Cable Companies Despise PVRs

sbombay writes "I just came back from Broadband Plus (formerly the Western Cable Show) and was disappointed to find that cable companies despise PVRs. In his keynote speech, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts said that the PVR amounts to 'the Napster of the future.' Cable World has a story about the speech and quotes from other cable execs bashing the PVR. The cable industry's opposition to the PVR boils down to two things -- PVRs help satellite companies (Dish and DirecTV) provide services like Video On Demand (VOD) and a PVR in a cable home cuts into VOD revenue. Any of the sessions at the show that touched the topic of PVRs were an opportunity for the cable industry to slam the PVR. The strongest attack came from Gary Lauder, a venture capitalist who has funded many cable related companies. During his 15-minute presentation, Lauder slammed his Replay box, 'it's too hot,' 'my wife doesn't know how to use it,' and he even tried to fry an egg on his PVR. He also openly called on the cable companies and Hollywood to sue the PVR companies for copyright infringement. If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend." Update: 12/09 18:33 GMT by T : Gary Lauder wrote to say that this account misquotes and misinterprets his speech on certain points. Read below for his reaction. Gary Lauder writes: "I have 3 PVR's and love the functionality. My wife knows how to use it. The misquotation is that she did not know how to reboot it when it locked up. This was a piece of data in support of the following position:

My position that I expressed in my speech and that was inaccurately portrayed: PVR functionality should be provisioned from the headend for the following reasons (which ultimately will benefit consumers):

1. VOD servers cost much less
   • If video servers @ $350/stream (Soon Component cost declining 40%/year
   • @ 10% simultaneous use, costs $35/sub.
   • PVRs cost >10X more
   • When simultaneous use = 50%, server costs will have declined >5X
2. Disk noise wakes my wife
3. Replay box hot enough to fry an egg -- Is that a feature?
4. Disk size limitations mean obsolescence, esp. with HDTV
5. Available on every set-top in house Average of 1.7 PVRs/PVR household
6. No pro-activity/anticipation required
7. Records multiple concurrent shows
8. NW storage could always have max. res.
9. Uses existing deployed base
10. Moving parts break more often
11. Box complexity means more crashes & customer support costs

My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch, and since it's unambiguous that cable needs to get the copyright clearances to offer programming from the head-end, they should start now. It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose. I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.

I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay). That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable. I also suggested that targeted advertising could be a win-win for all involved by delivering ads in areas that are of greater interest to the viewer so that there would be less incentive to skip and fewer ads would have to be delivered due to the higher prices paid for the targeted group. I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free."

Comments

Mod Parent Up, +1 Funny

[PunchMonkey]

so get your facts right before you slam an entire industry.

haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah
hahahaha hahahahha hahahahahhahaha hahah

haha hahahahahaha hahhahahahaha hahahahhaha hahahahaha ...facts straight....

haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah hahah
hahahaha hahahahha hahahahahhahaha

on /.

haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah hahah

hahahaha hahahahha hahahahahhahaha

haha hahahahha hahahaha hahah hahah

Response to Gary Lauder's reply

[kindbud]

My basic thesis is that PVRs + Satellite will eat cable's lunch

Which is a good thing. Cable sucks.

It is the case that I suggested that if a Supreme Court case was brought on the legality of each feature of PVRs were brought, some would lose.

But even if you win, I still would not buy your lousy cable service, at any price. If it was offered to me for free, I would refuse to allow the cable to enter my premises. In fact, I already have free basic cable from my homeowner's association. I cut the cable short and shoved the remainder into the wall and installed a cover plate. Then I painted over it. Good riddance.

I also suggested an alternative business model to make everybody happy to avoid the all-or-nothing result that has been occurring in the RIAA vs. Napster wars.

I suggested that consumers pay 1 cent per commercial skipped (which is about the same as what advertisers pay).

I think that business model sucks green canal water. Why would I ever agree to something like that? What's in it for me that I don't already have in spades with the current service I get from DirecTV w/ TiVo? Abso-fraggin-lutely NOTHING. So take a walk, loser.

That would be equivalent to $10/thousand commercials skipped. I think that's reasonable.

I think you're a greedy pig, and your wife is not only too stupid to operate a PVR, she's a crack hoe - ask Taco, he's done her in return for a rock. So go fuck yourself and the lame-ass business plan you rode in on.

I also predicted that this dynamic combined with competition between satellite and cable would ultimately make both services free.

Cable is not free at any price. Forget it. I don't want free satellite. I want a quality picture and no bullshit. DirecTV delivers that, so I'll stick with them. I also get my broadband from them, so eat it! Bwahahaha!

Good Riddance

[willfe]

His basic thesis is that satellite plus PVR will eat cable companies' lunches? [dances a jig]

I long for the day that this happens. Cable companies can suck it -- they lie, overcharge for service, send out incompetent "installers" who invariably screw things up, put unjustified maximum download caps on their cable modems (which share bandwidth with neighbors), and engage in disinformation and scare tactics against the only competition (satellites) they've had ever.

Comcast pays people just to give them addresses and/or phone numbers of people they see using satellite dishes. Comcast pays them *more* if they actually get a "conversion." I'm disappointed nobody "turned me in" ... I'd have loved to get into another argument with AT&T about why their digital cable offering sucks (not all channels are digital, must pay multiple fees for multiple receivers, etc.; meanwhile my DirecTiVo can snarf programming off two satellite channels simultaneously and I don't pay an extra fee for the second "tuner").

AT&T (and I imagine all of them now, as Cox Communications even blasts satellite on their "on-hold" musak) badmouths satellite at every opportunity. For a few months before we figured out how to get around not having a south-facing balcony, we were stuck with AT&T Digital Cable. *Every* commercial break (this was before we were blessed with our lovely TiVo :) they had a commercial spewing FUD about satellite versus cable. It was very Microsoftian.

These cable companies are old, outdated, and hopefully won't be around much longer.

I wouldn't *mind* paying a bit more for television programming if it didn't suck like it does now. But if these people actually succeed in turning television entirely into a pay-per-view, no time-shifting, no recording and playing back programs without buying it again type of medium, my television will only be used for video games. We don't watch much these days anyway; it's either movies or games or TiVo'd stuff, and there's plenty of other things to do if we decide to just "switch off."

I don't care if your purpose is to shove your ads into my brain. I won't have it, and if you manage to kill my ability to stop advertisements from bombarding me, I'll simply switch it off, and stop watching entirely. And I'll continue to adamantly oppose advertising in all its forms.