Posts for 'Telcos'

continue reading

Clearleap, a web-based TV technology provider, is announcing that Verizon has integrated its platform to manage content on its FiOS 1 local channel throughout all of its U.S. markets served. FiOS 1 offers local news, sports, traffic and weather. One particular use of Clearleap's technology will be to streamline the uploading and management of video by professional sports teams who offer extra coverage on FiOS VOD (one example of this is with my hometown New England Patriots).

continue reading

While in LA this week, I caught up with Phil Wiser, Sezmi's president and co-founder and got another good look at the Sezmi service, which just officially launched in the entire LA market with Best Buy. I've been covering Sezmi for over 3 years, and from a technical and product standpoint, I continue to be impressed with what it has accomplished, especially for a 1.0 launch. Out-of-the box set up is very straightforward and a series of intuitive menus quickly creates a personalized user profile complete with recommended shows based on your interests and selections from linear and on-demand channels.

Sezmi gained my attention early on because unlike other broadband-only devices (e.g. Roku, Vudu, ZillionTV, AppleTV, gaming consoles, etc.), Sezmi's goal has always been to become a full replacement for existing multichannel video programming distributors ("MVPDs"). That "boil the ocean" strategy has required it to develop its own hybrid broadcast/broadband content delivery system, sign up local broadcasters for access to their bandwidth, ink carriage deals with cable networks and design the user experience from scratch, among other things. Having done much of that work (with a key exception being to still get the remaining cable channels from Disney/ESPN, Fox, Scripps and A&E into the line-up), Sezmi's next challenge is to actually market the service and add subscribers cost-effectively. This could well prove to be Sezmi's biggest challenge.

The market for multichannel video subscriptions has never been more competitive than it is today. Deep-pocketed cable operators, satellite operators and telcos (and in some places 3rd party "overbuilders" like RCN) are beating the hell out of each other in many U.S. geographies. For example, here in the Boston area we're bombarded daily with ads on radio, in newspapers, in direct mail, through door-hangers and other means, to switch providers. While there are a lot of noisy promotional offers, there are plenty of product and technology-based pitches as well - more HD channels, faster broadband speeds, better VOD and so on. The "triple play" bundle of video, voice and data is a significant marketing lever. I don't know what the marketing cost per acquired customer is for Comcast or Verizon these days, but I have no doubt it has never been higher.

This is battleground that Sezmi is now entering after nearly four years of development. Many people are skeptical about Sezmi's odds of success (read TDG president Michael Greeson's well-done piece from last week for a rundown of the issues), at least as Sezmi is currently configured. Some of these concerns are very valid, in particular Sezmi's $299 upfront equipment fee (which is pretty much unique in the industry), its currently incomplete channel lineup (note also that HBO, Showtime and Starz are also not available) and the $20/mo rate which is marginally better than alternatives (but is likely to increase anyway as more channels and especially expensive ones like ESPN are added).

No question, Sezmi faces a steep marketing challenge. Still, I believe there are reasons for optimism. First, as Sezmi has said many times, it is not a box company and Best Buy isn't its only route to market. It plans deals with telco and ISP partners who will not only bundle its pricing but also erase the upfront charge through a rental model. The rental could be very aggressive depending on the partner's goals, opening up more pricing competitiveness for Sezmi. Second, Sezmi's user interface and certain product features are very compelling differentiators. Granted, incumbent MVPDs are not standing still (see Cablevision's "Media Relay" announcement just yesterday), but the fact that Sezmi owns its whole system from end to end gives it more control and flexibility to enhance the product (for example in VOD it is not relying on traditional vendors).

Lastly, and I'll admit this is where things get fuzzy, but I do think there's a segment of existing MVPD customers who hunger for something new, better and lower cost than is currently available. I've made the analogy for Sezmi to what JetBlue has done in the airline industry and I think that still holds. Depending on how distinctive Sezmi's positioning and messaging is, I think it could really resonate with younger, urban, tech-savvy users. One Sezmi feature alone - access to all YouTube videos - is a totally new value proposition. Phil and I quickly searched YouTube yesterday for "Alec Baldwin Hulu Super Bowl Ad" and in seconds there it was. Can any other MVPD offer that today?

There are plenty of reasons to discount Sezmi's chances of success, but I think that's premature thinking, especially given how dynamic the video landscape is today. But even if Sezmi doesn't thread the needle and fully surmount the marketing challenges ahead, the company still has a lot of value in its technology and products. If Vudu fetched a reported $100 million from Wal-Mart, and Sling got $380 million from DISH as announced a couple years ago, then there should be a palatable financial exit in store for Sezmi as well, even with $75 million or so invested to date. Of course its investors and executives are hoping for far more than just a "palatable" final chapter. The real test of what's in store for Sezmi is just now beginning.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

The 2010 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is now behind us. There were tons of announcements to come out of this year's show, including many in the online and mobile video areas. Increasingly a core focus of new devices is how to playback online and mobile-delivered video, how to move it around the consumer's house and how to make it portable. Following is a filtered list of the product announcements (or pertinent media coverage if no release was available) that I found noteworthy. They are listed in no particular order and I'm sure I've missed some important ones - if so, please add a comment with the relevant link.

DISH Network Partners with NeuLion to Distribute Live International TV Channels Through IPTV Platform

Boxee box internals revealed. NVIDIA Tegra 2 FTW

Netgear Collaborates with Intel to Launch TV Adapter for Intel Wireless Display, an Intuitive and Easy Way to View Entire Laptop Screen on HDTV Wirelessly

Syabas Announces Popbox for Big Screen Everything

Sling Media Announces Support for Adobe Flash Platform in Hardware and Software Products

LG Electronics Expands Access to Content-on-Demand with New High-Performance Blu-ray Disc Players

ESPN 3D to show soccer, football, more

Discovery Communications, Sony and IMAX Announce Plan to Launch First 24/7 Dedicated 3D Television Network in the U.S.

TV Makers ready to test depths of market for 3D

DirecTV is the First TV Provider to Launch 3D

DISH Network Introduces TV Everywhere

Microsoft Unites Software and Cloud Services to Power New TV Experiences

FLO TV and mophie to Bring Live Mobile TV to the Apple iPhone and iPod Touch

Broadcom Drives the Transition to Connected Consumer Electronics at 2010 International CES

New NVIDIA Tegra Processor Powers the Tablet Revolution

Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE) Announces Key Milestones

Disney offers KeyChest, but where is the KeyMaster?

DivX Launches New Internet TV Platform to Redefine the Future of Entertainment

Cisco Eos Social Entertainment Platform Expands Footprint with New Customers, Feature; Introduces Partner Ecosystem

Blockbuster, ActiveVideo Announce Agreement for Cloud-based Online Navigation

Brightcove Expands Online Video Distribution to Millions of Internet-Connected Televisions with Yahoo TV Widgets

Skype Ushers in New Era in Face-to-Face Online Video Communication

Rovi Grows Content Providers List to Include More Movies and TV Shows in its Next-Generation Media Guide

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Dec 7th week:

1. Boxee's new box with D-Link - It was hard to miss the news from boxee this week that it will be launching its first box, in partnership with D-Link, in early 2010. Boxee has gained a rabid early adopter following, but the high hurdle requirement of downloading and configuring its software onto a 3rd party device meant it was unlikely to gain mainstream appeal. Strategically, the new box is the right move for the company.

For other standalone box makers such as Roku, boxee's box, with its open source ability to easily offer lots of content, is a new challenge (though note, still no Hulu programming and little cable programming will be available on the boxee box). The indicated price point of $200 is on the high side, particularly as broadband-enabled Blu-ray players are already sub-$150 and falling. Roku has set a high standard for out-of-the-box usability whereas D-Link's media adaptors have never been considered ease-of-use standouts. Boxee's snazzy, but very unconventional sunken-cube design for the D-Link box is also risky. While eye-catching, it introduces complexity for users already challenged by how to squeeze another component onto their shelves. If boxee only succeeds in getting its current early adopters to buy the box it will have gained little. This one will be interesting to watch unfold.

2. AT&T tries to solve its iPhone data usage problem - In the "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it" category, AT&T Wireless head Ralph de la Vega revealed an interesting factoid this week at the UBS media conference: 3% of its smartphone (i.e. iPhone) users consume 40% of its network's capacity. Of course video and audio capabilities were one of the big ideas behind the iPhone, so AT&T should hardly be surprised by this result. AT&T, which has been hammered by Verizon (not to mention its users) over network quality, thinks the solution to its problem is giving heavy users unspecified "incentives" to reduce their activity. No word on what that means exactly.

Mobile video has become very hot this year, largely due to the iPhone's success. But the best smartphones in the world can't compensate for lack of network capacity. While AT&T is adding more 3G availability, it's questionable whether they'll ever catch up to user demand. That could mean the only way to manage this problem is to throttle demand through higher data usage pricing. That would be unfortunate and surely stunt the iPhone's video growth. Verizon, with its line of Android-powered phones, could be a key beneficiary.

3. Q3 '09 Nielsen data shows TV's supremacy remains, though early slippage found - Nielsen released its latest A2/M2 Three Screen Report this week, offering yet another reminder that despite online video's incredible growth, TV viewing still reigns supreme. Nielsen found that TV viewing accounted for 129 hours, 16 minutes in Q3. While that amount is more than 40 times greater than the 3 hours, 24 minutes spent on online video viewing, it is actually down a slight .4% from Q3 '08 of 129 hours 45 minutes.

How much weight should we give that drop of 29 minutes a month (which equates to just less than a minute/day)? Not a lot until we see a sustained trend over time. There are plenty of other video options causing competition for consumers' attention, but good old fashioned TV is going to dominate for a long time to come. This is one of the key motivators behind Comcast's acquisition of NBCU.

4. 3D poised for major visibility - In my Oct. 30th "4 Items" post I mentioned being impressed with a demo from 3D TV technology company HDLogix I saw while in Denver for the CTAM Summit. This Sunday the company will do a major public demonstration, broadcasting the Cowboys-Chargers in 3D on the Cowboys Stadium's 160 foot by 72 foot HDTV display. HDLogix touts its ImageIQ 3D as the most cost-effective method for generating 3D video, as it upconverts existing 2D streams in real-time, meaning no additional production costs are incurred.

Obviously those watching from home won't be able to see the 3D streaming, but it will surely be a sight to see the 80,000 attendees sporting their 3D glasses oohing and aahing. Between this and James Cameron's 3D "Avatar" releasing next week, 3D is poised for a lot of exposure.

Enjoy the weekend!

Oprah Winfrey's decision last week to voluntarily wrap up her long-running talk show captured the biggest headlines, but a more subtle takeaway message should also be noted: even in the broadband age where content providers can connect directly to their audiences, there's still enormous value in working through distributors who are willing to pay a guaranteed monthly fee to carry a 24/7 linear channel. In this case the channel is new Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN), which is a 50-50 joint venture with Discovery Communications and will be Oprah's main business focus.

OWN is actually taking over the 70 million home (U.S.) carriage that Discovery established for its digital channel Discovery Health Channel which didn't generate much ratings success. This allows OWN to count on an established revenue stream from its distributors before a single program has been put on air or a single ad has been sold. As a result, a portion of the new venture's financial risk is mitigated from the start. Of course there will still be huge pressure on OWN to create programs that have sustainable audience appeal (the bread and butter of all networks, cable or broadcast), but the cushion of those monthly distributor payments cannot be underestimated.

I've said for a long time that the fundamental differentiating aspect of broadband video is that it is the first open video delivery platform. By open I mean that content providers are able to reach their intended audiences without requiring deals with any third party cable operator, satellite operator, telco, cable network, broadcast network, local broadcast TV station, etc. If you're a producer, that's incredibly liberating: just put your video up on a server and online audiences have immediate access to it. YouTube's 10 billion+ monthly streams, many of which are user-generated, attest to how powerful a concept open video delivery is.

Of course the problem is that just because you can produce video and make it available, doesn't mean it has any economic value to an advertiser or to a distributor. By definition distributors only seek to take on products that they believe have value in the retail marketplace. In cable's early days, operators were desperate to differentiate themselves as more than retransmitters of broadcast stations and were willing to take on channels with untested and often quizzical formats: 24 hour news (CNN), music videos (MTV) and low-popularity sports (ESPN), among others. Over time the fees these channels and others command have grown significantly, helping fuel their programming budgets and in turn their audience popularity.

A comparable paid distribution model has not yet developed for broadband video. For a time I believed that sites like Hulu, Joost and Veoh might be able to develop such a model given the amount of capital that each had raised. Only Hulu now has the potential to do so, though there's no indication as yet that it intends to. Absent a paid distribution model, the vast majority of broadband-only video producers are reliant on advertising, just like broadcast TV networks. Some broadband producers are proving that an ad-only model works, yet there's no question a viable paid distribution model would be a tremendous boost for the industry.

Watching Revision3's Tekzilla on TV the other night via Roku, I was reminded that until broadband video is widely available on TVs it will remain hard for any new paid distribution model to take root. That's because consumers will require a comparable living room viewing experience before many of them show a willingness to pay. The good news is that this experience is coming, as millions of TVs will soon have broadband access, either on their own or through a connected device (e.g. Roku, Xbox, Apple TV, etc.). Until then though, the paid distribution model will only be available to Oprah and others with gold-plated appeal.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Talk about the big bang theory of PR: Sezmi, the next-gen video provider, is unveiling today a public pilot project in Los Angeles, pricing for its 2 tiers of service, and $25 million in additional financing. Dave Allred, Sezmi's SVP of Marketing and Product Management briefed me on the news last week.

Sezmi hit my radar 2 years ago, when, as "Building B," its co-founders Buno Pati and Phil Wiser began pulling back the curtains on a bold plan to create a full substitute for cable/satellite/telco TV service. Key to the company's plan was its "FlexCast" model for delivering video via digital broadcast and broadband networks, to a proprietary receiver which is packed with a terabyte of storage. Having seen multiple demos of the product, I've been consistently impressed with how it combines traditional linear TV with on-demand, broadband, DVR, personalization, social networking, advanced advertising and sophisticated navigation.

While Sezmi is the sleekest multichannel video experience I've seen, I've continued to be concerned about the following questions: Was the system technically sound and could it scale? Would the company overcome venture capitalists' nuclear winter to satisfy its fund-raising needs? Could it land a full complement of cable programming deals to offer a bona fide alternative to incumbent providers? Would Sezmi's eventual pricing live up to the company's assertions that it would be "substantially less" than today's providers? Today's announcements begin to answer those questions.

The pilot, which Dave says will be open to about a thousand LA-area residents will be the first time Sezmi will go beyond successful friends and family technical trials. The goals of the pilot are to do a final shakedown of the service before broader launch, test marketing collateral and start to scale up in advance of a Q1 rollout. The pilot will also begin a process of close scrutiny by consumers and competitors of how well Sezmi stacks up.

Pilot participants will get their service for free and be offered equipment discounts to continue after the pilot wraps up. Dave explained that going forward Sezmi plans to offer 2 tiers of service, a $24.99/mo "Supreme" option that includes all local broadcast channels in the LA market, many familiar basic cable channels (the pilot includes 23 channels, from Turner, NBCU, Discovery, Viacom and Rainbow), broadband programming from YouTube and others. Premium programming from networks like HBO, Showtime and Starz will be available on a subscription VOD basis (i.e. no linear feed will be available). A "Select" tier for $4.99/mo, which will carry just the broadcast channels. Subscribers to both tiers can either buy the equipment for $299 or lease it for $11-$12/mo (for each TV).

Sezmi's value-pricing will invite immediate comparisons to DISH Network, which has been the low-price leader in video services. On the other hand, Sezmi's next-gen technology approach will resonate most with early adopters. Dave said that the company's research consistently found a sweet spot of consumers interested in having DVR and HD capability, plus an integrated video system, but unhappy about paying $60-$70/mo, which is the typical monthly rate from cable/telco competitors once promotional discounts expire. Sezmi's belief is that people are "over-served" by today's providers and that by focusing on the basics, executing on them with a tech-forward but approachable solution and pricing aggressively the company will gain share. Its marketing strategy feels similar in some ways to what JetBlue has pursued in the airline industry.

Prospective customers will first focus mainly on Sezmi's content. As yet, Sezmi does not have deals with all the major cable programmers. Most prominently missing from the current list are the channels owned by Disney-ABC, Fox, Scripps and A&E. While its likely to assume Sezmi will eventually close those deals, until they do the company is playing with one hand tied behind its back (it's impossible to compete effectively without, for example, ESPN, Fox News or Food Network). The company's goal is to carry channels that account for 80-90% of consumers' actual viewing.

Sezmi will not have the full array of channels now available in HD. Dave explained that Sezmi's bandwidth constraints forced it to make choices. For some viewers that won't matter if the price is right; for others it will be a deal-breaker. Sezmi also will not be carrying linear feeds of premium channels like HBO, Showtime and Starz, instead focusing on offering them on a subscription VOD basis, plus offering thousands of pay-per-view movie titles. Lastly, Sezmi will have limited appeal for sports fans as it lacks content like NFL Sunday Ticket, RedZone, MLB packages and popular regional sports channels.

Still, Sezmi has a lot going for it. Beyond low price, the personalization features are likely to resonate most. Once Sezmi learns a user's profile, it automatically records programs, and organizes them into each family member's "Zone." Pressing the "mi" button on the remote provides a customized view of that particular content. Sezmi also seamlessly integrates broadband content, today from YouTube, but in the future from many others into the overall experience.

As I've described before, Sezmi's model is to partner with telcos, broadband ISPs and retailers for its go-to-market strategy (there's an unnamed partner involved in the pilot). There will be heavy marketing costs involved to educating the public about Sezmi's benefits, so partnerships are essential. While no names are being cited yet, Dave alluded to a number of key partners, who will be announced in January. I'd bet on AT&T for one, although anyone who wants to be in the video business likely will have a look at Sezmi as well, particularly those seeking to offer a triple play bundle.

Despite all the talk about over-the-top video and cord-cutting, Sezmi is still the only bona fide new competitor I'm aware of that could be a replacement for cable/satellite/telco services. The company still has a long road ahead of it, but today's announcements are solid evidence of its progress.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

I continue to be impressed with how the mobile video market is gaining traction. It seems like rarely a day goes by now where there isn't an announcement by a technology vendor, content provider or service provider related to mobile video. Though it's still well behind online video's adoption, all of the pieces continue to fall into place for mobile video's continued growth.

From a consumer usage standpoint, the iPhone has of course been the key driver. Whenever I'm with an iPhone owner, I'm struck by how deeply they've integrated video into their mobile experience. It's not just that they've downloaded TV shows and movies to watch on planes and so forth, but rather how natural it is for them to start playing a video and then pass their phone around so others can watch also. The iPhone has turbocharged the whole concept of shared, out-of-home video experiences.

And though the iPhone's 30 million estimated units sold represents a huge footprint of new mobile video users (in turn generating a large ecosystem of app developers), from a device standpoint, new entrants are poised to grow the market even further. Devices powered by the Android mobile operating system are continuing to come to market, with the most recent, high-profile example being Motorola's Droid, offered by Verizon Wireless. Verizon is putting a huge marketing push behind the Droid, contributing to a growing sense of awareness by consumers of the appeal of smartphones and their video capabilities in particular. Not surprisingly given its Google parentage, YouTube has also weighed in on the benefits of Android in allowing easier uploading at higher video quality.

In addition the iPhone and Android, among business users, Blackberry continues to dominate and internationally, Nokia has the largest smartphone position. This all suggests there will be vigorous competition among these 4 platforms, leading to lots consumer-facing promotion and rapid innovation. In a recent AdAge piece, IDC estimated that 6% of U.S. cell phone users, or 18 million people, will watch video on their cell phones this year, rising to 27 million in 2013.

Content providers have taken notice of these dynamics and have been aggressively creating video-rich mobile apps, initially for the iPhone, but now also for Android, Nokia and Blackberry smartphones. In a recent conversation I had with Ujjal Kohli, CEO of Rhythm NewMedia, which specializes in "mobilizing and monetizing" broadcast and cable networks' TV shows, he explained how clients continue to bulk up their teams devoted solely to mobile video initiatives. An example of this is Warner Bros, which is among a number of film studios now pursuing mobile initiatives. In addition to building mobile video apps, Rhythm is also creating a mobile video ad network, like Transpera (which I last covered here). As mobile video usage surges, advertising will grow right alongside it. Mobile advertising in general received major validation earlier this week as Google acquired mobile video ad display network AdMob for $750 million.

With all this mobile video activity, technology providers are increasingly their attention to serving their content customers. Just yesterday, Kyte, a video platform company that focused early on mobile, announced that it has launched "application frameworks" for Android and Nokia, following on previous frameworks for iPhone and Blackberry. As Gannon Hall, Kyte's COO told me, its content customers have pushed Kyte for other platforms. Now with native support for all four platforms, Kyte's customers can quickly and cost-effectively adapt existing apps, incorporating full social and monetization functions. While Gannon believes Kyte has taken the lead among OVPs in offering mobile capabilities beyond just APIs, he envisions others ramping up as well. Some evidence of this is today's partnership announcement by VMIX and Qik, to integrate mobile live streaming into VMIX's platform. More will surely follow.

There are plenty of other examples of how the ecosystem supporting mobile video is being built out, such as Clearwire announcing this week $1.5 billion in additional capital raised for its 4G WiMax network, Verizon leading a group of venture investors in a $1.3 billion "LTE" 4G opportunity fund, Adobe releasing Flash Player 10.1 targeted for mobile devices, AT&T accelerating deployment of "HSPA 7.2" technology in 6 cities to boost 3G speeds and Akamai launching its "Akamai HD" network, which among other things supports HD video streaming to the iPhone. These and many other examples form the foundation for ever more robust mobile video experiences in the future.

One of my predictions for 2009 was that after many fits and starts, mobile video finally seemed poised to take off. Nearly 11 months into the year, I think we're seeing ample evidence of this happening. I expect only continued growth going forward.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Last week brought two announcements suggesting that the health-related video vertical market is poised for growth: first, that HealthiNation will be distributing its videos on AT&T U-Verse and HealthGrades, and the second, that HealthCentral is partnering with 5Min to syndicate its videos across 5Min's distribution network.

I've been following HealthiNation for a while and last week CEO and co-founder Raj Amin told me that the AT&T deal brings to about 28 million the number of American homes where HealthiNation's content is available on video-on-demand (VOD). Raj's enthusiasm for VOD distribution helps validate points I made last May in "Made-for-Broadband Video and VOD are Looking Like Peanut Butter and Chocolate," in which I suggested that rather than broadband video and VOD being competitive with each other, they can actually complement each other well.

In HealthiNation's case, Raj indicated that VOD distribution is particularly important for its sponsors, as they value views in the living room in addition to those on the computer, where most broadband video occurs today. The multiple ways that VOD is promoted by incumbent video providers given HealthiNation's content lots of visibility. The downside Raj noted is that VOD lacks the same interactivity/engagement opportunities as viewing online provides, and that inserting ads is not nearly as easy. The latter means that HealthiNation must manually attach ads to each of its VOD streams. This would be extremely laborious for content providers with hundreds or thousands of titles, but for HealthiNation, which offers dozens of VOD titles at a time, it is manageable. Raj emphasizes that VOD's ability to help surround the consumer with content and sponsor messages is a key differentiator for HealthiNation, and a key reason it has pushed hard into VOD.

HealthiNation's strategy is primarily to syndicate its content rather than be a destination site, and it has over 50 partners in its network now, with potential reach of about 40 million unique visitors/month. HealthiNation insists that its video be played in its player, and that it controls the ad inventory. This is primarily because of its commitments to its sponsors (mainly pharma) to deliver only highly targeted viewers, provide detailed performance metrics and use mostly display ads, not pre-rolls. All of these contribute to HealthiNation offering a differentiated value proposition relative to typical TV ads.

Separate, HealthiNation also announced a partnership last week with HealthGrades, which is the leading provider of ratings information on doctors, hospitals and nursing homes. Overall Raj said that at its peak, HealthiNation is now generating 3 million uniques/month. It has over 300 videos that are 2-3 minutes long (or longer for VOD) and growing. The company has raised $12.5 million in total, and Raj says it will be profitable in 2010.

Meanwhile last week also brought news that HealthCentral, a large online provider of health-related content and operator of a health-related online ad network, is partnering with 5Min, a video syndicator which I wrote about here. Under the deal HealthCentral's videos will be added to 5Min's existing health library, for syndication to over 350 different sites. HealthCentral will take on exclusive ad sales responsibilities for pharma and OTC clients for 5Min's video focused on health, specific conditions, parenting, pregnancy, fitness and nutrition.

The HealthCentral deal is similar to the recent deal 5Min did with Scripps Networks in the food and home & garden categories. In both, 5Min landed a large anchor content partner, to which it then gave exclusive ad sales responsibilities for part of the category. In this way 5Min gains both valuable content and also category-specific advertising expertise. I continue to like how 5Min is building out its model methodically across important content categories.

Even as Washington slogs through health care reform legislation, the health-related online video space is rapidly evolving. More than ever, individuals recognize the need to educate themselves. Video provides a breakthrough way to simply and completely explain complex ideas. As a result I see lots of growth ahead in this vertical.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Following are 4 items worth noting from the Oct 19th week:

1. FCC kicks off net neutrality rulemaking process among flurry of input - As expected, the FCC kicked off its net neutrality rulemaking process yesterday, with all commissioners voting to explore how to set rules regulating the Internet for the first time, though Republican appointees dissented on whether new rules were in fact needed.

Leading up to the vote there was a flurry of input by stakeholders and Congress. Everyone agrees on the "motherhood and apple pie" goal that the Internet must remain open and free. The disagreement is over whether new rules are required to accomplish this, and if there are to be new rules what specifically should they be. As I argued here, the FCC is treading into very tricky waters, and law of unintended consequences looms. Already telco executives are talking about curtailing investments in network infrastructure, the opposite of what the FCC is trying to foster. The FCC will be seeking input from stakeholders as part of the process. Even though chairman Genachowski's bias to regulate is very clear, let's hope that as the data and facts are presented, the FCC is able to come to right decision, which is to leave the well-functioning Internet alone.

2. New Cisco research substantiates video, social networking usage - Speaking of the well-functioning Internet, Cisco released its Visual Networking Index study this week based on research gathered from 20 leading service providers. Cisco found that the average broadband connection consumes 4.3 gigabytes of "visual networking applications" (video, social networking and collaboration) per month, or the equivalent of 20 short videos. (Note that comScore's Aug data said of the 161 million viewers in the U.S. alone, the average number of videos viewed per month was 157.) I'm not sure what the difference is other than Cisco is measuring global traffic and comScore data is at U.S. only. Regardless, the Cisco research continues to demonstrate that users are shifting to more bandwidth-intensive applications, and the Internet is scaling up to meet their demands.

3. Netflix reports strong Q3 '09 earnings, streaming usage surges - Netflix continues to stand out as unaffected by the economy's woes, reporting its Q3 results late yesterday that included adding 510,000 net new subscribers, almost double the 261,000 from Q3 '08. The company finished the quarter with 11.1 million subs and projects to end the year with 12 to 12.3 million subs. If Netflix were a cable operator it would be the 3rd largest, just behind Time Warner Cable, which has approximately 13 million video subscribers.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings also disclosed that 42% of Netflix's subscribers watched a TV episode or movie using the "Watch Instantly" streaming feature during the quarter, up from 22% in Q3 '08. Hastings also said in 2010 the company will begin streaming internationally, even though it has no plans to ship DVDs outside the U.S. He added that in Q4 Netflix will announce yet another CE device on which Watch Instantly will be available (just this week it also announced a partnership with Best Buy to integrate Watch Instantly with Insignia Blu-ray players). Net, net, Watch Instantly looks like it's getting great traction for Netflix and will continue to be a bigger part of the company's mix. Yet as I've mentioned in the past, a key challenge for Netflix is making more content available for streaming.

4. Yahoo's pact with GroupM for original branded entertainment raises more questions - Shifting gears, Yahoo and GroupM, the media buying powerhouse announced a deal this week to begin co-producing original branded entertainment for advertisers. The idea is to then distribute the video throughout Yahoo's News, Sports, Finance and Entertainment sections. GroupM has had some success in the past, as its "In the Motherhood" series, created for Sprint and Unilever, was picked up by ABC, though it was quickly canceled. As I pointed out in my recent post about Break Media, branded entertainment initiatives continue to grow.

Less clear to me is Yahoo's approach to video. CEO Carol Bartz said last month that "video is so crucial to our users and our advertisers..." that "there's a big emphasis inside Yahoo on our video platforms" and that "a big cornerstone of our strategy is video." OK, but these comments came just months after Yahoo closed down its Maven Networks platform, which it had only acquired in Feb '08. Having spent time at Maven, I can attest that its technology would have been well-suited to supporting the engagement and interactivity requirements of these new Yahoo-GroupM branded entertainment projects. Yahoo's video strategy, such as it is, remains very confusing to me.

Note there will be no VideoNuze email on Monday as I'll be in Denver moderating the Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast at the CTAM Summit...enjoy your weekend!

My hopes that the FCC, under its new chairman Julius Genachowski, would undergo a much-needed course correction with respect to net neutrality, were dashed yesterday. VideoNuze readers will remember that my 3rd prediction for 2009 was that net neutrality, under President Obama's pragmatic leadership, would likely remain dormant.

Mr. Genachowski's policy address, "Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity" made clear that regrettably, he will be a forceful advocate for unprecedented Internet regulation. Mr. Genachowski has proposed codifying the FCC's four existing principles into Commission rules, and adding two new, additional principles. But read beyond the high-minded rhetoric about "preserving the openness and freedom of the Internet" and need for "fair rules of the road," and what you'll instead find is a jumble of illogical premises, inflammatory and threatening admonitions and pre-emptive, non fact-based conclusions.

I know my opposition to net neutrality regulations will bother many of you. So before I'm accused of being a cranky regulatory libertarian with nothing but distaste for government intervention, let me assure you I am anything but. In fact, I'm a strong believer that when market failures occur, the government should aggressively intervene. If you've had the experience of hearing my rants on the gross incompetence of our nation's financial regulators in contributing to our recent near catastrophic market meltdown, you will have no doubt about the sincerity of my beliefs.

That said, I'm also a fierce proponent of allowing market forces and competition to work in determining winners and losers, and that when this occurs, government influence, which is often distortive, should remain in check. If ever there was an example of a well-functioning market, it is the Internet, which since bursting into the public's consciousness 15 years ago has operated virtually regulation-free. This open and free Internet has spawned myriad innovative services that consumers enjoy today. And while the Internet has created billions of dollars of wealth for astute investors and entrepreneurs, it has also ruthlessly gobbled up many other billions of dollars ventured on ideas of illusory potential. In this respect, it could be argued that among the Internet's many marvels, it is likely the most efficient capital allocation mechanism we human beings have ever created.

By far the most sizable capital investment in the Internet landscape has been in the so-called "last mile" of broadband access. The 70 million American homes, thousands of educational institutions and countless businesses of every size that receive fast, affordable broadband Internet access is largely attributable to the hundreds of billions of dollars of investments that cable operators and telephone companies have made in upgrading their networks over the past 15 years - upgrades that continue to this day and are planned well into the future. Investments, it should be noted, that were made without a penny of government subsidies, tax breaks or bailout funds. These companies were driven by robust supply and demand forces, quantifiable business cases, vigorous competition, technological innovation and supportive lenders and shareholders. It is not an exaggeration to say that the broadband networks these companies built are the very foundation of our 21st century economy.

You might think that in a major policy speech premised on the importance of the Internet to our daily lives and commerce, the new FCC chairman might dwell for a few minutes on these contributions, if for no other reason than to demonstrate his understanding of what's truly at the core of today's Internet experience. But you would be wrong; instead the new FCC chairman used just over 50 words in a passing reference. You might also think that these companies' track records of being market driven might also influence the new chairman with regard to whether decisive regulatory action, particularly in the thorny area of network management, is now necessary. Here again you'd be wrong.

In fact, with yesterday's remarks, Mr. Genachowski has picked up where his predecessor, Kevin Martin left off: pre-emptively tagging the nation's cable and telco broadband ISPs as untrustworthy conspirators plotting to wall-off the Internet to all but their own favored services. Though professing to "ensure that the (FCC's) rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based and data-driven," by first proposing the rules be adopted, before evidence of their very need has been established, the chairman has only ensured that the rule-making process will be anything but what he says he wants it to be. Deciding that net neutrality regulations are essential, after being officially on the job for less than 90 days and absent supporting data to point to, does not inspire confidence about the likely fairness of the Genachowski-led Commission.

Mr. Genachowski further upped the ante by suggesting that if such regulatory action is not taken, perilous consequences to the Internet's openness await. His choice of words - that we could see "the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs," "the spirit of innovation stifled," "a full and free flow of information compromised" and that "if we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late" - represent the kind of inflammatory, unjustified hyperbole that only serves to distract from the facts and data yet to be reported. Such comments virtually guarantee that the debate will be transformed quickly into an escalating war of opinionated arm-waving (as have prior FCC open sessions). Did we not just witness our crucially important health care debate devolve into just this sort of spectacle? And did candidate Obama not remind us, rightfully, that "words matter?"

But worst of all is that despite the new chairman's lengthy service in the private sector, his remarks suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of how product innovation and the broadband market actually work. His view is that the government must pre-emptively step up to the plate to ensure that the Internet remains free and open, or innovation and investment will be curtailed, is just plain wrong.

The reality is that aside from random acts, no pattern of broadband ISP misconduct has ever been proven. Major industry players know this and their actions suggest they are utterly untroubled by the current state of laissez-faire Internet regulation. Consider recent deals predicated on the belief that the Internet will remain open and bandwidth plentiful: NBC, Fox and Providence Equity Partners (and later Disney) invested $100M in Hulu at a $1B pre-launch valuation; Cisco acquired Pure Digital, maker of the Flip video camera for $600M in a bid to further fuel user-generated video; and Marc Andreessen's investment firm is participating in a buyout of Skype valuing the firm at $2.75B. Then there's Apple, which has invested untold tens of millions of dollars upgrading the iPhone and iPod Nano to have video capabilities. And let's not forget Netflix, Intel, Sony, Microsoft and many others who are moving aggressively forward with bandwidth-heavy broadband video products and services. Looking ahead, as I suggested last week looms "TV Everywhere 2.0," portending massive over-the-top video competition.

But it's not just the giants that are investing. By my analysis, early and mid-stage broadband video-related companies raised almost $220M over the last 3 quarters, in the midst of the worst venture capital slump in memory. And as I'll report next week, Q3 '09 has been the highest fund-raising quarter of the last four. Deals are being done because history has repeatedly shown investors that in order to remain competitive and meet surging consumer demand, network operators are certain to continue to invest in upgrading their networks. When I helped start Continental Cablevision's high-speed Internet business 15 years ago, 1.5 mbps service was breakthrough; now 100 mbps or more is the state-of-art for wireline broadband.

Contrary to Mr. Genachowski's fear that the market will be immobilized absent FCC intervention, industry participants are moving briskly forward, confident that market and competitive forces will compel network operators to continue creating abundant, open bandwidth to support their new services.

This phenomenon appears to be true in the mobile space as well. AT&T's recent decision to accelerate its 3G wireless buildout is due mainly to high iPhone data traffic. And it should be noted that Apple's rejection of the Google Voice app (which continues a pattern of unfettered App Store selectivity by the company) raises the important question of who's the real gatekeeper when it comes to open wireless services - the network operator or the handset maker? How does Apple's newfound power figure into the FCC's regulatory paradigm?

Let's be clear: it is absolutely essential that the Internet remain open. But imposing new net neutrality and Internet regulation is not the way to ensure this. Instead, net neutrality remains a solution in search of a problem. With brushfires burning in every corner of the American economy, Washington's policy-makers would be wise to focus on real problems, not imaginary ones. The Internet has worked magnificently to date and there's every reason to believe it will continue to do so. The last thing we need are the unintended consequences that government intervention often brings. For now, FCC vigilance is required, but new regulations are not.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Though TV Everywhere ("TVE") is still in a nascent stage, with trials either underway or not even yet started, there has been no shortage of hype around it. I've been among those who have argued that if these trials work as intended and the rollouts ensue, TVE would be a big win for video service providers (cable, satellite, telco), content providers and consumers. But recently I've started to think there's another TVE angle that has not really been explored - the possibility that "TVE 2.0" could enable certain cable operators and telcos themselves to become the biggest players in "over-the-top" (OTT) video.

(For those not familiar with the term OTT, it refers to the idea of video being delivered to homes over a broadband network that isn't owned by the video provider itself. So for example, when you watch Hulu in your home over a Comcast broadband connection, Hulu is going "over-the-top" of Comcast. Hulu doesn't own the underlying network, it just rides on top of the one that's there, in effect competing with Comcast's own video service.)

To date TVE has been positioned by incumbent video service providers as an online adjunct solely available to their traditional, paying multichannel subscribers. While Comcast has been most emphatic on this point, no other operator that has announced TVE trials has deviated from this approach either.

But what if, at some point down the road, TVE was "unbundled," meaning that you could subscribe just to TVE, and not the traditional video service? Cable operators and telcos have little incentive to do this within their current service or "franchise" areas, but the lure to offer TVE 2.0 to households outside their franchises could prove irresistible. If pursued, this could actually turn cable and telcos into the biggest over-the-top players themselves, potentially dwarfing those typically thought of as key OTT competitors (e.g. CE companies like Sony or computing companies like Apple, or aggregators like Netflix or Hulu). In a TVE 2.0 world, the hunted could become the hunters.

The franchise concept is key to understanding how the cable and telco video distribution business work. In short, a cable or telco needs to win an agreement with the "franchising authority" - typically a municipal government - to offer video service in the municipality. Agreements are required because the video distributor needs legal access to rights-of-way to operate (to hang its wires on poles, dig up streets when necessary, etc.). Franchising may seem anachronistic in the digital age, but it remains the essential determinant of where cable companies or telcos operate (note that because satellite companies don't require rights-of-way, they operate nationally, outside the franchising domain).

Now put yourselves in the shoes of Comcast, for example. You've worked hard to wring every possible dollar out of subscribers who live in your franchise areas, by successfully introducing triple-play video/voice/Internet bundles, digital tiers, sports tiers, movie channels, HD, additional outlets, DVRs, etc. With all of these services, the average revenue per home serviced today is a multiple of what it was just 15 or 20 years ago.

But growth is slowing, and new competition from OTT providers looms. So where does the biggest new growth opportunity exist? Answer: outside traditional franchise areas. To get a sense of how big this opportunity is, even Comcast, the largest U.S. cable operator, serves only about 25% of the country, meaning almost three-quarters of American homes are currently out of its reach. To grow their addressable universes, Comcast and others traditionally bought other cable operators. In fact, fearful of the power any one cable company could gain, the FCC imposed a 30% ownership cap. Coincidentally that cap was just overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals a few weeks ago.

In the traditional video distribution business, buying other operators was the only way to build an operator's footprint. But with TVE 2.0, a company like Comcast could use broadband so that, for the first time, it could operate everywhere. They key is being willing to unbundle TVE from core cable service so that a consumer can subscribe solely to TVE service.

Doing so would in effect pit Comcast, for example, against other cable operators, a major breach of cultural etiquette in the clubby cable industry. But faced with the choice of acquiring other operators for around $5,000 per sub, or just introducing a capital-efficient and high-quality linear/on-demand OTT service over broadband, powered by Move Networks (as one option) it wouldn't even be a close call. In fact, Comcast could cherry pick the incumbent's video customers, in turn driving that company's valuation down and thus opening up the option for it to eventually swoop in and acquire the incumbent operator for far less. Or it could decide not acquire, and instead just focus on rolling up OTT subs.

Will cable and telco go over the top? Who knows. They will surely have what it takes - TVE expertise, requisite technology, content relationships, private video delivery networks, customer care facilities and deep pockets. All that's really needed is the motivation to proceed. For now, operators are rightfully focused on getting TVE working right for their own subs. But I suspect the business cases for TVE 2.0 are already being run.

(Note - we'll explore this subject and others at both VideoSchmooze in NYC on Oct. 13th and at VideoNuze's CTAM Summit breakfast on Oct. 26th.)

What do you think? Post a comment now.