- Recent
- Popular
- Tags (0)
- Subscribers (1)
- More Cord-cutting CoverageNovember 17
-
For some time, I’ve been noting on my Twitter account the rising tide of people who have decided to cut the cord that ties them to servicing their television needs through cable, satellite or other wired means, instead turning to the Internet to be informed and entertained. The topic is blowing up now, with Washington Post tech columnist Mike Musgrove now examining the issue in his column this past weekend (”TV Breaks Out of the Box“).
And I don’t even really need to respond, because Adam Thierer has given it the one-two punch at Tech Liberation Front.
But if you want my take on the cost-savings of broadband video, refer to these earlier posts:
- DOCSIS 3.0 Hits the Pacific NorthwestNovember 17
-
Less than a month ago, I wrote about Comcast’s deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 in New England and areas of Philadelphia and New Jersey, following up on the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. I mentioned that they expected to reach more than 10 major markets in the coming months.
Here we go: Comcast launches DOCSIS 3.0 in Oregon and Southwest Washington, including such communities as Aberdeen, Spokane, Beaverton, and Eugene. The Extreme 50 tier offers download speeds of up to 50 Mbps. Comcast will also double speeds for the majority of existing high-speed Internet customers at no additional cost.
The company has a web page which allows you to check if wideband is available in your area or to sign up for e-mail updates when it is rolled out to you.
UPDATE: Media coverage.
- Why You Should Pay For More Than You WatchNovember 13
-
There was a column in the L.A. Times yesterday from David Lazarus entitled: “Let’s pay only for the TV we watch.” So, once again, back we go to the topic of “a la carte” cable service.
I get it. It feels like much of the content world is going to a pay-only-for-what-you-want model. Certainly, it feels right emotionally to only pay for the stuff you’re going to use. But this argument is almost always predicated on one premise: If I could pick and choose, my bill would go down.
Lazarus writes:
The average U.S. home now receives a record 118.6 TV channels, according to a recent report from Nielsen Co. But the dirty little secret of the cable industry is that the average subscriber watches only about 17 channels regularly.
That’s more than 100 channels that most cable subscribers are paying for but seldom if ever watching.
Because of the number of cable systems nationwide, it’s hard to get a fix on the average monthly bill. But many estimates place this figure at $60 to $70.
This means, if all channels cost the same, the typical cable subscriber is spending about $9 a month for the 17 channels he wants to watch and about $55 for the 101 channels he never sees.
There are big problems with the figures here, so let’s break it down.
If you’re getting 118.6 channels, that means you’re g
- Broadcast, cable… What’s the difference?November 12
-
There are adults today who have never known a world without cell phones, color television or ATMs. These are people who have had cable television all of their lives (not to mention Internet access, DVRs, DVDs, and so on for a shorter period of time). This actually presents significant challenges to the cable industry.
To people who have always had cable, there is no difference between an over-the-air (OTA) broadcast channel and cable offerings. However, in both the business and regulatory environments, the difference between OTA television and cable matters. The business models are different, the ad revenue streams are different, the content regulation is different. Whether you run a local TV station or a cable system, a broadcast network or a cable net, you live with these differences everyday.
To viewers, those differences are invisible. They cruise around the channel lineup, probably not paying any attention when they’re tuned to a cable channel and when they’re looking at a broadcast station. They may be vaguely aware the rules for swearing vary between basic cable and networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, or the CW – although, as broadcast standards have changed over the years, the differences aren’t as stark as they used to be. Even if they see that distinction, they may not know this is because broadcasters use the public airwaves, while cable programmers do not.
Another example: If a cable programmer – Animal Planet, Comedy Central, Turn
- Cable’s Response to the Consumers UnionNovember 10
-
On Thursday, NCTA responded to the Senate Commerce Committee in regards to a Consumers Union complaint about cable’s migration to a digital platform. The CU has questioned the impact of our migration on the simultaneously occurring digital transition for broadcast signals. In the letter, we sought to specifically address the Consumers Union allegations that our migration is an attempt to surreptitiously game the broadcast transition to fleece our customers.
My co-author Paul has written repeatedly on the distinction between cable’s migration to a digital platform and the broadcasters’ transition to digital broadcast. While the two share one common element – the movement from increasingly obsolete technologies to delivery methods that greatly increase consumer value – they are two completely different events.
You can refresh your understanding of the differences between the two by reviewing any of the following posts.