http://mobile.multichannel.com/article/447702-Less_Than_8_Of_Consumers_Would_Cancel_Pay_TV_Survey.php?rssid=20059

See article above. Recent survey says only 8% of pay-TV subscribers (cable & sat) would consider canceling their subscription in favor of online video, over-the-air TV, and/or DVD services. Only 10-20% of those who consider it will actually end up doing it.  So the numbers are still rounding errors. 

That said, I'm not sure I'd give any one survey too much weight. This should not be viewed as comforting for the MSO's - they still need to compete much better at the product and pricing levels to keep their subscribers over the long term.

Comcast Center is the tallest building in Philly. 56 floors. It sways in the wind, which is very poor UX, I'd say. :-)

http://mobile.multichannel.com/article/445901-FiOS_Hits_Brakes_At_End_Of_2009.php?rssid=20059

New Verizon FiOS TV and broadband subscriptions were way down in Q4 of last year (153K total).

I wonder if the market for FiOS is those people "in the cracks", in no man's land between the larger MSO offerings. Seriously, do you think many people actually canceled their cable for switch to Verizon FiOS? Doubt it. Way too much hassle simply to move from one giant MSO to another. Yes, FiOS may have a better TV product than Comcast and Time Warner Cable. But I don't think that putting a Facebook and Twitter app on a TV screen will be enough to move the dial in a serious way.

FiOS has a challenging, highly fragmented market it's going after. Tough business, me thinks. We'll see.

Boxee announced today that will be implementing a purchase system for a la cart video streaming by the end of Q2.

Story: http://bit.ly/72Keel

This is a great development!

First, it demonstrates that Boxee is serious about protecting the business models of the content providers. This is necessary, of course, for Boxee's survival as well. My guess is Fred Wilson doesn't plan to fund this project forever.

Second, it again demonstrates that content providers HAVE OPTIONS for streaming their content in a revenue-generating way outside of TV Everywhere, despite what the anti-TV Everywhere fear mongers want you to believe.

Third, it will hopefully clean up Boxee's "rogue" image within the industry.

Fourth, it acknowledges that streaming content must be paid, at least in part, by those who receive the most value from it: the consumer.

Fifth, it will (hopefully) provide a great example of how to make a la cart paid streaming painless for consumers through (again, hopefully) awesome UX design.

And Sixth, it *might* attract more content to Boxee. But I still think it's going to be really hard for "bad boy" Boxee to attract the likes of CBS, ABC, HBO, etc (and certainly not NBC) for political reasons.

Via GigaOM and the wonderful NewTeeVee blog: http://bit.ly/88hwuF

It's really interesting to reflect on how 2009 was the year that caused old media companies, primarily Comcast, to take really strong reactive actions: TV Everywhere and NBC purchase. Gee, there must be really something to this internets thing.

Read this story to better understand the back-and-forth between TiVO, Dish, and Microsoft:

http://mashable.com/2010/01/20/microsoft-sues-tivo/

My question is whether TiVO's aggressive (and successful) legal campaign against DVR competitors may stifle / chill innovation in DVR technology and user experience.

This legal effort may be TiVO's "last stand" in its unfortunate history of getting squeezed out of markets by the MSOs who understandably want to own their subscribers' TV user experience, even if it's inferior.

This should come as no surprise: content providers want more $$ from distributors for streaming titles. This is what Disney is asking for, threatening to pull their titles from Starz, which is what Netflix uses for streaming of many of its new release titles.

I'll say it over and over and over again: when distribution is cheap and fragmented, as it currently is, content owners have the leverage.

And as long as that's the case, Netflix is going to get squeezed and will ultimately need to raise prices.

Look, at the end of the day, a piece of quality content ought to cost consumers the same whether it's watched on Comcast, DirecTV, VOD, streaming online, on mobile, etc. It's the content that has the value, not the means of distribution.

Here's the Disney / Starz / Netflix story:

http://newteevee.com/2010/01/15/bad-news-for-netflix-disney-wants-more-for-streaming-wall-e/

First, a big announcement from the BBC: the iPlayer is coming directly to your TV.

The BBC's iPlayer allows fans to watch recent episodes online after they've aired on TV. It has become a very popular app (the 'Hulu of Europe', if you forgive me for saying it). The BBC is now bringing the iPlayer directly to the TV, on Samsung Connected TVs. They're doing this via the Yahoo platform, so it will likely be on more TVs as well.

Imagine, here in the States, if ABC decided to build a TV app that allowed you to watch previous episodes of 'Lost' on your TV, whenever you wanted. No more need to record the show via your DVR. And ABC could place a few unskippable ads within the stream (a la Hulu), thereby more effectively tracking and monetizing time-shifted views compared to DVR. Great win for consumers and maybe ABC.

Who loses in this scenario? TiVO, Netflix, and (most importantly) the MSOs. Basically, all the "middleware" between content and consumer lose, IF this catches on with the major content providers. That's a big IF.

There are political and economic forces that will likely prevent (or at least stall) this type of "disintermediation" from happening. Remember that the content providers (ABC) make about half their revenue from licensing their content to the MSOs (cable companies). The relationships between content providers and the MSOs are extremely tight, even while they are love-hate relationships. They have lived co-dependently for 3 decades. It's going to take some time and a lot of pain to unwind those relationships. ABC is going to hesitate jeopardizing those relationships for an experiment with a small population of Connected TV users.

Here's the BBC iPlayer story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6966236/BBC-iPlayer-to-be-built-in-to-Samsung-TVs.html#article

By the way, how could Apple allow the brand "iPlayer" to slip through their fingers?