Aereo was just put out of business by the Supreme Court

[master_shake_]

Why do they have to face anything? 80+% of America has cable and they expect TV to be distributed in that fashion. The cable companies look like they are going to win the net neutrality struggle and keep their hand on the wheel. Their monopoly is both entrenched on the consumer expectation side and on the regulatory side.

Just because tech savvy nerds stream everything via Netflix and can imagine a Spotify for TV doesn't mean we will actually see that future within the next 25 years.

The media companies and the cable companies watched how the internet basically ruined the music industry and terrestrial radio- they no longer control competition, content, distribution or pricing. The video media creators and distributors will do EVERYTHING in their power to prevent this from happening to them.

An al-a-carte future is just as likely as an AOLized internet. We should be careful assuming big cable already lost.

then it's a good thing that google fiber is planning to move to 34 more cities

http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2014/02/google-begins-process-to-expand-fiber-in-2015

and they have capless open internet and none of that pesky throtytling isps are known for isn't it.

sure they incumbents can lobby but im certain google is ready for that.

they can try to hold on to their old ways but the future will run them over.

 

[Phoenix86]

And Aereo now relents, says "SCOTUS says we're a cable company, so we're a cable company." Broadcasters say, "Wait, no you're not..."



This should be fun. Aereo is calling out the SCOTUS (edit and the broadcasters.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

caps

 

[poofyhairguy]

Hardly seems like a death spiral to me. In fact, it seems to me like the recording industry is finally adjusting to the modern marketplace.

That whole "adjusting" to the modern marketplace means they no longer control distribution and make a fraction of what they used to. You celebrate it, but they don't.

Prior to Napster the music industry could count on a hit single selling an entire $16 CD. Now they have to hope people like a song enough to pay $0.99 just for it as that is better than what they get from Spotify.

The music industry got slaughtered and it has been an example for everyone else who does media of what not to do.

Content providers like HBO, Showtime, and Disney will tear down the entire industry before they will let you stream their best content for a monthly flat low rate away from cable.

 

[poofyhairguy]

then it's a good thing that google fiber is planning to move to 34 more cities

http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2014/02/google-begins-process-to-expand-fiber-in-2015

Google fiber is great but there is a reason they are not trying to move into the five largest cities in America. Fiber to the curb in places like New York and Los Angeles are a regulatory nightmare, but that is where the people are if Google is really going to shake up the industry.

Heck, even in the towns Google is in they have to deal with local governments. I am in one of the current Google Fiber cities and I can't get service nor can anyone else I know. It takes them years in each market to get even close to critical mass, and they aren't targeting the biggest markets yet. Google is no short or even middle term savior.

The only answer is patience. Like 25 years+ of patience. Eventually the millennial generation will take over and Youtube channels will have higher ratings than network NBC.

Until that demographic shift happens enjoy your 300 channels of cable that you have to pay for to get Game of Thrones, because that is all you are going to get.

 

[Markbnj]

Heck, even in the towns Google is in they have to deal with local governments.

Verizon cited this as a significant reason why their per-household connection costs were so much higher than expected, and as a key reason for the decision to back off on FIOS growth.

 

[Lonyo]

If you were making $75,000 a year in 1999 and you flatlined at making $25,000 for the last several years would you consider it an exaggerated loss of income? (inflation adjusted numbers)

They've stabilized the massive volume of sales loss they've had. Subscription services make up some of that. Oddly concert revenue has been very strong over the last several years and helped make up some of the bag of hurt retail sales have seen.

Yeah. Imagine if you went from a business model with 50% margins, to one with 100% margins.
Then imagine your revenue was flat.
Oh, wait, who gives a shit about revenue because you're making more profit because your cost of sales has disappeared because it's all 0's and 1's and there's no physical product.

Music has shifted to zero cost products from high cost physical products. That means higher margins, which means flat revenue results in more profit.
So who gives a crap about revenue. It's the biggest joke in the world, which is exactly why that's the number they use to cry about how much they are suffering. If they said what their profits were, it might tell a rather different story.

 

[Phoenix86]

then it's a good thing that google fiber is planning to move to 34 more cities

http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2014/02/google-begins-process-to-expand-fiber-in-2015

and they have capless open internet and none of that pesky throtytling isps are known for isn't it.

sure they incumbents can lobby but im certain google is ready for that.

they can try to hold on to their old ways but the future will run them over.

Google fiber, while an amazing product, is a joke.

-34- whole cities? That's on top of their, what, 3 existing ones? Hopefully they really ramp things up, but comments like this make me doubt it.

Google calls that “working with your city leaders to see if Fiber is a good fit.”

Every city is a good fit, yes some are more difficult to install in than others. However, statements like this also make me scratch my head.

“For example,” the company said, “underground construction might be really difficult due to bedrock or unusually hard soil. In these situations, we would share what we learned in our studies with city leaders and we hope they’d be able to use that information to explore other options for bringing super high speed broadband to their residents.”

Does that mean obstacles like hard rock/soil will prevent some areas from getting it? I'm curious what they consider hard rock/soil. Being in the industry, laying fiber, or rather digging ditches in that environment isn't impossible. It just requires different equipment than typical soil trenching (similar costs of equipment, higher consumables). The really expensive part to digging ditches is unexpected boulders in soft soil.

 

[poofyhairguy]

If they said what their profits were, it might tell a rather different story.

We can kinda guess. Lets take a hit song:

-In 1997, to listen to a hit song a person would have to buy a $16 CD that costs $0.50 to make. Maybe the music companies have to pay a few extra bucks for traditional advertising and promotion per CD, but at end of the day within their business model their profit on a hit song was $10+ per consumer.

-In 2014, to listen to a hit song a person just pulls it up on their Pandora. For that playback the music company gets a few pennies of the subscriber's monthly service fee. The best case option is that the person buys the song for iTunes for $0.99, of which Apple gets a quarter. At the end of the day the profit in the best case for a hit song is 74 cents per consumer.

The music industry got destroyed. There are not better off from their perspective. They used to own what cool was and what teenagers cared about, and they would use this power to basically force teenagers to pay for shiny disks to stay intuned with their peers.

Now the music industry is heavily decentralized, no one controls cool, and concert revenues (aka what used to basically be promo events to sell $16 dollar CDs) are what artists live on.

 

[SunnyD]

Now the music industry is heavily decentralized, no one controls cool, and concert revenues (aka what used to basically be promo events to sell band merchandising) are what artists live on.

ftfy

It always has been.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Good point.

 

[Phoenix86]

We can kinda guess. Lets take a hit song:

-In 1997, to listen to a hit song a person would have to buy a $16 CD that costs $0.50 to make. Maybe the music companies have to pay a few extra bucks for traditional advertising and promotion per CD, but at end of the day within their business model their profit on a hit song was $10+ per consumer.

-In 2014, to listen to a hit song a person just pulls it up on their Pandora. For that playback the music company gets a few pennies of the subscriber's monthly service fee. The best case option is that the person buys the song for iTunes for $0.99, of which Apple gets a quarter. At the end of the day the profit in the best case for a hit song is 74 cents per consumer.

The music industry got destroyed. There are not better off from their perspective. They used to own what cool was and what teenagers cared about, and they would use this power to basically force teenagers to pay for shiny disks to stay intuned with their peers.

Now the music industry is heavily decentralized, no one controls cool, and concert revenues (aka what used to basically be promo events to sell $16 dollar CDs) are what artists live on.

I wonder how artist are doing now vs. then. Most of that revenue was going to big record companies right?

 

[SunnyD]

I wonder how artist are doing now vs. then. Most of that revenue was going to big record companies right?

They're getting... wait for it... wait for it...

about the same.

Song royalties to artists are still in the shitter (very low single digit percentage per song play).

The music biz hasn't changed. Talent gets "fronted" a few bucks to make a record on a typical contract. Goes on tour to make his or her take-home. 9 out of 10 never make it. Industry laughs all the way to the bank while they eat up all the royalties and pay the kids peanuts for life.

The ones that do make it big usually end up making their own label for their songs after a few records. Can you guess why? Bigger percentage of the pie. Plus they end up signing the other talent and perpetuating the cycle.

 

[Chapbass]

I wonder how artist are doing now vs. then. Most of that revenue was going to big record companies right?

Yep. Vast majority of the money went to recording companies. IMO, I feel that artists are doing better than before, two reasons:

1. Songs are very often released as singles now and not as entire albums (at least pop songs, everything I listen to is an album of some kind), this means that it gets to the market faster, artists can ride stylistic fads more quickly, and they stay at the front of peoples minds more often.

2. Creating a quality recording is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper now than it used to be. You don't need a major label as much, because between social media for promotion and recording costs that are probably (I'm guessing) 1/10th of what they used to be, you don't need that huge bankroll anymore.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The music biz hasn't changed.

I wouldn't go that far. With the dismantling of the music industry's distribution and propaganda monopoly in America, we see fewer "megahit" artists that sell platinum records and dominate media coverage but on the other side there are more artists making a living in music now than ever before by living off of touring and merchandise.

The music industry is no longer centered on "being discovered" while playing at the local bar on the weekends and signing that big contract. Because of that, unlike when the music industry dominated, the variety in types of music is much greater than before. Few expect to get rich being a musician, which means those doing it are passionate about the craft (in theory at least).

It is better for the artist overall I think- worse for some, better for most. It is also obviously better for the music consumer as well. The industry will never be the same for good or bad, but it is clear the large record labels and brick and mortar music stores were the big losers.

Much of the video content industry- on both the production and distribution sides- are doing everything they can to keep their golden cow from getting slaughtered in the same way. That means rallying around cable as some sort of fortress and holding on until the end of the ride which could take decades.

The answer to hastening that process is not praying for Google or Verizon or even the FCC to bale you out with fiber networks and a heavy hand in negotiating with content providers. The answer is to let go of traditional media that you aren't willing to buy on Blu Ray, and embracing content that comes from people who "get it" like Amazon and Netflix.

With House of Cards, [Kevin Spacey] said, "we have demonstrated that we have learned the lesson that the music industry didn't learn. Give people what they want, when they want it, in the form they want it in, at a reasonable price — and they'll more likely pay for it rather than steal it."

 

[Phoenix86]

So you could say the artist cut out the realtor in the situation.

 

[Aikouka]

-In 1997, to listen to a hit song a person would have to buy a $16 CD that costs $0.50 to make. Maybe the music companies have to pay a few extra bucks for traditional advertising and promotion per CD, but at end of the day within their business model their profit on a hit song was $10+ per consumer.

Why would you need to do that? Hit songs always came on radio countdowns, which made it easy to just sit there and hit record.

"Hey, baby... I made you a mix tape." :awe:

 

[KeithP]

then it's a good thing that google fiber is planning to move to 34 more cities

http://www.cedmagazine.com/news/2014/02/google-begins-process-to-expand-fiber-in-2015

Either you didn't understand that article or you didn't read it. They are NOT expanding fiber into 34 more cities. The 34 cities are candidates for the service and they will have to compete against each other to get google to come to their towns.

I would be surprised if more than 2-3 from that list are selected.

-KeithP

 

[DesiPower]

They should start crowd funding, I will donate, screw Cable companies.

 

[jpiniero]

Verizon cited this as a significant reason why their per-household connection costs were so much higher than expected, and as a key reason for the decision to back off on FIOS growth.

Verizon's sole reason for doing FiOS was for TV; and with Cord Cutting making the future of TV look dicey, it was an easy call to abandon ship.

 

[MrSquished]

What I am advocating is that cord cutters need to focus on new content and not old content locked to old distribution methods no matter their popularity or quality.

i cut the cord in February. i got aereo for primarily one reason - football. my apartment can't get the channels i need even with an amplified antenna due to being ground floor and the topography around me.

the nfl is the only sport i seriously follow so its important to me. probably would have watched some 60 minutes and jeopardy too but that's it.

unless Aereo gets back on by August, i'm going to have to pay cablevision $20 a month just to get the local stations in HD. oye.

 

[Markbnj]

Verizon's sole reason for doing FiOS was for TV; and with Cord Cutting making the future of TV look dicey, it was an easy call to abandon ship.

That is some pretty shortsighted strategic thinking right there.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That is some pretty shortsighted strategic thinking right there.

Not if you consider that they don't really want the internet to get faster. It is a direct competition to their main business. So, if FiOS is more of a danger to their main business then a help, of course they are going to stop building it out.

 

[Markbnj]

Not if you consider that they don't really want the internet to get faster. It is a direct competition to their main business. So, if FiOS is more of a danger to their main business then a help, of course they are going to stop building it out.

Their main business that is rapidly going away, you mean. Thus my point.

 

[squarecut1]

I agree with poofguy that the cable isn't going anywhere, not for a long long time.

Even the Netflix guy, whose company is the only quarter-decent challenger to cable, admits this publicly.

“The cable television bundle is very powerful,” Hastings said. “People have speculated on breaking the bundle for decades and when it’s speculated that much and the number of subscribers hasn’t really gone down, you know its a pretty stable business model.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...638bba-02c3-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html

 

[ultimatebob]

Not if you consider that they don't really want the internet to get faster. It is a direct competition to their main business. So, if FiOS is more of a danger to their main business then a help, of course they are going to stop building it out.

Aren't Wireless and Broadband Verizon's real money makers now? Nobody is getting new landline phone service anymore.