Internet TV and The Death of Cable TV, really | Hacker News Reader

Internet TV and The Death of Cable TV, really

techcrunch.com

22 pointsthiele26 comments

Cable isn't totally out of the loop on IP. I've seen some demos of Cisco's IPTV solution for cable operators (vDoc) and it's a really good solution. I would expect to see it start replacing a lot of traditional linear video services within 3-5 years. So what will most likely happen is Comcast Cable TV will become another IPTV video service delivered via your cable modem. This will give the providers an opportunity to continue bundling packages in a mostly anti-competitive way. So for example data service + Comcast IPTV is $100/month but data service alone without Comcast IPTV is $90/month. Part of this strategy includes data caps. Comcast IPTV won't count against your 250GB/month in the same way PacketCable voice traffic doesn't count against your cap today. This won't kill off other IPTV solutions entirely but cable operators are going to have a big competitive advantage.

The key caveat is buried in one sentence in the second-to-last paragraph:

> I know a lot of folks who keep cable for live sports, but cable surviving as a sports-only service is hard to fathom.

As long as sports are not available live anywhere else, cable will continue to rule. Because of the bundle packages people are forced to buy, they'll keep buying everything else as well.

Here in Canada, hockey (the only sport that really matters) is broadcast live in HD on the CBC's website. The quality is not perfect, but it gets better every year. Our tax dollars at work. :)

You can also pay the NHL directly to get a live online feed and watch multiple games at once.

But why in the world shouldn't sports be available online? Each large telco could have a box that picked up the sports streams then broadcasted it to its subscribers (so that it doesn't require as much bandwidth as sending from one place to everybody, and so that it runs on their own connections which is very cheap). The delays wouldn't be more than a couple seconds, which should be enough even for live sport.

I thought most sports are available online. At least with the NHL, you can subscribe to Gamecenter and watch multiple games at once.

Except local markets are blacked out. So if I want to catch the Caps games in the DC market that means I must subscribe to cable. To make it even better, the Caps games are shown on Comcast SportsNet which means I need to subscribe to the premium cable tier. $60 a month just to watch some local hockey games.

The same is true for baseball and basketball. The local broadcaster is premium cable only. It's MASN in the case of the Nationals and CSN for the Wizards.

The good news is that most NFL games are on NBC and CBS which is OTA. The only games you really miss are MNF on ESPN and the handful of games on NFL Network towards the later half of the season.

To be frank... argh that blows.

Yep. Since MLB won't let customers subscribe to in-market games without being tied to a cable provider (shocking?), as long as my local team is primarily on cable[1], I'll be a cable subscriber.

1- They show approximately 30 games on broadcast TV, but many observers expect that to disappear with the next contract renewal.

So, you can watch MLB over IP with a Roku (http://www.roku.com/mlb-partner), but in order to sign up for local games, you have to have a cable contract anyway?

Some teams (notably the Yankees, but I think the Athletics as well) have made deals with MLB where in-market streaming is allowed. This typically means you sign in to MLB.tv using credentials from your cable provider, but don't pay extra or pay a smaller fee than the normal MLB.tv rate. Otherwise, MLB.tv is solely for viewing out-of-market games (i.e. watching the Rangers in Ohio).

Why is sports available live on cable instead of just over the air broadcast? Because that's where the viewers are. Certainly there is feedback in that viewers subscribe to cable because of the live sports offerings, but the feedback goes both ways. If a substantial user base moves off of cable, live sports offerings will show up wherever the users are.

No - live sports coverage will show up on whatever platform has the deepest pockets to buy the rights to show it.

Youtube's already done some large scale live events. They might find it amusing to come in and drop a huge stinking pile of cash to have your favorite sporting event be available only on Youtube Live/Google TV.

I agree. I think this is the only way we'll see live pro sports on the internet in the near future.

The networks know that live sports is the goose that laid the golden egg. NFL US TV contracts are worth $3 Billion each year, NBC paid $800MM for the Olympics, and don't forget the Super Bowl commands the most expensive ad rates of any programming of the year, followed by the NBA Championships, World Series and NCAA Basketball Tournament. That's certainly an investment the Networks will protect until their last breath. Until online advertising markets mature, they won't want to do anything that could possibly undercut their revenue. That's exactly why NBC, CBS and ABC blocked access to Google TV, but this is only more true in live sports.

My experience as a TV Producer is that the networks still look at the internet as a worse version of TV: less profitable, less quality and more unworthy competition cluttering the space. They occupy a shrine-like position in almost every household in the world. Why should they share it? They want to use the internet to supplement to their current offerings rather than use it to replace their business model. They certainly aren't going to aid anyone else to do otherwise.

Google TV, IMO, is doomed to "hobby" status unless it gets quality content either better or altogether not available on TV. I would argue that Apple succeeded with the iPod because they created a content ecosystem (iTunes) around the device that no other device had. Content was the ultimate deciding factor in a number of technological innovations: Beta v. VHS, HDVD v. Blu-ray, etc. You Tube alone is not enough.

If Google really wants their TV to succeed, they may have to get into the content business in a serious way. Live sports, as the most valuable programming on TV, is the most obvious target.

Exactly. By way of example, the Texas Rangers recently signed a 20-year, $1.6b deal with Fox Sports Southwest[1]. That renewal happened four years prior to the expiration of the current contract. Why? To keep Comcast--who is trying to make a run for the Astros' TV rights--or Mark Cuban's HDNet from taking over. Fox Sports can afford the huge payment because it collects money from cable MSOs, satellite providers, and telcos (FiOS and U-Verse both carry FSSW) in addition to advertising rates. Over-the-air broadcasts are funded solely by ad rates unless the station has negotiated a retransmission agreement that pays, which most have, but at a lower rate than "cable-only" channels.

1 - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/7220803.html

Check out MLB.com [Major League Baseball]. Streaming HD, live.

And blacked out in local markets.

Anecdotally: I never plan on subscribing to any traditional TV service (Cable, Satellite, etc). I can watch all of my shows online, between Hulu and Netflix. Also, I never plan on getting a traditional landline, as my cell phone coupled with Skype and Google Voice does the job quite nicely.

The only way I will get either of the two above mentioned services is if it's bundled inexpensively in a home data package (ie. Verizon FiOS or AT&T Uverse), because bandwidth is all that I really want/need.

Bandwidth is all I really want, too, but I don't have good options for it. I'm about 15,000 feet from my CO, so the DSL I used to have was limited to 384kbps, and would flake out when it's hot. Comcast provides something like 14Mbps, and is more reliable than DSL, but still not reliable enough for me to trust their phone service. (I have kids; if I call 911, I want to be sure I'll get through.) I would consider getting unbundled IP from Comcast if it were available at a reasonable price, but it isn't, so I keep paying the $13.95/mo for my statutory minimum cable (just the stuff I could get over the air).

I sometimes get calls from Comcast, advertising their voice service. One time I explained I needed something reliable; they told me they had 93% reliability. And they seemed to think this was a good thing.

What are you using for a phone right now? I have our local sheriff's station in my phone book, so I use that instead of 911.

We mostly use our cellphones, but we also have the cheapest POTS plan we can get.

Satellite services are also feeling the heat:

I was surprised to get a call from Directv a few nights ago offering a slight reduction in cost and 6 months of "everything free." My wife has been digging getting all of the channels but since we are both heavy Netflix streaming customers, we may drop Directv in a few years when all programs are available for a reasonable fee on the Internet but we are in no hurry because Directv does offer a great product.

Off topic but: it is really important that new entertainment business models do not freeze out small content producers. I want more options, not fewer, and I would hope that a pay as you watch (or with commercials) Internet option will help small producers thrive.

I've been cable free for nearly a year now.

Not only do I find myself spending less time zoning out in front of the faint glowing glory of my TV, when I do, I'm generally watching stuff that is more ... substantial? than I was before.

I get Netflix on my 360. I have a heavily modded mac mini serving up Plex (content via RapidShare and Usenet) and Hulu. I do VOD-style on both the 360 and PS3 for newer movies. iTunes for TV show subs.

I save about $100 a month.

Does anybody know of good articles that describe how new TV content is paid for and how this is linked to pay TV subscriptions. Are Google, Apple and Netflix going to have to go into the business of making new content if they run the traditional networks out of business?

Every single one of my close friends is done with broadcast/cable/satellite.

Yeah, right. I don't see it happening. The idea of getting rid of all cable is very popular with this kind of crowd, as well as the "Man cannot stop telling people he doesn't watch TV" crowd (of Onion fame) but in reality it's just not really there yet and I'm not sure about the idea of killing off cable is really coming any time soon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com