Sports Programming

Very interesting development - DirecTV to start charging customers with multiple regional sports networks (RSN's) a $3 charge.

Nobody argues that sports programming pricing is going through the roof but this news makes me think the following:

1. The logical thing would to be to move the sports programming to an expanded tier. I have Charter cable at home and the NFL Network is in the expanded tier but the MLB Network is in basic. Moving the sports channels to expanded would allow only the people who want sports to be paying for them. People like the RSN's, ESPN and others would fight this tooth and nail. They enjoy being is the most popular tiers because it makes them the most money.
2. The move by DirecTV is a little hypocritical when you think of how much they are paying for the NFL rights and the fact that many people subscribed to DirecTV just for NFL games.
3. This move could be interpreted as another step towards a la carte programming. I think if you gave sports content channel owners the choice between a la carte and having their channels on an inclusive expanded tier (sports, women's programming, etc.) - then the content owners would choose the expanded tier. We could therefor start to see some movement by the content owners regarding "must carry" requirements and tier placement as new agreements are reached with the major cable operators. The price expansion simply just can't go on like this.

Bad Connections

The New York Times recently had an interesting op-ed piece by David Cay Johnson about the dangers of an ATT and Verizon duopoly.

I would make a few comments about the article:

1. Part of the reason a triple-play bill is so high in the US is due to very high content costs. That's a much bigger component that Internet data or voice services. That should be noted.
2. It is true that both Verizon Fios and ATT U-Verse won't be doing much expansion in the coming years and it is also true that copper based POTS (plain old telephone service) could be endangered in rural or less populated areas. It should be noted that this could actually be a blessing in disguise. Municipalities, smaller more nimble telephone companies and electrical cooperative could easily step in and start providing the FTTH services that Verizon and ATT will walk away from. These opportunities could be the real growth areas in the coming years - much more than what Verizon or ATT will accomplish.

Worth saying.

Google Selling Motorola STB Business

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Google is accepting bids for their Motorola STB (set top box) business unit.

This is not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. When Google Fiber decided to use another product rather than the in-house Motorola STB for their Kansas City deployment - the writing was on the wall.

Netflix Signs Deal to Stream Disney Movies

Netflix has signed a deal to stream Disney movies.

First let me say that I was amused by the headline writer for that article calling it a "blockbuster" deal. I wonder if the pun was intended. The deal allows Netflix to stream older movies immediately, direct to video movies starting next year and their first run movies months after release starting in 2016.

The analysis of the deal in the article was lacking though. The reason Wall Street likes this deal is because Carl Icahn's investment has put Netflix into play and this deal with Disney adds value to any potential suitor. How hard is that to understand?

Why Some Content Packages Will Fall Apart

Today most content providers bundle their channels together and you have to take them all. As this article points out - that has to end because the prices are out of hand.

One important factor that the article does not point out is the fact that today's middleware and OSS/BSS systems can tell operators exactly how many people are watching particular channels, when they are watching and for how long. They don't have to rely on Neilson ratings or any other factors. They can also use those eye-ball reports to compare channels against similarly viewed channels to see if things are over-priced.

If a channel that costs $.20 per sub is getting the same viewership as another channel that costs $.10 - how do you justify paying that $.20 in a new contract?

DVR's In US Homes

A new study says that DVR's are in 52% of the homes that have pay TV in the US. I remember that it was just a few years ago when the number of homes with outhouses in US outnumbered the homes with TiVo (literally - that was an actual stat that stuck in my head).

The real interesting stat to me though was that DVR viewing only made up 8% of TV viewing in the US. That's a number that will explode in the next few years and something that must have TV networks and advertisers worried. Very worried.

Watching MNF on an iPhone

Peter Kafka had an interesting article about not being able to watch Monday Night Football at his home with his iPhone. I had a couple thoughts and comments about his dilemma which I'm sure is shared by many.

First - being able to watch something on your iPad but not on your iPhone while using your home WiFi is probably an encryption / conditional access / DRM issue. The cable company with any sort of TV Everywhere probably treats your PC, laptop or tablet device the same as a set top box. A cell device is probably a little more tricky.

Second - since it was the Watch ESPN app which should have allowed mobile devices like the iPhone - I have to wonder who Peter had his cell service with. If Verizon has an exclusive on NFL mobile rights then that may extend to the handset. I doubt this is the case but it was the first thing that popped into my head. Maybe iPhones are the exception to cross carrier availability?

Anyway - my two cents on the matter.