In some ways, getting TV services either from a telecom company, a satellite company, or a cable operator doesn’t make much of a difference to the average consumer. The basic content is the same (yes, there are differences in HD channels and some sports and premium channels availability), and for many of us the experience of watching a show on television is the same regardless of who provides it. (Don’t post hate comments. I know most people reading this blog are aware of differences in picture quality, DVR offerings, etc.)
However, one of the points coming across at this week’s TelcoTV show is that telecom operators have an opportunity to adjust the service model because they aren’t stuck in a historical subscription TV sales rut. For example, telcos could bundle content differently. Who is to say the programming tiers cable has developed are best? Certainly consumers complain about them, and while telcos aren’t likely to switch to an a-la-carte model, they could still package them quite differently. Starz is arguing it should be bundled with a lower-price tier because it’s what consumers want. (Maybe, maybe not) The Big Ten network is arguing the same thing, and has so far stuck it to the cable companies by launching with AT&T.
Beyond content-bundling strategy, telcos could be (and to some extent are) focusing on different “value-add” services. Verizon is pushing the envelope with widgets, in-home networking and media extender capabilities. An AT&T VP spouted yesterday about features the company is lab-testing now that go far beyond what the cable companies are doing: IPTV webcams, a Family Finder application connecting GPS cell phones with Google Maps on your TV, flight trackers for up-to-date travel info. Whether or not these specific applications make it to market, the point is that the considerations for what is possible have changed.
What would be really interesting would be to see Verizon or AT&T truly change the game by offering either a really cheap TV plan (like $12.99) with potential for all kinds of incremental add-ons or an all-inclusive bundle that goes overboard with the extras (features, support, priority access, etc.) How much will the telcos disrupt the apple cart before they settle into their own rut? We have a few years to find out.
A La Carte would’ve worked 20 years but it’s too late now – they all have that 65 or 80 million homes passed goal. When networks talk about being on a low priced tier (like NFLN) but then want $1 a sub and of course, rake in the ad dollars at the other end … they are just being disningenious.
Not that I’m defending cable or sat companies because we are stagnating at the actual channels we get that’s not a retain tradeoffer or some $50 billion conglomerate able to buy its way in …
For those who think ala carte will solve anything (think restaurants) … what will happen? You can get the Disney Channel for $10 a month and ESPN for $25 a month or take both for $29.99 a month and you get 10 other Disney corp channels inlucding ABC HD, etc, etc … (and of course, you get QVC for free!)
WE will actually pay MORE – so unless you cahnge the background of how channels are launched, al la carte is just more billions to the networks.
Right now, in the US – the problem is DISTRIBUTION control not anything else.
What we need is REAL IPTV where people can order EXACTLY the channels they want from the world over.
Let’s really treat Tv like TP. You can buy it in hundreds of stores around your neighborhood (TP for now), why not TV … packaged nicely on a device like AppleTV or some ratty DI box … like Costco to Al’s Fast & Quick … we get to choose …