4 ms·

This would be so easy to fix if the network heads weren't so ignorant: Make a Netflix style distribution system, allow users to subscribe a la carte to a fixed

by rglover 15y ago

This would be so easy to fix if the network heads weren't so ignorant: Make a Netflix style distribution system, allow users to subscribe a la carte to a fixed number of channels on a tiered system (i.e. I can select up to 15 channels for $29.99 a month or 30 channels for $59.99 a month), and make it all on demand. The infrastructure is there, the tech wouldn't be that hard to set up, and it would make a BOATLOAD of money for both the networks and the operators. Honestly, it sounds like an ego game. They don't understand how these things work so they go on the defensive as opposed to learning and improving their business. Sad.

ajross 15y ago
I suspect it's more complicated than that. Netflix is $15 a month, cable subscribers routinely pay $100 or more. And I'd bet that HBO and its properties get a reasonably-sized chunk of that. That "BOATLOAD" has a lot of scaling to do.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - Skywing 15y ago
    Here in the Texas area, Verizon's FiOS service is easily $80-100 a month. That's for the base internet + tv package, with no special channels, too. That does not include HBO, or any other movie channel. At one house that I lived at for a year or so, we paid $180 a month for TV + internet, no phone line. That was simply because we wanted HBO and some sports channels, and good internet, with like two extra DVR boxes. I consider $100 on TV + internet to be pretty average, if not lower average. Edit: deleted message said something about $100 being way more than he had seen for TV and internet bundles.
- rglover 15y ago
  The complication is in the hands of the MSO (e.g. Time Warner, Comcast, Cox). That $100 isn't for the content license, it's for the exclusivity contracts in your area. Ever notice how there's only one or two options for a provider in your area? That's because companies like Time Warner physically purchase the rights to the actual cable lines in your area and forbid any other providers from transmitting over them. Your cable bill is for the most part ensuring this exclusivity stays in place. It's a whole lot of bs put in place by a lot of greedy people. Don't be fooled.
  - ajross 15y ago
    All of that is true, but content licenses are, in fact, a very large portion of that bill. This hastily googled link (i.e. I didn't finish reading it) claims that HBO gets $7.27 per subscriber. That's full half of Netflix's rates right there, for what, maybe 5% of the per-viewing-hour content delivered? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118042241 http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118042241
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
unexpected 15y ago
The Networks don't want that. ESPN alone commands $5/a month. Don't want that? Disney has blocked all it's other channels - ABC/ABC family, Disney, etc as a huge block - that you MUST get. Want HD? another fee. Cable is increasingly becoming the have's/have not's.
rprasad 15y ago
it would make a BOATLOAD of money for both the networks and the operators. Only if by "boatload" you mean one of those little toy boats that floats in the bathtub. Last year, NBC, the lowest rated broadcast channel, reported $4.2 billion in ad revenue (which represents a substantial decrease from the year before). At the top end, CBS reported $6.3 billion in ad revenue. (Source: http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/2010-rebound-broadcast-tv-sees-2011-ad-revenue-fall/233345/. http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/2010-rebound-broadcast-t...) HBO clocked in at just over $1 billion (estimated, final numbers pending) in revenue for 2011. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hbo-top-1-billion-international-176907 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hbo-top-1-billion-inte...) In order for a la carte to generate the same amount of revenue for a single broadcast channel, at say, $2/month, NBC alone would need 175 million subscribers, while HBO would need nearly 42 million subscribers (or roughly 1/2 again its current subscriber base). It's not an ego game, it's basic arithmetic. Internet streaming may be the future, but it won't be the present until it gets a lot more expensive.
- chii 15y ago
  "but it won't be the present until it gets a lot more expensive." but the point is to make it cheaper. If this model can't be viable until its just as expensive as the cable model, then whats the point?! Gawd damn.
- rglover 15y ago
  They wouldn't have to remove advertising, just become more creative. An easy solution is to keep advertising embedded in the broadcast and offer a premium option where all ads are removed for a greater cost.
- danssig 15y ago
  Or drive prices down. You would be cutting out a lot of middle men going this route.
res0nat0r 15y ago
Didn't we just have this discussion last month? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3863847 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3863847
draggnar 15y ago
The Time Warner CEO (which owns HBO) is on the Charlie Rose show now. One interesting exchange: "How far off are we from a big movie being released simultaneously in theaters as well as over every platform available? And what will be the model for the release of the movie on the platform?" "There is a bunch of companies and investors that put up your local multiplex. Lately they've been trying to make the place cleaner, the screens to be crisper, you've got hi-def. And that creates a certain viewer experience to go to the theater and see it that way. So as we think about the fact that can you release simultaneously what happens if you do that, we are all trying to be as thoughtful as we can about doing this in a way that does not undermine the quality of the theater experience. Not take away all the business..." "You still haven't answered my question." "Right... so that's one answer... the other answer is if you delay a while to give the theaters a chance to make a long run sell on tickets, what you're doing, and you see it all over the world, is you create gaps for piracy where..." So there you go. These guys aren't ignorant, they are maxing out profits. Not everyone is on Hulu yet. This is a really big country and the economics don't make sense for them yet. He also directly disagreed with the HBO CEO by saying HBO Go "is working" and: "some of the connections where you try to sign on are not as good as they should be and that's what we've got to fix"

by rglover 15y ago

ajross 15y ago

I suspect it's more complicated than that. Netflix is $15 a month, cable subscribers routinely pay $100 or more. And I'd bet that HBO and its properties get a reasonably-sized chunk of that. That "BOATLOAD" has a lot of scaling to do.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- Skywing 15y ago
  Here in the Texas area, Verizon's FiOS service is easily $80-100 a month. That's for the base internet + tv package, with no special channels, too. That does not include HBO, or any other movie channel. At one house that I lived at for a year or so, we paid $180 a month for TV + internet, no phone line. That was simply because we wanted HBO and some sports channels, and good internet, with like two extra DVR boxes. I consider $100 on TV + internet to be pretty average, if not lower average. Edit: deleted message said something about $100 being way more than he had seen for TV and internet bundles.
rglover 15y ago
The complication is in the hands of the MSO (e.g. Time Warner, Comcast, Cox). That $100 isn't for the content license, it's for the exclusivity contracts in your area. Ever notice how there's only one or two options for a provider in your area? That's because companies like Time Warner physically purchase the rights to the actual cable lines in your area and forbid any other providers from transmitting over them. Your cable bill is for the most part ensuring this exclusivity stays in place. It's a whole lot of bs put in place by a lot of greedy people. Don't be fooled.
- ajross 15y ago
  All of that is true, but content licenses are, in fact, a very large portion of that bill. This hastily googled link (i.e. I didn't finish reading it) claims that HBO gets $7.27 per subscriber. That's full half of Netflix's rates right there, for what, maybe 5% of the per-viewing-hour content delivered? http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118042241 http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118042241

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

unexpected 15y ago

The Networks don't want that. ESPN alone commands $5/a month. Don't want that? Disney has blocked all it's other channels - ABC/ABC family, Disney, etc as a huge block - that you MUST get. Want HD? another fee. Cable is increasingly becoming the have's/have not's.

rprasad 15y ago

it would make a BOATLOAD of money for both the networks and the operators. Only if by "boatload" you mean one of those little toy boats that floats in the bathtub. Last year, NBC, the lowest rated broadcast channel, reported $4.2 billion in ad revenue (which represents a substantial decrease from the year before). At the top end, CBS reported $6.3 billion in ad revenue. (Source: http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/2010-rebound-broadcast-tv-sees-2011-ad-revenue-fall/233345/. http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/2010-rebound-broadcast-t...) HBO clocked in at just over $1 billion (estimated, final numbers pending) in revenue for 2011. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hbo-top-1-billion-international-176907 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hbo-top-1-billion-inte...) In order for a la carte to generate the same amount of revenue for a single broadcast channel, at say, $2/month, NBC alone would need 175 million subscribers, while HBO would need nearly 42 million subscribers (or roughly 1/2 again its current subscriber base). It's not an ego game, it's basic arithmetic. Internet streaming may be the future, but it won't be the present until it gets a lot more expensive.

chii 15y ago
"but it won't be the present until it gets a lot more expensive." but the point is to make it cheaper. If this model can't be viable until its just as expensive as the cable model, then whats the point?! Gawd damn.
rglover 15y ago
They wouldn't have to remove advertising, just become more creative. An easy solution is to keep advertising embedded in the broadcast and offer a premium option where all ads are removed for a greater cost.
danssig 15y ago
Or drive prices down. You would be cutting out a lot of middle men going this route.

res0nat0r 15y ago

Didn't we just have this discussion last month? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3863847 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3863847

draggnar 15y ago

The Time Warner CEO (which owns HBO) is on the Charlie Rose show now. One interesting exchange: "How far off are we from a big movie being released simultaneously in theaters as well as over every platform available? And what will be the model for the release of the movie on the platform?" "There is a bunch of companies and investors that put up your local multiplex. Lately they've been trying to make the place cleaner, the screens to be crisper, you've got hi-def. And that creates a certain viewer experience to go to the theater and see it that way. So as we think about the fact that can you release simultaneously what happens if you do that, we are all trying to be as thoughtful as we can about doing this in a way that does not undermine the quality of the theater experience. Not take away all the business..." "You still haven't answered my question." "Right... so that's one answer... the other answer is if you delay a while to give the theaters a chance to make a long run sell on tickets, what you're doing, and you see it all over the world, is you create gaps for piracy where..." So there you go. These guys aren't ignorant, they are maxing out profits. Not everyone is on Hulu yet. This is a really big country and the economics don't make sense for them yet. He also directly disagreed with the HBO CEO by saying HBO Go "is working" and: "some of the connections where you try to sign on are not as good as they should be and that's what we've got to fix"