It’s a shame that the general public usually can’t read industry reports from Bernstein Research’s Craig Moffett. When he’s on, which is frequently, his stuff is as thought provoking and engagingly written as anything you’d see in The Atlantic or The New Yorker. So I’ll consider it a public service to summarize his compelling effort this morning to bust one of the tech world’s most fervent beliefs: that that some company — perhaps Google, or Apple, or Netflix — will topple the pay TV oligopoly by offering cable programs or channels, possibly a la carte. Microsoft recently backed away from its dream of offering a cable-like service through its Xbox game console. Others will also give up, Moffett says, because the problem isn’t that Comcast or DirecTV are ignoring consumer demand to break up the expanded basic package. Six companies — Disney, News Corp, NBCUniversal, Time Warner, CBS, and Discovery — account for 90% of all viewing hours. They demand that their channels be sold in packages, ”and only that way,” Moffett writes. Didn’t the music industry try to do much the same thing with CDs before it had to back down and sell individual tunes for 99 cents? Yes, but the music industry had to respond to Napster offering songs for free. The danger of that happening to TV channels “is nothing like what the music industry faced ten years ago (at least, not yet),” Moffett writes.
Well, then what’s to stop an online service from creating a virtual cable company — offering packages of channels via the net but for less than current pay TV providers charge? You’d think there’d be room for someone to do that considering that that consumers pay Comcast about $79 a month for programming that costs the company about $29. The first obstacle is that Hollywood studios would only help a new competitor if it offered to pay more than the current pay TV guys do. ”A subscriber lost to Comcast or DirecTV is also a subscriber lost by News Corporation and Disney,” Moffett says. The second is that streaming video entails “huge and very real infrastructure costs associated with the massive server farms, transport costs, and hosting fees…For a large scale startup, the cost could run into the billions.” And here’s the real show-stopper: The cable guys can upend the economics of online video just by adopting usage based pricing for their broadband services. Cable operators “would simply get paid in their left pocket instead of their right,” Moffett says. At the same time it would “undermine the fundamental premise of the [online provider] – that it is cheaper….Any owner of Netflix lives every day terrified that usage based pricing will become commonplace.”
The upshot of Moffett’s analysis: You can probably forget the idea of Verizon buying a company like Netflix, which the analyst dismisses as a “odd rumor.” As a major broadband provider, “Verizon obviously can’t put itself into a position where it would have to argue against usage based pricing.” He’s open to the possibility that YouTube’s new collection of channels with professionally produced content “will grow up to challenge the current hegemony.” But the more likely outcome is that ”video over the Internet will remain what it is today – a supplement rather than a replacement for the existing business model. With all its flaws.”

Around the same time sean parker was recruited by the CIA he and 2 others created napster,
is it possible that the power players in govt got tired of political protests by music artists around the world so they had the CIA destroy the music business ?
ironic, since napster, the political protesters “star artists” have gone mute as they have zero cash flow to fund their political agenda,
I also find it hard to believe that 3 kids created napster, the code alone would take a team of hundreds just to make it work,
You’re joking, right?
Anyone want to say it? Wait for it…f-u Cable industry for your crappy packaged entertainment.
Ok. Done. I’ll be in the bathroom washing out my mouth with soap (that I can’t afford, cause of my cable bill).
Apologies.
Is cable really that expensive when you think about it? For about $100 to $150 bucks, you can get internet, home phone and HD cable.
How much cheaper would it really be to have just the internet? $40? $50? throw in $10 for a home phone. Really you are spending $40 bucks on hundreds of channels of cable programming?
Am I crazy or is cable not that outrageously priced?
Why should consumers have to pay for being bombarded with advertisements? That’s really what makes the television world go round? I understand infrastructure costs on the providers’ end but can’t those be subsidized by air time charges to advertisers?
I also cut the cord last year and haven’t missed a thing.
It’s outrageously priced for the service we get. I cut the cord months ago and get by fine with streaming and a la cart services.
CHANNEL OBESITY is over.
Cable Companies are already breaking these “unbreakable” packages from Disney, Viacom etc. Cox, TimeWarner, and Comcast already offer broken packages with their lowest tiers that leave out overpriced Channels such as ESPN and FX.
The argument that these media companies hold all the cards is not supported by the fact that younger people are far more likely to be net watchers and are resistant to another monthly expense such as a cable subscription.
A realistic view is that smaller, cheaper, more focused channel bundles will be a permanent trend that the free market has already decided is the path forward to maintain and increase existing subscribers.
You heard it here first, CHANNEL OBESITY is a 1900′s fad that is on the wane. MSO’s will change to survive.
Meanwhile at Channel Obesity…
Viacom’s Philippe Dauman Makes $43.1M In 2011, Down 49% -
CEO amassed $84.5 million in stock, salary and other benefits during Viacom’s fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30,2010. Included in the giant sum is a one-time stock award — $31.7 million — which is dependent on financial goals over the next five years and was part of his new agreement signed in April 2010
Haven’t had cable/satellite in five years… don’t miss it at all. I’d rather pocket that $100 a month.
The fact is the everyday consumer doesn’t want to be bothered with a la carte. Packages bring a product to market in the most efficient way. Watching television is a passive act.
A la carte pricing may never be popular with 100% of consumers, but there’s a market for it, definitely. Watching TV may be a passive act but we’re talking about people planning their household budgets – which is not done passively, not if you have any sense.
And to watch TV via the internet requires a fair amount of active planning now, even if you’re just pirating everything you watch. The younger consumer group is being primed to be pro-active by the internet.
Agree, scifi_fan. There’s a whole lot of younger (my) generation TV watchers who don’t have, nor do we want to have to pay for things we don’t need. We’re used to on-demand, immediate gratification, which can mean anything from streaming movies via iTunes to not having to surf channels to find something we want. We type in the name of the show on iTunes/Amazon/Hulu, and boom – there it is. We don’t want to sift through 800 other channels we NEVER watch to get to the 14 we DO watch.
And for me, personally, planning that extra $50 a month (or $110 if you’re going by the $150 model for TV/phone/internet) is a hell of a lot of money I NEED with my low-paying salary (in Hollywood, nonetheless). I simply can’t afford that money going to TV and a land line I’d never use. However, I’d happily pay $55/month if it meant getting the 14 channels I WOULD watch – more than they’re worth, if you consider how much per channel you pay with a (to me) almost entirely useless “package.”
A la carte pricing would be too expensive for most consumers who really value television. Those who want just one or two channels probably don’t care enough about television to go through the whole rigmarole of ordering pay TV through the a la carte process.
The act of plopping down on the couch and switching on the game or channel surfing is passive – and many people derive a lot of pleasure from this. It can be active as well – searching for an old movie or a show you missed – but that is complimentary behavior, not dominant.
90 percent of viewers watching the big network. And this is based on what? The Neilson rating system. Of course Moffat present an argument that fly’s in the face of what is now occurring all over the world. You can sit arrogantly buy and think the Networks aren’t as antiquated as the rating system they have come to rely on. But if Europe is anything to go by, and they do make a massive percentage of over sees sales, that keep this town afloat, Europe is on it’s knees. Go to Cannes TV festival. It’s dead.
Kids below 25 do not where watches. Ever noticed that. Why. Because a watch only has one function. It only does one thing. Their cell phone does it all. So when people like Moffat try to protect the old guard, anyone above 25 might be listening. But any one below doesn’t give a shit. Network TV is will be what land lines into your home are. Rarely ever used. And when Apple offer a new way to monitor what we are watching. Neilson will be joining the networks in the scrap yard of what was. Not what is.
ive resigned to the fact that streaming will never equal cable for at least a decade probably more. but i still dont care. im a cord cutter fo life baby.
Love the cord cutting attitude.
That is a way to live! I’m sure all the most successful people sit around saying, “Man, I’m never going to spend $100 bucks a month on that!”
Get some ambition, get some drive, get a better attitude. Maybe then you won’t have to worry about an extra $100 a month.
I have limited basic cable along with my cable internet connection, and bittorrent. I see everything I want, no problem.
And I’d bet often before it plays on your local channel, from what I hear from my Bittorrent-using friends.
I don’t believe its that passive. When you sign up for the service, you have a pretty good idea of which channels you might actually want to watch.
My building in Manhattan now has the option of Time Warner and Verizon Fios for Cable. But neither one is offering HD programming in a tier without Sports or Children’s Programming.
There are many people who might actually pay for HBO or other premium channels if they didn’t pay for things like ESPN or Nickelodeon that they never use.
Here is what I don’t get and isn’t touched upon in this piece. Why don’t premium channels unpackaged themselves from cable through the Internet. I don’t pirate music since I can buy it digitally in the way I want. But if I just want to watch Game of Thrones I have to pay $40 for the privilege to pay another $30? Screw that, I can find it free online, or share an HBO Go password with my friends. The unavailability of access to premium content without a cable subscription is costing companies money.
The solution is to price premium content according to timing. $X to watch it right away via HBO subscription, $Y to wait six months and see it via Netflix or another cheaper method, maybe even $Z for a year down the line.
Books do something similar, with hardback and paperback editions. HBO can eventually capture every consumer willing to pay for Game of Thrones etc, just at different price points and time intervals, without cannibalizing their I-gotta-see-it-now audience.
The internet can help shore up the I-gotta-see-it-now audience and keep them from cheaping out on them: online discussions need to be done the day after airing, and spoilers on the internet are always a threat to those who wait. Carrot and stick.
There are several economic factors in the pay TV market that will not change unless the content providers changes the way they market their content and currently they do not have the financial motivation to change.
1. There are billions of dollars on the table here for content providers (Content owners) and they force cable to buy in packages so cable sells in packages. The cable companies make more money on selling broadband and business services than they do with Pay TV so they will be around regardless how the content is packaged and sold. In other words cable owns the pipe so no matter how the content is streamed they still make money. Pay TV is a service they provide to the customers that want it. They bundle there service in order to compete with Telco and satellite companies. Content providers will be very slow to bite the hand that feeds them billions of dollars every year. Cable has built this plant (infrastructure) themselves over the years unlike Telco that obtained government money to expand their plant and subsidized their PayTV infrastructure by raising your phone bill.
2. It is very expensive to create content and there are more losers than winners in programming. That is why content is so expensive. Streaming companies creating their own content will still have to pay the price to create winning content. Or pay the current content owners the same price that cable, Telco, and satellite pay. Either way the cost of content will eventually be equal weather it is from streaming companies or content providers. If you factor in that you are already paying for your internet with the cost of Netflix or other over the top providers, the cost become similar to cable, price adjusted for limited and older content. These pay services offer limited selection and older episodes and movies. You get what you pay for.
3. There are consumer segment life cycles to pay TV. Young viewers typically can’t afford cable as they are just getting established and have many big ticket items they are paying for and they blow most on their budget on going out and bars. Young families are in a similar economic situation but pay TV offers a better choice of programming for the kids and there is less money spent going out so they have a budget for it. Teen families are more establish and need to keep up with the Jones so cable with sports is a must and they have the money to afford it. College age families may adjust somewhat but cable is a convince they don’t want to give up.
4. The rest of TV viewing world either has other entertainment interest or does not view enough TV to make worth their time and money, or is on such a tight budget they settle for less expensive alternatives. These folks will not change the economic nature of the Pay TV market.
5 Due to the economy, cable is experimenting with a limited basic lineup in trial areas of the US. This again is a service they provide but will package with phone and internet to compete with Telco and promote their more profitable services.
Who really cares what young people do? They’re broke! For crying out loud they are starting aarp channels now.
They are broke. Which is why they’re pirating content. Which is why cable is losing, because the “young people” can get their shows free, faster, and with less hassle than TV provides.
Hi,
Customers want to save money.
The Internet is about Disintermediation.
Most forward-using people aren’t even thinking about a la Carte Channel-selection, but going straight to a la carte Programmes from across the web and providers.
Bandwidth caps would only put America even more backwards compared to the rest of the digitised/connected world.
4g mobile can handle good-quality tv,and circumvent any artificial network restrains.
Artificial bottle-necks do not work, genuine bottle-necks create a market opportunity.
Just like Kodak, just like the music industry, and then the book industry that carried on believing for so long people still want the touch of physical paper.
It’s all bits.
The web has only been around 20 years, Broadband generally less than 10, Youtube about 6, but it will be like a precipice.
Serve the customer, or get out of the way.
Yours kindly,
Shakir Razak
First rule of Pay TV, “Content is king”. It has more to do with the economics of content creation and distribution than hardware. Find a way the content providers can make as much contracted money as they do now with cable, Telco, and satellite and maybe they will be some change.
Remember that 4G networks at some point are supported by wires. Those wires are increasingly owned by cable companies as they continue to expand their infrastructure and lease excess capacity to Telco. There are no 4G networks that by pass the hard wire and increasingly these plants are bought and owned with private capital that need to be maintained at the expense of private capital.
Wake up and smell the coax and fiber. The internet and Pay TV does not come for free unless you are a thief.
We don’t want or need a true democracy – we want a republic. Louis CK can sell his DRM-free stand-up special all he likes. I would never have heard of him without the help of the television industry. Nobody would have. Film and TV haven’t figured out how to utilize new technologies. Maybe YouTube will manage to provide this but they haven’t yet.
There’s a reason Obama backed the tech companies over the studios. The money is where the consumer demand is. Consumers don’t want to pay for USA and Lifetime if 80% of what they watch is ESPN. They don’t want to pay for OWN and the Golf channel if they want AMC. And they certainly don’t want to pay for hundreds of cable channels they’ll never watch if they just want HBO. Sure, some people still treat TV-watching as a passive activity, but we live in an on-demand world now where thousands of things are fighting for our attention all at once. The modern consumer actively decides what he or she wants to watch, seeks out that content, and wants to pay just for that content (if at all). If studios can’t accommodate that, something else will. You adapt to progress, or you become extinct. Cable providers can upend online video by adopting usage-based pricing? Then do it. See what happens. Because this current model isn’t going to last.
And actually, I don’t want to pay for ESPN if I just want to watch the NBA and NFL. I don’t want to pay for HBO if I just want to watch Game of Thrones and a few movies. The company that can bring the targeted content to the consumers that want it is the future. The company that forces consumers to pay for all of its content and then try to find what they want is not.
Im not renewing my Directv when it expires this summer. Costs for TV are just too expensive and its not worth it. You can watch certain shows on the internet for free, and honestly , I could do with watching less TV. Ill buy an HD antenna and at least get broadcast channels and many shows will be watched on TV….(Just need a cheap and good way to DVR them)…I use Comcast for internet and just got their price schedule and they just keep increasing prices every year and nickel and dining for everything. I couldn’t believe all the charges. If you sneeze, they charge you. I remember a month ago some woman called me offering me some ‘free service’ – I asked her repeatedly is there a catch? of course not she said…then she said I just have to read you something…which of course said that ID get something for free for a few months and then Id have to pay an extra $10-20 a month..WHOA – You said there was no catch? Thanks but no thanks. My last bill came with 6 pages of new pricing plans and channel listings. It is so damn expensive and for mostly channels I don’t watch. Eventually a la carte will happen. Look at TV ratings, most people don’t watch TV. WHen I think I just have 2 TVs with no HD and one DVR and its still costing me more than $2 a day – its not worth it.
The source code / algorithms from Napster made illegal downloading possible on a massive scale as parts of that source code is found in kaza, rapid share, filesonic, fileserver, torrents, ect,
so now the 99% want Free to continue and they want the 1% to provide it,
I was very happy for years with foxsoccer.tv and PBS.org as my only video. The trick is persuading Comcast to install Internet only instead of one of their idiotic bundles.
Television is just like “Crack”. I’ll admit to being 64 yo. I used to listen to the ‘Lone Ranger” on the radio, we didn’t suffer from a lack of things to do. As I grew up we had three channels, if there wasn’t anything on to watch, we did something else. Today we all sit like idiots going through all the channels, more than a hundred, and we feel like we have to find something to watch. If you had to feed dollar bills into the TV to watch some of the crap on today, would you? The cable and sat companies are in charge because you let them, they supply you with the “Crack” you need to have. You want to gain control of all this, then get everybody together and boycott the suppliers, because they are more addicted to your money, then you are to their crappy programs. Get a bluray player, get a new gaming system, get a life! Everyone get together and cancel cable and sat, and you will see how fast they change their ways and beg you to come back. How can we make you happy, they will be begging you to come back on your terms, not their’s. If you continue to accept them f-ing you, then it’s nobodys fault but your own. And don’t wait for the government to come to your aid either. They are addicted to the money from the cable and sat companies. Your lives will not end if you don’t have 150 channels to watch. Your lives may actually begin. And don’t forget, they ALL conspire on what it costs, there is, no competition. They will not let competition get a foothold, they supply the “Crack” that you think you need. The CEOs get multi-millions because you give it to them. You can watch TV from Amazon prime for $79 a year, or Netflix for about the same. You can listen to the news channels on XM. Better selection there anyhow.
I don’t completely disagree, but the studios are willing to sell their networks to ANYONE that agrees to pay the subscriber fee.
If you look at the Comcast basic lineup of 80 channels, that translates to $15-20 in subscriber fees. If an OTT company can pay those fees, operate the streaming system, charge a price lower than cable or satellite, and still make a profit, there is nothing the incumbent distributors can do. The studios are arms dealers in the distribution wars, selling to anyone with cash.
Yes, the broadband provider want a usage based model, but that would have such tremendous consumer blowback that none of the politicians would want to touch legislation that breaks net neutrality. The SOPA/PIPA fight is a good example of this.
David, thank you for your article. As someone three years into research at a company developing a solution for this market. I will let you know that you, and the contriuting author are inaccurate.
Propoganda from Cable and Satellite providers is one thing. People believe the hype that content and sports programming are limited. That solutions are limited, that cable providers are setting data caps. They are not. Movies are not, daily broadcasting is not. As a matter of fact, a portion of my job is PT testing. I was tasked with watching as many programs from 6pm to 10pm on our device as possible. As a result, I watch 38 different broadcast and cable tv programs year around. All online, most with limited commercials, and absolutly NO monthly charges of any kind. In fact I’ve discovered many new programs I would have never seen. As far as Data caps, if you do some research in a few minutes you will find out why data caps will never happen. I’ll give you a hint, Cable/Satellite are not just losing cable subs. Pretty soon the broadband subs will follow… If you don’t know why, you should dedicate the rest of your week to understanding why. It will change your perspective, if it doesn’t, you didn’t find the right information.
I won’t run on.. The point is, your theory is wonderful. It’s just no connected to the reality of what is really happening.
Hope it helps.. WB