Posts Tagged ‘Cable TV’
Cord-Cutting: A Slow And Steady Drip, Drip, Drip
- Published on Friday, 30 September 2016 12:28
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
An interesting study was just conducted by consulting firm cg42 and it claims that pay TV service providers stand to lose as much as $1 billion in revenue over the next 12 months. The reason? Cg42 says that as many as 800,000 customers are likely to ‘cut the cord’ in an attempt to save money on pay TV packages and bundles.
Cg42 surveyed 1,119 customers online this past summer and calculated that pay TV companies could lose as much as $1,248 per lost subscriber on an annual basis. In their survey, they found that the average pay TV subscriber spends about $187 per month for cable TV, phone, Internet access, and video streaming subscriptions.
In contrast, ‘cord nevers’ – people who have never subscribed to pay TV services – spend about $71 per month on broadband access and video streaming subscriptions. The streaming part of that amounts to as little as $15 per month.
Cg42’s survey revealed that both cord-cutters and cord-nevers don’t care much for traditional TV programming, and 83% of cord-cutters said they can access most or all of the content they want to watch without a pay TV subscription. (87% of cord-nevers said the same thing.)
Perhaps more ominous for companies like Comcast and Time Warner, the satisfaction of watching TV without paying for cable or satellite services increases the longer these viewers remain away from pay TV subscriptions.
The most popular streaming service is still Netflix, which 94% of respondents subscribe to. And number 2? YouTube’s free video channels, which offer selected clips from late night talk shows and musical performances.
Surprisingly, many respondents get their sports fix by going to bars or restaurants to watch games. The survey didn’t mention how many people also watch sports on free over-the-air TV, which of course includes NFL games, selected baseball games and the World Series, the NHL playoffs, and the NBA playoffs, plus the Olympics, golf, tennis, and NASCAR/Indy Car racing.
Surveys like these aren’t anything new. We’ve seen analysts forecasting the end of traditional pay TV packages for several years now. However, there is a real concern about the cost of these monthly services, and whether they’re worth the price.
I’ve advised numerous folks on how to get free over-the-air television and supplement it with streaming services to save money – and in fact, later today, I’ll be visiting someone nearby to do an RF site survey and see how well he can receive the local Philadelphia stations at home (upward of 50 minor channels).
Couple that with broadband service and there’s no real reason to stay with pay TV, especially now that you can subscribe to HBO and Showtime online without a pay TV service. You can also do without landline phone service if you have a mobile phone, further reducing your monthly expenditures.
I said this a few years ago in several columns: The future of cable TV is providing broadband service. Just like mobile phone companies charge you only for data (phone calls and messaging are basically free now), so will cable and satellite companies. They will look more like the electric company, charging you for however many gigabytes you used that month.
And how you use the data will be up to you: sending and receiving photos, streaming video, emails, and voice-over-IP. That’s the real future of Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, Bright House, and other MSOs. The question is, have they accepted it yet?
Is Cord-cutting Hurting the Pay TV Market? — by Ken Werner
- Published on Friday, 03 August 2012 16:04
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
In a recent report, Strategy Analytics (www.strategyanalytics.com) tries hard to make the case that cord-cutting is not hurting the pay-TV market. The company directs its report, “North America Digital Television Forecast: 1H’12,” at the digital part of the market, and forecasts that digital subscriptions will increase from 114M in 2011 to 129M in 2016, for a five-year CAGR of 2.36%. SA defines the digital TV market as consisting of digital cable, digital satellite, and IPTV.
The cable part of the pay-TV market is declining, says SA, although digital cable subscribers are expected to grow from 49M in 2011 to almost 54M in 2016. We can assume that much of this growth is due to the mopping-up operations in which many of the remaining analog cable providers convert to digital. (Cablevision is doing this in parts of New Jersey now.) Since the overall number of cable subscribers is declining, it’s obvious that cable providers are failing to convert all of their remaining analog subscribers to digital. Where are they going?
SA predicts that subscribers to IPTV services will increase from 8M in 2011 to 20M in 2012. Lumping IPTV in with digital cable and digital satellite neatly obscures the fact that if you use IPTV you are sourcing your programming from the Internet and you are cutting the cord, in whole or in part, to a cable or satellite provider. Let’s subtract SA’s 2011 and 2016 numbers for IPTV subscribers from their numbers from total digital TV subscribers. Then (neglecting the possibility of overlap between IPTV and cable/satellite subscribers), the number of digital cable and satellite subscribers barely increases from 106M in 2011 to 109M in 2016.
Beyond that, SA bases its conclusion that cord-cutting is not affecting digital TV on their conclusion that the number of digital TV subscribers is still increasing, but seemingly does not try to evaluate the number of cord-cutters directly. Other analysts have dug deeper. In a 2011 study of worldwide TV programming pipelines, “Pay-TV Subscriber Market Data,” ABI reported, “Cable TV still maintains the largest market share; however, its relative share of subscriptions dropped from 72% in 2009 to 69% in 2010. Cable TV operators in Western Europe and North America in particular faced subscriber losses in 2010 as new television services such as telco TV and online TV replaced traditional cable TV services.”
Early this year, the accounting firm Deloitte, in their sixth “State of the Media Democracy” report, said “A number of Americans have already cut, or are exploring cutting their pay TV connection entirely. Deloitte’s survey found that 9 percent of people have already cut the cord and 11 percent are considering doing so because they can watch almost all of their favorite shows online. An additional 15 percent of respondents said that they will most likely watch movies, television programs, and videos from online digital sources (via download or streamed over the Internet) in the near future. Moreover, the number of people citing streaming delivery of a movie to their computer or television as their favorite way of watching a movie rose to 14 percent from 4 percent in 2009.”
So, is cord-cutting hurting the pay-TV market? Although Strategy Analytics disagrees, the answer is a clear “yes.”
Ken Werner is Principal of Nutmeg Consultants, specializing in the display industry, display manufacturing, and display technology. You can reach him at email@example.com.
Biting The Hand That Feeds You
- Published on Friday, 28 October 2011 16:10
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
If you haven’t tried the Mohu leaf antenna, it’s quite the handy gadget. Basically, it is a single-bay UHF TV collinear antenna made out of flexible conductors, and sealed in a waterproof thin plastic shell that resembles a placemat from a diner.
I’ve had the Leaf for a few months now and can say that it works very well for UHF TV reception – certainly no better or worse than any other collinear antenna system I’ve tried – and does a passable job on highband VHF DTV stations, if they are strong enough. It’s reasonably priced at $45 and includes free shipping, so you really can’t go wrong with it.
Now, here’s where things get hilarious. Apparently Mohu tried to run a thirty-second ad on Time Warner’s cable TV systems in Columbus, OH and Kansas City, MO; touting the benefits of free, over-the-air television. And TW said, “no!”
A resulting press release from Mohu reads, “The planned Leaf thirty second spot actually states that customers do not need “expensive cable service to watch HD programs” and that “most top-rated shows are broadcast free, over the air in full high definition.”
Hmmm. Think that had anything to do with Time Warner’s refusal to run the ad?
We may never know the whole story, but you can see the Mohu commercial here on YouTube – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNtll-4fiis.
To the Federal Communications Commission: STOP! Enough, already!
- Published on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 12:09
- Pete Putman
- 0 Comments
I don’t normally get worked up by much that comes of out Washington, DC these days – it’s apparent that politicians have no limit to the levels they can sink to.
But the Federal Communications Commission’s ongoing effort to reclaim broadcast TV spectrum in an attempt to ‘solve’ a so-called ‘wireless broadband crisis’ has reached absurd levels. And it is time to call them out on it.
Let me first set the table by stating that, a long, long time ago in a country far, far away, the FCC was actually a respected organization that had some actual engineering expertise. The FCC was created in 1934 to replace the Federal Radio Commission. As part of the 1934 Act that birthed the FCC, it was charged with “..regulating the airwaves in the public interest.” Not in the interests of big corporations like Verizon, AT&T, Qualcomm, or Google. In OUR interests.
The interpretation back then was that the radio spectrum (television hadn’t made its debut yet) belonged to the citizens of the United States. And the FCC would regulate how it was used to the benefit of all.
As new communication modes came into existence, the FCC was there to test-drive them and ultimately approve them for everyday use. FM broadcasting, television, Doppler radar, satellites, cellular phones – all became an integral part of our lives after thorough vetting by the FCC’s engineering staff, many of whom (like me) also held amateur radio licenses and could ‘walk the talk’ then it came to the latest technical terminology.
The FCC also regulated ‘common carriers,’ i.e. telephone companies. They approved tariffs and made sure rural areas had access to service. When television took off in the 1950s, the FCC had the foresight to add more channels in the UHF spectrum, and when TV manufacturers were reluctant to add tuners to their TV sets to enable viewing of those channels, the FCC simply made them do it with the All Channel Receiver Act of 1962. Otherwise, the nascent UHF television broadcast service would have died a premature death.
I got my first amateur radio license in 1970 after playing around with pirate AM and FM stations in high school. Back then, you didn’t mess with the FCC, and the appearance of one of their dreaded unmarked gray vans in your neighborhood meant they were on to your illegal radio station – so you pulled the plug, and fast.
In short, the FCC was the perfect umpire for our nation’s spectrum. They knew the technology inside and out, they tried to balance the needs of big corporations with the little guys, and they made sure everyone responsible for a single radio emission knew what the hell they were doing, and were held accountable for it.
Today? The FCC is a joke. I never thought I’d say that, but they have become a laughing stock. They are purely a political organization that is rapidly losing its best engineering talent, and exists merely to identify more spectrum that can be auctioned off to private interests so that Congress can continue to fill its insatiable appetite for money. (It turns out, we do have the best politicians money can buy, as Mark Twain once pointed out.)
Need proof of how low the FCC has sunk? How about the two rounds of ‘white space devices’ testing that the Office of Engineering Technology undertook a few years ago? (White space devices are low-power gadgets for wireless connectivity of media players, TVs, and other goodies in the home, and are intended to work in the UHF TV band.)
All of the devices failed both rounds of tests. Many did not detect strong active digital TV broadcasts on the same frequency! Some took an eternity to scan for active channels.
In short, these devices clearly weren’t ready for prime time. The old FCC would have sent their manufacturers packing in a hurry.
But the ‘new’ FCC? Why, they approved the concept,saying in effect, “Even though none of these gadgets ever worked correctly, you all seem to be nice people and pretty smart, so we’ll assume you can fix the problems.” This, after virtually every manufacturer of wireless microphones, lobbyists for theme parks, Broadway show producers, TV networks, the NAB, church groups, and professional AV associations lined up against white space devices.
So now, just two years after the completion of a difficult transition from analog to digital television – one that has brought us better picture quality (well, in most cases) and free HDTV to communities all over the country, and one that gave up channels 52 through 69 to public safety agencies and private interests, like Qualcomm’s failed FLO service – the FCC wants to take away another 120 MHz (20 channels) of UHF TV spectrum for its manufactured wireless broadband crisis.
To do that, over 600 TV stations currently operating in the UHF TV band will have to relocate. Unlike the analog to digital TV transition, there will be no opportunity to ‘simulcast’ on a new channel while winding down operations on the channel to be given up. These stations will simply have to shut down, install new transmitters and antennas, run coverage tests, and only then light up again.
In a classic case of Orwellian language, the FCC is saying that broadcasters will be invited to participate in a ‘voluntary’ spectrum auction and decide if they want to give up their UHF channel in return for financial considerations. (Look how far we’ve come from the Federal Communications Act of 1934: The FCC is now offering bribes to get broadcasters to move, or shut down!)
Anyone who has ever dealt with the government knows that the term ‘voluntary’ is meaningless. If the FCC doesn’t get enough broadcasters to move, then they’ll simply change the rules to get those channels one way or another. It’s a sham.
How will this affect free, over-the-air TV viewers? Well, if you live in Syracuse NY, ALL of your digital TV channels are UHF. Ditto for all but channel 7 in Boston and San Francisco , Huntsville AL, most channels in Denver, Portland ME, most channels in New Orleans, all but one channel in Salt Lake City – well, you get the idea.
The question no one is asking is this: Why not look somewhere else for new broadband spectrum? What about the old analog cellular phone band around 800 MHz? What about the hundreds of MHz the government has allocated to itself on a primary basis for whatever purpose?
You see, the UHF television band used to go all the way to channel 83. But it’s been whittled down several times since the 1950s, and in fact broadcasters have already given back 192 MHz of spectrum for other services in the past 40 years. In my eyes, they’ve done their part already, several times over.
The UHF TV band is better suited for digital TV for a number of reasons. It penetrates into buildings better than high-band VHF channels 7 to 13 (forget trying that with low-band VHF channels 2 through 6). It is easier to design compact, high-gain antennas for UHF digital TV reception. And antennas for the new portable MH digital TV receivers are quite small – only 5 inches is needed for a quarter-wave antenna @ 600 MHz, right around channel 35.
Did you know that ALL TV broadcasting moved to UHF channels in Great Britain in the 1970s after the move to color TV? UHF TV channels were deemed to be much more suitable for the regional broadcasting services. Made plenty of sense then, and makes plenty of sense now.
But there’s no use explaining any of this to the FCC, particularly its chairman, Julius Genachowski. To me, he is the consummate political animal and bureaucrat. He is bound and determined to go after TV broadcasters once again and chop off another limb to satisfy his friends at CTIA and the big telecoms. And you will suffer for it.
One of the few really good deals left to recession-weary Americans these days – who are being nickel-and-dimed to death with monthly service fees for cable, satellite, broadband, and mobile phones – is free, over-the-air digital TV and HDTV. Many of you who have ‘cut the cord’ or are contemplating doing so, relying on a mix of OTA TV programs and Internet video, are going to get screwed if this so-called ‘voluntary’ spectrum auction and re-allocation goes through.
Apparently the FCC doesn’t care about saving Americans money, or supporting a diverse, 1700 station-strong free digital TV ecosystem that provides local news, weather, entertainment, sports – again, much of this in HDTV – without costing a dime. Nope, we desperately need more channels to fix our wireless broadband crisis!
Did you know that, in a candid moment last year, the head of Verizon said they weren’t using all of their channel capacity for wireless mobile phone and data service?
Did you know that the UHF TV spectrum is not the best choice for a wireless broadband service? (No, let’s instead move UPWARDS in frequency a few hundred megahertz.)
So, what are you going to to about it? Do you live in a TV market with mostly or all UHF channels? Do you enjoy watching free HDTV programs? Do you realize the disruption this FCC action will cause?
Then get on the phone, or email or write to your congressional representatives in the House and Senate and tell them to put a short leash on the FCC. Tell them to have a full spectrum inventory conducted and made available for public inspection.
Ask them why they would allow the FCC to take away one of the few good deals left to Americans during this time of economic stress, a TV service that more than 15% of the population relies on exclusively (over 30% among Hispanic households).
Ask them why the telecommunications industry gets what it wants, but the average John and Jane Doe – who were the supposed beneficiaries of the Communications Act of 1934 – are usually left holding the bag.
And tell the FCC this: STOP! Enough, already!
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.