At the recent CES conference, there was much discussion of 3-D TV, mobile devices and tablet PCs. But there was also a great deal of talk about the future of television and about alternatives means of delivering entertainment and information to consumers.

On this blog, I have many times written about so-called “cord cutters” – people who have canceled their cable subscription in order receive movies and television shows over the Internet. CES was filled with talk of Netflix’s deal with Warner Bros, the Boxee box, the introduction of VUDU Apps, and more. Sessions with titles like Rethinking the Future of Creative Works and Defining Internet TV focused on emerging models for the distribution of content.

What struck me at CES – as I have also been reading in the blogosphere and the mainstream press for over a year – is that we’re moving away from the current model, where 85% of U.S. households get video through a Multichannel Video Distributor, to a new disintermediated world, where you’ll get content over the Internet directly from content creators. To hear some talk about it, the current model is a dinosaur and the sooner that the cable industry can figure that out and move on, the better.

But let’s note again that 85% of U.S. households get their television from cable, DBS (DirecTV & DISH) or from the phone companies (AT&T’s U-verse & Verizon’s FiOS). In December, NewTeeVee noted that Nielsen reports that “99 percent of video is watched on a TV in the U.S.”

Americans spent 129 hours and 16 minutes per month watching TV in the latest 3-month period, seven hours and 12 minutes watching time-shifted TV, and three hours and 24 minutes watching online video.

Things will undoubtedly change. But what might account for everyone not rushing to cancel their cable today?

One possible answer can be found by looking at the example of noted blogger Ben Drawbaugh. I don’t mean to pick on him, because he’s a nice guy, but when I last wrote about cord-cutting in December, he posted this comment:

For the most part I agree with the premise of your post, the notion that more than a small percentage of people will cut the cord and use legit streaming services is just crazy.

That being said, I do cancel my cable service in January and don’t feel the need to add it back until August. So yes, I pay $50 a month to Verizon to watch ESPN and the NFL Network — because college and pro football is worth $50 a month to me — but the rest of the crap on cable can wait. What I mean is that instead I subscribe to Netflix and wait another 5 months for Netflix to mail the first Burn Notice Disc to me. So in other words, Discs and OTA HD have everything I need for much less money.

Fair enough.

This week, though, Drawbuagh wrote a post entitled, “Canceling cable: the failed experiment.” He says that he needs to a subscription for work purposes, since he writes about cable technologies. Then, he says this:

The bottom line is that I love me some football in HD, so I can’t ever see myself going without cable year round, and with the hassle involved in canceling and signing back up, the $327 a year ($62 for 7 months minus $110 savings for signing a contract) I’d save just isn’t worth it… I suspect for many it just isn’t worth it either. Sure there is lots of content out there available via other legal means, but the bottom line is that when it comes down to it, cable really isn’t that bad of a deal considering all the HD viewing options you get for the price.

As I’ve said before, cord-cutting proponents love to suggest or outright claim that you can substitute online video for cable service, but there is much you can’t get online. One of those big categories is sports.

The Return of the Subscription Model

But all this discussion may be for naught, because some new developments suggest that online video may be moving to a subscription model anyway, which puts us right back where we are today. Hulu may soon be charging a subscription fee for some of its content, as may Boxee. Brian Barrett at Gizmodo added up the numbers for your access to even get online, plus the subscription for services like Netflix, and concluded that you might end up paying “hundreds of dollars a month,” perhaps “nearly $1,000 a month.” Nicholas Carr, in a colorfully-titled post, also looks at the numbers and asks, “Now somebody remind me how we all came to think that information wants to be free.”

And yet, on that previously mentioned Rethinking the Future of Creative Works panel, the speakers couldn’t think of what the role of service providers (such as cable operators) might be in our connected future. The panel didn’t really answer an audience question on how all the content will be paid for. They didn’t really answer a question on why service providers would invest in infrastructure.

On another panel, Mitch Berman of ZillionTV said that claims that production values for movies and TV won’t be there without subscription model are overblown. On an FCC panel, Commissioner Robert M. McDowell reminded us that quality content costs money and that right now, the ways to cover those costs are through advertising or subscriptions. Even the NY Times has now announced a new plan to require some sort of subscription.

So, we may be moving to a Bright New Future a little more slowly than some are claiming. And it may be that subscriptions serve a purpose after all.

Time will tell.

Free Press’s description of TV Everywhere is a reminder of the admonition that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts.  The call for an “investigation” of TV Everywhere has no factual or legal basis, no matter how many times Free Press and its allies repeat the words “collusion,” “cartel” and “illegal.”  In the name of protecting competition, they would actually reduce the amount of online content available to consumers.

For those unfamiliar with TV Everywhere, it is just one of several concepts, based on different technologies and business models, being developed for the online video marketplace.  TV Everywhere, specifically, would provide a new service at no extra charge to consumers who subscribe to a multichannel video programming service – whether provided by cable, satellite or telephone companies:  the ability to watch TV programs on PCs or laptops, and potentially other Internet-connected devices.  It could significantly increase the amount of high-value video content available online – something the FCC has said would help drive broadband adoption.

But Free Press’ theory seems to be that TV Everywhere poses a threat “to kill” online video competition because it would only be available to cable and other pay TV subscribers.  But they get it exactly backwards:  It is an effort to ensure more content than ever is distributed over the Internet at no extra charge to consumers.

Moreover, the TV Everywhere concept involves a multitude of competing program networks, most of which distribute their content on competing cable, satellite, telephone and online platforms.   As publicly announced, TV Everywhere envisions separate, bilateral agreements between one content company and one or more individual distributors.  It is purely vertical in nature – like any arrangement between a content company and a distributor.  As online video evolves, various distributors and content companies may – and likely will – come to widely varying bilateral arrangements.

It is no wonder that developing and implementing this concept isn’t easy, given the vast numbers of possible participants; however, calling any of this “collusion” is, to be kind, strange.  The fact that distribution of content requires a number of differing and competing parties to enter into a multitude of bilateral agreements is normal.  Contrary to Free Press’ suggestions, the antitrust laws do not prohibit, but encourage collaboration, even among competitors, that lead to innovation and new products and services for consumers.

Distributors do not have the ability to unilaterally decide how content is distributed.  Content owners, through individual business arrangements with a growing array of distributors, ultimately make those decisions – in much the same way every other sector of the economy works.  No single content owner or distributor is controlling this process or could do so.

What is remarkable about the online video industry, even at this early stage of development, is just how dynamic it is.  Content providers can elect to distribute their content through advertising models such as Hulu or subscription models such as iTunes.  MLB.TV will give you live programming, an online DVR, picture-in-picture, and much more for an annual fee.   Indeed, there are a growing number of “paid content” models emerging on the Internet—and a large and growing number of competitors using different models – from Netflix to Blockbuster to Vuze to Veoh to iReel to Sezmi to Apple TV to ESPN360 to VUDU to Miro, and on and on.

So, Free Press is really complaining about the decisions content owners make as to how their content should be distributed.  As it happens, many programmers rely on the subscriber-based license fees they receive from cable operators and other distributors to remain economically viable.  In order to sustain that model and continue investing and creating, many content owners may want to ensure that they are compensated for the viewing or use of their programs online.  There is nothing nefarious or mysterious about this:  Programmers invest tens of billions of dollars a year to produce high quality content; they have the right to experiment with different business models and determine how to recoup that investment in terms of distributing their content on different platforms.

As much as Free Press would like to suggest that something is radically different in this case, the TV Everywhere model would be nothing more than content owners extending their copyright licenses to allow multichannel video providers to make their programming available online.

 The fact that market participants are experimenting with models in addition to fee or advertiser-supported models is not a sign of anti-competitive conduct.  It is a sign of a dynamic and rapidly-changing market in which no one knows the ultimate outcome.  Free Press may prefer one video distribution model over another.  But that is for the marketplace – and content owners exercising their rights to distribute their content in the manner they choose – to sort out.  A model that would give consumers the option to get more value – by access to online content – as part of the TV subscription they already pay for is something that consumers should have the right to embrace or reject.

Time Warner and Comcast held a press briefing this morning to provide some details about the much anticipated “TV Everywhere” project that Time Warner Chairman and CEO Jeff Bewkes has been discussing for a few months including during a panel at The Cable Show back in early April.  Joining Bewkes for today’s briefing was Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian Roberts.

The main takeaway from today’s briefing is that Comcast and Time Warner will begin a trial to provide 5,000 Comcast customers access to cable programming (TBS and TNT for now) on a platform (the computer screen) where it wasn’t previously available, for no additional charge.  It is no more complicated than that.

The primary details released today include a set of principles that the companies agreed to:

• Bring more TV content, more easily to more people across platforms.
• Video subscribers can watch programming from their favorite TV networks online for no additional charge.
• Video subscribers can access this content using any broadband connection.
• Programmers should make their best and highest-rated programming available online.
• Both networks and video distributors should provide high-quality, consumer-friendly sites for viewing broadband content with easy authentication.
• A new process should be created to measure ratings for online viewing. The goal should be to extend the current viewer measurement system to include advertiser ratings for TV content viewed on all platforms.
• TV Everywhere is open and non-exclusive; cable, satellite or telco video distributors can enter into similar agreements with other programmers.

You can check out this story from CNET’s Marguerite Reardon – Comcast and Time Warner team up to deliver TV online – for a complete recap.

More details about the trial will undoubtedly be forthcoming, but the immediate knee-jerk negativity by some in the blogosphere was not only predictable, but uninformed.

But thankfully, there are also some more reasoned voices weighing in that recognize the potential of this announcement to bring real benefits to consumers by offering them access to more content in more places.  Will Richmond from VideoNuze boldly declares:

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).

Richmond takes a more rational view that this model is one that benefits both programmers and consumers, but they still need to work out some of the technical issues:

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.

The rest of Richmond’s post is available here and he also aptly highlights some of the challenges that this trial will face including the necessary business model issues that the free lunch crowd tend to ignore.

Earlier this week, I examined the recent coverage of the “cord-cutting” phenomenon. What I wanted to do was look at two questions:

• Can you really replace your cable service with just online video?
• At the present time, is this really a widespread phenomenon?

On Tuesday, when I addressed that first question, I came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to replace all the programming accessible through multichannel video by just relying on online sources. Now it’s time to look at the second point. As I suggested previously, it’s helpful to read our previous posts on cord-cutting:

• The Roles of TV and the Internet
• More Cord-cutting Coverage
• Should All Content Be Online for Free?
• Are Stories of Cable “Cord Cutting” a Myth?

How Significant Is the Phenomenon?

In my last post, I noted that the perception is that tons of television content are available for free online, but the reality is that this is not completely true for cable programming. It’s also true that, in some circles, there is a perception of large numbers of consumers fleeing cable (e.g., “Cord cutters flocking to online TV at the expense of cable“), but the reality is quite different.

Yesterday, CTAM released a new study entitled Crossing Over: Understanding Viewer Multi-Screen Migration, based on research conducted by The Nielsen Company. The media release for the study says, “The study identified eight distinct broadband user segments, determined by their levels of engagement with video content across TV, online and mobile platforms, the devices they used to consume content and their motivations for and attitudes toward using multiple platforms. ” About 8% of broadband users are identified as belonged to the group “Extreme Techies;” these people are identified as technology innovators and are the most advanced group in their consumption of online video.

How much do the Extreme Techies watch online? As noted in this Hollywood Reporter article on the study, they watch “up to 91 minutes (1.5 hours) per week, compared to the mean of 44 minutes.” That’s it. Overall, 58% of TV viewing time is spent regularly scheduled programming on a television; 20% through use of a DVR; and 6% for online video.

You might think that really young people would skew differently, but a recent survey conducted by analyst Bruce Leichtman found otherwise:

In a nationwide survey of 1,250 broadband households and separate sample group of 250 teens aged 12 to 17, Leichtman found that only 8% of respondents watch repurposed TV shows online, compared to 24% that watch news clips, 20% who view user-generated clips on YouTube and 15% that watch sports news or highlights.

The title of Leichtman’s report? The Phenomenon That Isn’t.

You might have also read about a recent Nielsen Three Screen Report shows that people are still watching TV, on a television set. Or you can check out this SNL Kagan chart on video subscriptions and notice that there doesn’t seem to be a significant decline in people subscribing to cable service. There was a Craig Moffett report written in February that said, “The Fourth Quarter of 2008 may someday be remembered as the quarter when video cord cutting… didn’t happen.” Or you might use your common sense and notice that we live in a time when sales of big-screen hi-def TVs and HD content is on the rise. You might then ask why you’d want to watch all your video on a laptop or a 24″ computer monitor instead of on a high-definition television.

And yet there was also a WSJ story yesterday: More Households Cut the Cord on Cable.

Quote One:

In what’s shaping up as the home-entertainment equivalent of severing a landline phone service, more people are joining the ranks of “cord cutters” by forgoing cable subscriptions that can run $60 or more a month.

Quote Two:

The number of cable cutters remains too small to threaten the pay-television industry.

Quote Three:

Those who end up cutting the cord do pay a price in entertainment. Pay-TV services, like cable and satellite, still carry more live events, TV shows, movies and other content for viewers to watch than what’s available online. Web TV also doesn’t offer as much high-definition content as pay TV… Some would-be cable cutters have pulled back at the last minute, in part because live events like sports are hard to find online.

I think Will Richmond summed it up nicely in the title of a recent blog post: Video Behavior Changes Suggest “Evolution,” Not “Revolution” For Now.

As I mentioned last time, online video is a wonderful thing. If you only watch broadcast TV or if you only watch a few shows, then cord-cutting may be the perfect solution for you. Otherwise, it seems more like a complement to some kind of multichannel video subscription. For robust delivery of high-quality programming to a lot of simultaneous viewers, cable is hard to beat.

For more on this issue, see recent articles from Aaron Barnhart (“Cord-cutting is an urban legend … for now“) and Carol Wilson (“Cable cord cutting debate rages on“).

Online viewing of video is on the rise. This is a fact.

But if you take the news coverage and blog posts about the “cord-cutting” phenomenon at face value, you would have the impression that this is a widespread phenomenon involving millions of consumers canceling their multichannel video subscriptions in favor of online distribution. I certainly think the issue of online video is worthy of examination, but these articles on cord-cutting seem predicated on two arguments:

• You can easily replace your multichannel video subscription by going online.
• Significant numbers of people are choosing to “cut the cord.”

I thought it would be useful to address this issue again, but this time to split the topic in to two parts. Today, I’ll look at the content portion of cord-cutting.

I also think, before I go any further, I ought to link to our previous posts on this topic:

• The Roles of TV and the Internet
• More Cord-cutting Coverage
• Should All Content Be Online for Free?
• Are Stories of Cable “Cord Cutting” a Myth?

Is Everything Online?

In online circles, there is the impression that almost anything can be found through the Internet. The Library of Congress is “the largest library in the world, with millions of books, recordings, photographs, maps and manuscripts in its collections.” Only a fraction of that material can be found online. The same is true for TV content.

I love online video. I catch up on episodes I miss, do time-shifting while traveling, check out shows that friends recommend. But, there’s an important distinction to be made here: If you’re talking about TV shows streamed free online, that category largely consists of over-the-air broadcast programming from networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX. (For some reason, The Big Bang Theory is MIA. What up?) Some cable networks do offer some shows online. But not nearly as much as broadcasters do, as noted in this recent Washington Post article on cord-cutting:

Thanks to dozens of videocasting Web sites, such as Hulu, TV.com, Joost and Fancast, full-length episodes of more than 90 percent of the shows carried by the major broadcast networks are legally accessible within a day of being broadcast, according to Forrester Research (only about 20 percent of what’s on cable is similarly available). [emphasis added]

Let’s say I want to watch news. On my way to work, I’ll watch the previous evening’s Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show on my iPod. But suppose there’s a breaking news story? You can’t watch live streaming cable news. I don’t care about sports, so it doesn’t matter to me that you can’t watch sports programming online. And while some cable programming can be found online, much cannot.

So, the perception is that tons of television content is available for free online, but the reality is that this is not completely true for cable programming. The extra irony is that since the 2001/2002 TV season, the ratings for cable networks have topped those of all national broadcast networks collectively. For the ‘07/’08 season, U.S. homes spent an average of 38.6 hours per week – on a total day basis – tuned in to ad-supported cable networks compared to 26.7 hours per week for all commercial broadcast sources combined.

So, the programming available through broadcast television, with viewership that has been steadily declining over the last 15 years, is freely available online. The programming of cable television, whose viewership has been on the rise for that same period? Not so much.

Why Isn’t All TV Online?

Once you’ve addressed the question “Is all video online?,” you then have to ask, “Why isn’t it all online?” You might take a look at this Online Media Daily article or my recent post on the issue: A Lively Debate About Online Video. But the short answer is that there’s currently a specific business model for cable programming. Most cable networks have a dual revenue stream from advertising and from subscriptions. Right now, although companies are experimenting, moving all their video online for free doesn’t seem to make economic sense.

James Ledbetter accurately addressed the central problem in a recent column: Call It Free, But It Will Cost You:

The problem is that — outside of a handful of examples, almost all of which are Internet- or digital-based — giving things away does not work in any significant way. Here’s why: Just about any activity that merits the title “business” has a cost of producing its goods or services… Businesses need to recover labor and capital costs, and giving things away for free doesn’t meet that need.

Ledbetter talks about how this applies to the business of law or oil, but the television industry absolutely needs to recoup productions costs.

It seems to me that a key factor in cable’s success has long been our original programming. SpongeBob SquarePants, Iron Chef America, Hannah Montana, SportsCenter, The Closer, or Burn Notice – people love cable shows. Those shows cost money to produce; if the revenue for those shows decreases, then their existence may be threatened.

There’s a lot of original video available online and some it is quite good. But where are the online shows that have the quality of these cable shows? It’s not because of talent; it’s a question of how you pay for such programs. To quote again from the Post article:

…there are significant financial questions about whether “free” online video can ever become a viable business. One problem: TV shows that migrate online carry fewer commercials — often no more than two minutes of ads per half-hour program, compared with eight minutes on conventional TV. While the research company eMarketer.com predicts that online video sponsorship will grow 44 percent to $850 million this year, that’s still a tiny fraction of the $70 billion spent on cable and broadcast TV ads in 2008.

And a recent Daisy Whitney column discussed how digital studios that produce online video are struggling with the economic reality that “There’s just not enough money to go around on the Web.”

Some people seem to prefer to see cable operators as hostile to over-the-top online video. NCTA’s President & CEO Kyle McSlarrow recently addressed this point on this very blog:

…it is somewhat tiresome to have Free Press repeatedly assert that every effort by network providers to examine any new approach or idea in our or related industries is somehow designed to protect against the supposed “threat” of “Internet video.” This is so stale, and so at odds with the facts, that it really should not be necessary to point out the obvious:

• Over the last few years, the use of broadband connections to view Internet video has grown at a faster rate than any other application. According to one estimate, traffic generated by YouTube video in 2008 alone was more than the sum of traffic crossing the Internet backbone in 2000.
• Far from fearing online video, our industry is courting and exploring partnerships to bring Internet video to the television screen;
• Our industry has worked – and continues to work – cooperatively with consumer electronics manufacturers to ensure TVs can receive Internet video by building in the necessary ports;
• Our industry is the largest provider of broadband in America, and we view the health and growth of the Internet ecosystem as fundamental to our success, which means the applications and services on the Internet must thrive too;
• Our industry is aggressively deploying next generation broadband across America in order to enable, not restrict, new applications.

This analysis, of course, refers to current business models. Even now, the cable industry is experimenting with methods of offering cable programming online to subscribers, and things may change even further in the future. In my next post, I’ll examine whether people are really cutting the cord in significant numbers. [ed. note: the follow-up is here.]