If you receive as many newsletters as I do about the state of television, you probably noticed a distinct trend in streaming, over-the-top (OTT) video accessibility. It was recently revealed that Canada will soon be requiring cable providers to offer a basic entry-level service that can be customized in an ala carte fashion. And other media companies are beginning to offer new ways to receive television programming without a hefty subscription fee.

At the same time, pay TV has seen a marked decline in subscribers – affectionately known as cord-cutters – and it shows few signs of slowing. This may explain why the trend is happening outside the U.S., but not here. The subscription model has made some people very wealthy, so it’s not surprising that we are last to get the freedom to choose that our own media companies are offering abroad. The articles below are just some of what I’ve been seeing lately.

“Want control over your cable bill? Move to Canada.”

“Cable A La Carte Is Becoming a Reality — Outside the U.S.”

“Starz CEO Touts Direct-to-Consumer Offering Outside the U.S.”

“Kagan: Pay TV Lost 1.1M Subs in 2015”

But as more consumers are viewing video on their mobile devices, as well as with the success of providers such as Netflix, Amazon and Hulu, and streaming devices (Chromecast, Roku) and connected TV sets get a foothold in domestic households, we see cable providers offering so-called skinny bundles, and specialized packages for premium channels like HBO and Showtime. Yes, they are adapting, but slowly and very cautiously. Sad that we are the last to reap the benefits of these new technologies, but as a rich nation, we are also the last bastion of reliable revenue.

I like to think of myself as a somewhat humble person, but when I read this article from Match 10, 2016, about The New York Times launching a television website (whatever that is), I had to retrieve a portion of a column I wrote way back in February of 2007 – yes, 2007!

2/28/07

As the article below indicates, more and more web sites are offering video, thanks in large part to the ease with which people can embed content from places like YouTube into a web page.

“NYT to Post Users’ Videos on Web Site”
For the first time, The New York Times will begin posting user-generated videos on its Web site.

By Mike Shields for Mediaweek
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548945

But this begs the question: At what point does a news web site like The New York Times cease being a newspaper’s online manifestation and instead become a direct competitor to one such as ABC News or MSNBC?  The very definition of a newspaper is being completely remade to accommodate the realities and possibilities of the Internet.  In fact, some believe (such as myself) that the days of print newspapers (and magazines, for that matter) are numbered, although in years, maybe even decades.  With the addition of video to many web sites, the merging of media continues and portends a landscape that will put all the media outlets in head-to-head competition for essential advertising dollars.  The days of true broadcasting are numbered, with the exception of events like the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards.

 

I am a semi-proud owner of a Google Chromecast adapter for my television set, and after a few false starts, have become somewhat comfortable using this inexpensive little device to stream from the web onto my TV. But I get the sense that it has been existing just under the radar currently occupied by the likes of Roku and Apple TV. But when I read this article about how many units have sold, and its steady growth in this segment, I can’t help but be reminded of how, while the iPhone was all the rage, Android devices were overtaking the market in sheer numbers.

Per the study – Global Connected TV Device Vendor Market Share: Q4 2015 — the $35 Google Chromecast took down 35% of the 42 million digital media streamer shipped last year, followed by Apple TV, Roku and Amazon Fire TV products.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Google is simply waiting for the blockbuster content play to really leverage their position in the streaming television. What that play is, well, I don’t know, but with NFL negotiating with the likes of Amazon and Facebook, the marketplace is getting more robust. We’ll have to wait and see.

I honestly don’t have the complete answer to this, but I read about another weapon in the battle of ad blocking here, and was a little surprised about this factoid:

“The company says its browser with built in ad-blocking technology is 45% faster than Google Chrome running Adblock Plus and 89% faster than Microsoft’s Edge running the same extension.”

Perhaps you have tried to figure out ways to download websites faster, from upgrading your modem or router, to buying faster DSL services, to adding memory to your device. But if simple ad blocking can make that much of a difference, then it’s no wonder that there is a race to unveil the best ad blocking technology.

Of course, this has major implications for those who rely on advertising dollars to subsidize their content. And there is a major push by the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) to reconcile these opposing forces, but the move by Opera – which will likely bleed over to other major browsers – seems to indicate that there is still not unity on how to balance optimizing the user experience with providing access to consumers for the advertisers, who are critical to the business model.

I am a big fan of Science Friday, the weekly radio show on public radio. While I typically listen for selfish reasons – being a geek, nerd, etc. – I was surprised to hear a very enlightening segment all about cable boxes, in light of the impending ruling from the FCC that will de-regulate the market.

If you have ten minutes for an interesting podcast, then click here to learn more.

You’re welcome!

This article from Ad Age is a terrific example of how OTT (Over-The-Top) content delivery is becoming a contentious issue as media conglomerates consolidate their stockpile of programming.

“Over-the-top is another term for online video.”

In this case, Charter Communications is in the final stages of acquiring Time-Warner Cable (which is no longer part of the larger Time Warner, Inc.). The conflict arises over the ability to grab HBO programs via its HBONow service.

One of the fears is that users of Charter broadband service will be “nudged” into viewing HBO through the more lucrative cable service, as opposed to online.

“Charter has worked to ease concerns over broadband, saying it won’t impose caps on data usage that might discourage viewing of internet video, pledging not to block rival traffic, and not charging video providers to connect Charter’s network.”

This question will continue to require scrutiny and intervention as audiences vacillate between cable television viewing and the increase in OTT programming. As it is, I have the choice of subscribing to HBO through DirecTV for a monthly fee, or subscribing to HBONow and watching through my phone, tablet or TV streaming stick, for another monthly fee, or downloading a podcast or watching segments on YouTube, for a fee. But this really applies only to “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “Last Week Tonight With John Oliver.” How are you getting HBO (or other premium content) in this new digital marketplace?