Ashton Hits 1,000,000 Twitter Followers. So, What?

This has clearly been Twitter’s biggest week ever. First Ashton Kutcher, one of the first celebs to take Twitter seriously, challenged CNN to a race to 1,000,000 followers and won.  Then, today, he joined Ev Williams (founder of Twitter) on Oprah, where the big O herself sent her first tweet (in unfortunate Kanye West-style all-caps).

There are plenty of notions to draw out of the rise of Twitter.  It’s still far too soon to know whether this is a massive boom/bust fad or something that is here to stay but I found Pete Cashmore’s comment on Mashable to be the most intriguing:

For now, Twitter needs mainstream media more than mainstream media needs Twitter. But Ashton has an audience of 1 million at his fingertips: how much longer will the talent need its mainstream middleman?

I’ve been wondering along these lines for a while, really pre-Twitter.  With the internet, the doors of distribution have been thrown wide and anyone with a connection can, in theory, reach a worldwide audience via words, sound and video.  Why does someone like Ashton Kutcher really need NBC or Time Warner Cable when they can reach their fans directly and deliver to them solid content?

LINK

Related articles by Zemanta

• CNN, Ashton, Twitter … Oh My (mashable.com)
• Confirmed: CNN Acquires CNNBrk Twitter Account (techcrunch.com)

Time Warner Cable Forced to Abandon Caps (for now…)

It turns out that if enough people express enough outrage than even a company as stubborn and unresponsive as Time Warner Cable is forced to respond.

Such is the case with TWC’s misguided plans to do a test rollout of metered bandwidth pricing.  Once everyone from top bloggers to major politicians weighed in on the myriad problems with the plan, TWC has be forced to reconsider and will not proceed with their current test programs in Texas and upstate New York.

Still, it isn’t all good news:

Not that the company believes anything about the plan was fundamentally misguided; as CEO Glenn Britt put it today, “There is a great deal of misunderstanding about our plans to roll out additional tests on consumption based billing.”

Sadly, Britt did not go into detail on just what we all misunderstood about a plan that could force users to pay up $20 just to download and view TWILIGHT in HD.

LINK

Related articles by Zemanta

• Metering the Internet not catching on (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• The Twilight Problem: Why Metered Broadband Could Suck (gigaom.com)
• Time Warner Cable Says It Singled Out Austin’s Geeks (gigaom.com)

Metered Broadband from TWC = $20 Movie Downloads?!

Nobody seems very happy about Time Warner Cable’s experimental rollout of metered broadband that basically sets your monthly fee for internet service on how much content you view and/or download while online.

TWC would like you to believe that this sort of plan is only fair since some people only use a little bit of broadband while others (like those horrible people who watch Hulu instead of paying for Time Warner Cable TV) are big ol’ internet pigs.  The thing is, it doesn’t take much to build up a nasty bill under their plan.  How nasty?

Well, the good folks at Gigaom did the math:

Time Warner’s price per GB for its proposed tiers ranges from 75 cents to $15 (unless you max out the overage fees on the 100 GB per month tier and default into unlimited service for $150). This means the bandwidth for “Twilight” would cost between $2.85 and $20.60. After adding in the $3.99 rental fee, the evening at home costs between $6.84 and $24.59.

The only way that TWC will be able to get away with this sort of highway robbery will be if there is no legitimate competing service – like, for instance, in Manhattan.

Maybe this is why both regular folks and politicians are starting to take a closer look at Time Warner Cable’s plans.  Let’s hope that this is the dumb move that forces TWC to change it’s ways for the better.  Don’t hold your breath.

LINK

Time Warner Cable Bandwidth Caps Cause Concern

There are lots of reports today about Time Warner Cable’s testing of a new bandwidth-usage caps that would basically charge you more if you transferred more data online.  This is not limited to strictly downloading but includes streaming, an increasingly popular use of bandwidth.

SAI breaks it down:

What does this mean for you? If you watch about 7 hours a week of standard-def video, or 2.5 hours a week of hi-def Web video, you could easily pass even the 40 GB cap. After that, each iTunes movie rental — or Netflix (NFLX) stream, or whatever — could cost $1 to $4 more. Or Hulu episodes could cost $0.30 to $0.50. That doesn’t even include your other Web usage, such as downloading music, using the Web, etc.

On one hand, there is some logic in a plan that charges heavy users more than light users but it doesn’t seem an especially wise or sustainable plan by TWC.

First, as long as there are other bandwidth providers out there offering unlimited usage, TWC will have time keeping customers signed up.  Second, the rate at which our usage of bandwidth is increasing, often just from month to month, is amazing.  What might seem like reasonable usage today, watching lower-res videos, climbs quickly when one discovers HD streams and the like.

If TWC is your only option for highspeed service, you might be screwed but this kind of action will open up a lot of reasons for competitors to step in with a better offer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time Warner Cable Expands Internet Usage Pricing (businessweek.com)
• How Much is Cable TV Worth Online? (mymediamusings.com)
• Time Warner Cable’s Last Hope (oh, and Comcast et. al.) (mymediamusings.com)

Time Warner Cable’s Last Hope (oh, and Comcast et. al.)

There is no denying that cable companies are facing some big challenges to their business model.  Until very recently, the only reliable way to view the vast majority of programming made for TV was to pay a hefty monthly fee to a cable company for the privilege.

Over-the-air, while free, limits selection to the few networks that still offer signals and cable “black boxes” are relatively rare.

Then along came that evil internet to muck it all up for the cable companies. Since the only tangible service provided by the cable company is access, the internet is one big wrench in the works.  See, the internet provides access, too.  Until now, nearly all of that access, whether legal or pirated, was  free.  Suddenly, some people began to wonder just what they were paying all that money to the cable company for.

Well, the cable companies are wondering the same thing.  Instead of looking for a way to offer even more to their customers for a lower price, or some other direct response to the online proliferation of TV on the web, they’ve decided to do what they do best: throw up walls.

Time Warner Cable, the second-largest cable operator in the country, is working with customers here to test a subscriber model for online TV viewing. Residents who pay for HBO can watch “Big Love,” “Entourage” and other programs on their computers, using special software and a personal log-in. People who are not HBO subscribers are barred from the service.

Anyone else see the problem with these approach?

For starters, Time Warner isn’t actually offering anything that great to its paying subscribers since there are plenty of ways to view the same content online for free.  The more paywalls they erect, the more likely it is for piracy to expand in response.

The same would be true if only cable subscribers could access, say, Hulu or TV.com.  While there might be some logic in this approach with a pay-cable network like HBO the argument collapses when applied to network TV shows that are chock full of branded content and ads.

It may well be true that the evolution of technology makes things like cable companies obsolete but that doesn’t mean we should support these kinds of schemes to save them.  If there is no economic reason for cable companies to exist they should cease to exist.

(link)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Some Online Shows Could Go Subscription-Only (nytimes.com)
• Cable Companies Try to Get Some Online Pie (mymediamusings.com)
• CBS Interactive: “Well Within Our Rights To Stream Hulu Content” (techcrunch.com)

CNets Jumps On My Cable-Cutting Band Wagon

Way back in December I severed my Time Warner Cable TV connection because I was tired of paying $100/month for thousands of programs I never watched – oh, and dealing with their notion of customer service gave me nothing but aggravation.

Since then, the economy and new applications like Boxee are making it easier than ever to cut the cord.

CNet has a pretty good roundup of set-top boxes that let you move the internet-video experience to that big flatscreen monster in your living room:

I’ve done a little digging through the CNET Reviews archives to highlight the top 10 boxes/computers for accessing video-on-demand content via the Web. Here’s a brief summary of each, in no particular order. You can see at a glance what makes each one cool and what makes it not so cool. And you’ll get a general idea of how much each one costs.

I’m sorry to say that I haven’t found a box that offers me everything from all the top movies and TV shows to the best local and live TV programming. But the market is still evolving. And I promise you that the landscape could look very different in another 18 months, so stay tuned. (via)

Of course, if you don’t want to spend money on what is basically place-holder technology, you can just run a cable from your computer to your TV and enjoy.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time Warner Cable Losing Subscribers. I’m One of Them. (mymediamusings.com)
• Cable Companies Try to Get Some Online Pie (mymediamusings.com)
• A Quick Boxee Update (mymediamusings.com)
• NYT Confirms Drop in Cable Subscriptions (mymediamusings.com)

NYT Confirms Drop in Cable Subscriptions

I cut my cable TV subscription with Time Warner Cable close to six months ago (link) and haven’t missed it for one second.  Not only was the service an increasing burden on my finances but I was realizing what many others are starting to see – nearly everything is online now and for free or a nominal charge.

Like the millions of Americans who are ditching their landlines and relying solely on cellphones, these cable cutters are using new technology to redefine what is necessary and what is accessory, watching television when they want as opposed to when it is broadcast, and saving a few dollars.

“So many of my friends treated cable as a utility, that it wasn’t a home until it was set up,” said Nick Jackson, 24, who lives on the Lower East Side and works in publishing. “I basically chose Internet over the cable.” (link)

While I am sure the cable companies will try to find ways to “force” viewers back by trying to limit what gets online, we all know that this is a losing battle.  Cable companies will likely find they have to significantly drop their rates and add things like ala carte channel selection if they want to have any chance of competing with the internet, especially when it comes to new subscribers.

This is the true challenge with cable companies.  Most current subscribers are used to the ease and simplicity of cable and might not think they are savvy enough online to replace cable with pure internet but for new potential subscribers who are perhaps just out of college or their family home are well-versed in online options and likely to be short on cash.  It will be a pretty easy choice when faced with cable or internet.

It doesn’t help that cable companies like Time Warner, Comcast and CableVision often have near-monopolies in their given zone and have become lazy or inept when it comes to responsive customer service.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time Warner Cable Losing Subscribers. I’m One of Them. (mymediamusings.com)
• Charter Communications to file for Chapter 11 (money.cnn.com)
• As Earnings Drop 32%, Comcast Raises Dividend (nytimes.com)
• Economy Slows Cable’s Momentum (gigaom.com)

Cable Companies Try to Get Some Online Pie

There are plans brewing for cable companies like the atrocious Time Warner Cable to begin offering “exclusive” online streaming access for subscribers to programming currently not being offered via sites like Hulu.

Top cable-television providers and TV networks are exploring a sweeping solution to the threat of online video: putting large numbers of cable shows online, but accessible only to cable subscribers. (via)

Let’s take a quick look at why this is destined to fail.

1) They consider online video a “threat” that they can somehow defeat when it seems pretty clear that online video is here to stay.

2) Cable companies think they are going to be able to make content accessible only to cable subscribers. Our short internet history has shown pretty clearly that these “gated communities” are easily and quickly circumvented by those unwilling or unable to gain access “legally.”

3) By attempting to lock up content behind over-priced and inflexible walls pirates will simply be more motivated to  offer consumers a superiour alternative.

4) Right now I can find and view just about any TV program online without subscribing or paying via any number of legal, quasi-legal and illegal streaming sites not  to mention the myriad p2p solutions.  Cable is not likely to be competitive with this offer.

5) Attempting to build a business model on the concept of “scarcity” when your product is a digital video file that easily copied and distributed and then trying to charge for this artificial scarcity is just plain absurd.

3)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time Warner Cable Losing Subscribers. I’m One of Them. (mymediamusings.com)
• And the Web TV wars go on, and on, and on (news.cnet.com)
• Sign of the Times: TV Now Has Web Ratings (sitepoint.com)
• Cutting Cable: Companies Losing Customers (cbsnews.com)
• The Cable Companies’ Evil Plan To Take Down Hulu (Dan Frommer/Silicon Alley Insider) (techmeme.com)

Cable Companies Fight Losing Battle for Exclusivity

The cable companies have had it pretty good for quite some time.  A virtual monopoly over TV-hungry Americans often not even facing the competition of another cable company led to skyrocketing rates and consistently poor customer service – but there just wasn’t an alternative.

Now, with the explosion of easy-to-use online options for viewing traditional TV programming the cable companies are facing their first real threat (sorry DirectTV, a strong rain knocks out your service…) and they are responding my lowering their rates, offering ala carte pricing and overhauling their approach to customer service…Jusk kidding.  They’re not doing any of those things:

SNL Kagan pegs overall subscription revenue from telecoms, satellite companies and MSOs at around $22.5 billion in 2008. Cable companies want their deals to include online and set-top VOD access to everything they already pay for with cable network license fees or, in some cases, retransmission fees—and they don’t want to compete with services that don’t pay.

That would include Boxee, the media center-like service that easily can deliver HD-quality internet video to the TV screen but is losing access to Hulu content Friday at the request of the JV’s content providers. That access is being pulled, at least in part, because of ongoing negotiations with cable providers. They also aren’t thrilled by Hulu, which has the rights to everything it distributes. (via)

The problem for the cable companies is not all that different for the one facing record labels – there is no longer a true scarcity and without that scarcity it will become increasingly difficult for the cable companies to convince viewers they’re worth the expense.  If they lose subscribers they will not be eager or able to pay the hefty licensing fees charged by the networks.  Unfortunately for the cable companies, what they offer is becoming obsolete and the networks won’t need them for distribution and will find another way to make money (or not) by offering their programming more directly to the consumer.

While they may fight it for a while, the cable companies will be a thing of the past, at least as we know them today.

Related articles by Zemanta

• CBS Interactive: “Well Within Our Rights To Stream Hulu Content” (techcrunch.com)
• Hulu cuts off Boxee, Old Media takes one step forward, two steps back (inquisitr.com)
• Why the rest of us couldn’t care less if Hulu is pulled from Boxee (inquisitr.com)

Time Warner Cable Losing Subscribers. I’m One of Them.

God, I love being part of a trend! Especially when that trend is to dump your over-priced, inflexible and poorly serviced cable TV via Time Warner Cable.

According to CNet:

The cable operator only gained about 49,000 new lines for a total of 34.2 million during the quarter. And basic video subscriptions decreased by 197,000, to 13.1 million. This drop was attributed to customers ending their service, but was also due to the fact that Time Warner Cable sold some properties.

Aside from the obvious reason that paying close to $100/month to watch TV is a tough pill to swallow in this tight economy, the free alternatives just continue to become easier to access.  I dumped my TWC TV service almost two months ago and continue to see everything I want – I just don’t pay through the nose for the privilege.

While I hate to see anyone lose a job due to a business downsizing, I simply can’t root for Time Warner Cable in this particular battle.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Time Warner Results: Cable Demand Takes a Hit (gigaom.com)