1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

One Small Step - HBO starts cutting the cord

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by atmuscarella, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,504
    177
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    They might be persuaded though to offer a streaming only option by a big partner like Microsoft or maybe even someone like Netflix. However it couldn't be completely standalone. They would need to sell it as part of a package (i.e. included as part of XBox Live, Amazon Prime or Netflix) and not as a completely standalone option to keep from completely pissing off their cable partners.

    Dan
     
  2. DocNo

    DocNo Member

    624
    0
    Oct 10, 2001
    Bristow, VA
    Not even Apple could guarantee similar revenue to what the Cable Co's provide - which would be critical to offset any potential losses if a Cable Co decided to drop 'em.

    That's the core issue. Until that balance tips, nothing is going to change in the US - unfortunately :eek:
     
  3. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,504
    177
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    They offer HBO to competitors already. If they can offer HBO via Dish or DirecTV without pissing off the cable cos, then why not through Netflix or XBox Live? It's not a one sided relationship. The cable cos need HBO as much as HBO needs them. They aren't going to dump them just out of principal. They'd only do it if there was some sort of economic viability to it.

    Dan
     
  4. DocNo

    DocNo Member

    624
    0
    Oct 10, 2001
    Bristow, VA
    DirecTV and Dish share a similar model to the cable companies. They aren't perceived as a threat by the content providers who provide much of what HBO provides.

    Ala Carte pricing is a COMPLETELY different model, and one that is a real threat to cable, DirecTV and dish. They all hate the thought of a heavyweight with a well known brand and credibility like HBO embracing mainline distributing without them.

    Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and even to some extent iTunes are really "fringe" use - the bulk of revenue for content providers comes from the established networks, cable and satellite guys.

    Remember, HBO has to license the content (most of it) they provide too...

    Er, right now I think the cable companies and satellite guys need HBO more than HBO needs them. And HBO still needs Hollywood and the content creators (for now, anyway).

    Just like iTunes blew up the whole album/bundling with music, a major player like HBO could be the key to unbundling content that the networks, cable companies and satellite guys. That's the battle. Not short term profits, but fighting against disruption of the entire model for distribution that exists today.

    Sure, but remember - even for HBO they are beholden to Hollywood. Sure, HBO has some (very good) original programming, but the bulk of what they offer comes from others. Others who instead of seeing the net positive for the music industry are instead fearing the change and clinging desperately to the past.
     
  5. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,504
    177
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    Yeah I wasn't really considering their relationship with the MPAA. I really only have HBO for the original programming. I rarely use it to watch movies.

    Maybe if they offered a sub-service that only allowed access to their original content?

    Dan
     
  6. DocNo

    DocNo Member

    624
    0
    Oct 10, 2001
    Bristow, VA
    They probably have some long term agreements they need to let expire before they could do that - but I would expect that to happen first!

    The same things holding that back are probably why they agree to release DVD's of seasons well after they have aired - don't want to threaten the relationships they have with their current "partners"...

    All the back room stuff and existing agreements are why it takes so long for these guys to adapt; when to us, the consumer, it looks like things are changing at warp speed :cool:
     
  7. Series3Sub

    Series3Sub Active Member

    1,125
    8
    Mar 14, 2010

    Actually Dish LOVES the idea of a la carte pricing. Charles Ergen years ago let it be known that he supports it and still does and has even testified before Congress stating his support for a la carte. From his view, it is what the customer wants and it keeps both Dish's costs and the customer's bill lower, or at least customers get only what they pay for and not the hundreds of other channels they don't want, how a la carte would work in the real world free market would be very different from what many consumer's THINK it would work. They could end up with even HIGHER bills for ALL the channels they want and a provider would still foist a suite of channels they DON'T want (ESPN Classic, etc.) for the HIGH monthly just to get the prime ESPN, ESPN2.
     
  8. Series3Sub

    Series3Sub Active Member

    1,125
    8
    Mar 14, 2010
    The problem is now that the same old MVPD's and content providers are now getting into the on-line game and even Apple TV proposes the same old model, just delivered on-line streaming and with the Apple brand. Charles Ergen has confirmed he building an on-line TV service, although NOT to include sports and have lower prices, but still a "Dish Network" model on the internet. And Apple TV was proposed to be pretty much the same model as the MVPD's only it would be delivered via internet, not a cable or satellite. Oh, and Discovery buying Revision 3? What does Revision 3 have that Discovery could possibly want? It aint the content nor its talent, rest assured.

    Look gang, we are all sell-outs, and those small scrappy independents (witness Roku now offering ONLY Dish Internationals for its foreign continent and kicking everybody else OUT of the Roku house just affirms the little guys all have their price) are just waiting to be bought or merged. That's why they started the companies: to make MONEY, not be the Robin Hoods of TV as so many believe their clever marketing designed to appeal to tired consumers.

    So, we will see the same MVPD's only delivering their content via the less expensive broadband internet ("If I were building Dish Network today, I would NOT be investing in satellites"-Charles Ergan) with the same OLD MODEL. Dish's massive new facility of servers to support massive internet service is beyond the demand of recently acquired Blockbuster. Yup, Ergen is building a serious internet service while AppleTV has startred to consider offering its content THROUGH existing MVPD's after finding that getting content at an affordable price was just as challenging as it is for the MVPD's. Not a good sign for those cheering for the fall of the MVPD's. Netflix will either die or, more likely, be bought, perhaps by DirecTV or another MVPD who needs the foot in the on-line door. Cable did not kill the broadcast networks as the broadcast networks or its parent companies OWN all those cable channels. The same old broadcasters just moved along into the "cable" universe, and so it will be for the on-line TV services to come. In a few years, Disney, NBC Universal, and Viacom may be fighting each other over buying Amazon just for it's on-line TV and Movie side of the business.

    And so it goes. DireTV, Comcast, TWC, Dish, et al. will all still be here, just in more places than one having created, or bought their way into the on-line universe as your new "cable cutting" on-line content provider.
     
  9. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    5,738
    26
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    Oh my - who would have thought that in a capitalistic society that people start businesses to make money.

    Pure capitalism is basically how the mafia/drug cartels work. You kill your competition and assure consumers can only buy products from you. All companies are trying to "corner the market" so they can maximize profits. It is in cable's best interest to control the distribution of video to the maximum extent possible. So far I haven't seen anything that indicates that cable will give up without a major fight and given that they own most of the pipes to our homes even if we move more to IP video distribution cable is going to have major control of it.

    The primary reason capitalism benefits "consumers" is because competition forces companies to innovate and control costs. The only way to assure competition is if the Government is used to assure it. Which is done by the Government enforcing a basic set of rules that assures there can and will be competition (along with what ever consumer protections that are found to be necessary). What this means in the video distribution world is if we (consumers) want something different we are going to have to use Government to get it. I find this very unlikely, as for the most part, big business has bought and paid for both political parties and is controlling what the Government is doing.
     

Share This Page