achilles heel for existing VOD systems, rendering today's VOD a largely revenue-free pursuit for most service providers. Cost-effectively solving the ad insertion process for VOD alone would be a major win.

This past Tuesday I highlighted some of Nielsen's recent data which showed, among other things, significant online and mobile video usage by younger age groups. In that post I noted that marketers need to pay close attention to these trends to ensure their products and services meet these users' needs and expectations.

New research from The Diffusion Group (a long-time VideoNuze partner) provides a window into how users think about accessing video across multiple screens, and who the providers might be. TDG has recently completed a survey of 2,000 adults (18 or above) which tested interest in two-screen and three-screen services along with content and features. TDG has graciously provided a sample of the slides for complimentary download by VideoNuze. You can download the slides here.

TDG defined a three-screen service as "a single video service which feeds all your household TVs, PCs and mobile devices, for a single monthly fee, from a single service provider, and with relatively equal content, variety and quality of service for all three devices."

TDG found that almost 25% of those surveyed responded positively to such a package. Whereas video marketers would have traditionally considered heavy TV viewership (25 hours/week and above) to be the most important criterion for driving more video services adoption, these so-called "three-screen intenders" don't exhibit heavier TV viewership than non-intenders (though they're slightly higher in moderate viewership, 11-25 hours/week).

Rather, the behavior that distinguishes three-screen intenders is how much online viewing they're doing. The intenders are far higher consumers of online video in general, and of online TV programs in particular. In other words, their behaviors are already self-selecting them as the targets for a three-screen service offering. That of course makes it much easier for marketers to find and target them.

All of this certainly supports Comcast's and Time Warner Cable's recently revealed plans to offer their video subscribers online access to programs. Better news still for these companies is that TDG found that cable operators were the top choice by intenders as the preferred three-screen provider. Cable was chosen by 31.7% of intenders, almost double the amount that selected satellite operators. Translation: there is a sizable group of consumers interested in three-screen services and cable appears to be in the prime position to capitalize on this.

Of course, the next question then is whether cable operators should charge for these services or imitate Netflix's example with Watch Instantly by including them as a value add to existing digital services. In my opinion, at least some of the online viewing capability should be included for no extra charge. That would go a long way toward establishing loyalty, and position cable for even greater competitive gains.

Click here to download the complimentary slides.

What do you think? Post a comment now.