Posts for 'Time Warner'

Last week, amid rumors that Netflix was planning to bid for the new "House of Cards" TV series, directed by David Fincher (a deal finally confirmed late Friday afternoon), there was no shortage of media coverage asking, "Could Netflix be the next HBO?" As interesting a question as that one is, here's one that's even more intriguing, and provocative: "Could HBO be the next BLOCKBUSTER?" At first blush, the comparison might seem ridiculous, and admittedly there are numerous differences between the two. But there are some troubling similarities which should be causing the HBO executive team to now be on high alert.

continue reading

continue reading

If you're looking for a template of how pay-TV operators and cable networks need to be working together if they want to successfully combat the rise of Netflix and other over-the-top entrants, yesterday's long-term agreement between Comcast and Time Warner is a great example. Under the agreement, Comcast digital subscribers will gain access to popular programs and movies from Turner Broadcasting networks like TNT, TBS, CNN, Cartoon Network and others, across multiple platforms, including Comcast's On Demand service, Xfinity TV online web site and companion iPad/iPhone and Android apps (which just last night began streaming full episodes). Importantly, Turner networks' viewers will also be able to view the same programs/movies on Turner web sites and online/mobile platforms.  No extra charges to the consumer are planned.

continue reading

I finally got an hour over the weekend to listen to the replay of last week's UBS media conference keynote discussion with Time Warner's CEO Jeff Bewkes.  His comments strongly reinforced my perception of him as the pay-TV (cable/satellite/telco) industry's staunchest defender as well as the leading Netflix skeptic. Bewkes is worth paying attention to not just because Time Warner owns the Warner Bros. studio and several leading cable networks, but because his approach is a barometer for many other content providers as well.

continue reading

Talk about an initiative that flies in the face of all prevailing sentiment: Time Warner is moving forward on testing a new window for early-release movies on VOD priced at $20-30 apiece in 2011, according to comments its CFO John Martin made yesterday at the Goldman Sachs conference. Never mind the wrath the idea will stir up among movie theater owners whose traditional windows get cannibalized as a consequence (Disney learned about that with its "Alice in Wonderland" early DVD release experiment last February), the real issue is that pay-TV operators should deem the idea a non-starter.

continue reading

Yesterday's announcement by Netflix that it will be adding to its Watch Instantly library past seasons ABC's "Lost," "Desperate Housewives," "Grey's Anatomy" and "Legend of the Seeker" is another step forward for Netflix in strengthening its online competitiveness.

At a broader level though, I think it's also further evidence that the near-term success of Watch Instantly and other "over-the-top" broadband video services is going to be tied largely to deals with broadcast TV networks, rather than film studios, cable TV networks or independently-produced video sources.

Key fault lines are beginning to develop in how premium programming will be distributed in the broadband era. Content providers who have traditionally been paid by consumers or distributors in one way or another are redoubling their determination to preserve these models. Examples abound: the TV Everywhere initiative Comcast/Time Warner are espousing that now has 20+ other networks involved; Epix, the new premium movie service backed by Viacom, Lionsgate and MGM; new distribution deals by the premium online service ESPN360.com, bringing its reach to 41 million homes; MLB's MLB.TV and At Bat subscription offerings; and Disney's planned subscription services. As I wrote last week in "Subscription Overload is On the Horizon," I expect these trends will only accelerate (though whether they'll succeed is another question).

On the other hand, broadcast TV networks, who have traditionally relied on advertising, continue mainly to do so in the broadband world, whether through aggregators like Hulu, or through their own web sites. However, ABC's deal with Netflix, coming on top of its prior deals with CBS and NBC, shows that broadcast networks are both motivated and flexible to mine new opportunites with those willing to pay.

That's a good thing, because as Netflix tries to build out its Watch Instantly library beyond the current 12,000 titles, it is bumping up against two powerful forces. First, in the film business, well-defined "windows" significantly curtail distribution of new films to outlets trying to elbow their way in. And second, in the cable business, well-entrenched business relationships exist that disincent cable networks from offering programs outside the traditional linear channel affiliate model to new players like Netflix. These disincentives are poised to strengthen with the advent of TV Everywhere.

In this context, broadcast networks represent Netflix's best opportunity to grow and differentiate Watch Instantly. Last November in "Netflix Should be Aggressively Pursuing Broadcast Networks for Watch Instantly Service," I outlined all the reasons why. The ABC deal announced yesterday gives Netflix a library of past seasons' episodes, which is great. But it doesn't address where Netflix could create the most value for itself: as commercial-free subscription option for next-day (or even "next-hour") viewing of all prime-time broadcast programs. That is the end-state Netflix should be striving for.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that this will be easy to accomplish. But if it could, Netflix would really enhance the competitiveness of Watch Instantly and its underlying subscription services. It would obviate the need for Netflix subscribers to record broadcast programs, making their lives simpler and freeing up room on their DVRs. It would be jab at both traditional VOD services and new "network DVR" service from Cablevision. It would also be a strong competitor to sites like Hulu, where comparable broadcast programs are available, but only with commercial interruptions. And Hulu still has limited options for viewing on TVs, whereas Netflix's Watch Instantly options for viewing on TVs includes Roku, Xbox, Blu-ray players, etc. Last but not least, it would also be a powerful marketing hook for Netflix to use to bulk up its underlying subscription base that it intends to transition to online-only in the future.

Beyond next-day or next-hour availability, Netflix could also offer things like higher-quality full HD delivery or download options for offline consumption. Broadcasters, who continue to be pinched on the ad side, should be plenty open to all of the above, assuming Netflix is willing to pay.

I continue to believe Netflix is one of the strongest positions to create a compelling over-the-top service offering. But with numerous barriers in its way to gain online distribution rights to films and cable programs, broadcast networks remain its key source of premium content. So keep an eye for more deals like the one announced with ABC yesterday, hopefully including fast availability of current, in-season episodes.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Paid video forecast to surpass free - A Strategy Analytics forecast that got attention this week says that the global paid online video market will be worth $3.8B in 2009, exceeding the global free online video segment which will total $3.5B. I haven't seen the details of the forecast, but I'm very curious what's being included in each of these numbers as both seem way too high to me. The firm forecasts the two segments to grow at comparable rates (37% and 39%), suggesting that their size will remain relatively even. I suspect we're going to be seeing a lot of other research suggesting the paid market is going to be far larger than the ad-supported market as sentiment seems to be shifting toward subscriptions and paid downloads.

Consumer generated video contests remain popular - VideoNuze readers know I've been intrigued for a while now about contests that brands are regularly running which incent consumers to create and submit their own videos. Just this week I read about two more brands jumping on the bandwagon: Levi's and Daffy's retail stores. NewTeeVee had a good write-up on the subject, citing new research from Forrester which reviewed 102 different contests and found the average prize valued at $4,505. I see no end in sight for these campaigns as the YouTube generation realizes it's more lucrative to pour their time into these contests than training their cats to skateboard. Brands too are recognizing the wealth of amateur (read cheap!) talent out there and are moving to harness it.

MySpace has lots of work ahead to become a meaningful entertainment portal - The WSJ ran a piece on Monday based on an interview with Rupert Murdoch in which he was quoted as saying MySpace will be refocused "as an entertainment portal." That may be the winning ticket for MySpace, but I'm not totally convinced. MySpace has been in a downward spiral lately, with a 5% decline in audience over the past year, a 30% headcount reduction and an executive suite housecleaning. While always strong in music, according to comScore, its 48 million video viewers in April '09 were less than half YouTube's 108 million, while its 387 million video views were about 5% of YouTube's 6.8 billion. Clearly MySpace has a very long way to go to give YouTube serious competition. It will be interesting to see if the new management team Murdoch has installed at MySpace can pull off this transition.

Below is the 22nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 26, 2009.

This week Daisy and I discuss the TV Everywhere and OnDemand Online initiative that Comcast and Time Warner unveiled this week. As I wrote in this post on Wednesday, the companies are beginning a trial in July for 5,000 Comcast subscribers, who will gain online access to a selection of TNT and TBS programs. The primary purpose of the trial is to test security of the content. The companies anticipate that other cable networks will join the trial too, and that other video service providers will begin their own trials in the near future.

In the podcast we explore further why granting cable subscribers online access is an important step forward in the evolution of the broadband video medium, and what it means to the overall ecosystem. There are a lot of unknowns about how TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online will work; Time Warner's and Comcast's CEO were candid about that. For now they released a set of "principles" to guide their pursuits. There will be much more to come on this story.

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 27 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

This morning I listened in on the press conference with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Time Warner Inc. CEO Jeff Bewkes where they announced a 5,000 subscriber technical trial of TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online starting in July along with a set of "principles" guiding their efforts. Primarily the trial will test the security of the authentication technology.

TW will make available TNT and TBS programs in the trial, and will offer additional programs over time. Comcast plans to bring in other networks too. Both executives emphatically stated that for cable subscribers there will be no additional charge for online access. The companies clearly hope to use the trial and the publicity that will surround it to galvanize interest from other cable operators and programmers.

The partnership effectively unifies the companies' disparate initiatives so that paying video subscribers will be "authenticated" to receive certain cable network programming online. Up until now Comcast has been pursuing its own vision of online access under a plan it dubbed "OnDemand Online," while TW has been pursuing a plan it called "TV Everywhere." The essential difference between the two, as I wrote about here, was that Comcast planned to only make programs available on its owned sites (at least initially), which TW talked of multiple third parties gaining access as well, right off the bat.

I've been critical of TW's approach to date as I thought it was wildly ambitious and under-estimated the technical challenges involved in pulling off third party integration. On the other hand, Comcast's walk-before-you-run attitude seemed far more practical. On the call, Mr. Bewkes in particular continued to downplay the difficulty of authenticating third parties, a position I think is unrealistic.

Regardless, I've been supportive of the general idea that paying video subscribers gain online access to cable programs. While some decry this as antithetical to the open, free-flowing Internet ethos, and a plot by evil cable companies to control video on the 'net, I've seen it differently.

The key is finding a model that's attractive to cable programmers (e.g. MTV, USA, CNN, etc) and consumers. Programmers benefit because they'd be provided with a viable online extension of their proven hybrid (monthly affiliate fee + advertising) business model. Until now they've been largely shut out of online distribution. That's because doing so for free would antagonize their cable/satellite/telco distributors who pay them around $25B/year. And that's before the point that free, ad-supported premium sites like Hulu have not yet proven themselves economically viable. Meanwhile, aside from a la carte paid download sites like iTunes/Unbox/others there hasn't been an online subscription model available to programmers.

These are some of the real, but often not well-understood business issues. Everyone wants something-for-nothing, and the Internet has too often set those expectations. But cable programmers need to get paid for their efforts so they can continue to deliver the quality programming consumers have grown accustomed to. The newspaper industry's woes offer tangible proof of what happens to an industry when its proven business model gets stripped away.

Despite what some skeptics say, consumers also stand to gain. All that great cable programming that's been locked to the set-top box in the home would now be available online. It sort of like cable's version of on demand Sling, but without any upfront or monthly charge (at least that's what we're hearing for now).

With TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online, Comcast and Time Warner are taking a solid step forward in delivering more value to their subscribers who increasingly live their lives online. Now they need to tamp down the hype and just focus on executing in a logical, user-friendly way.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

I've written a number of times (here, here, here) over the last few months about the recently disclosed plans from Comcast and Time Warner to deliver cable programs online to their paying subscribers. In general I'm a big fan, as these plans offer the potential for users to watch cable shows online that are mostly available through in-home set-top boxes only today. I'm also encouraged that cable operators seem to be going on the offensive to satisfy their subscribers' desire for anytime, anyplace access to content they're already paying for. Being offensive will certainly help mitigate "cord-cutting" tendencies.

However, if there's a fly in the ointment in these plans, it's how the cable subscriber will be "authenticated," or recognized as qualified to access that particular content at the web site where he/she's trying to watch. This is a crucial step because again, these cable operators only plan to provide access to paying subscribers of their traditional video services. To understand this how Comcast is approaching authentication, last week I spoke to Sam Schwartz, Comcast Interactive Media's EVP of Strategy and Development, and president of Comcast Interactive Capital, who is a point man for the company's OnDemand Online initiative.

Overall, Sam explained that the company is still working through how best to authenticate online users and keep content secure. Users will need to log in and then have their credentials checked to ascertain what programming they're entitled to. So the crucial step here is opening up traditional cable billing systems for access by web sites serving up the desired content. This isn't trivial because these billing systems weren't originally built to do this. Therefore there's a need for some type of entitlement database which must be pinged with the user's credentials to verify content access.

To prevent leakage in the authentication process Sam said the company is studying best practices from other digital providers. iTunes is one model which limits content availability to 5 devices. Alternatively, if access is within the home, then Comcast, as a large broadband ISP, would be able to verify IP addresses. Yet another method would be to require a credit card, which would disincent credentials sharing by subscribers. Two Comcast companies, thePlatform and Plaxo are playing key roles in supporting both the content management/distribution and user identification.

All of this is magnified because Comcast's programming partners rightfully expect that any content Comcast is distributing will be done so in a fully secure manner. In the digital TV realm, this has traditionally been handled by the set-top box and "conditional access" software in the headend (a cable operator's distribution hub). Paid online services which are connected to incumbent video services present new issues which free ad-supported sites like Hulu and YouTube haven't had to address.

Sam said pulling all of this together has been a major project, involving 100+ people throughout the company. The complexity becomes quickly apparent as this initiative touches so many different areas - video product management, technology, operations, billing, content acquisition, customer service, online media, etc. Partly as a result of this complexity, Sam explained that at the outset simply enabling its own sites like Fancast or Comcast.net is the goal. Other 3rd party sites may come on board later, only after the model is proven in.

Though it's evident that Comcast is taking a "walk before we run" approach, Sam emphasized the company is moving this along as fast as possible. Its goal is to be in the market this year with OnDemand Online. While the utopian gadflies are already decrying these kinds of paid access services, I think they balance multiple interests well, and will help to preserve the multi-billion dollar video value chain from decomposing into a free but profitless quagmire (like other media sectors have already). If all this ends up working properly, it will be a major milestone for the video industry in general and broadband video specifically.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Side note: I was also encouraged to see Time Warner move Turner Broadcasting System veteran Andy Heller to vice chairman yesterday overseeing its networks' push for "TV Everywhere." His role as champion of TV Everywhere gives the initiative added heft. Still, the bottom line here, as explained above, is that the back-end technology must be in place before any programming starts to flow. I hope he has this priority in his new role.)

Yet when I read Mr. Bewkes's comments about TV Everywhere and its implementation, he inevitably points to what Time Warner Cable (btw, not the company he runs any longer with the spinoff now almost complete) is doing with HBO in Milwaukee. By continuing to do so, I believe he is trivializing how complicated implementing something like TV Everywhere would be across the industry and across the country.

Mr. Bewkes's sketchiness with the details of how TV Everywhere would work is obvious in his interview with PaidContent's Staci Kramer here and here. There are plenty of generalizations and descriptions of the end-state, but little offered about how this would all be accomplished. One example: "...all of the video providers would have a link in their software where they could be pinged to see if the person is a video subscriber. That's not a complicated thing. It's simply a software program that asks does anybody have Staci as a sub and then Charter says, yes, I've got her and bang."

Meanwhile because the details have been so sparse, the media has been left to come to its own confusing and often conspiratorial conclusions about what TV Everywhere really means to consumers. Here's a sample of the recent headlines: "TV Everywhere - As Long As You Pay for It," "Time Warner Goes Over the Top," "Some Online Shows Could Go Subscription-Only" and "Pay Cable Tests Online Delivery." Talk about message mismanagement...

Meanwhile cable networks are also being hurt by TV Everywhere's hype. They are being forced to respond in public (as Disney's Bob Iger did in his keynote yesterday) to these vague ideas. But it is a PR nightmare-in-the-making for them, as they need to defend why consumers will have to continue paying subscription fees to watch their programs online, while broadcast TV network programs are freely available. That's a thankless job for them, and reading through Mr. Iger's speech yesterday, you could almost sense his resentment at being forced into this position.

Why Mr. Bewkes isn't modulating his comments about TV Everywhere in light of all this eludes me. Anyone who's ever created a product knows about "roadmaps," where product features are added over time, and customers are methodically messaged about enhancements to come. With TV Everywhere, it's as if all that matters to Mr. Bewkes is talking about the glorious end state, thereby erasing meaningful online benefits that can be delivered along the way. Contrast this with Comcast's OnDemand Online plan that offers the simple, but still highly-valuable near-term proposition of online cable programs on its own sites, and possibly the networks' as well.

Happy Friday the 13th...

Below is the 10th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for March 13, 2009.

This week Will adds some detail to his recent post, "Clarifying Comcast's and Time Warner's Plans to Deliver Cable Programming via Broadband to Their Subscribers." These plans are not fully locked in, but since there have been a lot of questions about them, it seemed worthwhile to provide a quick update.

Also, Daisy discusses a recent article she wrote about Clearleap, a new broadband-to-the-TV technology company that recently announced its platform. The whole broadband-to-the-TV area has been really hot recently and we expect a lot more activity to come.

Since this is the 10th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, we thought it would be a good time to check in with listeners and get you reactions. What do you think of the format and length? We thought the most meaningful content approach would be to provide some additional insight about what we've written recently, but does this feel fresh and substantive enough? Would it be better if we discussed recent market activities that we haven't necessarily written about yet? Or maybe answered some listener questions? Or something else?

The podcast format is very flexible and Daisy and I view the VideoNuze Report as a work in progress. We'd love to hear what listeners think and how we can change and improve. Either drop me an email (wrichmondATvideonuze.com) or leave a comment.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 29 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Last week a publicly-traded communications-equipment company invited me to speak to a group of investment analysts it had assembled for its annual "investor day." In the Q&A session following my presentation I took a question that I'm not often asked, nor do I give much thought to: "10 years from now, who will be the video industry's winners and losers?"

It's a far-reaching question that doesn't lend itself well to an impromptu answer. Also, while it's great fun to prognosticate about the long run, I've found that it's also a complete crapshoot, which is why my focus is much shorter-term. I've long-believed there are just too many variables in play to predict with any sort of certainty what might unfold 10 years into the future.

Still, as I've thought more about the question, it seems to me that there are at least 5 main factors that will influence the video industry's winners and losers over the next 10 years:

1. Penetration rate of broadband-connected TVs -There's a lot of energy being directed to "convergence" technologies and devices which connect broadband to the TV. Broadband to the TV is a big opportunity for video providers outside the traditional video distribution value chain. It's also a minefield for those who have dominated the traditional model, such as broadcasters. The Hulu-Boxee spat demonstrates this. A high rate of adoption of broadband to the TV technologies will result in more openness and choice for consumers. That's a good or a bad thing depending on where you currently sit.

3. How well the broadcast industry adapts to broadband delivery - The broadcast TV industry generates about $70 billion of ad revenue annually. But both broadcast networks and local stations are on the front lines of broadband's change and disruption, putting a chunk of that ad revenue up for grabs. With broadband-to-the-TV coming, broadcast networks must figure out how to make broadband-only viewership of their programs profitable on a stand-alone basis (i.e. when the online viewing is the sole viewing proposition). Local stations face bigger challenges. As the Internet was to newspapers, broadband delivery is to local stations. They face a slew of new competitors for ad dollars and audiences, while losing their exclusive access to network programming. To what extent they're able to reinvent themselves will determine how much share they hold on to and how much others peel off.

4. How aggressively today's video providers (cable/telco/satellite) and new paid aggregators pursue broadband video delivery - While anecdotes about "cord-cutting" will no doubt only intensify, the reality is that if today's video providers adapt themselves to broadband realities, they are likely to be as strong or stronger 10 years from now. The recent moves from Comcast and Time Warner are encouraging signs that the cable industry gets that being ostriches about the importance of broadband delivery is a road to nowhere. Consumers expect more flexibility and value; incumbents are in a tremendous position to deliver. Ownership of local broadband access networks that serve consumers' unquenchable bandwidth demands is going to be a very good business to be in. That all said, new paid aggregators like Netflix, Amazon and Apple could well steal some share if they aggressively beef up their content, offer a competitive user experience and deliver a better value. They could have a major impact on online movie distribution in particular.

5. The level of investment in startups - The venture capital industry, crucial to the funding of early-stage innovative technology companies, is going through its own turmoil. The industry's limited partners have been wounded by the market's drop, causing VCs to raise smaller funds (if they're even able to do this), limit the number of investments they make, and shy away from betting on big transformational startups. Plenty of strong video technology companies are still successfully raising money, but it's harder than ever. Lots of potentially promising ideas are going begging. The length and severity of the economic slowdown will have a big effect on just how much funding new technologies that can potentially reshape the video landscape over the next 10 years.

So there are 5 factors to consider in how the video landscape shapes up over the next 10 years. Now back to the here and now..

What's your crystal ball say? Post a comment now.

First, apologies for those of you getting sick of me talking about the cable TV industry and broadband video; I promise this will be my last one for a while.

After attending the CTAM Summit the last couple of days, moderating two panels, attending several others and having numerous hallway chats, I've reached a conclusion: the cable industry - including operators and networks - is closing ranks to defend its traditional business model from disruptive, broadband-centric industry outsiders.

Before I explain what I mean by this and why this is happening, it's critical to understand that the cable business model, in which large operators (Comcast, Time Warner Cable, etc.) pay monthly carriage or affiliate fees to programmers (e.g. Discovery, MTV, HGTV, etc.) and then bundle these channels into multichannel packages that you and I subscribe to is one of the most successful economic formulations of all time. The cable model has proved incredibly durable through both good times and bad. In short, cable has had a good thing going for a long, long time and industry participants are indeed wise to defend it, if they can.

It's also important to know that the industry is very well ordered and as consolidation has winnowed its ranks to about half a dozen big operators and network owners, the stakes to maintain the status quo have become ever higher. All the executives at the top of these companies have been in and around the industry for years and have close personal and professional ties. There's a high degree of transparency, with key metrics like cash flow, distribution footprint, ratings and even affiliate fees all commonly understood.

One last thing that's worth understanding is that the cable industry has very strong survival instincts, or as a long-time executive is fond of saying, "Real cable people (i.e. not recent interlopers from technology, CPG or online companies that have joined the industry) were raised in caves by wolves." The fact is that the industry started humbly and experienced many very shaky moments. Yet it has managed to survive and continually re-invent itself (for those who want to know more, I refer you to "Cable Cowboy: John Malone and the Rise of the Modern Cable Business" by Mark Robichaux, still the best book on the industry's history that I've read).

All of that brings us to broadband and its potential impact on the cable model. As I've said many times, broadband's openness makes it the single most disruptive influence on the traditional video distribution value chain. Principally that means that by new players going "over the top" of cable - using its broadband pipes to reach directly into the home - cable's model is at serious risk of breaking down, once and for all.

The cable industry now gets this, and I believe has closed ranks to frown heavily on the idea of cable programming, which operators pay those monthly affiliate fees for, showing up for free on the web, or worse in online aggregators' (e.g. Hulu, YouTube, Veoh, etc.) sites. The message is loud and clear to programmers: you'll be jeopardizing those monthly affiliate fees come renewal time if your crown jewels leak out; worse, you'll be subverting the entire cable business model.

And this message isn't being delivered just by cable operators such as Peter Stern from Time Warner who said on my Broadband Video Leadership Breakfast panel that "a move to online distribution by cable networks would directly undermine the affiliate fees that are critical to creating great content." It's also coming from the likes of Discovery CEO David Zaslav who said on a panel yesterday that "there's no economic value from online distribution," and that "great brands like Discovery's must not be undervalued by making full programs available for free online."

The issue is, as a practical matter, can the industry really control all this? If there's zero online distribution, then as Fancast's impressive new head, Karin Gilford said on my panel yesterday, "pressure builds up and another channel inevitably opens" (read that as The Piracy Channel). The problem is that if, for example, an operator does put programs up on its own site - as Fancast is doing - they're available to ALL the site's visitors, not just existing cable subscribers, unless other controls are put in place like passwords, IP address authentication, geo-targeting, etc. But these are confusing and cumbersome to users whose expectations are increasingly being set by broadcasters who are making their primetime programs seamlessly available to all comers.

So what does this closing ranks suggest? Going forward, I think we'll still see cable networks putting up plenty of clips and B-roll video from their programs, maybe the occasional online premiere, some made-for-the-web stuff, paid program downloads (iTunes, etc.) and promotional/community building contests, as Deanna Brown from Scripps described with "Rate My Space" or Zaslav discussed with "MythBusters."

But when it comes to full cable network programs going online, I think that spigot's going to dry up. That has implications for online aggregators like Hulu, who will continue to have big holes in their libraries until they're ready to pay up for these carriage rights. And it also means that broadband-to-the-TV plays are also going to be hampered by subpar lineups unless these companies too are willing to pay for cable programming.

For my part, there are just too many moving parts for me to call this one just yet.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

The explosion in broadband video consumption is creating a significant and growing hairball for broadband Internet Service Providers, content providers, regulators and others. The core problem is that ISPs' networks are getting overwhelmed by the sheer volume of video being consumed each day.

ISPs have several ways to address the situation, but unfortunately none are perfect. For example, Comcast's approach until recently has been to use network management tools to block or slow certain kinds of traffic, such as peer-to-peer. P2P is a particular issue for cable ISPs because it uses scarce "upstream" bandwidth. Network management is highly technical, making it hard for policy-makers to understand it, let alone legislate it. So Comcast is now facing a sanction from the FCC over its network management practices (which it says it's moving away from anyway), because the FCC didn't consider them "reasonable" by its own vague definition.

Time Warner Cable is experimenting with another approach: tiers of service carrying bandwidth caps for users. This is a little bit like today's cell phone model - you buy a package of minutes, and if you go over, you pay extra. Though that may sound reasonable, it invites all kinds of confusion for consumers (e.g. "do I watch that show on CBS.com? Maybe I'd better not, I think my kids have watched a lot of YouTube clips this week and I don't want to go over my cap."). Content providers are justifiably concerned about this potential scenario. Separately, for its part, AT&T recently tried to clarify what its users can and cannot expect from their broadband subscriptions.

Yet another route is for broadband ISPs to adopt a much more expansive technical approach to how content is hosted in their networks and delivered to their users. Equipment vendors like Alcatel-Lucent and Cisco believe that ISPs could convert the current bandwidth problem into a full-fledged business opportunity. This would involve ISPs deploying hardware and software that would enable "managed services," each to be delivered at a specified quality level and for a specified price. So rather than a consumer buying a tier, they would buy a specific service offering (e.g. unlimited Hulu, with HD delivery guaranteed).

This wouldn't be a totally unfamiliar concept. Content providers have been buying managed hosting/delivery services for years from CDNs like Akamai, Limelight, Level 3 and others which guarantee certain delivery metrics. But these CDNs' guarantees can't reach into the "last mile" the ISPs' networks serve. So as ever-more bandwidth intensive content is launched such as HD and long-form, content providers should have an increasing motivation to see last mile ISPs offer comparable managed services offerings from ISPs as well.

However, ISP managed services would require fundamental changes in how these companies currently work together, and also invites concerns from "net neutrality" advocates that ISPs could bias in favor of one content provider or another when making their deals. Though compelling in concept, there are many details to sort out in the managed services approach, making it a longer-term option.

All of this just scratches the surface of the growing bandwidth hairball. Layer on the free-speech advocates like Free Press and Public Knowledge and the politicians looking to make hay with constituents and it's evident that the debate over bandwidth is only going to intensify.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

thePlatform, the video management/publishing company that's been a part of Comcast since early '06, had a very good day yesterday. First it jointly announced with Time Warner Cable a deal to power the #2 cable operator's Road Runner portal. And the Wall Street Journal ran a story stating that it has also signed deals with the cable industry's #3 player Cox Communications and #5 player, Cablevision Systems, which thePlatform corroborates.

Netting all this out, thePlatform will now power 4 of the top 5 cable industry's broadband portals (all except Charter Communications), with a total reach exceeding 28 million broadband homes, according to data collected by Leichtman Research Group. That also equals approximately 44% of all broadband homes in the U.S. And it's a fair bet that thePlatform's industry penetration will further grow.

I caught up with Ian Blaine, thePlatform's CEO yesterday to learn a little more about the deals and whether the industry's semi-standardization around one broadband video management platform harkens a serious, and I'd argue overdue, industry push into broadband video delivery.

Ian noted that of its various customer deals, the ones with distributors like these are particularly valuable because of their potential for "network effects." This concept means that content and application providers are more likely to also adopt thePlatform if their key distributors are already using it themselves. Ian's point is very valid, as I constantly hear from content providers about the costs of complexity in dealing with multiple distributors and their varying management platforms. Yet the potential is only realized if the distributors actually build out and promote their services, offering sizable audiences to would-be content partners.

This of course has been the aching issue in the cable industry. While they've had their portal plays for years, they've been eclipsed in the hearts and minds of users by upstarts ranging from YouTube to Hulu to Metacafe to countless others, each now drawing millions of visitors each month. While solidly utilitarian, cable's portals (with the possible exception of Comcast's Fancast) are not generally regarded as go-to places for high-quality, or even UGC video. That's been a real missed opportunity.

Ian thinks the industry is experiencing an awakening of sorts, now recognizing the massive potential it's sitting on. This includes its content relationships, network ownership and huge customer reach. Of course, all of this was plainly visible in 1998 as broadband was first taking off, yet here we are 10 years later, and it somehow seems discordant to think the industry is only now grasping its strategic strengths.

Some would explain this as the cable industry being more of a "fast follower" than a true pioneer, a posture that has helped the industry avoid hyped-up and costly opportunities others have chased to their early graves. Others would offer a less charitable explanation: the industry's executives have either been asleep at the switch, overly focused on defending traditional closed video models against open broadband's incursion, or both.

In truth, and as I've mentioned repeatedly, the broadband video industry is still very early in its development, making a "fast follower" strategy still quite viable. Semi-standardization on thePlatform gives the industry a huge potential advantage in attracting content providers. It also gives the industry a more streamlined mechanism for bridging broadband video over to the TV, an area of intense interest now being pursued by juggernauts including Microsoft, Apple, Sony, Panasonic and others.

Last November, Jeff Richards, VP of VeriSign's Digital Content Services, suggested to me that "net neutrality" would be the hottest broadband video topic in 2008. I was skeptical, believing that this was a classic "solution in search of a problem" and that yet again this topic would fail to gain traction among regulators and policy-makers. Based on events of the past week, it looks like Jeff may be right and I may be wrong.

Before getting to what happened this week, let's quickly understand what net neutrality means, and why it's important to all of us. To date the Internet has functioned as a level playing field of sorts. Anyone putting up a web site could be confident in the knowledge that broadband ISPs would neither favor nor disadvantage one player's access to users over another's.

Big online content and technology companies now want to codify this tradition in legislation commonly referred to as net neutrality. Big broadband ISPs (i.e. cable operators and telcos) regard this as needless regulatory meddling that would insert the government in network and technical matters it can barely understand, let alone figure out how to regulate.

This week brought news that Congressmen Ed Markey and Chip Pickering have introduced the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008" which would make net neutrality the guiding U.S. broadband policy, give the FCC additional oversight powers to ensure broadband ISPs weren't discriminating against certain traffic, require the FCC to hold 8 public "broadband summits" to bring together parties to "assess competition, consumer protection and consumer choice issues related to broadband Internet access services" and finally to report all this to Congress along with any recommendations for how to "promote competition, safeguard free speech, and ensure robust consumer protections and consumer choice relating to broadband Internet access services."

Broadband ISPs have precipitated some of this renewed interest in net neutrality with the recent news that they're de-prioritizing or blocking illegal video file-sharing traffic from services like BitTorrent (all of which was already widely understood in the Internet community). Net neutrality proponents have publicly seized on these incidents as evidence that broadband ISPs have discriminatory tendencies in their DNA, and that we're on a slippery slope to a world where broadband ISPs willy-nilly block certain traffic (i.e. their competitors) while favoring other traffic (i.e. their own services).

Last November in "Net Neutrality in 2008? Let's Hope Not." I wrote that there is no substantive current evidence to support this concern and that preemptive net neutrality legislation is unwise and unwarranted. In fact, I believe it's a net positive that broadband ISPs are proactively trying to manage their networks to ensure that legal traffic, generated by paying subscribers, is not adversely affected by the few heavy video file-sharers who diminish the network's performance for everyone. Broadband ISPs' actions help them run more efficient networks and better manage their investments, to the benefit of paying users.

Unfortunately, like many things in Washington, net neutrality is boiling down to a PR battle about how to shape policy-makers' perceptions, regardless of the underlying facts. For its part, Google is unabashedly framing this debate in populist terms, saying "net neutrality is...about what's ultimately best for the people, in terms of economic growth as well as the social benefit of empowering individuals to speak, create, and engage one another online." Huh? How does all that patriotic-sounding babble address the reality that network operators are grappling with 15 year-old kids downloading pirated HD movies, causing real and serious network congestion for everyone?

To defeat net neutrality, broadband ISPs better sharpen up their PR efforts. Congress is notoriously IQ-challenged and politically-motivated. My cynical belief is that its knee-jerk reaction will always be to do what looks best, rather than what actually is best. Then there's the current FCC chairman Kevin Martin, who has a serious anti-cable bias and will likely welcome an opportunity to smack operators. Regrettably, when taken together, Jeff Richards may indeed be right. This might be the hottest broadband video topic of 2008 and the year when net neutrality legislation finally does succeed.