Slashdot Mirror
The Economist On Television Over Broadband
zxjio recommends a pair of articles in The Economist discussing television over broadband, and the effects of DVR use. "Cable-television companies make money by selling packages of channels. The average American household pays $700 a year for over 100 channels of cable television but watches no more than 15. Most would welcome the chance to buy only those channels they want to watch, rather than pay for expensive packages of programming they are largely not interested in. They would prefer greater variety, too — something the internet offers in abundance. A surprising amount of video is available free from websites like Hulu and YouTube, or for a modest fee from iTunes, Netflix Watch Instantly and Amazon Video on Demand. ... Consumers' new-found freedom to choose has struck fear into the hearts of the cable companies. They have been trying to slow internet televisions steady march into the living room by rolling out DOCSIS 3 at a snails pace and then stinging customers for its services. Another favorite trick has been to cap the amount of data that can be downloaded, or to charge extortionately by the megabyte. Yet the measures to suffocate internet television being taken by the cable companies may already be too late. A torrent of innovative start-ups, not seen since the dot-com mania of a decade ago, is flooding the market with technology for supplying internet television to the living room." And from the second article on DVR usage patterns: "Families with DVRs seem to spend 15-20% of their viewing time watching pre-recorded shows, and skip only about half of all advertisements. This means only about 5% of television is time-shifted and less than 3% of all advertisements are skipped. Mitigating that loss, people with DVRs watch more television. ... Early adopters of DVRs used them a lot — not surprisingly, since they paid so much for them. Later adopters use them much less (about two-thirds less, according to a recent study)."
You really can find just about everything you want or need online.
I had a spare computer that I loaded Ubuntu on, made sure it had the latest flash and java. I also installed Boxee, although, since the Hulu problem, haven't used it.
Most of the entertainment type shows I get via Hulu. Their interface could be a bit friendlier (too much scrolling, really), but overall it's not bad. For news, CNN offers live streaming, which is really quite good quality at full screen. MSNBC offers all their shows for streaming - well at least the ones I care about - Countdown and Rachel Maddow. And I get local weather from WGN - also streamed full screen.There are a few European stations I like watching, and I use Livestation for that. The quality through that isn't the best, but I will say the streaming is steady.
The one beef I have with it all is the disparate pages I have to go to/navigate to get to the content. This is where I was really hoping Boxee would do some good. Not yet. They have a section in their UI to add apps, but it looks like it's Boxee specific, so I can't just add any program (such as Livestation. As it stands, I've created a bunch of Prism desktop shortcuts to take me directly to the content I want.
A torrent of innovative start-ups, not seen since the dot-com mania of a decade ago, is flooding the market with technology for supplying internet television to the living room."
Torrent was EXACTLY the word I was looking for. Thank you, The Economist!
No, socialism is bad, it's what got us here in the first place. Gave the telcos $200B for a 46mbps pipe to the home by 2008 (? might have been 2006, I don't recall). As is typical with government, there was no oversight, or checks to make sure what needed to be done was being done...the money disappeared.
This and this. We've been using Tivo since 2001 and I'd say our viewing is the exact opposite of what the Economist says.
I think the only reason we see ads anymore is when my daughter is watching a pre-recorded show from Disney Channel or Cartoon Network - she can't work the fast-forward yet.
It's just so great not to have to be tied to the network's idea of when I should be watching TV. Have a meeting on Monday nights? No problem, Heroes, 24, and House will be there waiting for me in full HD glory.
Mythbuntu allowed me dodge the expensive DVR and accorded me the freedom to skip commercials from recorded programs. My Mythbuntu, connected to a wireless router, quietly runs in the basement and through a netbook connected to an LCD TV, I watch these shows. Sweet.
I just hope that folks at Mythbuntu can integrate the script that removes commercials. Right now, you must be a semi geek to set this up. The other problem too is the trouble with remote controls. It appears that there is no way of getting a remote control configured without editing some text file. This can be scary with the enormous number of options. Even with this, you will be lucky to have it working.
My experience has been rewarding. To save on power bills, I would like to use a notebook based TV card if I can find one.
For those who might be wondering whether Mythbuntu 9.04 has solved anything, I can say not much over here though boot time is faster with 9.04 as compared to 8.10.
My next task will be to grab free "Free To Air" signals in my area. I understand there are many channels around. This means folks, that I am not very happy with my cable TV company.
Yep. I remember that provision. And apparently so does Robert X. Cringely. I remember thinking back then that by now we'd have 45 mbps, which was practically unheard of back then. Most of the country was on dialup, and there were a few folks on cablemodems.
So where did the $200 billion go? Read Cringely.
My blog
You already have socialism: it is government that grants these companies their exclusive monopolies. Why do you think that a bigger, more intrusive monopoly will lead to improvement? Take the monopoly away, don't strengthen it.
That's not socialism, though.
The important difference between a publicly-run network and a privately-run network is that the public network is not run with the intention of generating maximum profits for the shareholders, but rather for the public good. Financially speaking, it's fine if it breaks even. Fast fibre connections into every home would also have many secondary economic benefits to the community that are harder to quantify than a company's balance sheet. Yes it's technically a monopoly, but many of the reasons for a monopoly being a bad thing no longer exist. There would also be nothing to stop telcos from building their own private networks alongside the public one. Given the choice between a public monopoly and a private one, I'd rather have the public one every time.
I would possibly like to see such a public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages. This would completely level out the playing field and make true market competition possible. This is evident in the way that the incumbent telcos are trying to get bills passed to prevent this from happening; they are scared shitless by the possibility that the power they have to completely rape their customers for as much money as possible for as shoddy service as they can get away with, would be neutralised.
I haven't had cable television in 7 years. I don't miss it. For the money I save, I
* Netflix
* Go to the movies
* Pay for the newspaper
* Pay the late fees on my library books
* Pay admission to museums
At the end of the day, cable isn't offering us anything we can't see already on Netflix or on youtube or hulu et al. So really -- why pay $700/yr or whatever when we can watch all the programming that we really like by pulling it instead of waiting for it to be pushed?
P.S. Take a Kill-A-Watt and check out how much electricity your cable box + DVR + ??? are using on standby and calculate the additional burden on your electric bill. I'd bet it's a combined 40W or so, good for another $50+ a year.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Most would welcome the chance to buy only those channels they want to watch, rather than pay for expensive packages of programming they are largely not interested in.
I'm sure they would, but the economics of television channels doesn't work like that.
Let's suppose person A is willing to pay $5 a month for the sport channel and $10 per month on the news channel. Person B is willing to spend $10 a month on the sport channel and $5 a month on the news channel. If the package of 2 channels costs $15 they'll both be willing to pay for the channels. If the cable provider charges $7.50 for each, then each subscriber only pay for one channel since the other one is not worth the amount they're charging to that customer. So, the cable provider has lost out on $15, and each subscriber has lost out on a channel that they're reasonably interested in.
It's not like other purchases. The cable provider doesn't have to buy a selection of channels and resell them. They pay a fixed fee to the station, based on the expected number of subscribers, and price their offering so as to maximise their profits.
Internet based TV services aren't going to change this offering. They'll still offer a selection of "channels". You'll still end up with a package of programmes, most of which you don't want to watch.
in my house its usually on cartoon network or the news and its just been sitting there playing while we are online, gaming, or doing things around the house. we watch important shows on hulu if we care about it, or we look through ovguide.com, so we can start and stop and go back to previous episodes. we have a tivo someone gave us but never saw justification for the subscription fees.
shows that we really care about and want to keep come in from netflix and copied to external hard drive.
we search for the ultimate device to make use of this collection. that device would read through all the episodes of each show we have and play them back like itunes on random and broadcast those to all the tvs in the house on our own custom tv channel. we dont want to have to pick a show to watch, we just want them all playing on their own and we can either sit down and watch if were interested at that moment or not.
my younger sister lives in an apartment but is rarely ever there because of work or social activities. she just has her laptop with her always and a sprint card. this is how she watches her tv shows and gets her news. if that device gives her whatever she needs, why pay the extra money for something that only works when she is in one particular spot?
the people i know that care about the tivo are older, they are settled into houses, have a big entertainment center hooked up, and do not spend alot of time buzzing about. like my dad, he loves tivo. the difference i think is he specifically spends an hour or more sitting in front of the tv and thats all he does, his purpose is actually to just sit there and watch... just sitting and watching tv would drive me nuts.
That was not socialism. If it had been socialism the government would have put some oversight in place to make sure that the telecommunications companies actually rolled the fat pipes that they promised to. There would have been regulation and some control over the companies that received this money to make sure that the money did not just vanish into shareholders' pockets. What happened in telecommunications in the US in the 1990s and 2000s was a classic example of what happens if you just let private companies do whatever they want with public money.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
That is not socialism, it's incompetence. Making sure that work paid for (in this case rolling out telecoms infrastructure) is done properly is basic management and should be part of every system of government.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Whenever you list online media sources like Hulu, you should remember they are available in the USA only due to restrictive regional licensing agreements by the major media cartels. The rest of the world can only download the same content illegally.
I usually think that when the government starts merging with industry, it's called Fascism, which is more an attribute of the right than left, but both parties are moving that direction. Usually the government nationalizes corporations, but if the government is run by the corporations, it will end up being the same thing... the single party bit is true in all but name now -- neither party resists the corporatism.
Currently hooked on AMP
It's not the cable companies that are selling packages of channels, it's the content producers - cable companies don't much care beyond the technical details of access control and so forth.
Everyone thinks they want a la carte programming, but the reality is that if it ever came to pass, most folks would pay pretty much what they pay now, except they'd get fewer channels in exchange, particularly for those who are interested in niche or specialty channels. Without the producers being able to subsidize niche channels through fees for their popular, flagship channels - which is, of course, exactly why they sell channels in packages like they do now - the price of those niche channels will go up dramatically for those who choose to subscribe to them. Not a problem if you're only interested in ESPN 1 and MTV 1, but if your tastes are even slightly outside the mainstream, you won't wind up saving much money at all.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
We need to avoid both at all costs.
We do not need government owned or operated businesses. This never ends well. We do not need a government that has its strings pulled by big business. This never ends well either.
What we need is government protecting an environment that fosters competition, and businesses competing. It IS the hard way... requiring the most work and diligence.
I'd like to point out something I've observed over the years I've used my DVR: I watch the commercials.
I'll be watching my show, and I'll be using the 30-second skip feature to skip commercials during the show... but in the act of flipping through the commercials, If I see something that looks interesting to me, I'll actually go back and see what the commercial is about.
Reasons I skip commercials include: The commercial is annoying, I've seen it several times, or I am defiantly not the target audience.
I've also experienced where I am watching with somebody else, I skip a commercial, and the other party asks to go back to see it because they were interested in it.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this observation. So, I think all commercials get a fair showing in most cases with DVR.