(TV) The Future of Networks? ("remote" DVR allowed)

[SirFozzie]

Today's decision by the Supreme Court to not hear an appeal on a new cable technology is very interesting, and it could have far-reaching consequences:

The Associated Press: High court won't block remote storage DVR system (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5huA29y1WNNqS4rykHhxbWlvPUcUAD994I0CO0)

Cable TV operators won a key legal battle against Hollywood studios and television networks on Monday as the Supreme Court declined to block a new digital video recording system that could make it even easier for viewers to bypass commercials.

The justices declined to hear arguments on whether Cablevision Systems Corp.'s remote-storage DVR system would violate copyright laws. That allows the Bethpage, N.Y.-based company to proceed with plans to start deploying the technology this summer.

With remote storage, TV shows are kept on the cable operator's servers instead of the DVR inside the customer's home, as systems offered by TiVo Inc. and cable operators currently do.

The distinction is important because a remote system essentially transforms every digital set-top box in the home into a DVR, allowing customers to sign up instantly, without the need to pick up a DVR from the nearest cable office or wait for a technician to visit.

Movie studios, TV networks and cable TV channels had argued that the service is more akin to video-on-demand, for which they negotiate licensing fees with cable providers.

They claimed a remote-storage DVR service amounts to an unauthorized rebroadcast of their programs.

I'd say within. 15-20 years.. the "Big Four" networks will be reduced to becoming VOD providers (with a notable exception, which I will discuss further in a bit). When this new technology comes out, Video On Demand/DVR will be pretty much the way to go.

You won't have as many people clamoring to watch the new episode of the latest sitcom or drama on the network's terms.. instead you'll get a smaller but still loyal "First-run" audience (I'd say.. maybe 50-60% of the current audience would watch it the instant that it became available), and then a long tail lasting weeks or months down the road.

Depending on the restrictions, (how much storage the Remote DVR can have, and how long you can keep it on the servers), this could undercut the market for DVD's of the season episodes... For example, if you used this service to record all of True Blood season 1, and there's no restrictions on how much you can have or how long you could have it, why would you shell out $40-$50 to get it on DVD, with all the hassle and disc swaps, etcetera?

News will also take a hit.. I can see them adopting a piecemeal "Little updates throughout the day" effect over the current appointment times (6-8 am, noon, 4-6 PM, 10-11 PM, depending on networks). At any time, click a button, and get the latest newscast on demand.

Sports will definitely be not as much affected as sitcom/drama will be. Why? Because with the prevalence of sports media these days, you can't get away from results. You can probably avoid seeing the spoilers for the latest episode of House while you watch 24, but you can't avoid seeing the result of the Pats-Jets game while watching the Dolphins-Niners game. So for 90% of sports fans, if they don't watch it live, they will already know what happened and thus have no reason to watch it taped.

Reality is also "appointment" TV, to a point.. American Idol is a good example.

Anyway, enough rambling. Do you think I'm overreaching here, or are we in for a sea change with how/when/why we watch TV going forward?

[sterlingice]

From a strictly quality point of view, I think these are the things that pave the way towards lower and lower quality drivel. As you enumerated, sports is not really affected. Nor is reality tv, for the most part. Maybe it's best for the news if the 24 hour news cycle is reduced, in a way, to the most pressing stories of the day rather than having to give the masses more and more crap to fill up their quota.

But, in general, quality scripted stuff will have lower and lower budgets as the pie is fractured more and more. On tv, lower budgets aren't really about effects but about less money to spend on good writers and good actors or keep borderline shows that are critically acclaimed but not as well watched on the air.

That said, it's not exactly the Supreme Court's place to step in and "protect" our quality of entertainment. I don't recall the 3rd Amendment being about the right to not quarter soldiers in your house so long as Law and Order is still on the air.

And, in the end, does anyone really think this is about anything more than the justices not really getting technology again? SirFozzie, you probably just summed up the important distinctions and implications better than any of them could. {Insert_Any_Justice_Name_Here} probably still has a VCR blinking midnight.

SI

[Peregrine]

SI, I think in terms of quality, we'll continue to see what has already been happening - quality shows are starting to move toward cable networks from the broadcast networks - either the pay channels (HBO and Showtime) or the cable powerhouses (USA, Discovery, etc.) There's a lot of good scripted TV out there, you just have to go more places to get it, and I think this will continue.

[albionmoonlight]

Could DVR Save Print Journalism? - The Atlantic Business Channel (http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/06/say_goodbye_to_your_dvr_boxes.php)


A few years ago I got a digital video recorder ("DVR") from my cable provider. Now, I don't know how I ever lived without it. I love pausing and rewinding the TV shows I watch, and of course, fast-forwarding through commercials. The only thing that could make my DVR experience better is if I didn't have to have that stupid box taking up space in my apartment. As though they heard my prayers, the Supreme Court decided this week not to hear a case involving that very question. The standing U.S. Court of Appeals ruling clears the way for those annoying DVR boxes to be a thing of the past.
So really, what was the harm in getting rid of the boxes? Hollywood was against it. So what better source is there than the Los Angeles Times to hear its side (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/06/supreme-court-rejects-hollywoods-challenge-to-cheaper-dvrs-.html):
The move is a blow to Hollywood, which had fought the technology all the way to the Supreme Court. Fox, NBC Universal, Paramount, CBS, Disney and other programmers argued that because Cablevision transmits recorded programs to consumers over its cable lines, the remote storage DVRs actually constitute a new on-demand service for which they should pay licensing fees.Hmmm. Let me get this straight: Since the cable company possibly only has one recording of a TV show and hundreds of customers view that same recording, that's different from if those customers had physically recorded it on their physical DVRs instead? That's crazy.
Why would Hollywood be okay with Hulu (http://www.hulu.com/) and not remote DVR storage? The article later reveals the whole story:
Of course, what this is really about is advertising. Television executives are very worried about the ease with which consumers can skip advertisements while watching recorded programs via DVRs.So why not be honest about it? Why not try to prevent people from fast-forwarding certain sections of commercials? That would cramp my style a little, but if I had to watch a few 20-second commercials once in a while, I'd prefer that to those annoying boxes. Besides, we all need bathroom breaks once in a while anyway.
Perhaps this win for DVR is also a win for print and online advertising revenue. If people can just fast-forward through their TV commercials, it's hard to understand why they would be any more effective than magazine or newspaper ads, in paper or online. That could begin to bridge the gap between what advertisers are willing to pay for TV and print/online advertising. As a result, maybe the DVR will save print journalism. I dare to dream.

This guy would rather watch commercials than have a box in his home. I don't agree with this guy.

[DaddyTorgo]

honestly i think the Supreme Court got this one wrong - it's definately more akin to an unauthorized rebroadcast, because it's being broadcast to the consumer.

And as SI said it's also a shame because it will certainly lead to fewer and fewer quality scripted shows, and more and more reality-tv shit.

[gstelmack]

As advertisers get more and more obnoxious, I look for more and more ways to avoid their ads...

[DaddyTorgo]

even with a dvr i'd say i watch ads maybe 25% of the time. or i use the ads to get up and change the laundry, or go into the other room and get something done quickly.

It's nice sometimes, but I'm not entirely isolated from ads or anything.

[SteveMax58]

This is a very critical decision in terms of how you will be able to watch TV moving forward. As Peregrine pointed out, just one example is that this tends to move the "quality" programming to subscriber fee networks like HBO, Sowtime, etc.

One thing I will say is that the movement of more programming to a subscription based model also opens the door to a-la-carte programming. I know this "sounds" nice to many, and in theory is a nice thought, but the reality there is that there is no proper mechanism to make that truly affordable or provide the amount of diverse networks you see today. Truly...if 3/4 of the networks you have available today had to stand on their own viability...you'd have 1/4 the channels for maybe 25% cost reduction. I'm not even sure about that price reduction amount (which is a highly speculative number due to the compounding variables to it) since the reduction in competive viewing leads to more entrenched fat-cat networks who dictate cost rather than compete for it. Slippery slope type of thing...hard to say if its a bed of flowers or a puddle of mud at the bottom. Either way...I didnt want to threadjack on this topic...just putting another pathway of possibility due to this decision out there.

Another advantage is the fact that you may not need a Settop Box (STB) in the future as well...if the Consumer electronics association can get their act together and create an interfacing capable HDTV that starts at
$1000. Some may not care about this...but it is important to many consumers (myself included). I can tell you CATV co's do not like purchasing STB's either...it's a win-win on that front.

As far as the big 4 networks...they will stick around but the local affiliate is likely the one that will go the way of the dinosaur at some point. You'll likely see just the big 4 in sustainable markets...and national feeds to the rest. This will likely takes quite a number of years to play out and technology could change things between now and the perceived breaking point.

[cuervo72]

honestly i think the Supreme Court got this one wrong - it's definately more akin to an unauthorized rebroadcast, because it's being broadcast to the consumer.

And as SI said it's also a shame because it will certainly lead to fewer and fewer quality scripted shows, and more and more reality-tv shit.

Possibly. It does sound like video-on-demand. But I wonder what subscribers will have access to. The thing with a box at home is that there are size limitations, and you have to know in advance what you want to tape (or instruct the box to look for it anyway). Are users going to be able to retrieve shows after the fact? How long are they going to be available? Will they have quotas?

[sachmo71]

If networks drop the quality of scripted shows, things like webisodes will move in to fill the void. With The Guild moving from it's own site to MSN and XBox Live, I think you will see more clever shows make the leap to On Demand and eventually DVR formats.

[DaddyTorgo]

If networks drop the quality of scripted shows, things like webisodes will move in to fill the void. With The Guild moving from it's own site to MSN and XBox Live, I think you will see more clever shows make the leap to On Demand and eventually DVR formats.

but you gotta pay for those somehow...

[ISiddiqui]

Possibly. It does sound like video-on-demand. But I wonder what subscribers will have access to. The thing with a box at home is that there are size limitations, and you have to know in advance what you want to tape (or instruct the box to look for it anyway). Are users going to be able to retrieve shows after the fact? How long are they going to be available? Will they have quotas?

It depends on how it is run. It seems to me that the system in use here is akin to a DVR. Whereby you choose a program and it is recorded to the Cablevision servers for you to retrieve later.

[Alan T]

It depends on how it is run. It seems to me that the system in use here is akin to a DVR. Whereby you choose a program and it is recorded to the Cablevision servers for you to retrieve later.


That is what I thought was being discussed as well. Just like some providers have multiple room DVRs, this works similarly. My understanding was that Cablevision went down this road due to licensing issues/patent issues with the Multi-room DVR capability that they could not get around so they designed what in their mind would be the next thing.

It would record the shows, but you still have to forward through commercials just like your normal home DVR.. I could be wrong though, but the previous discussion about the "Network DVR" stated that it was in no way a Video on Demand solution. It acted more like shared storage that was user initiated.

[SteveMax58]

It depends on how it is run. It seems to me that the system in use here is akin to a DVR. Whereby you choose a program and it is recorded to the Cablevision servers for you to retrieve later.

Yes...thats how it works. The initial storage capacity & time limits will be comparable to a typical DVR STB. Possible (and likely) that both will increase over time, but initially, I would expect this to look and feel very similar for many (non-technical) reasons.

[DaddyTorgo]

Aaaah - well then maybe it's less VoD then I thought...

[Klinglerware]

but you gotta pay for those somehow...

Exactly. The current webisode model still relies on paid advertising. Advertisers will be less inclined to pay if you can't guarantee the eyeballs. This is why you often cannot fast forward over the advertising on webisodes and other video content.

[Alan T]

Aaaah - well then maybe it's less VoD then I thought...

I don't know law that well, but my guess is the fact this box isn't really VoD is what caused the case to not be heard. The VoD parallel is what the content providers were trying to tie their case to by saying this was unauthorized rebroadcast (because it would be streaming from the cable provider). Basically the ruling from the court in a sense was simply that this Network DVR is just a NAS device rather than a media streamer if I understand the case correctly.

[Klinglerware]

Also, the current research seems to indicate that the DVR is not going to make TV advertising obsolete.

- you see more households who do skip commercials, but it isn't ubiquitous or consistent
- some studies also show that skippers actually pay more attention to the imagery of the commercials since they are intent on timing the skip correctly.

As for the second point, that was pretty interesting to me. When you think of the goal of advertising as being as much to keep the brand in the minds of the consumer in the long-term as much as it is to convince the consumer to buy in the short term--then advertisers may still be willing to buy even in the DVR context.

And finally, even in the world of the DVR, TV is still usually the most efficient way to reach a lot of consumers in one shot. This is why advertisers haven't stopped buying even if the effectiveness may be reduced.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm with you on most of your points for now but ...

When you think of the goal of advertising as being as much to keep the brand in the minds of the consumer in the long-term as much as it is to convince the consumer to buy in the short term--then advertisers may still be willing to buy even in the DVR context.

But only at a reduced rate, likely one so heavily discounted that it cuts extremely deeply into the networks/operators/affiliates & leads to more staff & programming cutbacks.

[SteveMax58]

I don't know law that well, but my guess is the fact this box isn't really VoD is what caused the case to not be heard. The VoD parallel is what the content providers were trying to tie their case to by saying this was unauthorized rebroadcast (because it would be streaming from the cable provider). Basically the ruling from the court in a sense was simply that this Network DVR is just a NAS device rather than a media streamer if I understand the case correctly.

I think if they want to say that Network DVR is a rebroadcast, then they should also be advocating against ANY DVR which does not restrict FFWD capabilities. All non-broadcast content is technically from a streaming server...it's the restrictions you employ in the business rules end of it(sometimes contained in the video stream like for DRM, most of the time managed by the STB software). But to me...that's a different arguement than what they were trying to fight.

[Alan T]

I think if they want to say that Network DVR is a rebroadcast, then they should also be advocating against ANY DVR which does not restrict FFWD capabilities. All non-broadcast content is technically from a streaming server...it's the restrictions you employ in the business rules end of it(sometimes contained in the video stream like for DRM, most of the time managed by the STB software). But to me...that's a different arguement than what they were trying to fight.

Yeah, that is where I get fuzzy on the entire discussion. In my mind it is just a technological advancement to the old practice of people recording tv shows on VHS to watch later. What was the law or rulings on that? I assume this type of thing falls right in line with the legality (or non-legality) of that process.

I may be completely wrong, but my understanding was that you could do that for personal use but could not give that recording to anyone else or rebroadcast it to others without written consent. The entire idea behind a DVR or now Network DVR is the same function with newer technology.

[SteveMax58]

Yeah, that is where I get fuzzy on the entire discussion. In my mind it is just a technological advancement to the old practice of people recording tv shows on VHS to watch later. What was the law or rulings on that? I assume this type of thing falls right in line with the legality (or non-legality) of that process.

There was a copy protection scheme employed by Studios made by Macrovision in the 80's which rendered VHS recordings unwatchable (or non-optimal at the least depending on the VCR). But I believe it wasnt until the late 90's or early 2000's until (IIRC) the FCC mandated the CEA to use a copy protection scheme on all newly built VCRs which comply with a single record flag(cant recall the exact term at the moment). When the single flag is used up, you would not be able to record another copy. Naturally this didnt apply to older VCRs, so it took a little while to weed this out. This "flag" was placed in the video signal (or the VBI) by the originating owner. EDIT: Just to add...it was theoretically possible to make multiple copies, just not from the same VCR.

I may be completely wrong, but my understanding was that you could do that for personal use but could not give that recording to anyone else or rebroadcast it to others without written consent. The entire idea behind a DVR or now Network DVR is the same function with newer technology.
Yeah, that is the current acceptance philosophy of DVR. It started with TiVO and likely went right over the Bureaucrats heads' at the time. If TiVO ever gets put out of business...I'd expect them to change this at some point.

[SportsDino]

A personal DVR is capturing the signal coming in to your house and storing it off for later. You paid for that signal, and its your own personal use, so I think the old VCR logic applies, whether you strip out commercials or not.

This device stores the signal on a server somewhere, presumably at your command. Since we all can assume there is no real upload bandwidth, the server does not actually receive the file from the end user, but rather, stores the signal before it ever leaves the server (I would presume). So the service is for a remote device to record something for you.

If the end user had to make a request for every DVR'ed show, than maybe we can consider this an odd extension of personal use. However, if EVERY TV show is stored and can be requested at any time... it seems like there should be some sort of opt in system for the networks to apply. It smells way too much like bending way outside the license of their copyright.

I think that is what the ultimate technology will end up as, but I think something will need to happen. Eventually I presume the contracts for new content between cable and networks are going to become very heated... as cable I think is trying to bite off more than they have a right to.

[DaddyTorgo]

if EVERY TV show is stored and can be requested at any time... it seems like there should be some sort of opt in system for the networks to apply. It smells way too much like bending way outside the license of their copyright.

this is what i originally thought it was, but it sounds like not? but then again does anyone really know what's going on inside the cable companies? would you put it past them to just have every tv show they broadcast stored?

[Klinglerware]

I'm with you on most of your points for now but ...



But only at a reduced rate, likely one so heavily discounted that it cuts extremely deeply into the networks/operators/affiliates & leads to more staff & programming cutbacks.


Sure, that's certainly possible. On the other hand, DVR households watch more TV as a whole, and they tend to stick with the programs they do watch (i.e. less surfing). You do have a lot of commercial skippers in DVR households, but it's probably not too much more if you compare it to the non-DVR population that leaves the room or starts channel surfing when commercials come on.

If couched in this way, the DVR may be less of a threat than broadcasters believe: the potential number of impressions increases since TV viewing increases, and the likelihood that advertisers are spending their money against the targets they want also increases since DVR viewers are more likely to stick with the programs they do record.

In fact, it may be the case that TV advertising could be done more efficiently and effectively because of the DVR and other "on-demand" technologies, if leveraged correctly. The research is still not definitive yet, but if there is support for the notion that effectiveness does not decrease substantially, or if targeting/viewership can be better guaranteed--then I think that the broadcasters have some leverage to keep rates where they are.

[wade moore]

this is what i originally thought it was, but it sounds like not? but then again does anyone really know what's going on inside the cable companies? would you put it past them to just have every tv show they broadcast stored?

IMO, from a technical perspective it would make NO sense for them to have every individual person store off their own personal copy of a show somewhere on their server. What a complete, massive waste of space.

Even if you have to "schedule ahead", it would seem like it would still be smart of them to not store the same show 1,000's of times.

[DaddyTorgo]

IMO, from a technical perspective it would make NO sense for them to have every individual person store off their own personal copy of a show somewhere on their server. What a complete, massive waste of space.

Even if you have to "schedule ahead", it would seem like it would still be smart of them to not store the same show 1,000's of times.

Exactly my thought. And doesn't that shift it more to a VoD type service then?

[DaddyTorgo]

If I was the networks I'd have it written into my contract that I could go into any cable companies server-farm and verify any show off my network and make sure it was being stored thousands of times. Just to fuck them over financially.

[wade moore]

Exactly my thought. And doesn't that shift it more to a VoD type service then?

I mean.. if the user has to "choose to record" the show I guess it's not EXACTLY VoD. Even if on the back-end they're sharing one file amongst multiple users. I can think of ways around the legal mumbo-jumbo of it to show that it's no different than if they stored that same file in many different places.

[SteveMax58]

IMO, from a technical perspective it would make NO sense for them to have every individual person store off their own personal copy of a show somewhere on their server. What a complete, massive waste of space.

Even if you have to "schedule ahead", it would seem like it would still be smart of them to not store the same show 1,000's of times.

The scheduling aspect is the way it's intended to work. The cost of network storage is cheaper (per MB) than to replicate across STBs. It also allows for a future path which alleviates the need for STBs...which is a good thing from the CATV/IPTV industry perspective.

It doesnt make sense from a storage efficiency standpoint only IF...you cross the threshold of recording EVERY program being less storage than ONLY what the DVR users record. So recording 500 versions of 'House' is still better than recording 1 version of 50,000 shows across all networks.

Honestly, the transport of the DVR content is what makes it questionable to implement...since it eats up resources that could be kept at the consumer's home. But those that are adopting must believe the cost/benefit is favorable enough...in some way, shape, or form.

[SteveMax58]

I think that is what the ultimate technology will end up as, but I think something will need to happen. Eventually I presume the contracts for new content between cable and networks are going to become very heated... as cable I think is trying to bite off more than they have a right to.

Yes...contract renewals will be heated to say the least.

[wade moore]

It doesnt make sense from a storage efficiency standpoint only IF...you cross the threshold of recording EVERY program being less storage than ONLY what the DVR users record. So recording 500 versions of 'House' is still better than recording 1 version of 50,000 shows across all networks.

That's easy. You have some sort of algorithm - record 1 copy of X show for every Y customers that record it. So if Your show is House and you record 1 copy for every 1,000 customers - you'd have 50 copies if 50,000 people set it to record. If 0 people set it to record, you'd have 0 copies.

[SteveMax58]

That's easy. You have some sort of algorithm - record 1 copy of X show for every Y customers that record it. So if Your show is House and you record 1 copy for every 1,000 customers - you'd have 50 copies if 50,000 people set it to record. If 0 people set it to record, you'd have 0 copies.

Well, it isn't nearly as easy as it might seem. What you're suggesting would require inclusion into standards (and some proprietary) interface syntax, as well as require data collection that isn't currently collected (careful not to lump things like Nielsen ratings into thinking this is tracked). Even if the standards part were easy enough to change in 5 minutes...you'd then need a multitude of vendors to upgrade and adapt their products + time to implement. Just isn't nearly pressing enough to bother.

It is actually "easier" to just store more versions...at the end of the day. Things change too fast in this business to go through the hassle of redefining all of the interfaces (and subsequent standards) to be slightly more efficient at storing...when storage is not deemed to be a pressing issue. Might be someday...but it's not even visible in the rear view mirror.

EDIT to add: Also keep in mind these "devices" used in technologies like this really only have a shelf-life of about 3-5 years due to the cost to upgrade vs. the cost to replace. So...day 1 N-DVR may work like this today...and work completely different another day. As an aside to the storing a single copy thought...this would likely be perceived as VOD if done. Services like Startover work similarly to VOD, and thus do not allow FFWD capability.

[wade moore]

I'll be honest - I read what you wrote, but I have no idea what you're saying.

[SirFozzie]

Well, it isn't nearly as easy as it might seem. What you're suggesting would require inclusion into standards (and some proprietary) interface syntax, as well as require data collection that isn't currently collected (careful not to lump things like Nielsen ratings into thinking this is tracked). Even if the standards part were easy enough to change in 5 minutes...you'd then need a multitude of vendors to upgrade and adapt their products + time to implement. Just isn't nearly pressing enough to bother.

It is actually "easier" to just store more versions...at the end of the day. Things change too fast in this business to go through the hassle of redefining all of the interfaces (and subsequent standards) to be slightly more efficient at storing...when storage is not deemed to be a pressing issue. Might be someday...but it's not even visible in the rear view mirror.

Maybe because I'm in the storage field.. but I don't really think that storage is the issue, per se:

A HD movie goes about 4-10 GB in size. I know my company makes storage solutionss that can store 1 PETABYTE (1,000 Terabytes, or 1,000,000 GB). Is it going to be cheap? No. But is it (eventually) going to be cheaper then working with set-top boxes with HD and dealing with service, etcetera? oh hell yes.

Also: Think of the treasure trove of marketing data about the users this provides the cable companies.

[SteveMax58]

Also: Think of the treasure trove of marketing data about the users this provides the cable companies.

Shhhh....we're trying to sneak that by you. You're right about the storage...that's the concept...cheaper to make larger arrays than to make millions of small ones.

I should disclose that I am an engineer in the CATV/IPTV industry. I am pretty familiar with nearly every major CATV or IPTV/Telco company and how they deliver content. I don't want to come off as a cheerleader for the companies, but I am pretty enthusiastic about the industry and technologies.

[SteveMax58]

I'll be honest - I read what you wrote, but I have no idea what you're saying.

Really? I thought it was fairly high level. No wonder I dont get much face time with the Execs. :)

Short answer...lots of companies make products involved with delivering N-DVR and similar technologies. They use "standards" to define how they interface and what information these interfaces share with each other. Since they don't currently support this, it would require substantial time and effort to do so.

I think there might be a misconception that CATV/IPTV companies develop much of their own equipment. While they help to define it...they dont typically build it or have complete control of it (namely the costs).

[gstelmack]

I should disclose that I am an engineer in the CATV/IPTV industry. I am pretty familiar with nearly every major CATV or IPTV/Telco company and how they deliver content. I don't want to come off as a cheerleader for the companies, but I am pretty enthusiastic about the industry and technologies.

Heh, an ally for our local TWC rep here at FOFC.

CATV always talks about great tech, but I'm stuck with Navigator (which took TWO FREAKIN' YEARS to get stable) and a high-speed internet connection that grossly lags behind Verizon FIOS let alone what the rest of the free world (or Wilson, NC) can get. You've got a lot of talking here to convince me there is great tech in the US CATV industry...

[SirFozzie]

While the story says the first trials of this technology will be out later this year.. I think that it'll be.. say.. 5-7 years before it really gets to the level of present-day Tivos. look how far back current cableco Hard Drive DVR's are, compared to Tivos.

[Huckleberry]

Okay, so I'm about to blow millions of dollars for myself with the greatest advertising idea of the modern era. ;)

But why haven't companies come up with a new form of ad I'll call a "DVR Billboard Ad"? Basically the commercial consists of 30 seconds of a single (eye-catching and relevant) still image with audio advertising accompanying the image. Viewers that are fast-forwarding through the commercials will see the image long enough for it to make an impression or at least be noticed. And those that aren't watching it on DVR will see the image and hear the advertising audio. Seems like a relatively decent idea to me, of course. Not that you'd want all your commercials to be like this. Just some of them on shows that are heavily DVRed by the population.

And imagine a commercial break where you're the first company to roll this out. Hundreds of images flash on the screen and then your commercial comes on and it's a steady image for a second or two (may need to buy a minute-long commercial for the super fast-forwarders).

[gstelmack]

Another advantage is the fact that you may not need a Settop Box (STB) in the future as well...if the Consumer electronics association can get their act together and create an interfacing capable HDTV that starts at
$1000. Some may not care about this...but it is important to many consumers (myself included). I can tell you CATV co's do not like purchasing STB's either...it's a win-win on that front.

What happened to CableCard then?

[DanGarion]

Services like Startover work similarly to VOD, and thus do not allow FFWD capability.
Even on VOD FFWD and RWD suck.

[SteveMax58]

Heh, an ally for our local TWC rep here at FOFC.

CATV always talks about great tech, but I'm stuck with Navigator (which took TWO FREAKIN' YEARS to get stable) and a high-speed internet connection that grossly lags behind Verizon FIOS let alone what the rest of the free world (or Wilson, NC) can get. You've got a lot of talking here to convince me there is great tech in the US CATV industry...

Do you still hate Navigator? I mean...when you (try to) ignore the past 2 years...does it function acceptably today? That was launched way too early...no doubt.

As far as data speeds...the rest of the world (primarily) uses the same products and technologies used in the US. The differences are primarily geographic and the transport costs and scalability. I think I've put out some of the reasons before in another thread, but it certainly isn't because we lack the knowledge or anything. Comes down to the same reasons everything gets done or doesnt get done...costs vs. benefit. These are businesses at the end of the day.

Remember when Verizon was just a protectionist phone company with crappy DSL? Things change pretty quickly when there is competition...and for people in the industry this is desirable as well (unless you are the CEO I suppose). Verizon is rolling out fiber to the home, but so will cable at some point. It's just a commitment of cost that is difficult to justify for cable ops. Quite the opposite for Vz due to being nearly obsoleted on landline business...so they had no choice.

[DanGarion]

Maybe because I'm in the storage field.. but I don't really think that storage is the issue, per se:

A HD movie goes about 4-10 GB in size. I know my company makes storage solutionss that can store 1 PETABYTE (1,000 Terabytes, or 1,000,000 GB). Is it going to be cheap? No. But is it (eventually) going to be cheaper then working with set-top boxes with HD and dealing with service, etcetera? oh hell yes.

Also: Think of the treasure trove of marketing data about the users this provides the cable companies.
Cable companies already have various storage solutions in their headends and I'm sure that extra storage is significantly less expensive then more DVR STB (set top boxes). I've never seen the service work, just read about it many times, but as long as they can get over the hurdle that I still see with VOD (slow response times on button presses) then this stuff will be sweet.

[DanGarion]

Heh, an ally for our local TWC rep here at FOFC.

CATV always talks about great tech, but I'm stuck with Navigator (which took TWO FREAKIN' YEARS to get stable) and a high-speed internet connection that grossly lags behind Verizon FIOS let alone what the rest of the free world (or Wilson, NC) can get. You've got a lot of talking here to convince me there is great tech in the US CATV industry...

:P Steve knows more about the nuts and bolts then me. I understand how the thing works but he's much more an engineer then I'll ever be!

[sachmo71]

television is just one more medium for advertisers. if tv ad revenue begins to drop, they will take advantage of other technologies to market to us. i think we'll see more kiosks, trucks driving around with digital billboards, and the like. they will find a way to get their message out, even if they have to program robots to come to your door with free samples.

[SteveMax58]

What happened to CableCard then?

Ask the CEA...it was their idea to only support one-way connectivity in Cablecard 1.0...in all their forward thinking greatness. Or maybe that was the plan...buy multiple TVs over time? :)

Consumer electronics companies can rollout TVs today on nearly all cable systems (including Verizon FIOS TV, which is technically considered CATV by the FCC). There are open standards in place that will tell you what interfaces to use, how to communicate with the cable system, etc. They just havent built them yet...or at least not at a reasonable price point.

You can use cablecard 1.0 still...but with interactive services like VOD, SDV, etc. it just becomes substandard. Cablecard 2.0 is out and they are free to develop away. Panasonic is at the forefront right now from my understanding, but I'm not certain what their pricepoint is looking like.

[DanGarion]

What happened to CableCard then?

Well in the foreseeable future CableCards are supposed to be the big thing especially with the pending start of tru2way (http://www.tru2way.com/).

And by start I mean, products are supposed to be coming to market finally. IN fact it's supposed to be tomorrow.

[ISiddiqui]

I mean.. if the user has to "choose to record" the show I guess it's not EXACTLY VoD. Even if on the back-end they're sharing one file amongst multiple users. I can think of ways around the legal mumbo-jumbo of it to show that it's no different than if they stored that same file in many different places.

Exactly. It may be a thin line, but cable companies have not skirted it in this aspect.

[lordscarlet]

SteveMax -- I don't really agree with what you're saying. Nielsen, etc don't matter in Wade's example. You go based on subscriptions. You have CONCRETE data as to how many of your customers want a copy of your show. You record what shows they want to see, and not the ones they don't want to see.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But why haven't companies come up with a new form of ad I'll call a "DVR Billboard Ad"? Basically the commercial consists of 30 seconds of a single (eye-catching and relevant) still image with audio advertising accompanying the image.

You do know this is already being experimented with by a few advertisers, right? Not to the extent that you're talking about but for the past couple of years some of the more forward edge advertisers have been reviewing their new creative to see how it looks when viewed in FF and making adjustments to the layout & images to try to at least manage some impression with the viewer, however faint.

Problem is that what amount to a mention (as opposed to a message) is worth roughly 1/5th to 1/6th (unless you're getting robbed by the seller or there's an substantially higher than normal link between the program you're in & the consumer loyalty, such as NASCAR has) what the :30 spot is costing.

The potential effectiveness really comes down to what you're trying to accomplish with the ad. If your primary goal is to increase identity and/or awareness, then there's some usefulness there. If the goal is to directly drive sales, to inform (i.e. we've got a new widget), or to explain benefits (i.e. our widget is better because X, Y, and Z) then these are virtually worthless. It's extremely difficult to do those things effectively with what amounts to a logo slide.

[JonInMiddleGA]

television is just one more medium for advertisers. if tv ad revenue begins to drop, they will take advantage of other technologies to market to us. i think we'll see more kiosks, trucks driving around with digital billboards, and the like. they will find a way to get their message out, even if they have to program robots to come to your door with free samples.

I think I know what you meant, but didn't you say it sort of backwards? If the effectiveness of TV drops, we'll move elsewhere, and that in turn will cause ad revenue to drop.

Problem so far is that no one has really found "the" replacement medium. Nearly all of the alternatives have a few good stories they can tell, none really have anything like the consistent success that television has provided. The situation is complicated by (my perception, YMMV) the talent drain in the marketing side over the past 2-3 decades. Seems there's a lot more drones than there used to be and a lot less people who actually understand how to make the connection between the product & the consumer.

[SteveMax58]

SteveMax -- I don't really agree with what you're saying. Nielsen, etc don't matter in Wade's example. You go based on subscriptions. You have CONCRETE data as to how many of your customers want a copy of your show. You record what shows they want to see, and not the ones they don't want to see.

You don't technically 'subscribe' to a N-DVR channel, though. I'm not saying it is impossible to store a single file based on 1 person's DVR request...everything is technically possible...it just isn't worth the hassle to implement business logic rules that may technically change the nature of the service being offered.

If I can carve out storage for each subscriber of "N-DVR Service", I have an easy model to scale capacity and service costs to (believe me, execs like easy models). Then I can assign business logic related to the "asset"...this is how it exists today.

Believe me when I tell you...it isn't the storage that needs high efficiency...it's the transport to you that causes the inefficiency as this is the resource that is most constrained.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You do have a lot of commercial skippers in DVR households, but it's probably not too much more if you compare it to the non-DVR population that leaves the room or starts channel surfing when commercials come on.

Last set of number I saw had the numbers about equal.

edit to add: Which really presents one of those 10,000 pound elephants in the room that nobody on the marketing side really likes to talk about: Is everything that everybody thinks they know about the thresholds of reach & frequency completely wrong?

[Klinglerware]

Last set of number I saw had the numbers about equal.



Then if that's the case, then it really is up to the broadcasters and planning agencies to push back on skittish advertisers. The evidence is there to say that skippers are not really killing the overall effectiveness of TV advertising. If anything, DVR households tend to be more engaged and more reliably targeted than non DVR households.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then if that's the case, then it really is up to the broadcasters and planning agencies to push back on skittish advertisers. The evidence is there to say that skippers are not really killing the overall effectiveness of TV advertising. If anything, DVR households tend to be more engaged and more reliably targeted than non DVR households.

Well that's if the research is reliable. And that's a legitimate question even in my mind & I'm a guy who tends to believe that the rate of skippage via DVR (which most studies have shown to be considerably lower than what we tend to think) vs skippage from bathroom & kitchen breaks + channel surfing (higher than we like to imagine) are actually fairly close.

Thing is, there's some hard data available on the DVR's by tracking their actual use. For the other stuff, it tends to be self-reported & could be reporting higher than reality, plus you have the potential of passive exposure; i.e. you went to the bathroom during the break but actually heard the first spot in the break, saw part of the next to last spot & all of the last spot even if you weren't glued to the couch for the entire break.

Short of installing eyeball cameras in households & watching how people watch, I'm not sure how that can be quantified tightly enough to overcome the predisposed notions of buyers/advertisers. It's a maybe whereas the skippers with DVR's are relatively easy to put a number on.

[stevew]

I don't mind advertisements in general, but those "Meet Bob" enzyte commercials make me want to open fire on those responsible.

[SteveMax58]

:P Steve knows more about the nuts and bolts then me. I understand how the thing works but he's much more an engineer then I'll ever be!

Check has been sent...:)

[Huckleberry]

You do know this is already being experimented with by a few advertisers, right? Not to the extent that you're talking about but for the past couple of years some of the more forward edge advertisers have been reviewing their new creative to see how it looks when viewed in FF and making adjustments to the layout & images to try to at least manage some impression with the viewer, however faint.

Problem is that what amount to a mention (as opposed to a message) is worth roughly 1/5th to 1/6th (unless you're getting robbed by the seller or there's an substantially higher than normal link between the program you're in & the consumer loyalty, such as NASCAR has) what the :30 spot is costing.

The potential effectiveness really comes down to what you're trying to accomplish with the ad. If your primary goal is to increase identity and/or awareness, then there's some usefulness there. If the goal is to directly drive sales, to inform (i.e. we've got a new widget), or to explain benefits (i.e. our widget is better because X, Y, and Z) then these are virtually worthless. It's extremely difficult to do those things effectively with what amounts to a logo slide.

Thanks for the info. I see the goal as being the first to do it during a major telecast and then getting the publicity from that. Alternatively, keep it in your back pocket until advertising costs really do go down because of the DVR era.

Or I just thought of maybe a constant image (logo or otherwise) at the top/bottom/side of the screen that will serve the same function during a fast forward. Accompanied by a "normal" commercial in the majority of the screen space.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't mind advertisements in general, but those "Meet Bob" enzyte commercials make me want to open fire on those responsible.

On the other hand, before the founder was sentenced to 25 years in prison (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/08/27/fraudulent-male-enhancement-drug-gets-company-founder-25-yrs/) for fraud last August those ads had netted the Enzyte manufacturer over $500 million dollars in revenue.

Hard to argue with the success of the ads, no matter how incredibly annoying they might be ;)

One of the great legends about the Enzyte ads is a story that's attributed to the founder. I've got no idea whether it's true but allegedly his advice for the ads was for those working on them to drink 3-4 bottles of wine & then start making shit up ... but be sure somebody writes it all down or else you'll lose your best material.

edit to add: Best I can tell from some Googling, the actor who played Smilin' Bob may (or may not) have died in a boating accident off the coast of Martinique back in 2008. Hell, it's not 100% whether the name associated most frequently with the character on the internet is even the right guy, nor whether it's the same guy who may have died, or whether he's actually dead (body was never recovered). But I thought the possibility made the ads even more creepy.

[gstelmack]

Hard to argue with the success of the ads, no matter how incredibly annoying they might be ;)

Where are the diminishing returns though? My kids don't watch a whole lot of live TV anymore because outside of Disney and Nick we have to be watching the commercials like a hawk to switch channels if an ad for CSI or something comes on. Plus you've got the ads that like to blast the volume. Half my use of a DVR is for time-shifting, the other half is to avoid all the annoying commercials.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Where are the diminishing returns though? My kids don't watch a whole lot of live TV anymore because outside of Disney and Nick we have to be watching the commercials like a hawk to switch channels if an ad for CSI or something comes on. Plus you've got the ads that like to blast the volume. Half my use of a DVR is for time-shifting, the other half is to avoid all the annoying commercials.

Like with most things to do with TV, you always have to remember that your own habits aren't necessarily the norm (the number one thing a buyer should remember, so I don't feel bad at all if I occasional remind someone else ;) )

I've never seen anything to suggest that virtually anyone bothers to do the switch due to commercial content (a few people grousing about it on the internet seems to be as far as that actually goes) and nearly every study to date shows less than half of DVR users report any commercial skipping at all and only a small percentage are consistently heavy skippers.

On the other hand, you'd make a tremendous example of why advertisers would like to discount any time-shifted viewing completely when computing rates. They haven't successfully done that (in part) because there's nothing concrete to show that you're habits are the norm.

At this point, I have to say that I think I probably misread your post the first time around. I now think you're asking something different than I first thought, something actually like "don't the annoying ads ultimately drive away viewers". Truth is, they don't seem to any more than any other ad and in cases like this they're actually highly effective.

[cuervo72]

One interesting thing about the DVR age...I'm now much less inclined to switch channels during commercials, because I'll lose what's cached in the DVR. Even if I won't use it, it's a mental road-block.

[DaddyTorgo]

One interesting thing about the DVR age...I'm now much less inclined to switch channels during commercials, because I'll lose what's cached in the DVR. Even if I won't use it, it's a mental road-block.

good point!

[SirFozzie]

Well, I notice that if I'm recording both, I'll swap to the 2nd channel, because otherwise I have to stop recording.

[gstelmack]

One interesting thing about the DVR age...I'm now much less inclined to switch channels during commercials, because I'll lose what's cached in the DVR. Even if I won't use it, it's a mental road-block.

Dual-tuner FTW!

I miss my DirecTIVO...

[SirFozzie]

Agreed. Dual-Tuner for the MFW!

[cuervo72]

Dual-tuner FTW!

I miss my DirecTIVO...

Yeah...I loved that about the DirecTIVO. We still have a couple in the basement (well, and a third in the bedroom, but the second tuner input doesn't work), but they're not HD and I don't really watch TV down there. I've gotten used to the new HD-DVR, but it's not the same.

[Klinglerware]

Well that's if the research is reliable. And that's a legitimate question even in my mind & I'm a guy who tends to believe that the rate of skippage via DVR (which most studies have shown to be considerably lower than what we tend to think) vs skippage from bathroom & kitchen breaks + channel surfing (higher than we like to imagine) are actually fairly close.

Thing is, there's some hard data available on the DVR's by tracking their actual use. For the other stuff, it tends to be self-reported & could be reporting higher than reality, plus you have the potential of passive exposure; i.e. you went to the bathroom during the break but actually heard the first spot in the break, saw part of the next to last spot & all of the last spot even if you weren't glued to the couch for the entire break.

Short of installing eyeball cameras in households & watching how people watch, I'm not sure how that can be quantified tightly enough to overcome the predisposed notions of buyers/advertisers. It's a maybe whereas the skippers with DVR's are relatively easy to put a number on.

Like I mentioned before, I also think that the research is incomplete. But, to be slightly facetious, since when do advertisers or buyers make decisions based on iron-clad evidence? :)

As to your final point, I agree that the measurement technology is not here yet. But, the major audience measurement provider wants to break away from metering tied to household and houses and hopes to move towards portable metering tied to individuals. As that technology is developed, some of the measurement problems you mention should be better addressed...

[gstelmack]

It's a sad commentary on tech, and especialy CATV tech, when the best DVR / digital box yet produced is about 6 years old and no longer supported anywhere (the HD-TIVO from DirecTV).

I'm not including any current gen TIVOs because I have not used them and they aren't directly supported (how is Comcast's venture going?), but everyone is still trying to catch that pinnacle of development.

I remember like 6 years ago when DirecTV was pushing their whole-house setup with the MediaCenter PC that had four tuners and could push shows back out to any box in the house. SD at the time, HD to come. Nothing saw the light of day. Sigh.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Like I mentioned before, I also think that the research is incomplete. But, to be slightly facetious, since when do advertisers or buyers make decisions based on iron-clad evidence? :)

Facetious or not, that's a fair point. But it sort of ties in to something I was trying to get at. The default position among buyers & advertisers is tilted toward DVR = major ad view loss vs traditional viewing. In order to combat or even change that predisposition, it seems that hard evidence would be the most effective way to do it (short of simply waiting for the conventional wisdom to change over, oh, say twenty years time).

But, the major audience measurement provider wants to break away from metering tied to household and houses and hopes to move towards portable metering tied to individuals. As that technology is developed, some of the measurement problems you mention should be better addressed...

Oddly enough, I think it'll be less accurate than any system ever devised to date but it'll be accepted because it will allow both the broadcasters & the buyers to continue the fiction they need in order to survive.

[DanGarion]

It's a sad commentary on tech, and especialy CATV tech, when the best DVR / digital box yet produced is about 6 years old and no longer supported anywhere (the HD-TIVO from DirecTV).

I'm not including any current gen TIVOs because I have not used them and they aren't directly supported (how is Comcast's venture going?), but everyone is still trying to catch that pinnacle of development.

I remember like 6 years ago when DirecTV was pushing their whole-house setup with the MediaCenter PC that had four tuners and could push shows back out to any box in the house. SD at the time, HD to come. Nothing saw the light of day. Sigh.

Recent news I've read says that TWC is looking to sign a deal with Tivo... Terms of Service (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=a2d0e1TXcCuc)

What that means right now is anyone's guess.

[lordscarlet]

It's a sad commentary on tech, and especialy CATV tech, when the best DVR / digital box yet produced is about 6 years old and no longer supported anywhere (the HD-TIVO from DirecTV).

I'm not including any current gen TIVOs because I have not used them and they aren't directly supported (how is Comcast's venture going?), but everyone is still trying to catch that pinnacle of development.

I remember like 6 years ago when DirecTV was pushing their whole-house setup with the MediaCenter PC that had four tuners and could push shows back out to any box in the house. SD at the time, HD to come. Nothing saw the light of day. Sigh.

The current generation TiVO's are far superioer to the DirecTIVO. It's a lot of little things, really, but to my recollection the DirecTV version didn't even have folders (GASP!). I love mine. Having said that, though, I don't think there has been anything significant (except streaming Netflix) in the 4 years I have had it. DirecTV switching from TIVO to their current box is one of the reasons I decided to drop satelite/cable altogether. If I couldn't have my Tivo + DirecTV I didn't want any service.

[cuervo72]

Dunno about HD DirecTIVO, but our regular DirecTIVOs do have folders. They didn't originally, but they came in a software upgrade a while ago.

[gstelmack]

Yeah, my HD-TIVO was upgraded with the 6.x software that supported folders. DirecTV was always like a year or two behind on the TIVO software itself, but that DirecTIVO was MILES ahead of my current SA-8300HD and HDC boxes that are running Navigator, both from a software and a hardware standpoint.

[JonInMiddleGA]

YMMV but for anyone who had trouble following the logic of the complaint about this particular service, I thought this summary (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Television_44/Supremes_opens_way_for_remote_DVRs.asp) made more sense than anything I'd read.

[lordscarlet]

Everyone should just accept Tivo's superiority, integrate their software, and fund R&D for new and better things. :)

[wade moore]

Everyone should just accept Tivo's superiority, integrate their software, and fund R&D for new and better things. :)

ftw

I've found the Cox software to be "adequate" but if the large HD Tivo gets to a price point that I can swallow, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

[sachmo71]

I think I know what you meant, but didn't you say it sort of backwards? If the effectiveness of TV drops, we'll move elsewhere, and that in turn will cause ad revenue to drop.

Problem so far is that no one has really found "the" replacement medium. Nearly all of the alternatives have a few good stories they can tell, none really have anything like the consistent success that television has provided. The situation is complicated by (my perception, YMMV) the talent drain in the marketing side over the past 2-3 decades. Seems there's a lot more drones than there used to be and a lot less people who actually understand how to make the connection between the product & the consumer.

sure, that's a good way to say it. if TV ad dollars don't go as far, the ad buys will follow. Whatever the new technology is, it will have to be part of everyday life. if we watch less network tv, it will move to where the action is. IMO, that will be media sites, but we also may see some of the slack picked up by other mediums, such as more active advertising in public places and billboards.

The ads will still get to us.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The ads will still get to us.

But whether it's to the same degree we've gotten accustomed to may be a point for some reasonable doubt. Lord knows, I don't expect anybody here to be disappointed by that but it actually isn't great news for the economy.

I believe we're approaching a point where the cost of reaching X consumers (where X is the number marketers are accustomed to reaching) may exceed the ROI by such a margin that's even the most foolhardy advertisers will pull back even further. Okay, nasty truth is that we've long since passed that point for some products that have continued to pour money down holes that are drier than is fiscally responsible but I think the negative sum game will become more difficult to deny/ignore.

Generally speaking, the smaller audience you reach per spot or per medium, the less cost efficient it becomes and the cost associated with providing the opportunity -- whether it's a website, a billboard, a kiosk, a tv network or station -- establishes a floor at some point. For now, newspapers & magazines are probably the best contemporary example (Vibe Magazine ceased operations today btw, joining R&R and Spin in the dustbin of history) where the revenue generated by the ads at prices attractive enough to sell couldn't begin to match the hard costs associated with printing them.

And before anyone says "well, that's just a materials cost, other mediums don't have it that bad", consider something like the Athens-Clarke County bus service has just added advertising opportunities this week. You know, those standard advert panels on the buses as they roll around. The rates start at $30 a month up to $400 a month (and that's not per bus/board, those are packages), which makes it questionable whether they'll even generate enough revenue to pay someone to administer the program, install & maintain the boards, etc. Those are priced to sell IMO but given the history of local government, I doubt there's any realistic expectation of doing more than breaking even on them and even that seems optimistic to me.

[SteveMax58]

I don't expect anybody here to be disappointed by that but it actually isn't great news for the economy.

This is actually one of those "careful what you wish for" things. As the perception of value in advertising via the standard broadcast commercial erodes...so too does the income to these networks. Hence why we see companies like Viacom, HDNet, etc. all trying to get more money in subscriber costs. This subscriber cost gets passed directly onto the consumers...because irregardless of whether you think cable profit margins are justified...cable co's believe they are and will not be inclined to eat such increases in costs unless completely unavoidable.

This goes hand in hand why I think a-la-carte is not as desirable as people believe it is.

[ISiddiqui]

This goes hand in hand why I think a-la-carte is not as desirable as people believe it is.

Completely agree with you on this. I think a-la-carte would be utterly disasterous to quality programming.

[DaddyTorgo]

if a-la-carte became the norm then 95% of programming would be reality-tv

[SteveMax58]

Thought some of you might find this article interesting about Cablevision's new interactive advertising rollout

Cable Clicks on Interactive Ads Again - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125306618641614539.html)