Ethernet inventor Bob Metcalfe, when I worked for him 20 years ago, taught me that we tend to over-estimate change in the short term and under-estimate it in the long term. So it can be pretty obvious what is coming but not at all obvious when. And what we know about the when of it is that making money from new technologies is often a matter of investing right before that bend upward in the hockey stick of exponential change.
We all know television is bound to enter a new era sooner or later. Heck, I’ve written dozens of columns on the subject over my 17 years in this job. But this is the first time I feel confident in saying when this TV transition will take place. It already has. Forces are already in motion that will completely transform TV over the next 24 months. Come back two years from today and it will all be different with at least a few new leaders and a few icons gone bust. Get ready for TV 3.0.
TV 1.0, starting in the 1940s, was over-the-air television. If you lived in the U.S. there were generally three channels but that was enough to get us all to buy a TV and waste several hours per day watching it. Walter Cronkite was the God of broadcast TV.
TV 2.0 was cable, which relied on the installed base of TVs created by broadcast but expanded the programming to dozens and then hundreds of specialized channels piped in through a new terrestrial network. Cable could never have happened without broadcast happening first. Today in the U.S. local broadcast channels still exist (now generally 5-10 per major media market) but 85 percent of us receive even local broadcast channels through a cable or satellite connection. What keeps local broadcasters broadcasting, rather than becoming just local cable channels, is the value of the radio spectrum they own, which they’ll lose if they don’t continue to use it (more on this below). TV 2.0 deepened the markets for both content and advertising by allowing, for example, more adult channels as well as very localized (and significantly cheaper) commercials. HBO and CNN were the twin Gods of cable TV.
TV 3.0 is so-called Over-the-Top (OTT) television — streaming video services that rely on cheap Internet service. Pioneers in this field were Hulu, Netflix, and YouTube, each providing a different kind of service and using a different business model. This is continuing the trend of each TV generation building on the installed base of the one before. OTT television requires the extensive wired broadband networks built by the phone and cable companies.
There’s an irony here that cable Internet is the seed of cable TV’s own demise but it makes some sense if you look at cable TV economics, which generally has three sources of revenue: TV, telephone, and Internet. Cable TV is at best a break-even business with most subscriber revenue passed back to content providers like HBO and even local broadcast channels. Cable telephone service was a profit center for many years, undercutting local phone companies, but the rise of OTT Internet phone services like Vonage and, especially, the broad adoption of mobile phones with flat-rate long distance has taken most of the profit out of telephony for cable companies, too. That leaves Internet as the only major profit center for cable companies today. They make most of their money from Internet service because, unlike TV, it carries no content costs.
If cable companies were more pragmatic and gutsier, they’d shed their TV and phone services entirely and become strictly Internet Service Providers. Indeed, this is the generally accepted future for cable TV. That’s the what, but as always there’s that very problematic when. No cable company has been willing to take the risk of being the first to pull those plugs, because the first one or two are generally expected to fail.
So instead the cable companies have been clinging to a hope that they’ll find ways to extend more profitable aspects of their TV business model to the Internet. This is where the fight over Net Neutrality comes in. Cable and phone companies want to sell fast lane access to OTT networks, boosting cable ISP profits. OTT video providers, in turn, want to not pay such carriage fees while consumers don’t want to pay more and are also wary of anything that smacks of Internet censorship.
The Net Neutrality debate would seem to be a check on the progression of TV 3.0, but recent events suggest that the trend is only accelerating. First, the Obama Administration has finally come down hard on the side of Net Neutrality, snubbing the FCC’s current deliberations in the process. Second, there is a wildly successful FCC spectrum auction underway right now for control of radio frequency to be used for expanded wireless data services. Third, there are suddenly a lot of new OTT video services from CBS, HBO, Sony and others. These three trends suggest to me that the TV 3.0 dam is about to break and we’ll see a grand bargain cut between the parties fighting over their use of the Net.
The Administration’s demanding that Internet service be put under Title II of the Communications Act, making it a regulated service. That scares the ISPs. So does all this extra supply of wireless broadband spectrum. The cable companies are suddenly at risk of being unseated by new wireless services just the way WiFi is supplanting wired Ethernet. Verizon is preparing to do this right now with technology bought from Intel. And at some point TV broadcast license holders are likely to give up their spectrum, too, for wireless Internet service, making tens of billions of dollars in the process.
My guess is that the Internet stays unregulated while still mandating open and fair access to consumers nad backbone connections. With that issue out of the way, TV 3.0 can move forward. And so we have HBO, CBS and Sony leading a new class of OTT services, each trying to be early enough to benefit from the coming wave, yet late enough not to be a casualty of technology change.
In response to these new networks, rumors abound that existing OTT players are going to adapt or expand their business models to better compete in the changing market. Amazon is rumored to have an ad-supported streaming video service in the works to give the online retailer more production money to compete in what is becoming a fight between studios. Amazon denies that it is working on such a service but that doesn’t mean it won’t appear.
Netflix swears it will never show ads but I’ve spoken to two people who were being recruited to help build a Netflix ad network. While some Netflix subscribers might view pre-roll ads as a betrayal, I think it bodes well for its ability to spend on even more original programming in a very competitive market for higher-quality content and especially exclusive content such as House of Cards or Orange is the New Black. That costs money, lots of money.
All of these TV initiatives will hit the US market in 2015. If the OTT networks are successful they’ll accelerate the dissolution of cable TV into Internet-based a la carte video services that should both broaden and deepen available programming. And this is key: this transition is inevitable, and while there will be losers there will be far more winners and a generally positive impact on the U.S. economy.
It’s no longer a matter of if TV 3.0 is coming, but when.
Spot on Bob! We are definitely at the turning point for OTT services. More importantly, we’re at a point where consumers, who are sick of traditional advertising models, will start seeing alternative business models for TV 3.0
Can you elaborate re models, and how those models will be likely to withstand the temptation to add advertising? So far the so-called alternatives such as HULU and Netflix are pushing ads now, just as how even contemporary cable channels find ways to integrate advertising despite the promises of “Pay TV” in the ’70s.
TV 3.0 is here but NerdTV Season 2 is not in our hands and that makes us all sad. 🙁 We love you anyway, Bob.
Wow, old man rip van winkle bobby finally woke up to what’s been happening for a decade. Congrats, bobby — we are all waiting for your scintillating discussion of buggy whips and stream engines. Great the way you keep up with the new fangled tech.
.
Nerd tv… about as relevant as bell bottoms.
Perhaps the relevant issue is that, yes, it’s been with us for a decade, and it ain’t gonna get any better, so if you rely on TV for daily entertainment and relaxation, you’d better reconnect your “expensive” cable.
[…] https://www.cringely.com/2014/12/01/tv-3-0-already/ […]
It will be interesting to see how OTT TV3 impacts pay-per-bit traffic metering.
Remember, Bob’s premise is “cheap internet service”, which may be an oxymoron when it comes to the bandwidth needed for wide-spread use, with popular programming, in high-def.
Great column, Bob. On Title II, my understanding is that this was written in the 1930s. If that’s true (is it?), then it would seem like applying that to fiber transmission & routers tricked out to process HD video is a recipe for Federal meddling in web technology.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf seems to be the actual law. It has clearly been revised far more recently, but from a cursory look — the parts from the 1930s seem to hold up pretty well. The problems seem to be in more modern parts, where lawmakers were responding to a hot-button issue without bothering to worry about general principles.
Title II is about Common Carriers. It basically says they should act like the post office: treat all customers equally, deliver the messages, and otherwise respect their privacy. To me, that seems appropriate for an ISP.
Cable companies figure that as long as they have a legally protected monopoly, they could probably get more money if they weren’t required to do those things. Since they are *also* content providers, they argue they should only have to abide by the restrictions appropriate for a publisher. Of course, publishers usually have a bit more competition…
The key indicator is HBO. It recently announced OTT service next year. All the content vendors were looking at OTT, but as Cringe pointed out, nobody wanted to be the first. HBO taking the plunge will be like the dam breaking, permitting and forcing all the others to follow. By the end of 2015, there will be no content that you can’t get OTT, and cable’s future will be in tatters. How many years it will take for Cable TV to go away is anyone’s guess. (Maybe it will hang around like AOL, living off the old subscribers.)
It’s telling that HBO is owned by Time-Warner, a cable company. Even Time-Warner can see the handwriting on the wall.
As long as ESPN stays with cable, cable will be around.
True. But I expect ESPN knows that they don’t need cable TV. But they are being a bit more cautious than HBO, which has the fully owned content and history of being the reason cable TV was successful in the first place. If HBO works out, you can best ESPN will not be left behind.
HBO and CNN are the gods of TV 2.0? No. ESPN is Titan. Eighty-five percent of both men and women watch sports (though not the same sports). When ESPN arrives via the Internet, TV 2.0 is dead and 3.0 has arrived.
Reference for the 85% claim: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/dear-mona-are-there-any-other-men-who-dont-watch-sports/
Equivalent measures for non-sports programming would include “saw at least part of a sitcom sometime in the last 3 months” or “heard some news on the radio in the last 3 months”.
There are plenty of people who care enough about sports to buy a more expensive cable package — but that number isn’t 85%, and it isn’t always something available on ESPN. For example, where I live, I’ve heard more from people who care about the Big 10 channel.
An awful lot of us are waiting for the breakup of the packaged CATV services. I currently have FIOS, previously had COX and there were a huge number of channels force on me in that I would NEVER buy on a standalone basis. I do like Formula One – but the rest of sports (NFL, WBA, WWF WhatEvah, etc) can go pound sand.
I suspect ESPN is a lot less powerful when all viewers can opt-out of it!
ESPN needs to tread a fine line.
They can’t leave cable, it pays the bills today.
There are sites directly from the league, like NFL.com. All the bigger and minor leagues will go straight over the top and not give up a slice of revenue to ESPN. That could be the cable and ESPN killer.
ESPN is doing a good job of being the host/sponsor of that content. The leagues could easily cut them out and gt more money for themselves.
Well, there it is: Washington Post is carrying an article about Dish’s new Sling TV service – that will stream ESPN among others (CNN, Cartoon Network, …): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2015/01/05/espn-goes-streaming-through-dishs-sling-tv-no-cable-required/
Sounds like it’s 1/4 of my cable bill for a handful of channels I don’t watch. I suspect most cable/satellite subscribers, who want to duplicate those channels on an internet device will find it a useful complement, but not likely a substitute, unless they only want those channels, on one device at a time.
ESPN already has an app to watch online, as well as other packages.
The advantage for them is they collect on a per subscriber basis, and the companies are not allowed to take them out of the basic tier.
Competition is a good thing!
.
As more and more content provides like HBO turn to the Internet, the cable TV and satellite firms will have to do more to keep their customers. Maybe we’ll see better prices and services. Maybe not. Change is coming. Now if I can only get a second firm to provide me high speed Internet.
The reason I would stay with cable is likely economics coupled with convenience. I’m not going to pay 50 content providers $10 each a month, so to speak. Very few shows do I care about enough to pay anything, anyway, and one cannot pay a la carte (at least not yet) for certain shows from a single broadcaster (e.g., “I only subscribe to Game of Thrones from HBO, not their other content”). Cable provides thousands of shows on hundreds of channels. Of course, I could as easily move to some Internet aggregator if they have the right collection, by all means.
Now all they media titans have to do is figure out a way to ensure that the sum of your monthly fees approaches or exceeds what you pay today. $20/month cable internet will suddenly cost $100/month if you drop packages of dozens of stations in exchange for individual subscriptions to the few networks you really want.
Also, commercials will not stay away for long. Advertising behemoths like Google and Facebook owe their ridiculous market caps to selling eyeballs and nothing else. Netflix, Amazon et. al. will sell your eyeballs too.
I have to agree….the piece of the puzzle that seems to not be mentioned nearly enough in discussions about upcoming entertainment content options is….HOW MUCH WILL IT COST???
As more and more entertainment options increase (which they will), and Americans’ employment / real buying power continues to decrease (which it will), the number one factor that it’s all gonna be about is…..THE MONEY (the moolah, the dinero, the duckets, the bread, etc. etc.).
For some reason, the corporate decision makers of entertainment content never seem to “get it” when it comes to pricing…just because consumers are all over your product at a certain price does not mean they will continue with your product if you raise the price!
This is what’s killing cable…it’s not that people don’t want cable…it’s that they don’t want to fork over $100-$200/month for it! And whereas everyone’s happy to pay $8-$9 month for Netflix, or $2.50-$5.00 for On-Demand per-show content, just watch all these businesses fail if they start jacking up their prices to be like those of the cable providers.
Basic internet access is already way over-expensive for the average American….$50-$75/month alone for just reasonable access speeds of 5-10Mbps. Nobody wants to add another $1000/year out of their ever-diminishing paycheck just to “watch TV”…..with Sports being the only possible exception, but that’s already dominated by ESPN.
Again, look at the cable companies. Satellite radio. Even Blockbuster (whose late-fees could make a simple DVD rental exceed $10). All are diminishing or gone. And IMO it’s because the cost/benefit analysis doesn’t work because it’s too damn expensive for the average consumer whose first priority is keeping the lights on, food on the table, and gas in the car.
The strongest factor in the adoption (or non-adoption) of any new entertainment provider methodology will be the economics of it. How much will the average American (or world citizen) be willing to pay? I’m afraid that amount will be regularly over-estimated by the “new” content providers.
In hard economic times, people cut back on expenses they can control. Within the “entertainment” category, they would avoid going out to dinner, travelling, live concerts, plays, and movies. The only thing left to replace them is TV at home. So while they will look for the cheapest TV option, the providers still have a captive audience, and opportunities to raise prices on these relatively less expensive forms of entertainment.
We don’t pay for TV in our house. Once in a while, Netflix will send someone a free month offer, which we always take, but then we cancel before we have to pay. Pay TV isn’t worth it.
Maybe it would be an affordable luxury if the economy picks up, but the truth of the matter is that there is so very little compelling TV to watch today. The shows we like have all gone stale as they try to re-hash episodes that another show has already done, a symptom of being too long in the tooth, and no-one wanting to kill the cash cow. The newer shows are severely lacking in originality – which goes to prove what I have always said: “The writing talent in Hollywood is a constant, but the amount of shows are proliferation.”
Stacks of old DVDs, rediscovering the enjoyment of old (very old) shows like Mister Ed and the occasional YouTube video are all we need to keep entertained from TV. It also frees us up to make real connections with live people around us when we don’t spend so much time in front of it!
Ah that’s why I buy physical media (DVDs & blu-ray), to be free from ads. I’m sure Bob’s right that someday Netflix will have its own ads as will every OTT service and those ads will be over and above a subscription fee.
.
TV 1.0 did have very few channels, TV 2.0 exploded the number of channels albeit with much recycling of crud, TV 3.0 with YouTube also exploded the number of channels again, making TV more like the Internet where anyone can put up a web page, now anyone can post a YouTube video. TV is more democratized and accessible for generators of content, but also therefore more Balkanized into siloes with fewer and fewer shows we all watch. I guess much more current Hollywood movies sliding into TV 3.0 is the new gold standard of content.
.
All this of course hinges on the phone and cable companies being content to become dumb bit pipes. I’m fairly certain they will fight that to the bitter end and net neutrality is only a starting skirmish on that one.
It isn’t one to many broadcast any more so there is no need to make every subscriber get exactly the same thing. For example Netflix could very easily make the price $8 with ads, and $12 without. TV 3.0 really means you get things your way.
Netflix “could” do that but do you really think they will? I can’t name a major, big online service that provides a model in which you can pay not to see ads. Small ones, sure. Otherwise, they seem to think that the ad revenue is better, and as with HULU and Netflix they even cram ads in on top of what you pay. So why bother to have a differentiated service, especially when no one else is doing that? We’re seeing each of these formerly-no-ad streaming services adding ads bit by bit. Whether it’s economic necessity or greed, I don’t see that any big and major caster is going to let people get out of ads.
But I hope you are correct.
Not exactly what you are thinking, but Amazon’s Kindle has this lower cost with ads/ higher costs w/o ads option for a while. I have no idea what the breakdown between the two and the effect on Amazon’s income is, however.
You’re doing it wrong.
I run AdBlock and download torrents to be free from ads.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
The problem with the cable companies doing strict internet access is profits. If there is any competition, there won’t be any. Cable TV might not be much, but at least it’s a way to offer something beyond dumb wire.
The best strategy may be to embrace the dumb pipe business. The cable companies should drop the consumer end entirely. Let others offer and compete for the customer. Since this is business-to-business, the cable companies can even offer “fast lane services” for more money because they’re merely charging their customers for service and not the consumer or the providers. More revenue will allow a wider, faster, network, and no one — not even Google will bother to compete.
It won’t be a glamorous business, but you’re out of the hold of cable service providers who want to force you to carry channels no one want and the goverment regulating your business. Those are now other companies problems
I getcha for the USA. Assuming you are totally correct and that other countries will soon follow, I wonder what the deal could be for the UK, where we viewers pay a (bargain) annual license fee to receive all the BBC channels and services.
With TV 3.0, how will the BBC be able to restrict broadcasts to paid-up UK viewers if they can no longer police transmission? What are your thoughts, Bob?
BBC is already available free on the Internet to anyone with an IP address in the UK.
They have a slick app for watching/downloading shows.
Yes I agree the BBC experience in the UK is excellent. But free? Not quite, there’s an annual licence fee. But I happily pay that for both the content and lack of ads.
But it’s effectively free, even if legally you’re supposed to buy a license. I live in Barcelona and can enjoy iPlayer easily enough. I don’t have a license but I would pay a reasonable subscription fee to access iPlayer legitimately if I could. I bet there many thousands (perhaps millions) of people in the UK accessing BBC content without a TV license. TV 3.0 could be what saves the BBC in the end.
I believe you don’t need a licence to use the BBC IPlayer, just to watch TV ‘live’ (or have your robot do it for you).
Legal technicalities aside though you should pay for the licence anyway – it’s a bargain. I’d pay it just for the (free) radio services.
Perhaps those watching from abroad could spring for a couple of DVD box sets in lieu?
Why should they continue to limit themselves to the UK? Lots of people would pay a reasonable fee for first run access to things like Doctor Who, Sherlock and Downton Abby. The BBC has been offering this in the US for 15 years with BBC America and for 40 years with Masterpiece Theater/PBS. How far away can their TV 3.0 solution be?
Here’s hoping Title II will give consumers more upstream bandwidth as well. It’s easy (for linux users at least) to stream their own videos using gnump3d. That would end the MPAA content wars. Let a million YouTubes bloom. Yeah, most of them will be cr** but so what, ’twas ever thus. No more cow-calf: https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/way-ranch
I’ve not watched an ad on TV since Windows MCE 2005 became available, when i recorded all my shows for later watching. Since around 2012 all my viewing has been online, netflix, hulu, youtube, xbmc.
While I support online watching I don’t like my ads to be too intrusive as I’ve already paid for my ISP and for a subscription although I reckon youtube has that nailed, an ad you can skip after 5 seconds before a video, that’d work for me.
I can say the same, only I was using several VCRs most of that time, and only recently switched to TiVo. In both cases regular cable TV (with a card for the TiVo) supplies the programming.
I don’t understand how you avoid watching ads on Youtube or HULU (even premium)?
The shift will be more subtle (and probably is already occurring) – there will always be people who want something simpler than the Amazon+Netflix+HuluPlus+WatchSeries+ProjectFreeTV+content-websites dance we do to find what we want to watch.
They’ll still get “cable TV” but the coax cable will vanish and their “cable” box will simply be a nice, clean aggregator that lines up feeds along the model of “channels” (some realtime/live/scheduled, some on-demand).And a free app to watch on your phone, too!
That’s what Comcast, DirecTV, Roku, TiVO, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. are hoping for – the right to power that box.
I think you’re exactly right. I’m a very casual (non-passionate, don’t care mostly, and the few shows I care about I’m not going to die if I don’t see) TV watcher, and, as TV is a shared thing in our household as in many (most?), I want a very easy and curated experience, I don’t want to spend time digging all over the place for something in which I only have casual interest.
So here it is the end of 2014. I’m still on TV 1.0. I ventured into TV 2.0 for quite a while, doubt if I’ll ever get to TV 3.0.
Me and my antenna. As long as broadcasters still send out free TV, TV 1.0 is where I’ll be.
I watch damn little of the idiot box, I quit directly paying for it years ago.
Good to see you back, Bob!
Lots of folks are opting for a combination of free TV 1.0 AND TV 3.0 (because they already pay for internet anyway) and opting out of the expensive and restrictive TV 2.0.
We’ve also skipped TV 2.0 . BTW, if TV 3.0 is totally ala carte, will ESPN be cost competitive with HBO?
I’ve found that free OTA TV is worth what you pay for it. No wonder you watch very little, there’s very little worth watching. With cable, there’s always something worth recording, throughout the entire year. It helps to use a computer to find out what’s on in advance, so you have time to make good choices, and set up the recordings.
Wow, “always something worth recording”? I’m glad for you!
That said, I do agree there’s usually something worth watching, at least, on cable. But I’ve literally gone through all the few hundred channels at times and found nothing more than “worth watching” by my own desires, and even that’s tenuous. Plenty of times, if I’m home alone, I shut it off as there really is nothing on across all those hundreds of channels that I desire to sit through.
I guess I should clarify. By “always” I mean I like to record about 14 hours of programming each week, so I can watch something pre-recorded (and ad skip-able) for two hours each day of the year. Almost all of those are prime time shows which air between 8 and 11 at night, and “cable-air” on about a dozen of the hundred or so channels available. That’s why I plan my recordings using Internet-based TV guides, preset to those favorite channels and times. Due to the way the major networks like to put their best programs on opposite each other, it’s necessary to use a 4-tuner TiVo (or before TiVo, at least 3 VCRs).
There’s no need to plan recordings with a TiVo. Just set a “season pass” for the shows you like and TiVo will automatically record for you each time that show plays. I have a list of 80 or so “season passes”. Most are PBS (which can also be streamed) and a few network shows, including sports.
Local TV news in some markets does a great job. Problem is that it’s expensive to do that and the job that local broadcasters have always had to do that will migrate to a much less expensive model.
Advertising is critical to the success of TV 3.0. People who have products and services to sell have to reach their customers. There are any number of ways to re-invent advertising in the new media environment. One thing this column drives home is that fact that those dollars wont be going to local broadcasters very much longer.
If I’m a hypothetical Comcast customer paying 100Mbps service – and the provider I want to watch is in the slow lane at – let’s say – 10 Mbps, doesn’t that mean I’m not getting the fast service I’m paying for? Don’t fast and slow lanes make a mockery of paying for a certain level of service? Will people notice they’re being screwed?
About upload speed: don’t stand on one foot waiting for that to improve. The Telelords don’t want you to participate. That might empower you. They want you to be a passive consumer of overpriced services.
It’s all very depressing. About twelve years ago I was working in a tech company and an engineer enthused about the net assured me: “Don’t worry. It’s too dispersed to be controllable by the government or the big corporations. It’s anarchy in action!” How’s that working out?
“If cable companies were more pragmatic and gutsier, they’d shed their TV and phone services entirely and become strictly Internet Service Providers.” – They can’t. There is no future there either. The future is fiber.
You do realize that cable companies have more fiber in the ground than anyone else, right? That coaxial cable only runs about a mile or so until it gets to an optical “node” that converts light to RF and vice versa.
And that coaxial cable basically carries the entire RF spectrum from “DC to daylight,” all controlled by one entity. The majority of it is TV (HD and SD) but more and more of it is being allocated for Internet service.
I’ve recently stopped buying Blu-Ray disks and just “buy” the streaming video version from Apple. The quality isn’t quite as good as Blu-Ray, but it’s close enough and I like the convenience of being to watch the content from anywhere plus storing a pile of Blu-Rays was becoming a pain. We have a decent Time Warner connection and the streaming has been rock solid from Apple/Amazon/Netflix.
My question is this, if all the people currently watching content on TV 2.0 outlets shift to OTT distribution, would the capacity of today’s U.S. internet be remotely enough to accommodate them? I’ve read Netflix accounts for around 10% of U.S. traffic but I’d think that their total viewership is still a small fraction of the aggregate TV 2.0 audience. Won’t that be the biggest bottleneck in making a transition to TV 3.0?
Thanks for adding a little common sense.
I’ve been around long enough to see all generations of TV.
1.0 was definitely the golden era of TV.
2.0 has truly been the vast wasteland…as Norman Minnow predicted.
And, I’m afraid that 3.0 will only expand the vast wasteland.
It takes some research to plan your viewing, unlike the so-called golden era. But there’s more than enough to watch if you look for it. The golden-era shows seem amateurish by comparison.
I’ve also lived through/seen all these (ridiculously labeled so-called) “versions” of TV, and I agree, there’s still and ongoing has been some really great content, but one has to find it. The more content, the harder to find. The so-called Golden Age had lots of crap as well (although there was a period in the 1950s where TV dramas were really remarkable and plenty, though that was before my time, ot an extent I think has simply proportionately not been the case since).
Cable companies (at least Comcast) are already sending the majority of their VOD content, many mainstream channels and HULU (owned by Comcast) OTT, through their web page and apps.
Typo near the end of the article: “nad” should be “and”.
@rwhisk, you are exactly wrong. The best of current TV is incontrovertibly better than the 50s – 80s.
“While some Netflix subscribers might view pre-roll ads as a betrayal, I think it bodes well for its ability to spend on even more original programming in a very competitive market for higher-quality content and especially exclusive content such as House of Cards or Orange is the New Black.”
That sounds a bit like baking a nice cake and then letting your dog crap on it.
Ha, good analogy.
I think that Netflix really is in a problem here, because people believe, perhaps falsely (I really don’t know the economics here), that they are willing to pay for the content, at least when there’s enough other people to make the cost of the content somewhere in the range of, I dunno and of course depending on the show, $0.10-$20 per show per consumer (just guessing that enough people might pay $20 per episode for their most favorite show at the top end), along with chipping in for Kickstarters, etc.. Netflix pays to that promise by providing original content in its current business model. Either they need to find a way their customers really can fund their original shows or they have no special service compared to anyone else and they “don’t matter.”
And that remains the question. Can “pay TV” ever be in play such that we can eliminate ads entirely for those paying? How much would people be willing to pay? I’d be quite happy to pay what I pay now for TV without ads, of course, and I imagine I’d pay double or perhaps triple to do so. But I have no idea what most would bear, let alone what’s required.
Bob … while I agree with where you’re headed, we’ll be limited in our usage because of the usage caps that ISPs have placed on users accounts. Up until last year, I could send/receive as much as I wanted through my ISP – no issues. Then earlier this year, they send out notice of enhancements to my plan – yes, they had increased the standard speed of my connection, but in the fine print, they had also inserted a cap on my usage. OTT will fail unless the caps are removed.
My small city recently began to build out a fiber ring. In two months, I’ll be able to pay them $50 monthly for 1GB Internet (20 times my current ISP) and another $3 for voice. I voted against this because 1) I don’t think a gov’t should compete with the private sector and 2) I don’t think they understand that bandwidth increases at nearly the same rate as Moore’s Law and they won’t be prepared to fund upgrades. But I plan to switch because I pay Comcast $300 monthly for their triple play and their customer service drives me nuts.
Really it’s TV 2.0.
.
TV either being broadcast or piped through cable with a schedule that you had to follow was TV 1.0. This model works with advertisers picking up the bill. But consumers are fed up with both schedules and adverts spoiling their shows.
.
TV 2.0 is where the consumer has taken back control of their lives and their own schedules. You may call it OTT, but this is the box-set generation buying and gorging themselves on the shows they want, watching several episodes at a time or even the whole series over a weekend.
.
The key point here is they’re buying the content in a format with no adverts to waste precious hours of their time. PVRs, such a TiVo, was the catalyst where you could skip those adverts. Now it’s both that you can skip forward anything that you’ve recorded, or you can download entire series which has no adverts at all.
.
I’m sure it also wasn’t lost on those doing the illegal downloads that they didn’t have to suffer anti-piracy adverts that we who bought the DVD had to! I personally detests DVD and Blu Rays where I can’t forward over adverts. Why is there advertising on discs I have bought?
I think that’s a much better typology and view of the matter (sorry, Cringely). I’d also say we’re really talking about “TV Casting 2.0,” as the “TV” part is mostly the same old story.
I don’t think we can even begin to refer to the evolution of streaming and television being at a “x.0” stage until the TV set (or whatever is used as such, presumably really the home “big screen” that’s hooked up to a processing device [which likely will be any number of devices such as phones, tablets, and “traditional” computing processing boxes, or perhaps the screen itself will host the central console app which speaks to a cloud sever and can also be managed/hosted on other devices) to manage it and the net for the content to stream) itself has evolved to interact better with the many varying streams.
I guess this may explain why DishNetwork is pushing satellite Internet so hard??
What will happen to them when “cable TV” is a thing of the past??
They will always have a ‘too far out in the country and away from the city” market.
I support the concept of network neutrality, but I’m not sure how it is very relevant here.
If you assume the ISPs must provide a service that is fast and consistent enough to “work” (or lose customers), then all we are talking about is varying latency – and who cares whether a video arrives a few seconds faster (again, as long it is consistent)?
When I put on two televisions at home watching the same thing, the shows are about 3-5 seconds apart. This must be due to delays locally, in my IPTV router. It is a little off-putting when you hear both soundtracks, a few seconds apart, but other than that, what does it matter?
In 1996, over a slow dial-up modem I could download and play back movie trailers, perfectly, without buffering. The keyword here is “download” for future playback. But to keep complete control over the viewing experience (i.e. advertising) and lessen the chance of perfect-copy piracy, the powers-that-be want to go with a streaming model. That means there will be bottlenecks that can’t be fixed by your router, resulting in more problems than just a few seconds of delay. Currently, popular programs are broadcast over cable, satellite, or the air, where hundreds of receivers merely eavesdrop in, simultaneously viewing or recording them. The Internet model tries to maintain a controlled, parallel, connection to each an every device, so it costs 100 times the bandwidth to send to 100 devices, than it does to send to one. Every connection competes with every other connection. Hence, I’m skeptical of the likelihood of extending the current internet model to all TV programming.
I really bemoan the loss of being able to own content. In this respect, among others, while of course it was predictable and we all saw it coming, it’s still sad how the Internet continues to unfold as opposed to the rosy dreams of the ’90s.
Downloading for future playback, also called “time-shifting” is necessary and sufficient for a pleasant TV experience, as long as it includes fast-forward and rewind capabilities. I have little need for actual long term ownership, since I can’t keep up with new content as it is. It’s quite disconcerting to think that changing security keys can take away the content you’ve paid for. Better not to have paid for it in the first place. While analog audio or video disks and tapes don’t have that problem, the playback devices eventually become non-existent, so even there your content is gone.
Wow! Just think of all the little bills we’ll get each month for everything we’ll subscribe to!
I see an excellent business case for channel aggregators to bundle channels and give us poor souls one bill each month – or year.
Hey, that’s a great idea! A company could bundle programming, as you say, helping us by curating and managing all that stuff! We could pay them monthly, and have the ability to drop/add channels!
If only we had something like that now…oh, wait…
As I said below in another comment, agreed, seriously. And if the only change in TV is going from monolithic programming providers to dozens or hundreds of providers each paid individually, then big deal, that’s not “3.0,” that’s just evolution.
TV 4.0 is already here – Popcorn Time, Sickbeard and non-US streaming sites.
And if you think content costs money, Youtube shows that unlimited entertainment is provided free by talented amateurs. The quality is improving rapidly, with the costs of production decreasing.
If your business model is built on government protection, you are doomed.
I think Youtube has rather gone downhill from years ago. Harder to find good original amateur content as it’s buried by the professional, pro-am, and pro-masquerading-as-amateur stuff, while ads are killing Youtube. I’ve stopped going there as much, by far. I can’t tell you of the last few times I went there how many times I gave up on videos because of ads.
I don’t know why Youtube (and other services, such as Twitter) don’t offer premium subscriptions so they get revenue and one isn’t assaulted with ads. I’d gladly pay.
Bob, so how does TV3.0 factor into your predictions about multicast video? I remember something about ISPs being scared to death of multicast a few years ago.
I guess I don’t see that this merits much attention. It seems very, “yeah, so what.” If all “TV 3.0” reflects is moving from TV sets on cable to TV sets on Internet streaming…meh. We know it’s happening, we see it, and the rate of change is rapid. But all it is, primarily, is moving preproduced, non-interactive content in a different way. That change seems insubstantial to me. And the only change of the business model is “nice” but … so what? So I pay a bunch of providers a little money instead of a few providers each a bunch of money. I’m not sure it represents any sort of improvement, especially as so far none of the programming I care to watch is migrating and is showing no signs of migrating.
And assuming we see ads as the primary way to share content, it’s no change at all. Nada. Same thing. I already have stopped watching Youtube beause of the ads, I’ll just stop watching more things. The model isn’t changing AT ALL. Merely going from a single cable provider who gets a lot of money to scouring the Internet for dozens of little providers and paying smaller fees and micropayments is of no real consequence to me as a consumer, especially as I’m not seeing any content benefits yet.
Now, those content benefits will come, I imagine, but nothing in this article points to that happening in the next year or three. We’re still a far way away from all the streaming services that exist providing me the convenience of a cable subscription for casual watching and intense watching of a few shows of interest. People raised on television until around 2000 are going to feel much the same for a few more years, until curated Internet services provide similar bundles of programming desired.
Also, until TV really changes its interface, feature, and dynamics, I think we’re still at TV 1.0 (okay, TV 1.85). The TV 2.0 and 3.0 changes don’t seem particularly consequential or compelling except to those in the business.
Then again, I watch a lot of TV but care about very little. So perhaps this is different to those who really love TV or to those who, conversely, really hate TV. The only societal changes this article really speaks of is location and viewing habits in the seeming impact (aside from the impact to the businesses in question), though, so I just don’t see what’s so interesting about this.
I think Bob is totally right. EVERYTHING is shifting to the “Net”. Personally, I just moved into a new apt and am NOT going to get cable tv. I’m looking into Google Chromecast and the new Amazon Fire modules. I want to watch what I want, when I want, and between Netflix & Hulu it’s all covered. I’m sick of being “pimped” into paying for cable tv bundles with channels I never watch. I’m in!
[…] TV 3.0 is already here – I, Cringely – how do telcos get rewarded? […]
I can’t wait for Bob to speculate on what comes after TV 3.0. Chaos? Nirvana? The Matrix?
“The Administration’s demanding that Internet service be put under Title II of the Communications Act, making it a regulated service” I’ve always wondered just how much the US can regulate Internet activity. After all it is a world wide service and anything you do to providers in the US is bound to affect users all over the world eventually….
Am I the only one who finds “Over The Top” to be a terrible descriptor for TV 3.0? The top of what? Who comes up with this crap? Also, get off my lawn!
I had never heard this term until I joined a cable company. From their perspective, IP TV is delivered not through their primary video delivery network, but rather it goes around, or is layered on top of, their primary network. It’s a cable-tv-centric term, for sure.
Agreed, the last time I heard that term, in was used to describe a World War I charge out of the trenches.
Rupe
If I understand what you’re saying, Bob — if some owner were to sell their station license, but not their frequency allocation (which is the really valuable part of a station anyway), they could set up a radio-frequency packet network, like an advanced version of ALOHANet, and skip all that messy digging & stringing fiber last-mile stuff, and provide television service in their area.
Only it’s IP based, so if no one is watching a particular channel, that bandwidth is available for other uses, being QOS’d. And it would provide viewer metrics that Nielsen could only dream of getting. And would let them do a-la-carte billing, which is something that customers have been asking for for years. It could also keep the one-to-many nature that current broadcasting has, since if 15,000 customers are watching a sporting event, multicast could actually work, lowering bandwidth requirements.
It would take someone bold to do this — another Ted Turner.
“They make most of their money from Internet service because, unlike TV, it carries no content costs.”
ESPN is already charging ISPs. As they transition to streaming only they will jack up the fees.
Current episodes of scripted content have been available or purchase, on a per-episode basis, commercial-free, from vendors like Amazon Video & iTunes for the last 5 years.
Watching your favorite shows via the above normally costs far less than paying $100+/month just for the cable TV part of your cable & internet bill.
Older shows are available on Hulu+ or Netflix.
I suspect it depends on what is meant by “Watching your favorite shows” and how many of them there are. My favorite shows change with the TV seasons, but cable has all the current shows there to choose from, in high quality, without buffering. With a TiVo, the recordings are essentially ad-free. Plus there are all the non-favorite, non-prime time, shows like the news and late-night programming. Also, my stream isn’t competing with every other stream for network resources, and when the Internet and cable are down, there are still older recordings ready to be played back locally. I think OTT, like OTA, is a great TV solution for people who don’t watch TV and want an excuse to reduce their cable bill.
I initially downgraded my cable to ‘broadcast only’ ($8/month) and downloaded premium cable shows (no streaming option at that time) from Amazon to my Tivo – worked fine over a $10/month, 768KBps DSL connection.
Dropped cable altogether after the digital transition, have 400+ hours of OTA shows on my Tivo, & now can either stream or as before can have cable shows downloaded automatically to the Tivo.
OTA is broadcast content, by definition. It’s true that during the proper seasons (centered around Apr-May and October-November) I record lots of shows from “broadcast sources” on the cable but not exclusively. Other cable-only channels fill the gaps, especially during the other 8 months of the year. My cable bill is about $80/mo since I don’t subscribe to any extra-cost content, just basic cable, and $5/mo of that is for a couple of cable cards.
Finally, an article NOT about IBM!
Not sure what you mean by “highest quality experience for watching TV and movies”, content or delivery. Since the content you mention is also available on cable, I assume you’re talking about the picture/sound quality. I believe the iTunes model you mention is to download for future viewing and includes ownership, similar to that of a DVD. That is, it is not streaming over the Internet. You did not mention if all those prices are for 1080i/p versions, intended to be Hi-Def. The iTunes downloads would have to undergo compression/decompression beyond the normal compression associated with SDTV or HDTV for cable or OTA, and that extra step would have to be handled by an Apple TV or a computer, since it’s not built in to every HDTV set.
Ronc,
I was suggesting that streaming is a low quality experience and alternatives are better… but, can be expensive… unfortunately.
I’m certainly not promoting Apple. I’m just saying if I want to have complete control over the content I want to watch (legally) at a high quality (Apple is compressing mpeg-4 1080p into about 2GB per hour) and be able to source just about anything that I want (except NFL and NCAA football)… iTunes is probably a very good example of that. The prices I quoted are for 1 season of HD content and I find the most desirable content to work out to about $4 per hour. The less popular content is about $2 per hour.
Blu-ray is my other favorite source of high-quality, totally under my control entertainment. But here you are paying $7 to $20 per hour. The storage requirements are huge… 15GB per hour.
I watch an occasional TV show streamed from a network’s website… like when the DVR messes up and doesn’t record. The quality is bad… but… OK, if its the “Good Wife” I guess it really doesn’t matter.
I streamed a NCAA football game for my Uncle at the family’s farm using my sisters notebook computer, my cousins Verison iPhone and my AT&T U-Verse account from a 4G (1.3Mbs) cell phone tower that was a couple miles away. Worst possible streaming experience ever. My uncle loved it. Obviously it doesn’t take much to make some people happy.
Not in my case. I record and usually watch about 2 hours/day of prime-time episodes on various cable channels, but not the so-called premium channels that cost extra. At $2/episode that alone would cost me $120/mo but my cable bill is only $80 and includes the additional 2 hrs/day I might be watching news or late night talk/comedy shows. So the value of cable depends on the amount of TV consumption, and its convenience when combined with a Ti-Vo device.
I should mention that my cable bill also includes the channels and programs my wife watches, which are generally different than mine.
I am sorry Bob but you missed the boat – sports runs the show – it drives the innovation in technology, it drives the money machine. Sports (and probably porn) gave us bigger screens and faster speeds on the chips and 3D and 4K, not Uncle Walter on broadcast TV.
ESPN, the NFL Channel, the Red Zone, the SEC network, and the Texas Channel, among others didn’t just appear because they were fun ideas – their content makes the rest of the shows and the cable shows viewership pale by comparison.
Until your internet providers can partner to show professional and collegiate sports on the internet, the little boxes will be toys. And sadly, there is no Steve Jobs around to put together an iTunes like deal that will pull all the hollywood and other media types in with the sports entertainment crowd to play through an “Apple TV” or other box. There will be someday, but it doesn’t seem to be in the near term.
Since the 50’s, the major networks have been ABC, CBS, and NBC, available OTA and on cable. They’re income comes from advertising by putting on popular content during the prime viewing hours. If you want to get a feel for the content that drives TV revenue, just look at those channels between 8 pm and 11 pm, especially during the sweeps months of November, February, May, and July: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings . I agree that sports seems to drive the purchase of new technology, but I can’t help but feel that the competitive nature of sports fans spills over into their purchasing decisions, turning them in to early adopters. I noticed this especially when it came to the first color TVs of the early 60s, the ones that were sold by the pound, and displayed the colored part of the football player’s uniform chasing behind the black and white players.
[…] Phones went from calls that required operator assistance to the ones in our pockets…computers went from “big iron” to the devices in front of us, that, thanks to Moore’s law, double in power every 18 months. TV went from rabbit ears to cable to what technology watcher Robert X. Cringely (former PBS Technology commentator) calls TV 3.0. For a concise, non-technical recap of what has, and is about to happen to TV…and a great object lesson for every executive in how all industries change and business models evolve…check out Cringely’s executive summary of why TV 3.0 is already here. […]
“First, the Obama Administration has finally come down hard on the side of Net Neutrality, snubbing the FCC’s current deliberations in the process.”
Not sure if Obama has come down hard or Verizon painted themselves into a corner – Verizon promises not to sue over net neutrality AGAIN —if FCC avoids utility rules:
“AT&T and Comcast reportedly tried to convince Verizon not to sue over the 2010 rules…”
“Verizon is [now] trying to convince the FCC that it won’t sue to block net neutrality rules as long as they’re issued without reclassifying broadband providers as utilities. Yet, Verizon did sue the FCC the last time it crafted net neutrality rules without relying on its utility regulation powers.”
“Given that Verizon now wants net neutrality rules based on Section 706, if only to avoid stricter utility regulations, the company probably wishes it hadn’t sued”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/verizon-promises-not-to-sue-over-net-neutrality-if-fcc-avoids-utility-rules/
Not TV 3.0. WW3. A long time in the making but now just right around the corner.