The FCC may move to open up access to cable television on the basis that the big cable companies are too dominant, according to the NY Times.
The move would lower the cost of entry to new content providers and forcibly provide access where this has been denied previously. There is also the possibility that the FCC may force cable providers to unbundle channels, allowing consumers to pick and choose which channels they want as opposed to the current bundled channel practice.
Without knowing exactly what the final ruling will look like, anything that provides improved choice to consumers is a good thing; it’s also a good thing for Google and content focused startups.
In Google’s case, its TV advertising product, currently being trialled by Sky in the United Kingdom, could well have a range of new potential customers looking for innovative advertising solutions. Many of the existing players have rebuffed Google’s overtures, new players may not.
A long shot, depending on the extent of the FCC ruling, is Google taking part in the content provision side itself. Consider that a site like YouTube is a conduit to the provision of content in the same way that a cable station is, and Google is already well versed in negotiating content distribution deals with major providers. Google has the time, money, and growing technical experience to provide a cable television station or two, all naturally supported by Google TV ads. It’s a stretch, and perhaps a more likely scenario is that we might see Google partner with someone else (be it in a full partnership or minority investment) but either way it’s an opportunity someone in Google will at least look at. Consider this: Google is trying to buy mobile spectrum to increase the reach of their mobile advertising product, a couple of cable channels is a much cheaper and more manageable proposition then being a mobile operator.
Lower access costs to cable networks also provide opportunities for content creating startups. We’ve already seen Podshow on TiVo; any similar content creator, either alone or in conjunction with others, will always look at ways to broaden their distribution in an attempt to maximize viewing numbers. The internet may be the first choice for many when it comes to accessing content, but there is still a very sizable cable audience in the United States, one that may be receptive to innovative channels run by startups that have previously been net only players.
See all
Post
thank you
دردشة
When someone will see that google may have too much power in its corporation?
They control the advertising market and can be called in some way a monopoly, if they would have a mobile department and have a cable station, I’d say they will have too much power in their hand.
anyone?
you are gay
Adam: Google an ad monopoly? You mean one cant use AdCenter (MS), Platform A (AOL), FM, or even Fox Interactive Media’s announced ad platform due out in Q1 ‘08? You may want to examine the definition of monopoly (”I do not think it means what you think it means”).
How about Amazon Unbox/ Tivo just provide non-ad supported tv shows for a price and we can skip ads altogether? A la carte tv without the need for cable is the future.
There is no room moving forward for 100+ useless cable channels with only a couple worthy shows on a handful of those channels.
Oops, I forgot some short-form free method for content discovery. Youtube could be the answer, but anything that travels virally (embed anywhere) will work.
Right on. As Marc Andreesen said regarding Open Social: “The most open platform always wins”. (or something similar. People have been forced to swallow the cable companies’ crap channels for waaay too long. I too only watch a few channels, and would love more choice. And I would definitely choose a Google channel, and would definitely choose channels done by start ups because you know hey are going to be trying their hardest to please the audience they can attract.
Goodbye B.S. channels all copying each other- you won’t be missed. Bring on the start ups and open choice!!!!!
Adam
Google argument, and I don’t think it’s a bad one, is that they don’t have a monopoly because you cant have a monopoly on the internet…there is always choice, that people choose Google over others doesn’t make for a monopoly, it makes for a (mostly) superior product.
Now this should be interesting.
The a la carte system is a surefire way to kill creativity and destroy some pretty important, but not very profitable, channels. Channels such as Science and History, Discovery, may be popular to you or I, but would not survive more than a year via the a la carte system because the majority of America does not care. The only reason these channels exist is because they are bundled with comedy central and E! entertainment. The distribution would drop dramatically on these channels and cable companies would stop supporting them if people were able to choose one or two channels. This woud undoubtedly increase piracy and cable theft as well as costs at most cable companies - increasing bills for everyone. It would be a shame
TV advertising is not about self-serve targeting and click arbitrage, it is about forming relationships with companies and consumers - two things that Google has yet to prove it can do with and for its advertisers. Duncan, you say that Google is “well-versed” in signing up media partners? What media partners have they worked well with? NO ONE! They are being sued by everyone. They have absolutely no experience in maintaining media relationships, and this will haunt them when they realize you can’t sell ads without professional content (youtube does not count)
From my Japan trip:
“I have to go now, but since I’m on Rhuggle, let me say this about this ‘Android” thing they announced: It is just like the rest of Google ..ahem, I mean Rhuggle, IT ONLY EXIST ON PAPER! Don’t fall for this vaporware, rumors, fake-half-baked hype that they peddle!”
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Dheeraj: a la carte system is important because it will prove economical for the consumers. FCC after all works for consumers. I don’t want to pay for channels which I don’t even watch for a single second in a month and yet pay 50 dollars. To your point that the “useless yet important” channels would die then so be it. Because for a 3-4 hr useful content/per day does not need a 24 hr channel. Those channels would either merge with similar channels or find alternate means for distribution like DVD, Internet etc. Right now its like slapping consumers which they don’t care about. Well done FCC, these cable companies are money suckers.
well Duncan missed an important graph in the article. A very funny and contrasting comparison between inflation rate and the rate at which cable charges have gone up. That sums it all.
Awesome, Time warner is way to expensive, they need kicked in the balls by the FCC. when I was 12 it was 28 bucks for all the normal channels, and now it’s 60, so in seven years it’s gone up two fold. There needs to be more than like two companies with control over cable.
techmine @11… agreed, PCCW (the IPTV provider in Hong Kong) introduced an a-la-carte model and the sky didn’t fall for the other pay-tv service providers. However, consumer prices did fall.
It still amazes me that the FCC deregulated the cable tv industry in the U.S. without mandating an a-la-carte unbundling order.
Meanwhile local municipalities gladly grant a right-of-way monopoly to one cable tv company, in return for the increasing sales tax windfall.
The time for FCC intervention is clearly long overdue.
thnk u
thnk u
thankx
thankx
thank you !
برامج
thankx
منتديات-صور بنات
منتدى-افلام عربيه