Court to ISPs: You Really Are Just Dumb Pipes

Back when the clamor began to reclassify broadband access as a Title II telecommunications service, in the wake of the DC Circuit Court’s ruling overturning the Federal Communications Commission’s effort to impose net neutrality rules under its Title I authority, there was a lot of grumbling among Verizon’s peers that the telco should have left bad enough alone instead of challenging the commission’s 2010 rules in court.

Though Verizon won the case, largely on technical legal grounds, it poked a hornet’s next that threatened the far-greater sting of reclassification. But now that the same DC Circuit Court has handed down its ruling on reclassification and the FCC’s revised net neutrality rules, many of those grumbling last time are probably wishing they’d followed their own advice.

FCC_buildingNot only did the FCC win the case this time around, but the court majority’s opinion delivers a series of roundhouse blows to most of the ISPs’ claims about the value of their services, if not yet to their market valuations.

In essence, the court concluded that as service providers, ISPs add almost no value beyond basic connectivity. And that goes for wireless as well as fixed-broadband providers.

Apart from their objections on procedural grounds to the FCC’s rulemaking, the ISPs and their trade associations argued they could not fairly be classified as utility-style telecommunications providers because the services they offer consumers include a range of complex, value-adding information-processing functions, such as email, online storage, content caching and DNS lookup. Read More »

Return Of The Gatekeeper

Making content available on-demand was supposed to put the consumer in charge. Armed with “personalization” tools and backed by social media filtering the viewer/listener/reader would be king, usurping the power of traditional gatekeepers.

But a funny thing is happening on the way to the throne: consumers increasingly are inviting gatekeepers back into the realm, albeit not necessarily the same ones they had overthrown.

guard-buckhm-palace-shst_w_755Speaking at MIDEM this week, MIDiA analyst Mark Mulligan reported that “The percentage of people who make their own playlists on streaming has dropped by 10 percentage points in just one year,” said Mulligan. “The main playlists which people are using are the playlists which are being pushed to them,” by the streaming services, or in some cases by record labels.

Citing data provided by Spotify, Mulligan noted that in December 2014, Spotify’s Today’s Top Hits playlist had 2.3 million followers and generated 35.4 million streams per month. By April 2016 it had grown to 7.8 million followers and was generating more than 120 million streams a month. Read More »

Remastering Copyright

It’s not often that a copyright owner denies owning a copyright in order to press a case for copyright infringement. But that’s essentially the position ABS Entertainment found itself in its legal fight with CBS Radio over the broadcaster’s on-air use of sound recordings made prior to 1972, when recordings came under federal copyright protection. And now a federal judge in California has ruled that ABS is stuck with the consequences of the copyright it never claimed (h/t THR, Esq.)

His_Master's_VoiceThe ruling, if it stands up on the expected appeal, is fairly dripping with implications for music and broadcasting industries (both over-the-air and digital), but also for the film and video industry that makes use of sound recordings in audiovisual works.

Pre-1972 sound recordings have been the focus of considerable controversy in recent years. Prior to 1972, sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law; only the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were protected. But in 1971 congress updated the law to extend federal copyright protection to sound recordings made after February 15, 1972.

The law continued to exempt over-the-air broadcasters from having to pay public performance royalties to the owners of sound recordings, however (publishers and songwriters get paid), to the dismay of the record labels, on the ostensible grounds that airplay helped promote the sale of records and therefore record companies didn’t need performance royalties. (The real reasons had more to do with the power that broadcasters once wielded in Washington, DC, and in some measure still do.) Read More »

Peak TV and the Politics of Plenty

The formal comment period for the FCC’s controversial set-top box proposal closed this week, after tallying 256,747 submissions. As in any hard-fought rulemaking proceeding these days, most of those were canned comments from “the public” rounded up by PR firms working for parties on all sides of the issue. But it also drew more than 1,000 substantive comments from rights owners, members of the pay-TV industry, technology providers and other agencies of government involved in telecommunications policy, including the White House.

FCC_headquartersI’ve written here before, perhaps excessively, on the relative merits (or lack of them) to the various sides’ positions, so I won’t belabor the debate further. But the latest round of comments revealed another, related issue that bears watching regardless of how the set-top box debate turns out: the very different perspectives on the impact of innovation coming from different corners of the TV business.

The Motion Picture Association of America, representing the 6 major Hollywood studios, has been nearly apoplectic over the FCC’s plan, and its final reply comments — all 50 pages of them — were no exception: Read More »

Disney’s Split UI Personality

Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger this week said he is “very excited” about the user interface Hulu has designed for its planned virtual-pay-TV service launching next year.

“We’ve seen the interface because we’re partners [in Hulu]” Iger said Wednesday at the MoffettNathanson Media & Communications Summit. “It’s a great interface, a tremendous user experience, and we’re in discussions with them about our channels and about prices.”

hulu_nocbs-1He also used the opportunity to take a swipe at traditional pay-TV operators for the lack of innovation in their UIs over the years.

“I’ve been frustrated over the years by the UI” of cable and satellite TV services Iger said. “Maybe because I’m getting older I don’t have the patience anymore, but we’re all getting more and more spoiled by what technology makes possible,” in terms of surfacing, discovering and accessing content.

According to Iger, consumers raised on digital platforms today simply won’t tolerate any glitches or difficulty in access the content they want when they want it, and the traditional pay-TV industry simply hasn’t kept up with the times. Read More »

In Cable, The Rich Get Richer

Daniel Frankel, over at FierceCable, noted an interesting pattern in the Q1 data from cable operators this week. All of the vaunted rebound in video subscribers during the period was concentrated among top-tier providers.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Charter collectively added 89,000 video subs.

Mid-size operators, however, all experienced continued erosion among video subscribers. Cablevision lost 15,000; Cable One lost 13,000; and Mediacom lost 2,000 across its two operating units.

money_bagsFirst-quarter data on smaller providers, which is compiled by SNL Kagan, is not yet available. But it would be surprising if the pattern there were different from that of the mid-size providers.

In both cases, operators are increasingly making a de facto, if not quite formal, decision not to fight very hard to attract or retain video subscribers because of the high programming costs that come with them and to focus their business primarily on their broadband service.

“The lower end of the market can no longer afford the big bundle; the number of disruptive OTT technologies and vendors are now multiplying rapidly; and the millennial generation has very limited interest in traditional TV viewing,” Cable One CEO Thomas Might told Fierce. “These patterns will inevitably bring an end to the ubiquitous fat bundle, but only slowly and painfully.”

Slowly and painfully perhaps, but the data also suggest it could happen at very different speeds in different markets, depending on the size of the local providers’ national footprint. Read More »

Ticket To Stream

One of the business challenges that has held back the direct-to-consumer streaming of ticketed events — whether live concerts, Broadway shows, or first-run movies — has been the lack of an effective ticketing mechanism for over-the-top video. As there was no way to know how many people might be gathered around a particular screen rights owners and event producers had little choice but to charge an arbitrary price for the stream, usually high enough to account for the possibility of multiple viewers but at the cost of turning off people viewing alone or perhaps with only one other person.

home-theater-lightingSean Parker’s Screening Room, for instance, plans to charge a flat $50 per movie for in-home access to first-run films, which research shows could limit the market for the service.

The inability to know how many people are in the room also makes it difficult for providers to sell advertising or sponsorship in the stream because they cannot offer advertisers an accurate count of how many people were exposed to their messages.

In-home ticketing may be poised to have its moment, however, due to some recent technological advances. Read More »

What UI Voodoo Will Hulu Do In Linear Debut?

One of the more interesting subplots to Hulu’s apparently pending rollout of an over-the-top bundle of linear channels will be what it does with the user interface.

As I’ve noted here previously, the traditional programming grid that still drives navigation on most pay-TV systems today is at the core of the current tussle over Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal to “unlock” the set-top box to allow third-party devices and applications to interoperate with pay-TV services. And apart from pay-TV operators themselves, the loudest objections to Wheeler’s proposal have come from programmers, who fear those third parties will not honor the agreements networks have with operators concerning their position within the traditional pay-TV UI.

“ArmHulu_homepage’s length agreements between MVPDs and programmers provide the necessary licenses to transmit the content, and in exchange the MVPDs agree to a range of license terms, including security requirements, advertising rules, [electronic programming guide] channel placement obligations, and tier placement requirements,” the Motion Picture Association of America wrote in comments submitted to the FCC. “These terms are material to the grant of the copyright license, and to copyright holders’ ability to direct the exploitation of their works in a manner that enables them to continue to invest in the high-quality programming that viewers expect. ..The only terms the proposal would explicitly recognize are copy, output, and streaming limitations. Extensively negotiated terms on matters including “service presentation (such as agreed-upon channel lineups and neighborhoods), replac[ing] or alter[ing] advertising, or improperly manipulat[ing] content,” are all left unaddressed by the FCC’s proposal.” Read More »

Welcome To The RightsTech Revolution

Concurrent Media Strategies, LLC, publisher of the Concurrent Media blog, and Digital Media Wire, Inc., producers of Digital Entertainment World and the New York Media Festival, among other conferences, today announced the official launch of RightsTech, a new forum — blog, newsletter, conferences — for cross-industry global collaboration focused on furthering technology innovation around rights management and licensing across multiple media verticals.

rightstechlogo-2The inaugural RightsTech Summit will be held July 26 at the the Japan Society in New York City. The newsletter, which you can subscribe to here, will keep you up to date on all the news and conversation around the emerging RightsTech ecosystem. The blog will be an evolving platform for discussion and debate among the various stakeholders. Read More »

The FCC Plays For Time in Charter-TWC Merger

The Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Justice Department this week each signaled their intent to approve Charter Communication’s $65 billion acquisitions of Time Warner Cable and Brighthouse Networks, subject to several conditions.

The mergers will create the second largest cable-TV provider in the country, with 17.4 million subscribers, behind Comcast’s 22 million. Strikingly, though, none of the conditions attached by the FCC and DOJ have to do with the provision of cable-TV service. Instead, they deal almost entirely with promoting over-the-top video as a viable competitor to cable.

FCC_headquartersUnder the deal with the FCC, the merged company will be prohibited from imposing usage-based pricing or data caps on its 19.4 million broadband subscribers, a tactic many cable internet providers have turned to lately to discourage video cord-cutting by indirectly raising the cost of using OTT services like Netflix.

Charter will also be prohibited from charging Netflix and other OTT providers with interconnection fees for delivering traffic to Charter broadband subscribers.

Under the agreement with the Justice Department, Charter will be barred from inserting or enforcing most-favored nation (MFN) clauses in its carriage agreements with programmers — a tactic many pay-TV providers, particularly TWC, have used to discourage programmers from making their content available on OTT platforms. Read More »

The Box And The Bundle

One of the most striking aspects of the current debate over the FCC’s proposal to “unlock” the set-top box is how shabby the public arguments are on all sides.

Chairman Tom Wheeler, who cooked up the idea, hangs his case for requiring pay-TV providers to disaggregate essential programming, navigation and entitlement elements of their service for the convenience of third-party device makers and developers on the alleged cost to consumers of renting a set-top box from their provider every month, which the proposal pegs at $231 a year (a figure others dispute). Allowing consumers to bring their own device will save them money, according to Wheeler. The White House made a similar argument in endorsing the proposal.

settop _box_openSet-top box fees are surely excessive, like the cost of pay-TV service itself. But they’re also arbitrary, just like a lot of other line items on the average cable bill. Broadcast fee? Regional sports fee? How are those calculated? The idea that requiring operators to eliminate one line item on a monthly bill full of arbitrary fees and prices will translate into meaningful cost savings to consumers seems far-fetched.

For that matter, the idea that letting consumers buy their own set-top box would necessarily result in significant savings also seems far-fetched. A TiVO Roamio goes for $600, plus $10 a month for the guide. Read More »

The Impoverishment Of Live TV

Live programming, particularly live sports, is widely seen as the last major thread still holding together the pay-TV bundle. Apart from news, nearly all other types of programming are just as enjoyable viewed on demand or time-shifted, perhaps even more enjoyable given the prospect for commercial-avoidance.

Live events, however, especially sports, are more valuable and enjoyable when viewed in real time, providing an incentive for consumers to coachellacontinue to pay their cable or satellite bill, particularly so as more live sports programming moves off free broadcast channels to pay-TV channels.

Live sports are also increasingly available over-the-top, of course. But for the most part those streams are simply retransmissions of existing linear broadcasts targeted at fans who can’t watch the games on their native broadcast platforms either because the games are not available in the viewer’s home market or because the viewer doesn’t have access to a big screen TV at game time. Issues with Given the option, most people would still choose to watch most sporting events on their native broadcast platforms.

Recent developments in the world of live streaming hint at how that could start to change, however. Read More »

RightsTech Summit set for New York City on July 26

On July 26 Digital Media Wire and Concurrent Media Strategies will hold the inaugural RightsTech Summit at the Japan Society in New York City, a 1-day executive leadership conference that brings together cross-industry leaders focused on furthering technology innovation around rights management and licensing across multiple media verticals.

rightstechlogo2One of the goals of the event is the establishment of industry best practices for the rapidly evolving RightsTech ecosystem.

Issues and discussion groups at the inaugural RightsTech Summit include:

  • Machine Readable Rights
  • Smart Contracts
  • Shared Responsibilities
  • Blockchain and Big Data
  • RightsTech in the Enterprise
  • RightsTech and Direct-to-Consumer Distribution
  • RightsTech and Piracy
  • Attribution and Provenance

For registration information and complete details please visit RightsTechSummit.com.

Email us at info@digitalmediawire.com

——

RightsTech Summit

July 26, 2016

Japan Society

333 East 47th Street

New York, NY 10017

From Winky-Dink to Facebook Live: Social TV’s Next Chapter

Broadcasters have long dreamed of making TV interactive and social. From the days of “Winky-Dink & You,” which encouraged its young viewers to draw on the TV screen along with the show’s host (much to their parents’ dismay), to Time Warner’s Full Service Network in Orlando, Fla., to the short-lived flowering of second-screen apps, broadcasters and their technology partners have tried for decades to make watching TV a more engaging experience by giving viewers the means to interact directly with their programming, and with others watching at the same time.

Most of those efforts have failed to catch on as their backers had hoped, largely because broadcast platforms are inherently uni-directional. They’re winky_dinknot networked to support much beyond overlaying some pre-baked interactive elements. Even today, when second-screen use while watching TV is a mainstream behavior, most of that activity involves something other than the content on the TV screen, or happens on unrelated social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook that are opaque to the broadcaster until after the fact. Dedicated second-screen apps allow for greater dialog between broadcaster and viewer but don’t really capture the broader conversation around the content.

This month, however, we’ve seen the first steps toward what could be a new and more promising stage in the evolution of social TV. Last week, Twitter landed a deal with the NFL to live-stream a package of 10 “Thursday Night Football” games next season. Though Twitter was not the highest bidder for the streaming rights, the micro-blogging service is a natural online home for the NFL. Nearly 50 percent of the conversations on Twitter are sports related and the NFL is one of the most frequent topics of those conversations. Read More »