Comcast-Time Warner Cable: Would it really be anti-competitive?

As you probably know, Comcast and Time Warner Cable have agreed to merge. Many consumer groups and some of the companies' content providers and competitors are opposing the merger, while it's hard to find proponents that aren't either getting funding from one of the two companies or are "Astroturf" organizations created to support the merger. However, is the Comcast-TWC merger really anticompetitive? A big part of the answer depends on whether you're looking at the multichannel video services market today, or a few years from now.

If you look at the situation today, whether or not the merger is anticompetitive depends on who you are. If you're another cable company, it's not anticompetitive at all. The reason is that cable operators all have local franchises to be the exclusive cable supplier in the areas they serve. So, Comcast doesn't compete with TWC, which doesn't compete with Cox, which doesn't compete with Charter, etc. The reason for exclusivity is that it was so expensive for a cable operator to lay the wires, put in the plant and equipment, and service customers, that it was uneconomical to do so unless they could serve all the customers in an area without competition.

If you look at Comcast's and TWC's non-cable competitors, the merger is likely to have a modest impact at most. Existing Comcast and TWC customers will still be customers of the merged company, and can switch to a competitor if they want to. It's likely that Comcast will improve TWC's plant and equipment, and improve its cable and Internet services, which would make the combined company a stronger competitor in TWC markets. If you're an existing Comcast or TWC customer, your competitive situation isn't likely to change much, either. The new company will still supply your cable service, most likely your wireline Internet service, and possibly your phone service as well. The same competitors you could switch to will still be there.

However, if you're a program supplier to Comcast and TWC, your situation is likely to change substantially. The reason is that the merged company will have around 30 million subscribers and will be by far the biggest cable and Internet provider in the U.S. (If the AT&T acquisition of DirecTV is approved, that company will have at least as many video subscribers as Comcast-TWC, but DirecTV, which has the lion's share of subscribers, doesn't provide its own Internet service--it resells services from local Internet Service Providers.) The merged company will be the only way for program suppliers (television and cable networks, and movie distributors offering titles for Video on Demand (VOD)) to reach about 1/3rd of all U.S. households. That will give the new company enormous power to negotiate preferential licensing and retransmission fees, and will also give it additional power to negotiate non-fee terms and conditions, such as limitations on content providers' ability to license their content to other service providers. In addition, given that Comcast owns NBC Universal, it can give preferential treatment to NBCs broadcast and cable networks and Universal's movies and television shows similar treatment in its VOD systems, which would put other content providers at a competitive disadvantage.

If you're an Internet content provider, such as Netflix, the merged company will be by far the biggest single provider of ISP services to your customers in the U.S. There's strong evidence that Comcast was throttling the bandwidth available to Netflix subscribers until Netflix agreed to pay for a peering agreement with Comcast. The combined company would have even more power to extract payments from Internet companies.

That's today's situation, but what about tomorrow? Netflix is a nationwide (now also international) service; it can reach everyone in the U.S. who has either wired or wireless high-speed Internet access. Roku, Apple, Sony and others sell set-top boxes and devices that offer similar access to video over the Internet. Verizon, which has long operated its FiOS IPTV service which offers a cable-like video service and high-speed Internet, recently acquired Intel's OnCue Over-The-Top (OTT) Internet video platform. Verizon is expected to use OnCue as the basis of a nationwide video service that will operate over its wireless network, and possibly over the Internet as well. That would give Verizon a nationwide footprint, and would enable it to offer video services in almost every U.S. market. Sony and Dish are also rumored to be in the planning stages for a similar Internet service. Intel's attempt to launch OnCue was stymied by pressure from the cable industry to prevent its program suppliers from licensing their content to Intel, and the same pressure is suspected as the reason why Apple has not yet launched its long-rumored HDTV and video service.

What happens if OTT service and program suppliers find a way to launch viable services that can compete with cable? The video services market could change radically. Instead of today's three or four competitors (the incumbent cable operator, DirecTV, Dish, and depending on where you live, either Verizon or AT&T,) there could be many more:

• T-Mobile and Sprint could use their networks to deliver video to households.
• I've written that there's evidence that Netflix is planning to offer live programming in addition to its VOD offerings; they could expand into a full cable competitor.
• Sony and Apple could offer their own services.
• The existing cable operators could directly compete with each other for subscribers using OTT.

With the exception of Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and (if it doesn't acquire DirecTV,) AT&T, all of the other new competitors will have to go through telco ISPs or cable operators in order to get to consumers' homes. If cable operators set prices and/or terms & conditions that make servicing their customers with OTT video unprofitable or too complex, these new competitors could be killed in the womb. That's why I suggest that regulators set and enforce two conditions on both the Comcast-TWC and AT&T-DirecTV deals:

1. Both combined companies must offer all OTT services access to their Internet networks and subscribers under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
2. Both combined companies must remove all clauses in their contracts with program suppliers that prohibit them from licensing their content to competitors, or that place significant restrictions on such licenses. In addition, they're prohibited from signing contracts with any such clauses in the future, and from using their influence and market power to informally persuade program suppliers not to deal with competitors.

Both conditions would last for five years from the day that each combined company finalizes its merger and begins operating as a single company. That would give competitors enough time to build their market presence and establish viable businesses, and also give the telecom industry five years to develop new ways for the OTT services to reach consumers without having to go through the incumbent cable operators.

(Another) One bites the dust: Boxee sold to Samsung

Yesterday, over-the-top Internet set-top box maker Boxee confirmed that it had been acquired by Samsung. The rumored acquisition price was around $30 million--about the same amount as the company raised in venture financing, meaning that at best, investors got their money back. According to VentureBeat, Boxee will continue to support owners of Boxee Box and Boxee TV devices "for the immediate future," but Boxee's Cloud DVR service will be discontinued on July 10th and recorded television shows will be deleted.

Samsung has been one of the biggest potential customers for set-top box technology companies such as Google and Roku. Now, it's very likely that Samsung will integrate Boxee's technology into future HDTVs, Blu-Ray players and other devices. For Roku in particular, the number of companies that are both likely to integrate its technology into their devices and are big enough to represent a major business opportunity are dwindling. Sony and Vizio are already Google licensees, and Samsung is now on board with Boxee. Panasonic, Sharp and LG are still in play, but beyond them, the remaining players are second- and third-tier brands.

I'm still not convinced that there's a broad market for standalone Internet set-top boxes. Boxee couldn't find one, Google's licensees are struggling, Apple TV is supposedly beyond the "hobby" stage (but not far beyond) and Roku is putting more emphasis on its "streaming stick" and software licensing deals than its set-top boxes. As much as I like the idea of over-the-top video, unless Apple or Intel can come up with something both revolutionary and highly desirable, Internet video will remain a "second screen" application for PCs, tablets and smartphones.

Consumption of online movies passes physical movies for the first time

If physical DVDs and Blu-Ray discs aren't dead, they're certainly in the process of shuffling off this mortal coil. According to Broadband TV News, IHS Screen Digest forecasts that legal, paid consumption of movies online  in the U.S. will reach 3.4 billion views in 2012 from 1.4 billion last year, while views from physical media (Blu-Ray and DVD) will decline to 2.4 billion from 2.6 billion last year. Online views will grow 135% year-over-year.

IHS forecasts that 2012 will be the crossover point, when online viewing of movies (including video-on-demand) will first exceed rental and purchase of physical media for watching movies. 2.4 billion views on physical media is nothing to sneeze at, of course, and it'll be years before DVDs and Blu-Ray discs become insignificant. Nevertheless, the handwriting is clearly on the wall: Consumers are getting comfortable with renting and watching movies online.

There are three reasons why online viewing won't grow even faster:

• Redbox's $1.20/day rental fee and huge installed base of kiosks makes its service both cheap and convenient for consumers, 
• Renting and buying physical media enables consumers to use the millions of DVD and Blu-Ray players they already own, and
• Movie studios are still holding back most of their recent releases from Netflix and other services.

New devices, such as Roku's "streaming stick", will make adding streaming Internet video to millions of HDTVs even easier than it is today. It's entirely likely that physical media will be obsolete before the end of this decade, especially if movie studios make more of their releases available for early streaming.

Reality bites: Google replaces Intel with Marvell for Google TV

Earlier today, The Wall Street Journal reported that Marvell has replaced Intel as the lead chipset supplier for Google TV. The deal is non-exclusive, but the bigger news is that Google has replaced Intel's X86 architecture with ARM, which is supported by Broadcom, nVidia, Samsung and Texas Instruments, along with Marvell and others. When the first Google TV devices were released by Logitech and Sony, it was clear that they were far too expensive for the market; for example, while Apple was selling Apple TV for $99 (U.S.) and Roku's set-top boxes were priced at $99 or less, the Logitech Revue was launched at $399. In order for Sony and Logitech to be competitive, they had to drastically cut prices and, in Logitech's case, take huge losses. (Logitech subsequently abandoned Google TV.)

By switching from the Intel architecture to ARM, Google TV's licensees will gain a less-expensive, lower-power platform that can compete with set-top boxes from Apple, Roku and others on both price and performance. They'll also get a choice of multiple processor vendors; for example, even though Marvell is the lead partner, there's nothing keeping Samsung from using its own ARM-based processors in its HDTVs, Blu-Ray players and set-top boxes.

In short, this is the move that Google should have made from the beginning. With lower-priced set-top boxes, the ability to run apps and an operating system based on a more modern version of Android, Google TV 2.0 should be significantly more successful than the original version. At the very least, it has a chance for survival, instead of being "dead on arrival".

Consumer electronics' U.S. renaissance

There was a time, before World War II, when the U.S. was the undisputed world leader in consumer electronics. U.S. manufacturers, led by RCA, dominated world markets. However, U.S. manufacturers' operations in Japan and most of Europe were nationalized at the start of WWII. More importantly, RCA discounted the value of transistors in consumer electronic design after the war. Japanese manufacturers licensed transistor technology from Bell Labs and used it to build smaller, less expensive and more reliable products. That spelled the beginning of the end for the U.S. consumer electronics business.

At one time, companies like RCA, Westinghouse, Zenith, Philco, Magnavox, Sylvania and Motorola were household names. Now, only Motorola is still in consumer electronics, with its mobile phones. RCA, Westinghouse and Sylvania are nothing more than trademarks licensed to other companies, Zenith was acquired by South Korea's LG Electronics, and Philco & Magnavox were acquired by Philips. Until the late 1990s, the U.S. consumer electronics business was effectively dead. Today, however, there's a resurgence in U.S. consumer electronics.

The leader of this renaissance is Apple, which has dominated the personal media player market for almost a decade with its iPods. Foreign manufacturers have tried to wrestle market share away from Apple's iPods, without success. As of last quarter, Apple became the world's largest seller of smartphones, and it's been the leader in tablets since the launch of the iPad. Apple also dominates music sales through iTunes. Apple TV is Apple's only consumer electronics product that's struggling in the marketplace (although no one in the over-the-top set-top box market has yet found a winning formula.)

Apple doesn't manufacture any of its hardware products; it designs the products and farms out manufacture to Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturers. Vizio has applied the same formula to HDTVs, and either leads the market for LCD HDTVs or is close to the top every quarter. Vizio's aggressive pricing strategy has helped to force Sony out of the TV manufacturing business, and is pushing other Japanese and South Korean manufacturers to rethink their HDTV market strategies.

Sonos came from nowhere to become the leader in wireless networked home audio systems. Sonos applies an Apple-like design philosophy to its products, and has steadily expanded its product line both up and down to cover a variety of price points. Roku licensed a streaming media player originally developed in-house at Netflix and has become the leader in the market for those devices, at very aggressive price points: When Logitech launched its Google TV-based Revue set-top box at $299, the least expensive Roku player was $59.99. Now, the price of the Revue has been cut to $99 (the same price as Roku's top-of-the-line model) in order to clear out an apparently massive inventory of the devices.

It's true that U.S. companies are nowhere near recapturing the share of the consumer electronics market that they had before the 1970s, but if anyone had predicted any resurgence of U.S. consumer electronics companies even ten years ago, they'd have been laughed out of the room. The ability to anticipate (and drive) consumer desires, together with leveraging Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturing resources, is allowing U.S. companies to compete on equal footing with companies that could have crushed them only a few years ago.

Roku signs Best Buy to sell its video players

Engadget is reporting that Roku has signed Best Buy to carry the Roku XD, its mid-priced model ($79.99 U.S.), in its stores. RadioShack will also carry the same model. Frys Electronics will carry the XD and more expensive XD|S model, and BJ's Wholesale Club will carry the XD|S. At the same time, Netgear has announced that it's discontinuing its rebranded version of Roku's player.

Roku's expansion into brick & mortar retail channels will place the brand on stronger competitive footing vs. Apple TV and Google TV, although getting its product into retail is only the first step in building consumer demand for the Roku brand. Apple TV holds a big branding advantage over Roku, and Google TV is considerably more functional. However, the XD is $20 less than Apple TV and around $200 cheaper than Logitech's Revue Google TV set-top box, so price-sensitive customers may go for the Roku, especially if store salespeople can demonstrate it effectively.

Comcast's Xcalibur: Another race back to the past?

Light Reading has published an article about Comcast's new Xcalibur service, which is in an early test in Augusta, GA. The details of the service are still sketchy, but it appears to be a hybrid web-to-TV set-top box codenamed "Parker", possibly the one under development in Comcast's Seattle labs that I wrote about last year. According to Light Reading's sources, Xcalibur is a "managed over-the-top" video service that's designed to compete with offerings such as Apple TV, Boxee, Roku and Google TV while keeping subscribers inside the Comcast tent.

Xcalibur is said to offer a limited, hand-picked selection of websites and video services. It's yet another "walled garden" approach, and it's very likely that you won't find any content on Xcalibur that's competitive with any of Comcast's existing services.

It's true that the other over-the-top video services are also walled gardens to some extent, but with the exception of Apple TV, that's not because they're deliberately closed off. It requires some development work, but anyone can make their video content available on Boxee, Roku or Google TV. In the case of Boxee and Google TV, they want to offer even more web video content but are actively being blocked.

If you want to envision what Comcast could be doing, consider France's Free. Earlier today, Engadget wrote an article about a new over-the-top IPTV set-top box that's been launched by France's Free (Iliad) Internet service, the Freebox 6. Here's what the box has:

• 250GB hard drive
• Blu-Ray drive
• 802.11n WiFi adapter
• HDMI output
• 3D support
• Built-in DECT adapter for wireless telephones
• Web browser
• Motion-sensing remote
• Joystick
• Two powerline Ethernet adapters

Depending on whether you're a new or current Free customer and how long you've owned your previous Freebox, the cost will be between 60 and 120 Euros (approximately $80 to $160), and monthly triple-play service will be 29.99 Euros/month ($40.14). It offers all of Free's 154 basic video channels at that price, and 213 additional channels on higher tiers.

Comcast, and virtually every other U.S. multichannel video service provider, is driving to the future while staring in the rear-view mirror. A walled garden approach won't fly, but you wouldn't expect anything more from a company whose most exciting recent development is an app that turns an iPad into a remote control.

The first Feldman File videoblog is live!

I've posted the first episode of the Feldman File videoblog to YouTube! Let's put it this way: It can only get better from here. I should have taken that scholarship to the Columbia School of Broadcasting when it was offered to me.

This week's episode covers the following news:

• Barnes & Noble's NOOKcolor eBook reader (and Android tablet wannabe)
• Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon have all set prices and availability dates for their versions of Samsung's Galaxy Tab Android tablet
• News from Adobe's MAX Developers' Conference
• Sencha Animator, a timeline tool for animation using HTML and CSS3, goes into beta
• Roku licenses the hardware and software behind its Internet set-top boxes to consumer electronics companies
• IDC reports that Apple has become the world's fourth-largest mobile phone manufacturer, passing Research in Motion

Roku to license its platform: The low-cost alternative to Google TV?

Engadget reports that Roku has begun licensing its hardware and software to consumer electronics companies. Its first licensee, Netgear, essentially repackaged the new Roku XD and is selling it at Best Buy, Radio Shack and Fry's. To date, Roku's market penetration has been limited by its distribution--prior to the Netgear deal, the only way to purchase a Roku set-top box was to buy it from Amazon or direct from Roku.

If you're a consumer electronics manufacturer, you can license the Google TV platform for free, but the hardware necessary to make it work is expensive: Consider that the least expensive Roku box sells for $59.99, while the Logitech Revue Google TV-compatible STB retails for $299.99. Even with a substantial licensing fee to Roku, consumer electronics manufacturers could add Roku capabilities to their HDTVs or Blu-Ray players for a fraction of the cost of the Google TV architecture. Shaving a few cents off the manufacturing cost of a product can make a big profit difference, and a Roku-based device has the potential to be much more profitable than one based on Google TV.

Even for manufacturers like Vizio who have developed their own Internet video capabilities, it may make sense to license the Roku platform and take advantage of its off-the-shelf ability to access Netflix, Amazon Video-on-Demand, Hulu Plus, Pandora, Major League Baseball, Vimeo, Sirius XM and many other content providers. Negotiating deals with content providers takes time and money, and licensing the Roku platform would allow these manufacturers to focus on manufacturing and marketing, not content acquisition.

Could Roku end up in as many devices as Netflix currently does? It's a real possibility.

Roku steps up its game with the HD, XD and XDS

Earlier today, Roku updated its line of Internet set-top boxes with three new models: The Roku HD, XD and XDS. All three models are significantly smaller than the previous generation of Roku STBs, but the old Roku models weren't exactly huge.

The HD, priced at $59.95 (U.S.) has 720p HD with composite and HDMI video outputs and both wired Ethernet and wireless 802.11n WiFi interfaces. It uses the same remote control as previous Roku devices. The XD, priced at $79.95, has 1080p HD, but is otherwise identical to the HD. However, it comes with a new remote control with "instant replay" and "info" buttons. (More on that in a moment.)

Moving into the HD-XR's old $99.95 price slot its the XDS, which has 1080p video, composite, component and HDMI outputs, dual-band 802.11n (both 2.4 and 5 GHz) WiFi and a USB port for local playback of audio and video from a connected USB thumb or hard drive. Later this year, Roku says that it will offer a free software update for the XDS that will allow it to stream content from DLNA-compatible devices via the local network.

Like the XD, the XDS comes with the new remote control that has two additional buttons. The most important new button is "instant replay", which replays the previous 10 seconds of video every time the button is pushed, without requiring rebuffering.

Roku's new HD, at $59.95, is most comparable to the new Apple TV, which is also limited to 720p, and for most users, it's all they'll need. If you're serious about local media streaming, the XDS is the better choice than the XD. All three models are very competitive with Apple TV, and will remain so unless and until Apple adds more streaming content, and possibly apps, to Apple TV.

The set-top box Tower of Babel

A company called Dyyno is offering to create your own channel for the Roku set-top box, or you can run your video content on their existing channel. If you want your own channel, they'll charge a one-time fee of $7,500, plus a monthly usage fee starting at $149 for 1,000 viewer hours. If you're willing to run your content through their channel, you'll pay only the monthly usage fee.

Roku has its own developer program, which costs nothing to join, and its own SDK. If you've worked with JavaScript, you can probably figure out how to create your own channel without paying $7,500 and being locked into a single online video service. However, once you've developed your Roku channel, it won't work on Boxee, Popbox, TiVo, Google TV, or any of the myriad Internet-connected Blu-Ray players and HDTV receivers. Each one of those platforms has its own SDKs, and each one requires a separate development effort.

That's why I developed the Capstan Content Syndication (CCS) format. CCS is a free, open source, XML-based format that does for live, scheduled and on-demand video content what RSS does for fixed content. It also provides the hooks necessary for authentication, monetization, search and recommendations. If the set-top box companies support CCS, content providers will be able to use the same feed and format for a variety of different devices and platforms. It will dramatically decrease the cost of making video content available, and will get many more channels onto many more devices.

I'll be presenting a session on CCS at the Open Video Conference, to be held at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City on October 1st and 2nd of this year. There's more information on CCS at the Klemfarb website, and you can download the spec and participate in the definition process at the project's Google Code site.

It's the predictions time of the year, and some are better than others

The holiday season is wonderful, but it's also the time where bloggers, editors, pundits, psychics and all of us slightly- to completely-uninformed people issue predictions about what is going to happen in 2010. I just read a few of the predictions for 2010 from Danny King of Video Business, and I had a few, uh, disagreements.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via CrunchBase

For example, King thinks that it's a foregone conclusion that Amazon will buy Roku. Not very likely, given that the Roku set-top box was designed by Netflix and was originally supposed to be a Netflix-branded product. I'm sure that Netflix still has first dibs on the product, and perhaps on Roku itself. He also predicts that Tivo will be sold to Best Buy. Huh? Tivo is turning into an audience- and advertising-research company; Tivo's DVR sales and market share continue to decline, and Best Buy buying the company wouldn't change that. I think that both companies will end 2010 as independent entities, but if I had to come up with likely purchasers, I'd vote for Cisco for Roku and Google for Tivo.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

He also thinks that Redbox will do a deal with Starbucks, but only if they come up with kiosks that do digital downloads (to thumbdrives or SD cards, I presume.) Starbucks tried it with music and it didn't work, so why would they think that it would work any better with video? My personal opinion is that the digital download kiosk model being pursued by Blockbuster and MOD Systems will be dead on arrival. Why would I drive to Starbucks to load a video onto a thumbdrive when I can download it over the Internet to my PC or stream it to my Netflix- or Amazon-equipped set-top box or Blu-Ray player?

Another of his predictions is that NCR will drop out of the video kiosk market, just after the company acquired DVDPlay; his logic is that NCR is number one in ATMs and doesn't want to be number two in video kiosks. True, they don't want to be number two--that's why they purchased DVDPlay and partnered with Blockbuster. There is certainly room for more than one company in the video kiosk business, and I think that NCR will stay in.

I've learned not to make end-of-the-year predictions, because too much can happen too quickly to anticipate. I will state a hope for 2010, however, and that is that the economy recovers, so that the millions of people without jobs can find work, and the millions who are underemployed can find full-time work and better opportunities. I hope that you have a happy holiday season and a healthy, loving and comfortable 2010 for you and your family.

Put a Roku in your Cable Set-Top Box

For years, I've doubted the ability of third-party set-top boxes from companies like Apple and Roku to make much market impact. Consumers generally detest adding more boxes and more wiring to their televisions. That's why home theater-in-a-box systems have been so successful, and a big reason why TiVo, which still has the best PVR, has struggled to build a viable business selling hardware. Consumers know that they have to have a set-top box from the cable or satellite company, and they accept two other boxes: DVD players (slowly morphing into Blu-Ray players), and game consoles.

In turn, both Blu-Ray players and game consoles are morphing into Internet digital video players. Netflix's streaming movie service is integrated into many Blu-Ray players, and with Microsoft's XBOX360. Earlier this week, Netflix made official support for Sony's Playstation 3, and support for Nintendo's Wii is right around the corner. However, none of these devices have anywhere near the household penetration of the ubiquitous cable or satellite set-top box.

Cable and satellite set-top boxes have always been closed, monolithic devices--they act as the gateway to the service provider's content, and nothing gets on them or through them without the service provider getting a cut of the action. Even with initiatives like Tru2Way, there's been little progress on opening up service provider STBs. Perhaps now is the time for them to do so.

Network-enabled Blu-Ray Players and game consoles represent the first viable competitors to the service providers' programming hegemony in the living room. The cable and satellite operators can rail against the competition, try to keep their content suppliers from working with them, and try to limit the value of competitor's services with artificial release windows for movies, none of which are likely to work in the long run. Or, they could add network-enabled features to their own set-top boxes and make the competition irrelevant.

Consider a cable or satellite set-top box that allows subscribers to access the same content as Roku. That means Netflix, Amazon, Major League Baseball, and in the near future, YouTube, Hulu, Revision3, Mediafly and a host of other services. You may be thinking, "Netflix? Amazon? Are you out of your mind? Don't the cable and satellite operators have their own Video-on-Demand services that they've spent millions of dollars to build?" Yes they do. But, those VOD systems have limited capacity and are extremely expensive to expand.

According to Comcast, in the first quarter of 2009, over half of its new VOD movies were available the same day as the DVDs. To limit the impact of $1-a-night services like Redbox, the movie studios are pushing to require Netflix and the kiosk operators to get their titles a month or so after the DVDs are shipped to retailers. The way things are going, if you want to see the movie as soon as it's out on DVD, you can buy the DVD or Blu-Ray, or watch it on cable or satellite VOD and pay a premium. If you're willing to wait a month, you can watch it on Netflix.

But, under the model I'm proposing, even if it's from Netflix, you'll still watch it on your cable or satellite set-top box. The service provider will charge Netflix a small fee for access to your set-top box--perhaps pennies per title viewed or a dollar a month. The service provider will get to brand and sell advertising on the interactive program guide and menus that subscribers access in order to find titles. A similar approach would work for other content providers: The cable or satellite operator gets the right to surround the content with advertising, and possibly to even insert advertising directly into the content.

Is the service provider cannibalizing itself? Yes, but it's capturing a chunk of the revenue that it's now losing, and will lose in even greater amounts in the future, from over-the-top (OTT) services that completely bypass the cable or satellite operator's set-top box.

The OTT services also offer leverage that the cable and satellite operators can apply to providers of conventional cable networks. For example, many service providers have long wanted to move ESPN to a premium sports tier, but ESPN demands a fee for every subscriber, even if they have no interest in sports and never watch any ESPN channels. OTT services like Major League Baseball can be integrated into the service providers' offerings to make a premium sports tier more popular and provide negotiating leverage to move ESPN's services into the same tier.

It's time for the service providers to stop trying to prevent the growth of over-the-top services like Netflix, and to start working with them.

The Game Changer?

Yesterday, Netflix and Roku announced the Netflix Player. This device, priced at $99.99 and about the size of a paperback novel, can stream the portion of the Netflix catalog that's available for immediate download (approximately 10,000 out of 100,000 movies and television shows) to any television. The player has composite, component, S-Video and HDMI connections. It supports both SD and HD, although Netflix only offers SD streams at this time. It has both wired and wireless (802.11g) Ethernet connections.

The least expensive Netflix plan that provides unlimited downloads is $8.99/month, going to $15.99/month (the only difference between the plans is the number of physical DVDs that can be out at any one time--one for the $8.99 plan, three for the $15.99 plan.)

The reviews of the Roku Netflix Player so far have been positive; the biggest drawback is the relatively limited selection of movies available for instant streaming. However, this is an issue that I think will be resolved over time, as more studios see Netflix's service as a variation of VOD, at least for catalog material.

In the past, I've believed that the chances for third-party set-top boxes have been slim, but this Netflix/Roku box could be a game-changer. The price is so low that the player is almost a throwaway item; as one reviewer pointed out, if you watch 25 movies, the incremental cost of the box is only $4 per movie. The box already supports HD, when Netflix makes it available.

The Netflix/Roku player is a test case for whether or not a managed network is really needed for IPTV. The "standard definition" of IPTV includes a managed network with controlled Quality of Service and Quality of Experience. If Netflix and Roku can deliver acceptable performance "over the top", on the public Internet, it makes it hard to justify huge capital equipment expenditures in order to deliver IPTV over a closed network.

For example, in the U.K., BT is using VOD as its primary "value-add" for subscribers to its IPTV service, since the company relies on the over-the-air Freeview service for broadcast channels. Freeview, however, is launching its own over-the-top VOD service, similar to the Netflix/Roku service. If it works, where does that leave BT?