Posts Tagged ‘Streaming’
TV, Over The Air and Everywhere!
- Published on Friday, 10 May 2013 14:35
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
In a Bloomberg story from May 3, Aereo chairman Chet Kanojia is calling the TV networks’ bluff. Aereo’s “streaming terrestrial broadcasts over the Internet, one antenna at a time” service, which is expanding to Boston, has stirred the ire of News Corporation (parent of Fox) and CBS.
Executives at both networks, having suffered two setbacks in court, have threatened to shut down their broadcasts completely and move to cable/satellite distribution exclusively if Aereo doesn’t relent and pay a retransmission fee to carry their New York City signals.
Kanojia was quoted in the article as saying, “The reality is, they want to get paid twice, and Aereo is just an excuse to articulate that business strategy. Good luck to them.” Practically speaking, CBS and Fox would face several logistical hurdles to pull this off, not the least of which would be answering to Congress if they did shut down their terrestrial transmitters, viewed by at least 15% of the American public.
Strangely enough, both network’s sugar daddy – the National Football League – has yet to be heard from in this kerfuffle. The NFL has repeatedly stated it does not want to sign rights deals that would restrict broadcasts of its games to pay TV channels, giving only Monday Night Football to ESPN. If CBS and Fox decided to pull their 8VSB power plugs, what would Roger Goodell say?
More importantly, how does Goodell feel about Aereo carrying NFL games for which they haven’t paid any rights? The NFL is scrupulous about enforcing so-called “public” performances of NFL games outside of bars, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation. They’ve even come after churches for hosting free Super Bowl parties in the past. So, where’s the indignation at Aereo?
I suppose if CBS and Fox went ahead with their threat, we could always fire up that ol’ Blu-ray player or smart TV function many of us don’t use. In a Home Media story also published on May 3, the Nielsen Company announced that Blu-ray Disc and transactional video-on-demand (VOD) “made significant gains as the primary means for consumers to acquire home entertainment movies and TV shows in 2012.”
According to Nielsen, 83.6% of consumers used a DVD or Blu-ray player to watch video at home, while 45.1% of the sample audience used video game console and 44.1% favored digital video recorders. The number of respondents who preferred streaming rental movies increased by 32% in the past six months of 2012 compared with the same time period in2011.
During the same interval, 29% more opted for transactional VOD to watch TV shows, 12% more preferred using Netflix to watch movies, and 24% more jumped on board subscription video-on-demand services to watch TV programs.
Intriguingly, 14% more survey respondents said they bought a Blu-ray movie over 2011, while 25% said they preferred Blu-ray for TV shows. (I assume that meant mostly boxed sets?) And you may be surprised to learn that adult female respondents who use the Internet are more likely to buy movies or TV shows on optical disc than adult male respondents.
The rise in popularity of streaming and transactional VOD may be due to the fact that of 56% of all households with broadband Internet access now have at least one TV set connected to the Internet. So says The Diffusion Group in a recent report. Streaming media players lead in the connected category for accessing streaming services, followed by video game consoles like the Xbox and PlayStation platforms. Connected Blu-ray players came in third, followed by smart TVs.
The NPD Group sees that pecking order changing soon, stating that by next year, connections through dedicated streaming boxes (Apple TV, Roku) and smart TVs will eclipse connections via Blu-ray players — another sign of people moving away from movies on discs. They also found that 40% of households with Internet-connected TVs watch videos from Netflix, 17% watch YouTube videos, and 11% watch movies and TV shows via Hulu.
So, is streaming the hot ticket? Not necessarily, unless you have the patience of a saint, says a story on the Streaming Media Blog Web site. Conviva, a company heavily involved in research and development of more effective and reliable streaming solutions, analyzed over 22 billion (yes, BILLION) video streams in 2012 with an eye toward reliability. These streams included Netflix, ESPN, HBO, Viacom, VEVO, MLB, USA, NBC, and others, said the story.
The result? 60% of all streams experienced quality degradation. Re-buffering affected 20.6% of streams interrupting programs, while 19.5% of the streams were impacted by slow video startup and 40% were plagued by grainy or low-resolution picture quality caused by low bit rates. (Check your home broadband speed sometime between 9 and 10 PM, using CNET’s Broadband Speed test. You may be shocked by the results!)
Drilling down, 60% of views were impacted by stalls, low resolution or buffering. 39.3% of streams were impacted by buffering and 4% (900 million streams) never started at all. And while many consumers are watching on a screen capable of displaying high-quality (HQ) video, 63% are viewing below HQ resolution anyway. Hate waiting in line? Conviva said that in 2012, a staggering 124.8 billion minutes were spent in buffering.
You know what? I think I’ll just go read a book. (No, make that an e-book. Wait, I have to download it first! Buffering…buffering…buffering…)
Interview with a Cord-Cutter – Pete Putman
- Published on Monday, 29 October 2012 12:43
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
My son, Ross Putman, has lived in Los Angeles since 2008. Like many members of the Millennial generation, he’s always looking for a way to cut costs and get a better deal. Also like other Millennials, he’s proficient in using computers and the Internet.
Recently, Ross decided that his monthly charges for broadband and TV service were becoming unbearable, so he decided to “cut the cord” and switch to streaming video, plus free, over-the-air HDTV programs. I pitched in to help by shipping him a Mohu Leaf Plus indoor TV antenna (about $75). This model has scored consistently well in my antenna tests.
Now that the changes have been made and the antenna is in place, how is his cord-cutting experiment going? Ross was kind enough to answer a few questions about the process, and I’ll share them here.
PP. Who was your cable TV service provider originally?
A. Our service provider was Time Warner Cable, SoCal. We had the basic package with standard broadband internet, an HD DVR, and no premium channels. It cost $90/month for the first year, as part of a promotional deal. When that period ended, the price skyrocketed to $140.
PP. What were your viewing habits? What channels did you watch on a regular basis? About how many hours a week did you watch? How many were ‘premium?’
A. We realized fairly quickly that we only watched AMC (for Mad Men and Breaking Bad), Comedy Central (we would DVR the Colbert Report nightly), FX (literally just to watch Louis C.K.), and IFC to watch Portlandia, as well as the odd movie here and there. I watch football, which is on network channels anyways, and sometimes we would turn on the TV just to have it in the background. But on the whole, our habits were fairly limited, especially considering the price we were paying.
PP. What made you decide to drop cable TV channel service?
A. We decided to drop cable after our bill skyrocketed and we did the math: All the shows we love are available the next day for $1.99/episode on Amazon Streaming. If there are four episodes a month while the series is on, that’s a little under $8/month for our favorite shows. So even if we’re watching three shows at a time (which is really the max), that’s $24/month for the programming we want, plus our subscriptions and $40/month for cable internet, which we still get through Time Warner. Hulu and Netflix are $16/month total, so that means we’re paying a maximum of $80 instead of $140 and still get to watch all the programming we love. Sometimes, that number is as low as $60.
PP. How do you get channels now? Do you stream to a Blu-ray player, or a dedicated receiver, like Roku or Apple TV?
A. We now use a Roku for streaming and have subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu Plus. Even with all this, it’s still only $80/month at the peak for programming, plus all the additional things we get through Hulu– for example, Comedy Central shows like Colbert, which we watch, are streaming for free the next day. We have a Blu-Ray player, though we canceled our disc service from Netflix and generally “rent” movies off Amazon Prime (which tend to range between free and $2.99 apiece) when we want to watch them. Our broadband service still comes from Time Warner Cable.
PP. Do you time-shift at all? Do you stream video over other devices, such as computers, tablets, and/or phones?
A. We no longer time-shift, which isn’t a problem since we don’t watch network television. All our cable shows are on Amazon or Hulu. As for streaming on other devices, we don’t have the time in our busy schedules to do so, but we own a Kindle Fire and an iPhone.
PP. Which over-the-air channels do you watch on a regular basis?
A. We only watch over the air for football. NBC, CBS, and Fox.
PP. Which streaming services do you use?
A. We use Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, and Crackle to stream video.
PP. How often do you watch movies? Do you watch them on DVD or Blu-ray? Do you stream them?
A. We got to the movies more than we watch them at home, though I’m probably an outlier since I work in the industry. We watch a movie maybe once a week, almost always on some streaming device. We either watch what’s free on Netflix, or we pay for it on Amazon (generally $2.99). No discs.
PP. How satisfactory is your new selection of channels and the quality and reliability of Internet streaming?
A. While we miss the cable channels a bit, we’ve made sure we have access to all our favorite shows. Our internet and streaming are both very reliable, and our antenna picks up all channels available perfectly. (Editor’s note: The actual total is 27 major channels and over 130 minor channels.)
PP. What would you say about the overall experience of cord-cutting compared to previous cable TV viewing, and how much money has it saved you?
A. After cutting the cord, we realized how little TV we actually watched. Many times, we’d just turn on the TV “to have it on,” rather than to watch something specific. For the most part, we lost nothing by cutting the cord. We’re still able to watch our favorite shows on a pay-per-view basis, and network TV covers my main category: Sports. We’re saving somewhere between $20 and $50/month, which really adds up over a whole year. We don’t really miss it. Worst case scenario, we go over to a friend’s house to watch things, which is more social and enjoyable anyway. That’s what we did with the Breaking Bad season finale. Until Apple TV starts offering channels a la carte, this seems like the way to go.
This article also appears on the Display Central Web site.
It’s Just Not That Complicated!
- Published on Thursday, 09 June 2011 17:43
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
In a survey guaranteed not to bring smiles to the faces of TV manufacturers, 14,000 TV owners around the globe are downplaying the importance of Internet connectivity and 3D capability as they decide to purchase a new TV.
The DisplaySearch study, which is summarized here, shows that 3D capability runs a distant third behind LED backlights and LAN or WiFi connections in order of importance, and that order of importance is remarkably consistent worldwide, except in Indonesia (3D was ranked #1, just ahead of LED backlights) and India (Internet connectivity and 3D functionality were close behind LED backlights).
In some countries, 3D was one of the weakest drivers of the TV replacement cycle, ranking near the bottom of the list in Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. LED backlighting was three times more important than 3D in the USA, and about twice as important as Internet connectivity. In urban China, 3D commanded about 25% of the interest of LED backlighting, while in Russia, the number was closer to 10%.
Indonesians are apparently contrarians. They ranked 3D capability as “most important” of all three features, edging out LED backlights by about 20%. In India, the three drivers were almost equally weighted, while in France, Internet connectivity outranked both LEDs and 3D.
This must be the season of studies! DisplaySearch’s parent company NPD also released a report last week that stated 15 percent of U.S. consumers reported using a Blu-ray player in the prior six months to March 2011, up from 9 percent the prior year. By way of comparison, 57 percent of U.S consumers reported using a standard (red laser) DVD player in 2010, unchanged from 2009.
The NPD summary doesn’t break down how, exactly, the study group “used a Blu-ray player” in the six month period. Was it for streaming Netflix? Watching Hulu? Watching rented or purchased Blu-ray movies? We don’t know.
Other interesting tidbits: 49 percent of Sony PlayStation 3 owners are viewing Blu-ray movies on their consoles at least once a month, and Y-Y sales of Blu-ray players have increased 16%.
In their press release, NPD makes the case that sales of Blu-ray discs are starting to offset the decline in DVD sales. Keep in mind that NPD identified 116 million current physical disc buyers in the United States (not sure how they made that determination), down from 128 million in 2009 – a decline of about 10%. The 26 million Blu-ray buyers ‘offsetting’ that number amount to about 22% of the ‘current’ total.
The most interesting part of the study was summarized near the end, where it was reported 50% of consumers who intend to buy a Blu-ray player in the next six months said that they were primarily interested in using said players to view “available subscription video download services” (read: Netflix) as opposed to buying and/or renting Blu-ray movies.
If NPD had told us how respondents were using their Blu-ray players, we might have enough information to spot a trend. Alas, we can only assume that streaming is becoming a bigger driver of Blu-ray player sales than the discs themselves. 50% is a substantial number!
Even so, both surveys may tie together nicely. The lower levels of interest in Internet-connected TVs in the first survey may be due to the fact that late model TVs can add Internet connectivity a lot less expensively with a connected Blu-ray player.
Why replace a perfectly good 5- or 6-year-old LCD or plasma TV when you can ‘soup it up’ for another $125 – $150? That’s exactly what I did with my 2008-vintage Panasonic TH-42PZ80U 1080p plasma TV, installing a Panasonic DMP-BD85 connected Blu-ray player to replace an older red laser DVD player. I watch about 1-2 Blu-ray movies per month on it at most, and it streams Netflix quite nicely.
There’s no question we’re seeing a big change in how movies and TV shows are acquired and watched, and the playing field is tilting more towards streaming with every passing month. This change affects everyone from movie studios (some of which have been announcing sizable layoffs in recent weeks) to cable companies (Gen Y viewers are more likely to cut their cable ‘cords’ and rely on free OTA TV and broadband streaming) and retailers of packaged media (Wal-Mart and Best Buy have scaled back the size of their CD, DVD, and Blu-ray departments in the past year, and of course, Blockbuster went into bankruptcy last year and has been closing stores left and right).
In the meantime, I’m still waiting for that consumer survey that really drills down to see (a) just how consumers are using Blu-ray players, (b) what they think of renting and purchasing packaged media in general, (c) if they are seriously considering ‘cutting the cord’ – or have cut it already, and (d) if and how they supplement streaming video and YouTube with free over-the-air digital TV and HDTV.
Of course, that survey would have to be conducted by an organization that is primarily interested in finding out the truth, and letting the facts point to a conclusion instead of jumping to one like the DEG did recently, or advancing an agenda as the CEA has been doing.
Reading Between The Lines
- Published on Wednesday, 01 June 2011 19:27
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
In a report released yesterday, the Consumer Electronics Association states that 10% of American households are either ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to cancel pay TV services this year, while an additional 14% are either ‘somewhat likely’ or ‘somewhat unlikely’ to cut the cord. 76% of those surveyed were in the ‘unlikely’ or ‘very unlikely’ group.
While those numbers should give some pay TV operators a little cause for concern – maybe as an incentive to offer simpler, basic channel packages at lower costs – the CEA report then veered off in another direction.
The report, which you can read here, states that only 8% of all U.S. households rely exclusively on over-the-air (OTA) TV reception, a number that was immediately disputed by the national Association of Broadcasters, according to a story in Multichannel News.
The MCN story quoted CEA president and CEO Gary Shapiro as saying, “Contrary to the National Association of Broadcasters’ assertions, antenna sales are falling and cord-cutters are not shifting to over-the-air television but rather to the Internet. The only cord being cut these days is the one to the antenna.”
NAB’s spokesman Dennis Wharton was quick to respond. “CEA has zero credibility when it comes to calculating over-the-air TV viewership. Knowledge Networks has stated that over-the-air exclusive homes are more than 14% and rising. We trust an unbiased research firm over a survey paid for by CEA,” he replied.
Both my own experience and national news stories about cord-cutting have clearly shown that free, over-the-air TV is a key component of the cord-cutting experience. Why? Because it’s doggone difficult to watch sports and prime time TV shows in HDTV over a typical Internet connection, that’s why! And of course, OTA TV is free to viewers. So it is often combined with broadband access as part of the kiss-off to Comcast or Time Warner.
As it turns out, CEA has an obvious bias here. (Wow – this has been a bad week for objective research!) In a press release that came out earlier today, CEA announced that its Innovation Movement and Small Business Council would bring a ‘small business message’ to Capitol Hill.
The message? That small businesses “…run a gauntlet of new laws, new regulations and new costs that can put them out of business. Instead of imposing additional burdens, policymakers should be creating small businesses to invest, expand and create additional jobs.”
So where’s the bias? In the fifth paragraph of the press release, CEA states:
“Online, CEA’s Innovation Movement will be hosting a Virtual Lobby Day for its 114,000-plus members to encourage them to act on one key issue affecting small businesses: incentive spectrum auctions. CEA Innovation Movement members will be called to ask their congressional representatives to authorize the FCC to move forward with “incentive auctions,” which would provide broadcasters the ability to repurpose their frequencies through a spectrum auction in exchange for proceeds from auction revenues. Broadcasters could participate on a voluntary basis and purchasers could redeploy the spectrum for wireless broadband that could generate $33 billion for the U.S. Treasury and would allow endless opportunities for innovation in small business. “
A-HA! Apparently the primary motivation of this Innovation Movement is to pressure congress into selling off more broadcast TV spectrum. How, exactly, does that benefit a so-called ‘small business’ like mine? Seems to me such auctions would be far more useful Verizon and AT&T more than anyone else, and they’re as far removed from ‘small businesses’ as you can get.
According to Shapiro, “Using huge swaths of wireless spectrum to deliver TV to homes no longer makes economic sense. Congress should pass legislation to allow for incentive auctions so free market dynamics can find the best purposes for underused broadcast spectrum, such as wireless broadband.”
OK, connect the dots with me: (1) CEA’s members want more spectrum for broadband and other WiFi gadgets. (2) They think terrestrial broadcasters are vulnerable now. (3) So, CEA commissions a study that shows only while a small number of people are dropping or planning to drop pay TV service, these cord-cutters are NOT moving to over-the-air reception. No, they are instead turning to Internet-delivered video services. (4) Therefore, the country needs more bandwidth for broadband delivery of (among other things) video content, and less bandwidth for broadcast TV programs.
And I thought the recent Digital Entertainment Group survey of 3D TV trends was self-serving! While I have no issue with the small number of cord-cutters the CEA identified, I simply cannot believe these ‘cutters’ would turn away from free HDTV programming for their new LCD and plasma TVs.
The CEA’s bias is clear now. In the last decade, they fought the digital TV tuner mandate, calling it an undue burden on TV manufacturers. Once the DTV transition got rolling, however, CEA did a flip-flop and showered praise on the FCC’s decision to move to a digital TV future, bringing free HDTV to millions of American homes.
Now, CEA has flipped again and says that free OTA TV is a dinosaur, and should be consigned to the dustbin of history in favor of wireless broadband in the UHF television band (a concept that is still on shaky ground technically).
I’m surprised the folks at CEA haven’t gotten whiplash from constantly reversing their positions. But it’s pretty clear now who’s really behind the curtains, calling the shots for CEA and also putting pressure on the FCC these days.
The question is; how many Americans still care that they can watch free HDTV anymore?
I’ll bet it’s a lot more than 8% of all U.S. households…
The Times They Are A-Changin’
- Published on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 11:43
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
Today is Bob Dylan’s 70th birthday. Whether you like the man’s music or not, there can be no argument that it has had a profound impact on countless artists and bands ever since his first album was released 49 years ago.
One of my favorite Dylan tunes is the aforementioned “Times,” and it couldn’t be more appropriate in 2011. The world of media distribution is turning on its head, thanks to the Internet and digital technology.
Consider these recent stories. At a meeting of the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) last week in Dallas, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski emphatically stated that there is no need for further debate on the topic of spectrum shortages. Quote: “Any objective observer would have to say that the spectrum crunch debate has been put to rest.”
Genachowski, of course, has been advocating that TV broadcasters give up yet another chunk of their spectrum that would be re-assigned for wireless broadband services (something TIA members like Verizon and AT&T are salivating over).
Obviously Genachowski feels that the importance of free, over-the-air television has greatly diminished, and that ‘broadband for everybody’ should be the modus operandi going forward, using ‘voluntary’ spectrum auctions to free up UHF TV channels for his pet project.
Aside from some technical reasons why using UHF TV channels for wireless broadband isn’t a good idea, Genachowski is clearly overlooking other spectrum that could just as easily be put to the same purpose, such as the 800 MHz analog cellular phone band. (Betcha didn’t know those channels were still in use!) Or, how about the hundreds of MHz reserved exclusively for government use? A 120-MHz bite out of that would hardly be noticed.
The point, however, is that Genachowski feels the availability of free digital TV (and free HDTV, I should add) isn’t nearly as important as having broadband access to Netflix streaming, or to eBay auctions, or to the Huffington Post, or to ESPN.com.
And that is a sea change in the thinking of the FCC from 1934, when it was created from the old Federal Radio Commission to ‘regulate the airwaves in the public interest,’ to 2009 when the digital TV transition was complete, and the FCC had largely devolved into a glorified spectrum auction house.
Wireless isn’t the only place where the old order of media distribution is under siege. Two recent reports from the Digital Entertainment Group and SNL Kagan clearly show that America’s love affair with the DVD is over, and that more and more households are embracing a ‘cloud’ model for accessing and watching movies and TV shows.
Kagan’s study revealed that wholesale revenue from DVDs (not Blu-ray discs) in 2010 dropped almost 44% from 2009, even though 2010 was a decent year at the box office. This decline in DVD sales has been evident for nearly six years now, and is picking up speed – Kagan calculates that the annual compound negative growth rate for DVD revenue is over 13% in the past five years.
Granted, DVD rental income from $1-per-night kiosks was up last year, and video-on-demand (including Netflix streaming) is in a strong growth mode. Even so, overall consumer spending on entertainment declined almost 11% in 2010, and that’s nothing to sneeze at.
The important thing to note here is that streaming is growing by leaps and bounds. As you’ve probably read elsewhere, Netflix now has more subscribers than Comcast (over 23 million). And Netflix streaming is largely what’s driving sales of connected Blu-ray players, not sales and rentals of Blu-ray discs. There’s that ‘cloud’ thing, again!
The problem with Netflix streaming is that the revenue that goes back to Hollywood studios doesn’t even come close to replacing the cash cow that DVDs once represented. And that drop-off in revenue will definitely be a sticking point when each studio’s contracts with Netflix are renegotiated in t near future.
On the hardware side of things, we’re seeing an accelerating shift away from traditional notebook computers to touchscreen tablets and eBook readers. A recent news story stated that women, who generally read more books than men, are flocking to Barnes & Nobles’ color Nook reader and are also reading more magazines than ever before on said reader.
That fact, plus the embedded but largely hidden Android OS that has the potential to turn the Nook into a full-blown media tablet, may be the reason why John Malone’s Liberty Media is making a play for Barnes & Noble. Last Thursday, Malone’s company announced a $1B offer for 70% of the company. The bid price is about $17 per share, which represents a 20% premium over the current stock price.
Why would Malone, who made his fortune in the cable TV business, want to own the largest bookseller in the United States? Because he can deliver all sorts of content – print or otherwise – directly to Nooks through a ‘cloud’ structure. (And he might need some of those UHF TV frequencies to do it!)
There you have it. TV and movies everywhere, anytime (just not on optical discs). A media center in your coat pocket. Cloud servers set up by everyone from Amazon to Apple. Wireless broadband access to everything, even if it means you have to pay Verizon and AT&T to watch TV programs, over the air, with an antenna. And the increasing likeliness that you will have to pay to watch HDTV content, wherever it comes from.
The times, they are indeed a-changin’…