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 »

Today, there was a SuperSession run by CNET entitled “Next Big Thing,” in which CNET editors set out to reveal what’s coming in three key areas: automobiles, personal handhelds and television. We here at CableTechTalk were keenly interested in the third of these topics, not just because it’s a key part of our business, but because our Fearless Leader Kyle McSlarrow was appearing on the panel

There were some interesting tidbits to be heard. For example, there are GPS systems that will search for local businesses as you travel from Point A to Point B and the #1 search is for “pizza.” The audience was polled throughout the session and most people indicated that they were not prepared to ditch their PC for a handheld device that could (supposedly) do it all.

Then Molly Wood, Executive editor, CNET.com, led a discussion with Patrick Norton of Revision3 (pictured at left), NCTA President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow (center) and George Kliavkoff of NBC Universal (on the right). Norton indicated an interest, as have others on the bleeding edge, to ditch traditional delivery methods of television and get all his viewing accomplished online through streaming and downloads. McSlarrow indicated that online content is a great complement to cable, but didn’t express concern that the cable industry should feel threatened right now. A poll of the audience confirmed that the vast majority did not intend to drop their cable or satellite service in favor on online viewing. Curiously, for what one would expect would be a tech-savvy group, about a third of the audience said they didn’t watch any online video at all.

McSlarrow acknowledged how complex the evolving business model for video is, but asked for that business to be allowed to develop without regulatory intervention. He added, “It tells you something about the economics of a la carte. There is enormous value in paying 50-60 bucks a month to watch eight hours a day, selected from hundreds of channels and large VOD libraries. Is that the right model? Let the marketplace decide.”

Kliavkoff also mentioned that NBC Universal’s new video service Hulu replicates what cable and satellite have “done well,” which is to act as an aggregator. He did say that there will be an incremental approach, due to existing contracts, but predicted that contractual issues will change over time.

Norton, formerly of TechTV, took a few shots at cable over the course of the panel and closed with a pitch for a la carte. As part of his rationale for this position, he said that he got hundreds of channels that he didn’t watch, that viewers only looked at about 20 channels over the course of a year and only really watched six of those channels regularly. Of course, as with most people who make this argument, he overlooked the fact that not everyone in a household watches the same six channels and every individual household also differs in terms of their preferences.

McSlarrow noted the attractiveness of an a la carte system, but asked if it seemed as attractive in light of abundant evidence that your new smaller package of cable channels would actually cost you more.

(I refer you to this recent column by the NY Times‘ Joe Nocera which examined the issue of a la carte and stated that “When we pay for the cable bundle we are, in effect, subsidizing those channels for everybody — including ourselves.”)