Boxee should be applauded for their creativity.  For years, they have proudly touted their service as the ultimate answer for consumers who want to “cut the cord” and cancel their cable or satellite service.  We disagree with their premise, but it’s a free country.

But in recent weeks, Boxee seems to have changed its tune.  Instead of telling regulators that its service is a replacement for pay TV service, they now seem to be saying that their service is dependent on subscription TV and that regulators must… wait for it… dictate how cable service is delivered to its customers.

Yes, that is correct.  This cord-cutting, end-of-cable-as-we-know-it dynamo is demanding that the FCC not allow cable systems to scramble its basic service tier (typically limited to broadcast channels, local access and a few others).  Their position is all the more ironic given that all of cable’s competitors – from satellite to Netflix to Boxee itself – already encrypt the programming they send to their customers.  But in Boxee’s world, all video service providers can innovate and compete except cable, which must remain frozen in a 1990s time warp.

What’s in It for Consumers?

But wait, Boxee’s moxie doesn’t stop there.  Their CEO Avner Ronen took to the Boxee blog this week to make the incredible claim that encryption of the Basic Service Tier wouldn’t help consumers at all.  Maybe Mr. Ronen thinks that consumers like to take time off work so they can wait at home for service calls, but I don’t think most American consumers would agree with him.

The simple fact is that basic tier encryption would eliminate the need for many service calls. Customers would be allowed to connect and disconnect service without having to wait at home or take time off work.  Admittedly, fewer truck rolls also permit the cable systems to operate more efficiently and focus service calls on more difficult installations.  But to assert that sparing millions of consumers the need to be at home to activate or deactivate cable service isn’t a consumer benefit is either completely out of touch or intentionally misleading – or both.

Ronen also injected a patently false scare tactic – that the TVs which receive basic channels without a set-top box will “go dark.”  Ronen knows that the FCC has already proposed a solution that will ensure these customers will continue to receive the channels they subscribe to by getting free equipment from their operators.

The Bottom Line with Boxee

In the end, Boxee’s disinformation campaign is nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from the fact that there is a simple technical fix that Boxee refuses to implement.  If Boxee included a CableCARD slot in its device, its customers could access encrypted channels without a set-top box.  Rather, Boxee wants cable operators and their customers to foot the bill for a special fix just for them. And if it doesn’t get what it wants, then no cable customers should get the benefits of basic tier encryption.

It’s time for Boxee to stop dealing from the bottom of the deck and for regulators to recognize that when a “competitor” asks for government help to stop the innovation and enhancement of rival services, such claims belong in the recycle bin, not an FCC docket.

Maybe because it was drawing towards the close of August when the news seems to move more slowly, but last week was quite busy for stories questioning the very existence of the cable’s video service.  This is always a ripe topic for conversation but it’s worth taking a deeper look at some of last week’s stories to show that video is holding its own.

The week started off Monday morning with this article – “In the Living Room, Hooked on Pay TV” – by Matt Richtel and Brian Stelter in the New York Times.

The proliferation of Internet video has led to much talk of “cord-cutting” — a term that has come to mean canceling traditional pay TV and replacing it with programming from a grab bag of online sources.

But so far Americans are not doing this in any meaningful numbers. “Nor is there any evidence of it emerging in the near future,” said Bruce Leichtman, the president of Leichtman Research Group, which studies consumer media habits.

Good news for cable. But the next day, SNL Kagan reported that the 2Q numbers for paid TV subscriptions fell for the first time ever. Kagan attributes the downturn to the weak housing market and high unemployment (plus the loss of customers who had initially signed up during the DTV transition).

NewTeeVee reported this as “New Numbers Reveal: Cord Cutting Is Real,” despite including cautionary quotes from SNL Kagan analyst Mariam Rondeli. Then, NewTeeVee’s Ryan Lawler claimed “The Future of TV Is Not on Cable.” (There was also this disappointing NPR story.)

It’s important to look at these numbers in context:

• Second quarter subscriptions dip every year, as students go home from school and “snow birds” close up their winter homes.
• The Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) market is quite mature and penetration is high. Most households that want multichannel video service have already subscribed.
• Some former over-the-air households, who had long held out on getting cable, took advantage of deals offered during the DTV transition of 2009 to become multichannel customers, but as those deals expired, they’ve cancelled. While looking like a group of disconnects, it’s more representative of people that resisted such services before and are now going back to their old ways.
• Total housing units were essentially stagnant for the previous five quarters (from Dec. ‘08 to March ‘10). Even so, over the last six quarters, the number of MVPD subscription additions (+2.1 million) have outpaced additions to housing units (+0.3 million) by 6.5 times. But a weak economy is having an effect. Even Karl Bode, in a post that said “Cord Cutters Are Very Real,” admitted that “it’s being driven primarily by the economy.”

A Merrill Lynch report on the 2Q numbers pointed out that the Netflix platform is growing (available on Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, and many Blu-ray players) and Hulu engagement is now up to 2.6 hours, but that Nielsen says that “American [households] are watching more TV than ever before,” up to eight hours a day (with that figure rising each year).

As if to put the icing on the cake, Wednesday brought a Bloomberg story that reported that Apple was looking to introduce 99-cent rentals of television shows. Some interpreted this as a threat to cable and the advent of true “à la carte.”

Jason Perlow at ZDNet ran some numbers to see if such a “pay as you go” approach makes financial sense (also see the analysis at GigaOM).

Previously, TechnoBuffalo noted that 99-cent rentals might not make much sense; last week, they pointed out that $40 per month for 70+ channels comes to less than $1 per channel.

So now Apple wants to charge you $1 per episode of any particular show?  Remember it’s a rental and if Bloomberg is correct, it’s only yours for 48 hours.  Pff.

Joe Flint notes some other causes of skepticism, including the critical point that “content providers need to make sure that their eagerness to embrace the future doesn’t undercut the present because if it does, there won’t be a future to embrace.” Robert McGarvey at Internet Evolution also said it might be a little too early to declare Apple’s victory.

It’s worth pointing out that 2Q reports also showed that cable took all of the net adds for broadband service. You have to connect to the Internet to get that streaming video. And Joel Johnson at Gizmodo answered the question “Why Are You Still Subscribing to Cable Television?” with some pretty good reasons to not cut the cord. Plus, some have noted that in tough economic times, cable can provide great entertainment value.

We’ll continue to see consumer have more choices for ways to enjoy video content both in and out of the home.  But it’s clear that cable’s video service is a viable choice for many.

I’ve written a number of times about so-called “cord-cutting” services in part to counter the charge that such offerings are necessarily “cable killers.” But I also keep looking into this issue because I’m genuinely interested in how the home video business is continuing to develop.

I don’t want to come across like I don’t think that over-the-top video services are great for consumers. I’m a consumer and I love ‘em. So, I wanted to point a few cool things you can see via online video.

Hulu is known primarily for its ability to catch up on the last few episodes of TV series, primarily from broadcast television. But did you know you can also watch movies?

If you like documentaries, there’s Dig!, a profile of the amusing friendship/rivalry between the bands The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols, and Big Rig, Doug Pray’s artful look at the world of long-haul truck drivers. If you enjoy Samurai cinema, check out the Zatoichi: The Blind Swordsman series (26 films were made from 1962 to 1989, plus a TV series); you can start with The Tale of Zatoichi. For comedy, revisit Mystery Science Theater 3000 or watch An American Werewolf in London for scary laughs.

If you do want to watch TV, you are strongly urged to check out the British series Spaced, with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, plus director Edgar Wright, known from Shaun of the Dead; Jessica Hynes stars with Pegg and the two created the program. Hulu has all the episodes.

I’ve written many times about the assertion that Netflix is a perfect substitute for cable service, which doesn’t make sense. Netflix’s Watch Instantly feature is limited in its offerings, but it has a lot of excellent films tucked away in dark corners.

The Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has recently become available and it’s a great adaptation of the popular book. If you like foreign movies, there’s also Costa-Gavras’ classic thriller Z, Jean Renoir’s 1939 film The Rules of the Game, the soon-to-be-remade vampire film Let the Right One In, and the gritty immigrant drama Entre Nos. For documentaries, there’s the Oscar-winning Man on Wire, The King of Kong (a hilarious look at competitive arcade gamers) and It Might Get Loud (a look at electric guitarists Jimmy Page, The Edge and Jack White).

For TV, you can catch up on all three seasons of Veronica Mars and all the seasons of Lost.

As for pure Internet content, I’ve been feeling really bad lately about not watching more of Felicia Day’s Web series The Guild, a comedy about online gamers, since the bits I’ve seen are so funny. On the other hand, I’ve become a regular viewer of Kevin Pollak’s Chat Show. Pollak has described his show as “Charlie Rose with a sense of humor” and that’s a good way to put it. As I said on my pop culture blog, it’s refreshing to see lengthy meaningful conversation. There are various ways to stream shows like these to your TV, such as through Xbox LIVE, PS3, TiVo, or the forthcoming Boxee Box.

With all these options, why still subscribe to cable? Well, I have an HD set and I like to watch hi-def programming, whether live or through VOD. Much as I enjoy streaming Netflix, the movies just aren’t as crisp and clear. This is also true of  the Internet content I watch on my TV.

With these cord-cutting options, my viewing choices are limited. I want to be able to watch news, when it happens, on the big screen. There are a number of cable programs I can’t get online. With my subscription to premium services, I get access to a lot of fairly recent theatrical films.

With my cable service, I’m also getting broadband, which enables me to get all this additional content. Even if I was inclined to “cut the cord,” I’d still need cable to get to the Internet.

With all these new services, I need additional equipment to connect the video to my television (For example, I stream Netflix through my Wii and I use a Bose SoundDock to connect my iPod to the TV). That’s fine, but what about my second TV upstairs?

Bottom line: I find the two to be complementary. They’re both useful, but my cable video service is still of value.

FINAL NOTE: I should point out that I’ve said before that any content producer needs to figure out how to recover productions costs and achieve profitability. I’ve also called attention to the news that Netflix (a distributor) is looking at having to spend more to get access to content and also noted that some video distributors have looked at moving from a free model to a subscription business. And I should note that if cable TV is a niche business, then Internet video is a super niche business.

There’s a really interesting discussion to be had about the future of delivering video to the home. Which technology makes the most sense? How will content companies make money in the future? How do we best address digital rights issues?

Instead, I usually read some “kill your cable” rhetoric.

So, that’s why I return to the topic of cord-cutting: Because everybody else keeps writing about it, often in an oddly hostile fashion.

CNET’s Marguerite Reardon started off an Ask Maggie column on cord-cutting this way:

If you are like me, you cringe every month when you pay your cable bill. And you dream of the day you can cut your cable cord and stop paying that monthly bill.

It’s not that I don’t like to watch TV. I do. But I can’t stand that I pay $140 a month to watch a handful of shows on five or six channels.

First, that $140 probably covers more than just standard programming . I pay about $180 a month to Comcast, which includes video, Internet and phone, including HD, a DVR, premium channels, and so on.

When a reader writes in how to watch video online, Reardon answers, “Good for you for cutting the cable cord!”

There are certainly people who choose not to subscribe to multichannel video services. Nothing wrong with that. But if you want to watch the programming – cable’s original shows, news, sports – then that’s how you get it.

Aaron Barnhart of TV Barn helpfully points out that, for all the complaining, people are continuing to subscribe to multichannel video service in growing numbers. But, counterintuitively, Reardon love to recommend that people unhappy with cable service should turn to cord-cutting – which doesn’t allow you to access all you can get from cable programming.

It would probably be along the lines of suggesting that people unhappy with cable should try reading a book. Did you know that libraries loan them out for free?

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the big stories in tech reporting over the past year or so has been the move by some consumers to “cut the cord” from their subscription TV service and begin relying on the Internet for the delivery of video content.  I catch up on a lot of shows myself by watching them online and this is definitely a convenient service.

While cord-cutting is definitely a trend that the entire media industry is watching, many of the articles and blog posts covering this say something like: “Tired of paying so much for cable? Cancel your subscription and turn to the Internet to serve your needs!” The direct implication of this is that you can get all the stuff you currently watch on cable television – or via DBS (DirecTV & DISH) or from the phone companies (AT&T’s U-verse & Verizon’s FiOS) – just by going online.

But all this coverage ignores the fact that you can’t do this. You can get some cable programming online, but not most of it.

Let’s focus in on a couple key elements.

From an October 29 article in the Washington Post:

[Cord-cutting] was a somewhat easy thing for us to do. We don’t watch that much TV in the first place, and most of what we do view is on the [over-the-air broadcast] networks anyway…

If you look at this post I wrote in November of last year, you’ll note the same thing: A lot of cord-cutting proponents don’t watch much television and what they do watch is from broadcast television (generally easy to find online).

From the New York Times on December 9:

…Boxee easily allows access to the Netflix streaming service, which offers up thousands of movies and television shows (just not always the most popular options).

Anyone who’s actually used Netflix’s “Watch Instantly” feature, as I have, knows that you can see older movies and some TV shows but not any of the current cable shows generating water-cooler discussion. And you don’t get any access to new hit movies.

This HuffPo post, while also proclaiming the wonders of cord-cutting, charges that major cable operators “have been pressuring TV programming networks to keep their shows off the Internet,” implying that they should be provided for free.  Perhaps the writer may be unaware that cable programmers have a dual revenue stream: They get some money from advertisers (which is based on the number of homes they’re carried in) and some money from cable operators and other multichannel video providers (called carriage fees).

Online advertising revenue has not been as lucrative yet as television has been. And multichannel video providers would undoubtedly not want to pay as much for a product that is being given away for free online.

And is this really such a good deal for consumers? The Times notes:

If you watch premium-cable television shows, you can pay more than $40 for the season of a single show. But even that is less than one month of cable.

Wait.  $40 for a season of a single show?

I’m paying Comcast about 100 bucks a month for video service, but it’s a very robust package that includes hundreds of viewing options, including multiple premium services. SNL Kagan reports that the average price for digital cable (which 67% of cable subscribers now take) is about $60 a month. I probably watch about three hours daily, for about 90 hours a month. The latest “Three Screens” report from Nielsen reports that Americans are watching an average of 31 hours and 19 minutes of live television per week or 125+ hours a month.

So, one cable show via iTunes for $40; two shows are $80. I happen to watch a lot more than two cable shows.

All this gives me a cost-cutting idea!

Anybody who knows me knows I don’t care about sports. Not professional, collegiate or amateur athletics. Given that situation, I guess I should cancel my subscription to Sports Illustrated, huh?

Yeah, I’m kidding, because I don’t have such a subscription. But it illustrates a good rule for some people: If you’re not interested in watching cable programming, you probably shouldn’t subscribe to cable television.

Online video viewing is small, but growing. The statistics are dwarfed by the amount of television delivered via traditional methods, and the number of video subscribers continues to grow. In all likelihood, those figures will shift over time. But it’s not there yet.

It’s ironic, because lots of people like cable TV precisely because of the programming. Back in the early Seventies, when I was a kid, we had cable for clear reception. By the Eighties, we had it for all the great new channels: Nickelodeon, MTV, A&E, CNN. If this service is of no value to you, then it’s wise to not subscribe. But you’re not going to duplicate the experience through your computer – not yet, anyway.

UPDATE: For more on the economics of buying programming “à la carte,” such as from iTunes or Amazon, see here and here. Bottom line: Buying individuals programs is a great cost savings, provided you watch very little TV.