Hollywood studios grasping at straws

The Hollywood studios are taking BT to court. The issue at stake is should BT (and other ISP’s) block users accessing sites that enable piracy. For me the resounding answer is no. Why? The internet is an open network – like the road network people can travel around visit places without some big brother watching what you are doing. You may think that blocking certain sites is all they need to do, but the reality is these sites will reappear with different name and covers. So in order to discover the new sites they will watch what you are doing. The idea is like getting the local authority, that build your roads, to stop you going to a market that sells pirated DVDs.
The sad thing is that the studios see piracy as the reason for the massive fall in sales yet the reality is consumer behaviour is changing with the multiple ways to access and consume content. On-demand services are in their infancy as are connected TV and connected set-top-boxes (STB). So why are people not buying DVD or Bluray Disks (BD). Could it be Hollywood has run out of ideas?
New films are not telling stories consumers want? The global financial slowdown is making people spend less? The existing libraries of DVD/BD that consumers have, is good enough? Could it be that Digital Video Recorders (DVR) enable easy recording of broadcast content, so that when there is nothing good on there is always something on the PVR? And to top it all off, unlike VHS tapes these alternatives don’t wear out and display the content as good as broadcast TV or better.
I would not be surprised if pirate web sites have seen a fall in demand too!
The current consumers of Hollywood content have grown up with computers, broadband and multitasking. They have a short attention span and why watch something again when there is something new. They need to show through their online social network, that they are up with the latest and new.
These are the issues that Hollywood needs to understand and address. UV is also not the answer…

Networks & Network Providers

I took part in a panel discussion today about networks. Over seventy industry leaders from across the UK. Was FTTH (fibre to the home) a good investment? Would FTTC (fibre to the cabinet) be cheaper and just as good? How do network operators reduce their costs?

I was surrounded by people all intensely interested in networks. One person (a Welsh MP) pointed out that the EU defined broadband as anything above 150kb/s and some other organisation had defined it is anything above 256kb/s (from memory). The UK government had so far not defined what it means by “broadband” and therefore the ambition to get broadband into every home by 2012 probably achievable simply by defining UK broadband as anything above 32kb/s.

However….During the discussion it was easy to get caught up in the hype and technology and how you could get 40Mb to the home. Would the customer pay for it, and how much?

Consumers don’t by broadband because they want broadband – sure early adopters and techys might get into a “my broadband is bigger than your broadband” type of discussion, but, as the actress said to the bishop, it isn’t about size its what you do with it.

Consumers buy broadband as a means of getting to content. In fact going back to the basic telephone service people wanted to talk to other people. The networks provided the connection and the consumers the content.

Technology and assets give companies a barrier to competition. Their ability to control and use the technology allow them to dictate the way it is used and who uses it.

The record industry is a good example – recording studios and vinyl pressing plants were expensive and inexcusable technologies for new companies to invest in and entre the market. They were certainly not in the reach of the consumer. But as new technologies came along so it eroded this control/power. Pressing plants were sold off as what differentiated one label from another was not how well the record was made but what was on it.

Broadcasters had technology but also had the benefit of limited radio spectrum. The licensing regimes of the UK and Europe, meant that it was difficult for new entrants to make the investment and take the risk to bid for a license. This additional barrier (lower in radio broadcasting) kept them in control and complacent, beyond the natural life of their business models.

Anyway back to networks… These too are starting to lose their power as one network (fixed line or mobile) starts to look very much like the other. Why chose one over another: –

1. Does it work?
2. Is there a cheaper one that works just as good?
3. Is it hassle to get/maintain?

What has changed for the network operators is that the desirable/compelling/valuable content that customers want to get to, is not user generated, point to point of voice and data.

So what do network operators (service providers) need to do? Do they want to simply survive or do they want to transform?

Railway operators never got into air transport. Yet they were wealthy organisations at the time and could have easily expanded. Enormous synergies in scheduling time tables, selling tickets, reservations, engineering operations, logistics of rolling stock/planes, and staff roles. But they were rail operators, stuck with the technology and not the transport market need they serviced.

Networks operators follow the same route, married to providing networks and not the fulfilment of the consumers’ demand for content access.

So how do I see the network providers evolving, as apposed to becoming a low cost commodity utility? One thought…

The telephone directory was a way of customers finding out information about what (or in this case who) was on the network. As the internet grows (around 5,000 pages/second in 2008) it is increasingly difficult for the consumer to find what they want. Google (fast as it is) is throwing up a mountain of information to sort through. How many pages am I going to visit before I find the information I was after?  You Tube. Very funny clips, but if I have to spend 50-minutes watch dross, to find a 3-minute gem, I’m going to start to rely on my friends sending me a link in an email. Much more efficient!

As content (quality, professional production) gets onto the internet, how does the consumer no it even exists, let alone where to find it.  Is there a role for the network provider to be trusted recommender or aggregator of content? Is that worth paying for? Collect information on what I like and sell it on, but let me see some benefit. And not just in the adverts

I think it is almost impossible to predict what the consequences will be if 40+Mb/s is delivered to the home but some indicators now are not good.

Of the population that can get broadband, the take-up is way less than 50%. So not the “must have” technology.

Of the people that do have broadband around 50% get less than 1Mb/s download speed. Assuming that they are putting up with this (as they continue to pay) if not delighted, then 4Mb/s would probably fit their current needs not 40Mbit. “What about HDTV?” I hear you cry. Does anyone want to stream live HDTV over the internet?

• If it’s a film or recorded programme = download it
• If its news = why HD
• If its sports = why are you not watching in on a broadcast channel

Take the scenario that there are two adults and two teenagers, each simultaneously watching a streamed HDTV programme. 10,000 lines in an exchange area x 4 40,000 video streams. Will the backbone cope –

“Some will be watching the same programme?” Even if they are if two people watch the same if they start at different times they are different streams.

“Cache the content in the local exchange!” for how long? 3 hours of HDTV per person adds up to a lot of storage.

I’m sure 40Mbit to the home will come. It could enable social change (maybe even a revolution) with people working from home and a growth in cottage industries, a reduction in travel and CO2 emissions. Our kids are already used to interacting and socialising and would probably be easy to adapt and adopt this working environment. But will we look at the society that creates with pride?

BskyB unhappy with Ofcom's suggestion

Here are some key phrases used by BskyB in its response to Ofcom’s consultation on the UK Pay TV Market

“…it [Ofcom] is proposing the imposition of radical and highly interventionist regulation of a sort unseen in any developed market economy.”

“…the damaging effects on investment incentives that would result
from the confiscatory nature of Ofcom’s proposals,…”

“…- compulsory supply - would require Sky to license the intellectual property in its channels to third party retailers. This is one of the most Draconian remedies available to a competition authority. Moreover, this proposal is accompanied by proposals for detailed ex ante regulation, including price control,…”

“…Ofcom’s proposed intervention seeks effectively to impose on Sky an obligation to subsidise other market players, by forcing Sky to reduce its wholesale prices to “support entry into the market by new retailers”.”

“…to eliminate any risk of excess profitability in Sky’s premium sports and movies channel supply business, it would impose cost-plus based price controls.”

“Ofcom’s proposed intervention could, for example, reduce incentives to invest on the part of Sky and other operators, and diminish innovation levels,…”

“It is noteworthy that the European Commission’s intervention in the sale of
rights to broadcast Premier League football resulted in consumers who wish to view all live matches broadcast having to pay more than they were prior to the intervention.”

BskyB’s response is 140 pages long and it goes on in a consistent vain. I have a lot of sympathy with Sky’s argument. However, when BT was forced to open up the local access to Sky I didn’t hear any objections. BT is forced to sell its Broadband services to BskyB (and others) at wholesale prices that are then marked up and sell on to consumers.

This was imposed by the same regulator and the difference was that sky benefited from similar measures imposed in one area but cries “Fowl” when pointed at them.

Their argument holds some truths such as …BT is now reluctant to invest in fibre to the home as BT would probably have to allow competitors to have access and would not make the return on the investment that balanced the risk.

Video on demand

First I feel it necessary to define what I mean by Video on Demand (VoD). I mean in the broadest sense of on demand. Walking into your local DVD rental emporium is VoD. The time lag between making a decision and the fulfilment is a function of the operation and technology. So what isn’t VoD? Buying a DVD or taking a DVD out of your personal library isn’t VoD – something in-between. At the opposite end from VoD is broadcast where programmes are scheduled to play at a time determined by station that also decides what content to aggregate into its schedule.

So in my definition of VoD I would include the walled gardens of IPTV services like BT Vision even though they exhibit the broadcasters’ trait of decided what content to aggregate onto their platform. Internet TV services such as Joost and the BBC’s iPlayer are VoD as is a download or stream.

VoD is still an emerging service with early adopters still dominating the consumer base. This is unlikely to change for sometime for a number of factors.
These are 1. Uncertainty 2.Complexity and 3. Confusion caused by: -
• Proprietary technologies and applications that require multiple installations on your PC.
• Multiple set top boxes, sling box, IPTV box, Multimedia centres
• HDTV on the horizon which technology or device will give the best experience or will new boxes and technology require me to ditch my new but obsolete investment.
And others.
Even if these are all resolved and a “Blue-ray” standard emerges there is still a big benefit that broadcast has over VoD though few seem to recognise it or be developing it as a strategy. It is “Discovery”.

What is discovery? Well, most viewers know where there favourite TV Soaps are they switch channels to watch their Soap. How do they now? Well they look in the news paper, TV guide or know it’s always on. What about a new Soap? Here the marketing is done by the broadcast TV channel (or Network) Posters, newspaper but also trailers that are placed around other programmes.

Other channels don’t need to do this as much as their brand value broadly describes the content they aggregate for the viewers’ entertainment. Examples of my interpretations of these TV Brand are; Disney is a family channel, I could place an 8-year old in front of it in complete confidence that they would not hear a profanity. MTV once a music channel is now a 16 – 30 year old life style content. National Geographical, The Discovery Channel etc all have consumer understood values that set the viewing expectations.

BT Vision on the other hand and Joost may promote themselves and the extent of their content libraries but I have yet to see much more. This is because, to date, their content has previously been shown on TV or in Cinemas and therefore someone else has done the marketing and created the awareness. Users of these services are primarily looking for something they missed or want to see again. They may see something that they watch on speculation, but not the primary motivation.

Will VoD services see the day when there is content made primarily for VoD and secondly for broadcast? Will VoD commission exclusive content? Could they bid for 24, Lost or Heroes, so these programmes appeared exclusively or initially on their platforms? To succeed they will have to spend more and get smarter at marketing and enabling their target market to discover the delights, benefits and freedom of VoD.