Thursday, May 31, 2007
Apple TV finally gets it
Item today at smartbrief.com:
Apple to stream YouTube to TVs
Apple said Wednesday that starting in June its Apple TV device would be able to wirelessly stream videos directly from YouTube onto customers' TVs. With the free software upgrade, YouTube members will be able to log on to the Web portal from their televisions. Apple also addressed some of the early criticisms of Apple TV by offering a new model today that quadruples the storage capacity.
Well, it's looks as if Apple finally gets it -- if only to resuscitate a troubled product. As I predicted in another blog message, this is the future of TV. No longer will viewers be limited by the number of broadcast or cable signals, because the web will create unlimited TV clips. Make no mistake, people's attention spans will shrink to match the shorter format.
Not until these devices are automatically included in TV sets or the equipment supplied by multichannel providers will this revolution take place. Six years ago, TiVo was in 3 percent of homes and no one cared. Now DVRs, mostly from multichannel providers, are in 17 percent of homes and the number is growing daily. Even TiVo made money this year, despite a shrinking subscription base. Soon Comcast will offer bona fide Tivo service to DVR owners who only think they know how much fun a DVR is.
Apple to stream YouTube to TVs
Apple said Wednesday that starting in June its Apple TV device would be able to wirelessly stream videos directly from YouTube onto customers' TVs. With the free software upgrade, YouTube members will be able to log on to the Web portal from their televisions. Apple also addressed some of the early criticisms of Apple TV by offering a new model today that quadruples the storage capacity.
Well, it's looks as if Apple finally gets it -- if only to resuscitate a troubled product. As I predicted in another blog message, this is the future of TV. No longer will viewers be limited by the number of broadcast or cable signals, because the web will create unlimited TV clips. Make no mistake, people's attention spans will shrink to match the shorter format.
Not until these devices are automatically included in TV sets or the equipment supplied by multichannel providers will this revolution take place. Six years ago, TiVo was in 3 percent of homes and no one cared. Now DVRs, mostly from multichannel providers, are in 17 percent of homes and the number is growing daily. Even TiVo made money this year, despite a shrinking subscription base. Soon Comcast will offer bona fide Tivo service to DVR owners who only think they know how much fun a DVR is.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Cable TV al a carte
My local newspaper had a lengthy and very detailed article today about the ongoing debate over al a carte cable. I was disappointed that there was no breakdown of the individual cost of cable channels, but it did portray the complexity of the debate, leaving the reader with the idea that there were equally good reasons and economic research behind both the status quo and the switch to al a carte.
The question it left unanswered bothered me, which was why anyone who only wanted to watch ESPN should be stuck paying for all the unwanted channels. I imagine that resonated with many males who probably do only watch ESPN and other sports channels. But the article gave them no clue how lucky they are under the present system.
ESPN is one of the most expensive channels on the cable lineup, which is no surprise given the cost of sports rights and the huge player salaries on which the fees are based. Paying a baseball pitcher over $20 million for one year's work, for example, is a cost that gets passed along. Other sports are very expensive, too.
Depending on what source you can find for the secret price of ESPN, it is thought to be about $2.50 per home per month and maybe much more by now (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051129-5640.html). Compare that to 10-50 cents per month per subscriber for many of the other less-watched channels.
But not everyone watches a lot of ESPN. I seldom do, because I am not a big sports fan. And neither are most women, especially older women. Yet everyone pays a huge percentage of their monthly bill to ESPN, owned by Disney/ABC. And because everyone shares the load, the exorbitant relative cost is a lot lower than it would be if only the viewers who wanted ESPN shared in the cost. If the cost of ESPN were to be spread over just its viewers, the cost would skyrocket.
ESPN viewers should be thrilled with the present system, where all subscribers share in the cost of programs only watched by a fraction of the subscribers. By comparison, imagine the cost of property taxes if only parents of schoolchildren paid into the system.
Of course, it's more complex than that and the cable systems are not totally sure that some viewers may not wind up paying less or that they might not make more revenue. But I'm pretty sure than many subscribers would wind up paying more.
When I pay my IRS taxes, I would love an al a carte system, where I could only pay for the government channels that I want to watch. I'm not a big believer in social welfare systems run by the government, so why should I pay for the welfare channel? I think giving to charity is more efficient than bureaucracy. Maybe I don't want the military channel, although that one I would likely support, praying that it keeps the terrorist threat at bay, or at least fought in another country. But taxpayers don't get much choice. Taxpayers, like cable subscribers, get a package deal.
Legislators who propose an al a carte cable setup would never agree to al a carte government. No one wonders why, so why do politicans pander to cable viewers by proposing an al a carte subscription television system? I guess because they're politicians and that's what they do.
So the ESPN (and Fox Sports) viewers should stay quiet and hope that the real victims (the viewers who only watch home shopping and religion) stay quiet.
The question it left unanswered bothered me, which was why anyone who only wanted to watch ESPN should be stuck paying for all the unwanted channels. I imagine that resonated with many males who probably do only watch ESPN and other sports channels. But the article gave them no clue how lucky they are under the present system.
ESPN is one of the most expensive channels on the cable lineup, which is no surprise given the cost of sports rights and the huge player salaries on which the fees are based. Paying a baseball pitcher over $20 million for one year's work, for example, is a cost that gets passed along. Other sports are very expensive, too.
Depending on what source you can find for the secret price of ESPN, it is thought to be about $2.50 per home per month and maybe much more by now (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051129-5640.html). Compare that to 10-50 cents per month per subscriber for many of the other less-watched channels.
But not everyone watches a lot of ESPN. I seldom do, because I am not a big sports fan. And neither are most women, especially older women. Yet everyone pays a huge percentage of their monthly bill to ESPN, owned by Disney/ABC. And because everyone shares the load, the exorbitant relative cost is a lot lower than it would be if only the viewers who wanted ESPN shared in the cost. If the cost of ESPN were to be spread over just its viewers, the cost would skyrocket.
ESPN viewers should be thrilled with the present system, where all subscribers share in the cost of programs only watched by a fraction of the subscribers. By comparison, imagine the cost of property taxes if only parents of schoolchildren paid into the system.
Of course, it's more complex than that and the cable systems are not totally sure that some viewers may not wind up paying less or that they might not make more revenue. But I'm pretty sure than many subscribers would wind up paying more.
When I pay my IRS taxes, I would love an al a carte system, where I could only pay for the government channels that I want to watch. I'm not a big believer in social welfare systems run by the government, so why should I pay for the welfare channel? I think giving to charity is more efficient than bureaucracy. Maybe I don't want the military channel, although that one I would likely support, praying that it keeps the terrorist threat at bay, or at least fought in another country. But taxpayers don't get much choice. Taxpayers, like cable subscribers, get a package deal.
Legislators who propose an al a carte cable setup would never agree to al a carte government. No one wonders why, so why do politicans pander to cable viewers by proposing an al a carte subscription television system? I guess because they're politicians and that's what they do.
So the ESPN (and Fox Sports) viewers should stay quiet and hope that the real victims (the viewers who only watch home shopping and religion) stay quiet.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Television Wiki and Programming Grids
Having created my own website for primetime grids back to the beginning of U.S. TV in 1946, mostly out of desperation that nothing online served as a historical reference, I was surprised last week to stumble upon a wiki (meaning anyone can edit it) for television, including a great source of programming grids.
The site is http://www.tviv.org/ and it links each show to program descriptions that are either supplied (or waiting for YOU to supply). Everyone knows about Wikipedia, but this site is just for TV scheduling, which puts it close to my heart.
I like these grids at http://tviv.org/Category:Grids because the fall and spring seasons are treated separately, whereas others (including me) have tried to put everything into one grid. You can view my grids at http://www.cofc.edu/~ferguson/bcp/scheds.htm -- where the sole benefit over the vastly superior tviv.org grids is that mine are in a single spreadsheet that uses tabs at the bottom of the screen to navigate the years.
Someone has even done historic grids of Saturday morning shows, which serves to remind the older users that cartoons once lived in a network ghetto instead on cable networks.
The site is http://www.tviv.org/ and it links each show to program descriptions that are either supplied (or waiting for YOU to supply). Everyone knows about Wikipedia, but this site is just for TV scheduling, which puts it close to my heart.
I like these grids at http://tviv.org/Category:Grids because the fall and spring seasons are treated separately, whereas others (including me) have tried to put everything into one grid. You can view my grids at http://www.cofc.edu/~ferguson/bcp/scheds.htm -- where the sole benefit over the vastly superior tviv.org grids is that mine are in a single spreadsheet that uses tabs at the bottom of the screen to navigate the years.
Someone has even done historic grids of Saturday morning shows, which serves to remind the older users that cartoons once lived in a network ghetto instead on cable networks.
Friday, May 11, 2007
My Name is Broadband
I watched the season finale of My Name is Earl this morning. I didn't watch it last night because Survivor was on and my wife was TiVoing Ugly Betty. I could have recorded it but why bother: It was online, at NBC Rewind, where I usually watch Earl. I think it's my favorite show, but you'd never know by my lack of need for "appointment" television. NBC puts it online the day after it airs, with one crummy little 15" pre-roll ad (which didn't even play correctly today, but I saw the whole show anyway).
I enjoyed it immensely, but I wonder how NBC is monetizing my viewing? I watched it when I wanted, albeit a day late (but so what?), and without interruption. Who needs network affiliates?
Having worked 14 years for an NBC affiliate back in the easy days of broadcast, I wonder how much longer the networks will need a ragtag lineup of stations to beam shows to the tiny percentage of homes that use an antenna. Maybe HDTV will save the day, but I doubt it. Most people seem more willing to get high-def from satellite or cable.
I enjoyed it immensely, but I wonder how NBC is monetizing my viewing? I watched it when I wanted, albeit a day late (but so what?), and without interruption. Who needs network affiliates?
Having worked 14 years for an NBC affiliate back in the easy days of broadcast, I wonder how much longer the networks will need a ragtag lineup of stations to beam shows to the tiny percentage of homes that use an antenna. Maybe HDTV will save the day, but I doubt it. Most people seem more willing to get high-def from satellite or cable.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Fairness Doctrine
I read today that Rep. John Dingell is attempting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine that vanished in 1987. Al Gore, Jr. promised it for 2001 and Dennis Kucinich now promises it for 2009, or sooner. You can learn more from Wikipedia about the history of the Fairness Doctrine than you'll learn here, but I can offer my own personal experience.
I remember the Fairness Doctrine with much regret. At my little NBC affiliate in Lima, Ohio, we lived in fear of controversial issues because open discussion of controversy triggered fairness complaints. We learned to let the networks handle controversy, or Phil Donahue (for whom we carried a then-popular syndicated show), but we studiously avoided local discussion of controversy, because of the monumental hassle in dealing with fairness complaints. Anger one side of an argument and they run to the FCC. Then be prepared to spend a lot of time (and money) on the phone with the Washington attorneys sorting it all out.
So we editorialized in favor of Halloween safety. Or spoke out strongly against drunk driving, or other benign targets. Nothing about abortion. Nothing that would anger either political party. All discussion of controversial topics was handled by NBC, if at all. So, yes, in our case, it was a chilling effect of regulation.
Today I teach students about broadcast regulation and tell them my experience. For one thing, the doctrine itself sounds so wonderful. Who could be against fairness? The FCC might as well have named it the Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie Doctrine. Perhaps if it had been named the Muzzling Doctrine...
One outcome of the ending of the Fairness Doctrine is conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and his imitators got their start when the doctrine ended, because those who didn't like what he said could not get the FCC to make his stations stop. Liberals have had a spotty record of fighting back on the radio with their own shows and networks, despite several attempts. NPR does a pretty good job of promulgating the view from the far-left, but lacks the mass audience.
So it must seem like a swell idea to get rid of Rush, if you hate Rush, or Sean Hannity (and who doesn't dislike his smarmy style?). But beware. The return of the Fairness Doctrine will shut down The View, too. Elizabeth Hasselbeck being tripled-teamed by the other three women won't be "fair" enough. Countless left-leaning shows will suffer, too.
We have survived pretty well for two decades without the Fairness Doctrine. To date, no planets have collided, and free-wheeling discussion is better than central planning by the nannies at the FCC.
And, really, how relevant are the old media anyway, when the internet blogosphere is unregulated? The return of the Fairness Doctrine would be the final nail in the broadcasting coffin.
I remember the Fairness Doctrine with much regret. At my little NBC affiliate in Lima, Ohio, we lived in fear of controversial issues because open discussion of controversy triggered fairness complaints. We learned to let the networks handle controversy, or Phil Donahue (for whom we carried a then-popular syndicated show), but we studiously avoided local discussion of controversy, because of the monumental hassle in dealing with fairness complaints. Anger one side of an argument and they run to the FCC. Then be prepared to spend a lot of time (and money) on the phone with the Washington attorneys sorting it all out.
So we editorialized in favor of Halloween safety. Or spoke out strongly against drunk driving, or other benign targets. Nothing about abortion. Nothing that would anger either political party. All discussion of controversial topics was handled by NBC, if at all. So, yes, in our case, it was a chilling effect of regulation.
Today I teach students about broadcast regulation and tell them my experience. For one thing, the doctrine itself sounds so wonderful. Who could be against fairness? The FCC might as well have named it the Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie Doctrine. Perhaps if it had been named the Muzzling Doctrine...
One outcome of the ending of the Fairness Doctrine is conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and his imitators got their start when the doctrine ended, because those who didn't like what he said could not get the FCC to make his stations stop. Liberals have had a spotty record of fighting back on the radio with their own shows and networks, despite several attempts. NPR does a pretty good job of promulgating the view from the far-left, but lacks the mass audience.
So it must seem like a swell idea to get rid of Rush, if you hate Rush, or Sean Hannity (and who doesn't dislike his smarmy style?). But beware. The return of the Fairness Doctrine will shut down The View, too. Elizabeth Hasselbeck being tripled-teamed by the other three women won't be "fair" enough. Countless left-leaning shows will suffer, too.
We have survived pretty well for two decades without the Fairness Doctrine. To date, no planets have collided, and free-wheeling discussion is better than central planning by the nannies at the FCC.
And, really, how relevant are the old media anyway, when the internet blogosphere is unregulated? The return of the Fairness Doctrine would be the final nail in the broadcasting coffin.
Labels: fairness doctrine
