Slashdot Mirror
Cable Providers Still Have No Answer For Netflix As Cord-cutting Accelerates (bgr.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from BGR about the rapidly shifting roles of cable companies and streaming media providers: While cable providers over the past few decades have grown fat off of exorbitant cable packages that overcharge and under-deliver, the rise of streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Video are finally righting the ship and shifting the balance of power towards the consumer. Clearly, the cable industry is in the midst of a transition. Netflix in particular, with its ever-growing stable of original content, has proven to be a particularly painful thorn in the side of cable providers who are increasingly struggling to keep subscribers from cutting the cord. Now comes word via The Wall Street Journal that cord cutting isn't just on the rise, but is accelerating rapidly. Citing data recently compiled by eMarketer, the Journal relays that the number of households with cable 'will fall at an accelerating rate for at least the next four years, reaching a 1.4% decline in 2019, eMarketer estimates.'
You mean consumers aren't willing to keep paying more for an increasingly ad-laden pool of mostly forgettable reality programming? Wake me up when it's over.
The only reason I have any relationship at all with the cable company is that they're the only supplier of broadband Internet in my area. If that wasn't the case, I'd drop them tomorrow. Until then, I'll "subscribe" to their lowest tier programming because it would otherwise cost MORE to buy internet service from them.
Why would they when no one else can compete against them?
Obviously the business model needs to be changed eventually, but this number doesn't seem like anything to be terribly concerned about in the short term. Especially since those who aren't willing/able to change will probably endure more price hikes. See: AT&T.
The cable companies won't find a solution until they accept that they're in 2 businesses:
If the cable company limits it's content-provider customers to only it's network-provider customer base, it won't be able to take advantage of the scale of customer base of content providers like Netflix and Amazon. It won't have the customer base size to use as leverage to get licensing terms, and a smaller base means fewer customers to spread costs across and a higher per-capita cost. If they use their position as a network provider to try to force customers to their content, they're going to face even more of the backlash they're already seeing in support for network neutrality and for municipal broadband and other alternatives to their network access monopolies/duopolies. If they lose that monopoly position, they're done for.
If they had the smarts, they could leverage their positions and their infrastructure into being real powerhouses. But they're too afraid of spending money and too locked into an MBA's focus on next quarter's results to do it, so eventually they're going to be wiped out by a combination of dedicated content providers like Netflix and Amazon and Google plus dedicated network providers operated as either public utilities or as an adjunct to a content provider who considers that aspect of their operation just a necessity for their content distribution and is happy as long as the network part pays for it's own operating costs.
We lost ours when a Republican family moved into the basement. While those people have no right to live in Seattle, it's worse that normal people are also suffering
DOCSIS is a nice spec, and can run rings around two wire twisted pair protocols, with the only thing faster being last mile fiber.
With this in mind, cable companies can always look at going to on-demand providers. Since they are ISPs, adding CDN functionality is extremely easy. They can also add even more offerings, such as OpenStack, cloud storage, and many other niceties. But... they don't. If they add something it is ad servers.
The core issue is that younger people don't give a rat's ass about TV. The fact you have to meet an "appointment" for scheduled programming (barring a DVR, of course) was drilled into the heads of older people, but with YouTube, NetFlix, Hulu, and many other content providers offering what you want to see, when you want to see it, any video provider, be it AT&T with U-Verse or Comcast with cable TV is on the ropes.
Couple this with mainstream TV programming being absolute shit, and it is no wonder why people "cut the cord".
Of course, realistically, the ISPs don't have to give a rat's ass. They just can add caps or charge by the gig, and there isn't anyone going to stop them. Well, only Google.
They do not have an alternative, however they do have "answers"...enacting ridiculous data caps and not making advantageous to buy data-only packages. Here, I am paying 50 Euros for 100Mbps cable+TV, if I want it just Internet they sell me a 30Mbps package for 45 Euros. They also have a base package of 15 Euros only for business, which is shit, cannot remember from the top of my head, something like 2Mbps.
Cox rep here.
Our old solution: Flexwatch. It's a bundle that gets you starter cable, a free receiver, and HBO / Starz / Encore / Cinnemax for $26 a month for 1 year. That's basically $0.50 per premium channel for 1 year, and you get the on demand digital versions like HBO Go.
The new solution we're moving to: Data caps that are low enough to nail cord cutters that will cost you about $30-40 a month in overage fees. They've gone live in Cleveland Ohio with plans on rolling them out in a few more areas to test, then nationally if enough people put up with it. Better: When you complain about the overage fees, we pitch you Flexwatch under the excuse that you'll use less Netflix that way.
How is that not an Antitrust violation, given we're the only game in some of these towns? I actually think it is, but we'll see what the courts decide if we're ever sued.
I don't recall the exact numbers, but IIRC it's $10 per 50 gigs over the cap. Which is why we vastly increased our speeds recently -- because Netflix, Hulu, etc will use more bandwidth if it's available, which will cause you to hit the cap faster, which with this new plan with make us more money.
Oh, and if you ever have to call Tech Support, good luck -- we're now "Technical Sales" reps. Our entire job is to get you to buy Cable, Phone, or Home Security while fixing your technical problem -- the training of which amounted to "reboot your modem."
And when the ISP gets too expensive then it's an opportunity for competition that can come in fresh. And so the cycle repeats itself.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Unfortunately the amount of bandwidth available for wireless is limited. It may work fine to some extent, but when too many subscribers shares the same space you will get problems.
Of course - allocation of new frequency bands might work, but that will also come at a cost since the new bands will be above 10GHz which would require new equipment.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
True, but cable TV companies can't treat subscribers only like that because effectively nobody subscribes to cable TV to watch ads. The cable companies have to treat us like customers buying content, and slip the advertising in without putting in so much that people stop subscribing.
Problem for the cable companies here being that how much advertising is too much depends on what alternatives are out there. Nobody's going to sit through 5 minutes of ads per 15 minutes for a show when they can go to Netflix and watch without ads, or when they can record the show on DVR and skip the ads. The era of ad-supported content is rapidly fading because the conditions that let it flourish are changing.
Congratulations, you've said something stupid that is not relevant to the topic at all.
This is, in part, why I refuse to subscribe to Cable Internet service. They are trying too hard to prevent one arm of their business from stepping on another arm of their business. This NEVER works! When you enter a market segment, you have to commit to it, and Comcast and the like don't want to do that.
Sort of related to the above, but the other overriding reason why I refuse to subscribe to Cable Internet is their policies are so arbitrary. I run a business from my home, and I require high-speed Internet in order to do my work. If I was constantly tripping over Comcast's rules and requirements in the conducting of my business (bandwidth rules, port usage, etc.), I would never get anything done. I am fortunate to have a really good ISP that is neither a cable company nor an RBOC. But not everyone has that kind of flexibility, so they have to deal with Cable companies playing silly games with their Internet access.
They need to stop charging so damn much! I recently went shopping for Cable service to see what things cost nowadays. The prices are exorbitant and strange!
For example, if I get a "Limited Basic" package, which basically includes just my local TV channels and a smattering of basic cable channels (most of which are home shopping channels), it's like $16/mo. I get one receiver for free, and I can hook up the other two TVs in my house for $2.65/mo each. So after all is said and done, I can get basic cable service for my entire home for about $22/mo. The catch is that I cannot get HD for my HDTV in my living room.
In order to get HDTV at all, I have to go up to their "Digital Starter" package for $50/mo. But only one of the digital SDTV converter boxes (the same one as in the "Limited Basic" package) is included with that package. If I want to get HDTV at all, I have to upgrade that "included" box to an "HDTV" box for $10/mo. But what's really weird is that the boxes for the other two TVs, which are SDTVs, are now suddenly $9.95/mo, instead of the $2.65/mo for the other package. So by the time I'm done outfitting my entire home, the equipment charges are 60% of the cost of the package. That's absurd!
So the bottom line is services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon are simply making it easier for people to get away from the obvious price gouging that's occurring with Cable and (to a lesser extent) Satellite services. If you're fortunate enough to live in an area where HDTV broadcast signals are good in your area, all you have to do is put up an HDTV antenna and hook it up to your TV. And if not, Hulu (in particular) carries many of the more popular network TV shows anyway. Voila! You are now free of the outrageous pricing of Cable and Satellite companies.
Data caps. If they lose revenue from cable cutting they will make it up by charging more for internet access. As long a they control the last mile to the user they will be simply change their revenue model. Those that own content as well will price the content to makeup for the shift in how it is delivered. The real losers will be the sparsely watch ed channels that, because eo fetch current revenue distribution model, make mor money than they would if the were priced separately.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Since a good portion of folks still rely on cable providers for their broadband Internet in order to use Netflix (and similar services) they don't need to do anything other than slowly raise their prices for broadband.
Netflix doesn't scare them (and if they claim it does, they are lying)
Projects like Google Fiber scare them. The FCC enforcing neutrality scares them. SCOTUS declaring anti-competitive bans on municipal/community fiber scare them.
Cable companies, here's your answer:
1) Charge $1 per channel per month. That's what I'm willing to pay, period.
2) Let us pick what channel(s) we want. Don't force any "bundling" or packages of shit-channels I'll never watch.
3) No minimum number of channels. If I want 3 channels, let me have 3. If I want 50, let me have 50.
Really...is this so hard to grasp? If you can't make money with this model, say "goodbye" and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Unfortunately the amount of bandwidth available for wireless is limited.
Hence the smaller towers - which are really just boxes installed along power poles designed to service a much smaller area. This greatly reduces the subscriber / tower ratio.
It sounds like you disagree with the business ethics of the company for whom you work, but you are still willing to take payment from them regardless.
Seems to me you're the problem here.
I dunno. I think his/her one post above made his employment there a net positive for society.
Neither is 4 Mbps down. The minimum downstream speed for broadband, according to FCC standards, is 25 Mbps down.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.