Archive for October, 2008

New DOCSIS 3.0 Deployment

Here we go again, with another trip down Memory Lane…

In January, I wrote about Brian Roberts’ CES keynote, in which he talked about wideband.  In the spring, Comcast deployed DOCSIS 3.0 in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market. This week, Comcast deployed wideband service to residential homes and businesses in parts of New England, including the Boston Metropolitan region and Southern New Hampshire, as well as areas of Philadelphia and New Jersey. In addition to the new speed tiers, Comcast also is increasing speeds for most of its existing customers.

I walk though all this because many of the technology deployments we discuss on this blog are all part of a larger pattern. DOCSIS 3.0 uses channel bonding to join 6 MHz channels together to provide greater bandwidth. In order to free up channels to provide such services, cable operators have to manage their networks.That’s why you see analog channels moved to the digital tier, as I discussed again recently.

Comcast expects to reach more than 10 major markets and pass nearly 10 million homes and businesses in the next several months.

Categories: Broadband, Comcast

Retail tru2way Hits the Marketplace

Exciting news: Comcast and Panasonic announced today the first retail deployment of tru2way. Specifically, the two companies announced the arrival of the first tru2way VIERA HDTVs at retail outlets in Chicago and Denver and officially declared the tru2way platform active in those two markets.

What this means is that you can buy a tru2way TV set (initially offered in 42-inch class and 50-inch class sizes), get it set up on your Comcast service, and receive  two-way services without a set-top box.

Tru2way technology is being used to create a common software platform that will enable cable companies, consumer electronics companies, content developers, network programmers and others to extend interactivity to the TV set and other kinds of devices. The new Panasonic VIERA HDTVs are built with tru2way technology inside enabling consumers to access two-way digital cable programming, like video on demand, without a cable operator-supplied set-top box. Panasonic and Comcast have worked together to lead the development and deployment of tru2way technology and related products which are based upon specifications developed by CableLabs®, the industry’s research and development arm.

Comcast customers in the Chicago and Denver areas will be the first in the U.S. to have access to tru2way digital cable service with additional cities expected to go live in the coming months. The tru2way VIERA HDTVs will be available in the Chicago area at Abt Electronics in Glenview and at Circuit City locations and at Ultimate Electronics and Circuit City stores in the Denver area.

Let’s step back in time to January. I wrote about the launch of the tru2way brand and Panasonic & Comcast’s announcement of tru2way products. In May, I posted a video introduction to tru2way, shot at the CableNET exhibit during The Cable Show. in June, I posted about CableCARDs and tru2way and how those two technologies differ and overlap.

More DTV confusion

As the Feb. 17 date gets closer, we not only see more coverage of the DTV Transition, we also get more confusion about what the transition is and what it is not. For our part, the cable industry has run an extensive consumer education campaign to alert cable and non-cable viewers about the changes coming next February.

So far, that includes TV advertising valued at $200 million. Not only has NCTA produced PSAs, but cable companies have also produced spots explaining the transition.  We have created a consumer website aimed at educating the public and participated with broadcasters, satellite companies and the telcos in multi-industry outreach to make sure consumers experience little disruption during the switch.

I want to make one key point here: A key component of our advertising campaign was directed at helping people learn how to get digital television without the use of cable. We were directly promoting a competing technology.

You can find our DTV spots at NCTA’s YouTube channel. Our advertisements were promoting the NTIA’s TV Converter Box Coupon Program, which allowed you to request a coupon that can be used to obtain a converter box so that you could receive digital TV on your analog set through an antenna. Our PSAs didn’t even promote our DTV website (Get Ready for Digital TV), but rather the NTIA’s www.DTV2009.gov.

At any rate, despite that education campaign, there are still many people confused about the DTV transition. So, let’s walk through the essentials.

The DTV Transition concerns the nation’s full power over-the-air broadcast TV stations preparing to switch to an all digital system in 2009. It is not cable’s transition.

As part of easing the move, some cable operators are promoting low-priced tiers called “lifeline service” for customers looking for an alternative for rabbit-ears reception of television. We also crafted a voluntary carriage commitment so that full power broadcast TV stations would be available on cable’s analog tiers for three years.

Given all of this, I was dismayed to see a new editorial from Consumer Reports magazine, entitled “Confused about cable?” The piece argues that cable operators are “using confusion about the forthcoming digital TV transition” to raise rates.  The “confusion” they’re referring to is the confusion between the DTV switch and cable’s own transition from analog delivery to digital.

While the broadcasters are converting to digital broadcast transmission due to government mandate, cable is transitioning to digital compression to serve our customers better.

I’ve written about this issue multiple times:

Bottom line: The broadcasters have their transition, we have ours. Cable’s efforts to move analog channels to the digital tier in order to free up bandwidth has been going on for years and will continue after Feb. 17 has come and gone. The two transitions have nothing in common, since digital cable and digital broadcast television are two separate technologies that only have the word “digital” in common.

Here’s an example. The CU article starts this way:

Should they sit down now to watch the Animal Planet channel, Heather Shorr and her daughters would no longer see snow leopards—just snow. Shorr, a Connecticut homemaker, says their cable provider has moved the channel onto a digital tier.

That’s a cute pun on “snow,” but it makes no sense. If Animal Planet was on channel 34 on the analog tier and it was moved to channel 112 on the digital, you wouldn’t see snow. You’d probably just see a different channel in its place. The use of the word “snow” probably makes the confusion worse by making it sound like a DTV Transition issue, when it is not.

Cable companies will eventually migrate all customers to digital, since multiple analog channels can be compressed into the space of one digital channel.  That additional capacity can be used to deliver more HD channels, faster Internet connection speeds or other services to come.

While the timing of the two transitions is unfortunate, and it has created a a little bit of a brouhaha, the fact is the DTV transition was supposed to be done quite some time ago, and our digital transition had begun before Congress set the hard date for the DTV switch (digital cable is a decade old).

Despite all that, we’ll keep plugging away, so that consumers can have a clear sense of the issues.  We will do all we can to ensure consumers (and reporters) have all the information they need to tell the two transitions apart, and to understand them both.

Categories: Digital Transition

More on Time Warner and LIN TV

Following up on yesterday’s post about retransmission consent negotiations between Time Warner Cable and broadcaster LIN TV, there are a few additional details.

Some blogs had interesting reactions, such as CrunchGear and VideoNuze.  Since I’m not a sports fan, I neglected to note that this past weekend’s football games focused a spotlight on this issue.  According to Multichannel News, Time Warner and LIN continued their talks yesterday. A Bloomberg story from Friday adds some nuance about the financial issues lying behind the negotiations.

Viewers of a LIN station in New York, WIVB Buffalo, got upset when they noticed some critical comments were being deleted on an online forum.  For example:

  • A viewer in Lewiston: “I thought these forums were for discussion, complaints, compliments, etc? Why is it every time I come to this forum, the posts about the TW?CHANNEL4 are deleted/removed? Whats up with that???”
  • A viewer in Tonawanda: “I came here to topix on my lunch hour to find that there are all of the sudden NO posts about your fight with time warner since SATURDAY!?!?!?!?  Considering that there were about 40 topics here last night, I find it interesting that people who claim to be “connected” would resort to such censorship.”

And so on and so on

Speaking of online forums, Jeff Simmermon, Director of Digital Communications for Time Warner Cable, did an interview with the blog Austinist about the situation with KXAN, the LIN station in Austin, TX. In addition, Simmermon and KXAN knocked gloves on Twitter. Here are some excerpts:

    whitneyredman: @KXAN_News KXAN and LIN TV is freaking laaaame.
    JeffTWC: @whitneyredman — I know the feeling, Whitney. I can’t decide this any more than KXAN can … it’s all up to LIN TV.
    whitneyredman: @jeffTWC Does LIN TV have a Twitter? :)
    JeffTWC: @whitneyredman — no, they’re just a poor little media conglomerate with a couple TV stations to limp by on …
    KXAN_News: @JeffTWC It’s not ALL up to LIN, Jeff. Check out the facts at http://blogs.kxan.com/kxantimewarner
    JeffTWC: @KXAN_News — if “less than a penny per day per subscriber” is such a piddly sum, why are you guys making such a stink?
    KXAN_News: @jeffTWC I guess we could ask you the same thing…up there in your big tower in NYC.
    JeffTWC: @KXAN_News — everyone knows I’m promoting my business’s best interests here. You’re doing the same thing and calling it journalism.
    JeffTWC: @KXAN_News — I think the real question here is: which of us is rubber, and which of us is glue?

Time Warner also launched a website on the issue: The Truth Hurts KXAN! I mentioned that Time Warner produced a video explaining how subscribers can find some content from LIN stations online for free. The video (which you can see embedded below) also explains how to connect your computer to your television in order to watch that programming on TV.

UPDATE: In Green Bay, Time Warner has the website Tell the Truth WLUK!

Categories: Time Warner

More Media Inaccuracies About A La Carte

We can only repeat ourselves on a la carte so many times before our heads burst in frustration. I think we’re one or two posts away from that point, so this may be my last word on the subject.

But first, let me explain the reason for my frustration. Rob Pegoraro, the gadget guy at the Washington Post, has an article up about beating the high costs of high tech in a slow economy.  In it he extols what he believes to be the virtues of a) Internet video and b) a la carte TV.

You can also turn your broadband connection into your TV service. The networks offer free streaming video of most shows at their own sites and such third-party portals as Hulu, and you can buy shows at Amazon’s upgraded video-on-demand service and Apple’s iTunes Store.

You may find that these options permit you to chop down your TV service to a cheaper bundle — or, if your tastes line up, drop it entirely in favor of free, over-the-air digital broadcasts. The Web can become the a la carte programming bundle that TV service providers refuse to sell you, greatly reducing your monthly costs. And in the process, you can help teach the cable and satellite folks that we’d like that choice.

Pegoraro deserves credit for trying to help consumers manage their pocketbook in tough economic times, but a la carte is one idea that makes a good bumper sticker slogan (after all, who isn’t for more choice?) but actually would end up costing most consumers more.

First, Pegoraro suggests that you get your broadcast programming online via video portals.  This is impractical on a number of fronts not the least of which is the fact that broadcast television is free over the air.  Suggesting that you pay for broadband service to watch free TV is sort of odd – especially in an article about cutting costs.

Second, he suggests you may greatly “reduce your monthly costs”.  But is that true? For most consumers, probably not.  Let’s assume you are what Nielsen describes as a “TV user”.  On average, TV users watch a bit more than 127 hours of TV per month.  Most television programs sold through iTunes or Amazon’s Unbox run $1.99 per program whether it’s a 30 minute or a one hour program.  If your tastes run to sit-coms or home improvement shows, you’ll be paying about $4 an hour.  If you’re the TV user consuming 127 hours a month, your bill just jumped to more than $500.

If your thing is one-hour dramas, you can cut that down to about $250.

Your monthly expanded basic cable package runs you about $60.

Think of it this way:  If you’re a single person living alone, and you don’t watch all that much TV, web content in a consumption-based billing model may work for you and save a few dollars.  If you’re married, and have to worry about what two people watch, your costs start to rise dramatically.  He’s watching episodes of Eureka and Battlestar Galactica.  She’s watching Miami Ink and The Daily Show.  They both watch Deadliest Catch and South Park.  Those are just the cable favorites.  Throw in Chuck, Dirty Sexy Money, CSI and Law and Order (all 94 different versions) and you’re talking a lot of scratch for even a handful of individual programs.  Now add in a couple of kids, and you’re off to the races.

Also, Pegoraro’s piece assumes that programs would cost the same in an a la carte world as they do now.  This ignores basic market forces.  The reason your program costs $1.99 the day (or the season) after its original air date is because the network made most of the production costs back on advertising during the original airing.

If people were to totally disconnect their TVs, and only consume on demand through iTunes and Unbox, programmers would still need to make up the money they lost with no advertising during the original run.  That $2 program today may become a $5 (or more) program tomorrow.  When you’re suddenly paying $100 or more for a season of your favorite show, it might lose its luster.

The fact is a la carte has been weighed, measured, and come up wanting.  Study after study has determined that for most people costs go up, not down, in an a la carte model.  If you watch very little TV, you might see some reduction.  But based on Nielsen’s numbers, people are watching more, not less, TV.

Tags: