Thoughtnami Classics | Quick Waves #5

Originally Posted 03/09/09 by Jeff Harris

TV Everywhere Is A Bad Idea Despite what the media tries to tell you, television isn't afraid of the internet.

They're not.

The thing is folks who pretty much own television are ABANDONING it at a spiraling rate. They're abandoning over-the-air television, which is why the broadcast networks have no plans for the digital spectrum they're being awarded.

The whole TV Everywhere is a moronic one at best. Yeah, they could put shows on something like Hulu or YouTube, but people with dial-up access (they're still around, you know) aren't going to watch those programs on those services. They're going to watch them on TELEVISION!

The people who are going to sit down and watch those cable shows on the internet are likely going to have broadband, which means that 9/10 of them are already subscribed to a cable/satellite/fiber-optics service in the first place, meaning whatever profit they hope to make will be a minute profit at best, unless the plan is for the users to prove that they're a cable subscriber and then pay-per-click afterwards if they are. And the consumer market won't sit for that.

When cable consumers have access to tech like video-on-demand and DVR, the need for pay-per-click cable programs online seems not only redundant but borderline idiotic, which is probably no surprise considering that Time Warner, the most poorly-ran entertainment company on the planet, is behind the TV Everywhere endeavor.

Time Warner needs the internet revenue it lost once America On-Line lost its relevance at the turn of the century thanks to wider broadband, and freer endeavors like in2TV, The WB, and Kids' WB aren't really bringing in the money it wants from ads alone. Of course, it would help to actually advertise that they exist across the traditional broadcast outlets. Obviously another Turner edict, "Work like hell and advertise," is one lost of the idiot class lining their pockets at the company greed built and arrogance destroyed.

So, What's A Better Idea Than TV Everywhere?

Previously, I stated that Time-Warner's upcoming TV Everywhere service is a bad idea. It is seemingly a one-sided idea that wants to implement a pay-per-click model on programming usually found on sites owned by the companies that are typically ad-supported. The whole thing with this plan is that you can watch cable programming and you will have to pay for it. Technically, this means that if you're already paying for cable television and broadband services (because, let's face it, this won't be for dial-up users), you'll have to pay to watch the shows you're already paying for on television if you want to watch it on your computer. And portable media isn't even included in this TV Everywhere (thus making the name "Everywhere" less than accurate), so folks with cell phones and the latest piece of Apple-branded plastic are going to look elsewhere. It's an all-around terrible plan.

So what would I do?

For starters, I'd work outside the box by looking at the world around me and ignoring the cable subscriber model altogether. I feel the cable industry is as large as the telephone industry used to be with no real choice in services and an almost monopolistic hold over the consumer. Instead of dealing with a cable company, perhaps the studios could adapt a monthly "pay-as-you-go" plan not unlike cell phone companies who present many variants of "Go" plans. Create a service that doesn't rely on being a cable consumer largely paying for channels you don't want but rather a selection of the best of the best cable has to offer.

Ala carte done right.

At $20 per month. Consumers could buy refillable/subscription cards at retail stores not unlike Go Phone refill cards.

What exactly are they refilling? What could hold ala carte done right? A digital descrambler/converter with a built-in hard drive that can house a weekly selection of shows from the best of cable. It's cable without the hang-up of relying on the network model. It's also a cross between a digital converter and a DVR, allowing you to record up to 180 hours of television, including local digital channels.

Think it's impossible?

The model already exists in the UK.

This is Top Up TV. It's been in the UK for much of the decade and a pretty successful model for the most part. Combined with the already stellar Freeview digital television service, Top Up TV combines the best of cable with the digital revolution. It's also a reason why the digital transition in the UK was better managed than the transition in the US, which is horrendous, mismanaged, and manipulated largely by the broadcast industry that benefits the most from it.

Yeah, a $250-$300 box is a bit much for some folks, but considering TiVo is roughly the same price, it's likely not a big deterrent as one would expect. Plus, I'd think TiVo would want to be a part of this endeavor.

Now, here's where the "everywhere" component comes in. This service model is not limited to just television. Enrollment in this service brings your programming choices everywhere you are, including your broadband computer and your mobile devices at your command and no additional charge. With room for growth and actual development of new services over time, this could potentially be a game-changer, not only for the television industry, but rather for the way media works.

But if they want to do TV Everywhere and limit themselves to just pay-per-click access on Hulu, YouTube, and MySpace like they want, then who am I to get in their way?

I Miss Entertainment on Broadcast TV

Whatever happened to entertainment?

It's not like the world isn't bombarded by an endless 24-hour news cycle. It is. NBC, Fox, and CNN all dominate the national news scene in this country, and the fact that some digital networks are dedicating themselves to news is kind of irksome. The broadcast networks have really dropped the ball on subchannel development in the new digital order because they've completely abandoned entertainment.

Despite what Fox News, CNBC, and Headline News tell you, news is not entertainment. It's news. The major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) are owned by Disney, NBC Universal, CBS Paramount, and News Corp, monolithic entertainment companies with a vast library of shows, movies, and specials for all ages.

The thing isn't that they can't create outlets airing those shows but rather they won't. Why won't they? The television industry is cheap. Even before the depression started, the television industry is powered by cheap, overpaid individuals with no talent who don't want to pay folks with talent, whether it be writers, artists, or actors. They've embraced the internet and cable television so they wouldn't have to give residuals to those who created the products the shows' owners get paid for.

The digital television agenda seems to be awarding the television industry for something they didn't do. Older programs are disappearing from the airwaves, replaced by more modern fare, which is disheartening because not everything modern is good and not everything old is bad. A profit could be made from airing programs, plus it could actually rejuvenate the broadcast television market (something the whole digital television movement should accentuate often and always).

The government ads are promoting new channels, but broadcast networks outside the top 25 markets (with the exception of public broadcasting, ION, and affiliates owned by the big four networks) aren't really pushing the idea beyond one channel. And the broadcast industry continues to be defined by news rather than entertainment. Because it's cheaper? Because it's an outlet to showcase their political and social viewpoints? Because they want a reason to keep their news divisions and remain relevant?

I'd rather see classic comedies and dramas than 24-hours of news. And I know I'm not the only one.