Come on SageTV share something about the future!

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

Please don't tell me you want it for free and "no strings attached", the world just doesn't work that way. Somehow the content providers have to get paid for their work.

Of course not, but I feel that, realistically, the best option might be a standardized market for online media, with the ability to either pay for a network of content (comparable to the existing broadcast model), or pay for a series (so you subscribe to a show, for $x/season). The trick will be the standardized market. The purchase is for the license to view it, and that license is valid on any personal device (be it phone, dvr, etc.).

That said - I don't see the NEED to move to that model, as I feel the broadcast model still works great. Advertising pricing has not really declined with the introduction of online sources, more than just the decline with the economy, and I get to record my shows now, without the need to pay anything but my subscription.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

That said - I don't see the NEED to move to that model, as I feel the broadcast model still works great. Advertising pricing has not really declined with the introduction of online sources, more than just the decline with the economy, and I get to record my shows now, without the need to pay anything but my subscription.

The problem with the broadcast model is that you can't get what you want, when you want it. Also, I'm thinking about what it would take to get a solution that did not require any recording at all. Just turn on the TV, pick what you want to watch, and it automagically appears. To me that's the future.

I hate the PPV model because as Stanger said it's just too darn expensive. I'd probably favor the most simple solution possible, pay a flat monthly fee and watch whatever you want. The current situation within the content production and distribution industry reminds me a lot of the telecommunications situation in the mid 80's.

Back "in the day" I worked for a company that produced billing systems for the phone companies. The billing rules were unbelievably complex and the code used to calculate the actual cost were a closely guarded company secret. These billing systems cost millions of dollars and of course that cost was passed on to the consumers. When the wireless guys came along we were looking for ways to help them cut costs and get their networks up and running as quickly and cheaply as possible. I made the suggestion to just charge a flat monthly fee and let the users call whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted, for as long as they wanted. This was radical thinking back them and I was pretty much laughed at. Well 30 years later nobody is laughing.

It's going to be interesting to see how things shake out. About the only thing I am sure about is that 20 years from now we will be paying for video content a lot differently than we are paying for it now.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

The problem with the broadcast model is that you can't get what you want, when you want it. Also, I'm thinking about what it would take to get a solution that did not require any recording at all. Just turn on the TV, pick what you want to watch, and it automagically appears. To me that's the future.

I hate the PPV model because as Stanger said it's just too darn expensive. I'd probably favor the most simple solution possible, pay a flat monthly fee and watch whatever you want. The current situation within the content production and distribution industry reminds me a lot of the telecommunications situation in the mid 80's.

Back "in the day" I worked for a company that produced billing systems for the phone companies. The billing rules were unbelievably complex and the code used to calculate the actual cost were a closely guarded company secret. These billing systems cost millions of dollars and of course that cost was passed on to the consumers. When the wireless guys came along we were looking for ways to help them cut costs and get their networks up and running as quickly and cheaply as possible. I made the suggestion to just charge a flat monthly fee and let the users call whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted, for as long as they wanted. This was radical thinking back them and I was pretty much laughed at. Well 30 years later nobody is laughing.

It's going to be interesting to see how things shake out. About the only thing I am sure about is that 20 years from now we will be paying for video content a lot differently than we are paying for it now.

The problem with the subscription model, is that there is still the cost of production. That is going to have to be covered from one of two sources - Royalties (which end up being the subscription fees) and Advertising. Currently, the only way the subscription based services like Hulu Plus and such work, is because it is low-value content that has already been paid for by other means. Basically, if you wanted a catch all subscription, that would allow you to watch whatever you wanted in that time period, it would have to be able pay for the content creation - which would cost the same - meaning the subscription would cost the same as your current cable or sat bill. I just don't see that being swallowed by most people. This is why I think the only thing that would work would be a compromise situation, with basically a'la carte subscriptions on a network/show basis.

The bandwidth required to distribute a major move to online content, would also require major multicast upgrades to the backbones AND the local ISP networks. Though to make use of that multicast, there would have to be some level of line-up of start times, such that premier events and such still have a designated time-slot, in which it is put out via multicast capable streams. You'know... like the current broadcast model.. ;-)

[reggie14]

I'm really curious to read people's thoughts on a plausible business model for online content.

First of all, I'm skeptical about the future of advertising. I think its mostly going to go away, in some niches (which I'll explain later). To the extent it will stay around, I think we'll see them impossible to fast forward through, otherwise what good would they do advertisers? And certainly they'd use targeted ads based on as much info as they can get their hands on (thanks Facebook!).

It seems like streaming is the clear future, not digital downloads. I think that for a few reasons. First, I think streaming, when it works, is a lot easier for the user. Just plug in the box to your internet connection and everything is right there for you. Get a new box, plug that in, and everything right there too. Second, I don't think many people would be willing to pay the premium necessary for the buy-once, play everything (edit: I meant everywhere, not everything) (indefinitely) model that Fuzzy seems to have in mind. Advertising doesn't work well with that mode, and I think you'd have to price TV shows much higher to make up for a loss of first-run advertising and syndication revenue. And lastly, streaming just seems like the direction we're headed.

The problem is, I'm not sure how you do this in a way that wouldn't turn customers off. Unlimited streaming for a flat low rate (i.e. Netflix) seems to be popular, but I don't think that would work with high-budget first-run shows. I think unlimited streaming for a flat rate will stay around, just not for very much first run material. I don't see how stanger89's proposal for a 3-out system would work. It seems like in practice anything like that would effectively be unlimited. Why would you download something ahead of time instead of just streaming it mostly in real-time? Internet connections will be fast enough to do that (they pretty much already are in non-rural areas).

So, if you can't access first run material on unlimited streaming services, it seems like you need to move to either a pay-per-view model, or a pay-for-episode/season model. The thing is, it doesn't seem like a pay-per-episode model would work with streaming video. They're not going to let you watch the same show over and over again, chewing up bandwidth, without some sort of reoccurring payment.

That leaves PPV, but I don't think you could get people to pay for the first few episodes of a show. Maybe that's where advertising is used. You can access some shows for free through your streaming provider with forced commercials. And maybe I'm wrong about my prediction of the death of advertising and some/all shows will be available like that.

Then there's the issue of distribution. Who are these streaming providers? There's no technical reason you couldn't go straight to the source, but we seem to like middle men. I think that will stay the same. Perhaps ISPs will become the middle men, which might partially solve the problems about the source of the reoccurring payment to a streaming provider for purchased shows and also with question of how you set things up so ISP's don't fight it too much. To me it seems like if ISP's don't become the primary video streamers we'll have to move to metered bandwidth (and honestly, I think we'll move to that no matter what).

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by reggie14

I'm really curious to read people's thoughts on a plausible business model for online content.

First of all, I'm skeptical about the future of advertising. I think its mostly going to go away, in some niches (which I'll explain later). To the extent it will stay around, I think we'll see them impossible to fast forward through, otherwise what good would they do advertisers? And certainly they'd use targeted ads based on as much info as they can get their hands on (thanks Facebook!).
.

I actually said that a Pay once watch everything system would NOT work, because it would just be too expensive. What WOULD work is the buy a season or buy a particular network license. This is what consumers have been clamoring for for a while (the A'la carte subscription model). For instance, someone could purchase a subscription for, say, Pawn Stars. The cost would be low, but the minimal advertising that would be included in it would be very high value, because you know it is a committed viewer, and can much more easily ascertain the market (especially when aggregated with their other subscriptions). You could, also, subscribe to, say, the History Channel.. in which you'd pretty much have access to the entire history channel archive (older content would have fewer commercials). Or, you could be the high-roller, and subscribe to the entire A&E package. You'd get history, A&E, bio, lifetime, and lifetime movie. Would obviously cost more - and perhaps even cost more than the portion of your cable/sat bill that discovery currently gets. That more for the content creator is to compensate for reduced advertising revenue. Good for them, good for us... ISP costs would also probably go up with this model, not just because of the higher bandwidth in use, but the lower income from broadcast subscriptions. however, the lower service requirements (running JUST an ISP, with the only differences being the bandwidth, results in a lot less house-calls than cable tv does).

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I actually said that a Pay once watch everything system would NOT work, because it would just be too expensive. What WOULD work is the buy a season or buy a particular network license. This is what consumers have been clamoring for for a while (the A'la carte subscription model).

Sorry, I mistyped. I didn't mean to say "buy once, play everything." I meant to say "buy once, may everywhere." I think you'd have a pay much higher rates than, say, what a DVD box set costs these days. And that seemed to be one of the things you had in mind.

The problem I see with a system like that is that you only contribute to the content creator's revenue stream once for a particular show, so you're going to have to pay a lot. Advertising for a first-run popular TV show still brings in a lot of money. Obviously there are a lot of factors that go into it, but apparently some of the more popular series can bring in $25 per viewer per season. Syndication and DVD sales are also big revenue streams. So, if your household is a big fan of a popular TV show, you might directly or indirectly contribute $100 or so (maybe more) of revenue to the content creators and distributors. Are people going to pay $100 or more for a subscription to a TV series?

Of course, I'm saying that because I don't see much of a future in advertising. I could certainly be wrong about that. You're right, of course, that you could do targeted, forced advertising that would presumably bring in a lot more money per spot per viewer. Maybe that will save TV advertising and keep costs down.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

however, the lower service requirements (running JUST an ISP, with the only differences being the bandwidth, results in a lot less house-calls than cable tv does).

Perhaps, but it seems like (and this is only a wild guess) their internet connections are harder to keep up. I've never lost cable TV service- not with Mediacom in Ames, Iowa, and not with Comcast in Rockville, Maryland- but I lose Internet service for at least a short period of time every couple months or so (usually for a few hours or less).

[texneus]

Originally Posted by stevech

The issue here, and I'm trying to get this to Sage's attention, is that without cableCARD/DRM in Sage, ... Sage's storage is OURS and backed up, unlimited, etc.

And with the DRM, the storage is yours, but that's about it. What are you expecting to be able to do with files locked up in DRM? Once DRM is in those files they will never leave host PC in any usable format. The uber bad part is since the DRM flags are carried on the analog signals as well, implementing DRM for cablecard hoses SageTV for everyone. If you really want to taste what the DRM restrictions impose, give WMC a spin and let us know how it goes. There is good reason it has about the same capability as the typical cableco DVR.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by texneus

And with the DRM, the storage is yours, but that's about it. What are you expecting to be able to do with files locked up in DRM? Once DRM is in those files they will never leave host PC in any usable format. The uber bad part is since the DRM flags are carried on the analog signals as well, implementing DRM for cablecard hoses SageTV for everyone. If you really want to taste what the DRM restrictions impose, give WMC a spin and let us know how it goes. There is good reason it has about the same capability as the typical cableco DVR.

Implementing CableCard in Sage only implements DRM on the files requiring DRM. Done properly, they would still allow playback on extenders, which would be enough for MOST sage users.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by texneus

The uber bad part is since the DRM flags are carried on the analog signals as well, implementing DRM for cablecard hoses SageTV for everyone.

Keep in mind the analog copy protection flags are basically optional. The FCC tried to make them mandatory a while ago, but a court struck it down. Microsoft chose to implement them, but they didn't seem to be under any obligation to do so. Maybe they made some sort of behind-the-scenes agreement with CableLabs, but I've never read any statements from Microsoft or CableLabs that even suggests that.

I see little reason to think that DRM on CableCard recordings would lead to DRM on recordings from non-OCUR devices. The only way it possibly could is if CableLabs has a secret certification program for software DVRs that would force the software to prevent recordings of copy protection flagged material from non-OCUR sources. I really don't think Microsoft took Media Center through CableLabs' certification program. I think they just got PlayReady approved as a DRM scheme.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

The problem with the broadcast model is that you can't get what you want, when you want it. Also, I'm thinking about what it would take to get a solution that did not require any recording at all. Just turn on the TV, pick what you want to watch, and it automagically appears. To me that's the future.

Bigger issue with it IMO (because you can easily DVR stuff and create your own VOD) is that you have to pay for a ton of stuff you don't care about because of bundle agreements with networks.

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The problem with the subscription model, is that there is still the cost of production. That is going to have to be covered from one of two sources - Royalties (which end up being the subscription fees) and Advertising. Currently, the only way the subscription based services like Hulu Plus and such work, is because it is low-value content that has already been paid for by other means.

Yet Netflix seems to be doing very well, even purchasing their own first-run series.

Basically, if you wanted a catch all subscription, that would allow you to watch whatever you wanted in that time period, it would have to be able pay for the content creation - which would cost the same - meaning the subscription would cost the same as your current cable or sat bill.

Maybe, but you'd get a much higher percentage of quality (to you) content. I mean if Netflix had all the new-aired shows I watch from Dish and had them right away, I'd happily pay Netflix the same amount I pay Dish, instead of paying Dish for 400 channels I couldn't care less about.

Originally Posted by reggie14

I don't see how stanger89's proposal for a 3-out system would work. It seems like in practice anything like that would effectively be unlimited. Why would you download something ahead of time instead of just streaming it mostly in real-time? Internet connections will be fast enough to do that (they pretty much already are in non-rural areas).

Not for real Blu-ray (or better) quality, the audio alone on most Blu-ray's is of higher bandwidth than any online video source I'm aware of (or at least can be).

I'm thinking there's room for a premium service that provides Blu-ray or DCI quality video. That quality makes streaming impossible or at least impractical for the forseable future (nobody's going to be streaming 30-50Mbps files for a while).

And it wouldn't be like today where you "download ahead of time" it would happen automatically, so you'd always have 3 (or 4, or 2, or whatever you paid for) movies already cached on your system all the time. So you'd have quality impossible with streaming, with roughly the same convenience.

Think XStreamHD, except as a subscription service instead of PPV.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Basically, if you wanted a catch all subscription, that would allow you to watch whatever you wanted in that time period, it would have to be able pay for the content creation - which would cost the same - meaning the subscription would cost the same as your current cable or sat bill. I just don't see that being swallowed by most people.

I'd swallow it. If I could pay $100/month (about what I pay now) and watch whatever I want whenever I want, on any TV (or computer, phone, etc.) in the house, without having thousands of dollars of dedicated hardware and software in my house, I'd consider that a deal.

[panteragstk]

I think the main issue with the online only/streaming model is the fact that since ISP's are implementing bandwidth caps would make this model impossible unless something changed. This would also have the same affect on the TV industry as a whole the same way it is affecting the music industry. I for one feel that the high budget shows would effectively cease to exist. The reason I say this is because of all the revenue the creators are getting from advertising, subscriptions, licencing/syndication fees would be gone. How would you find out about new shows? Would you want to have to pay for a show before you know if it is good or not?

I think that if we had a "pick what you want to watch whenever you wanted" model we'd end up with something like TV viewing from Idiocracy. They will advertise somewhere.



No thanks.

[Skirge01]

Boy, did this get OT quickly.

Originally Posted by panteragstk

I think the main issue with the online only/streaming model is the fact that since ISP's are implementing bandwidth caps would make this model impossible unless something changed.

I'm sure that's the GOAL.

This would also have the same affect on the TV industry as a whole the same way it is affecting the music industry.

I'm not sure that's the case, only because the proverbial genie isn't out of the bottle yet (primarily due to bandwidth speed and caps), unlike when Napster arrived and the music industry wasn't aware of it until it was too late.

I for one feel that the high budget shows would effectively cease to exist. The reason I say this is because of all the revenue the creators are getting from advertising, subscriptions, licencing/syndication fees would be gone.

While this could certainly happen, I think what would be more likely is that they would need to adjust their business model (much like the music industry still needs to), in order to find alternate means of revenue. Having never worked in the industry, I'd be hard pressed to come up with any ideas, but that's what the bean counters and managers are for.

How would you find out about new shows?

The same way I do now: friends, family, news sites, online ads, blogs, etc. I certainly don't think it's too far fetched to think that people would prefer to find out about new shows from people they actually trust, as opposed to forcing me to watch a commercial. I'm sure commercials are much more expensive advertising.

Would you want to have to pay for a show before you know if it is good or not?

But, isn't this what we do today? How many channels do we get? How many programs every day? Yet, we watch how many of them? We're paying for thousands of things we'll never watch.

I think that if we had a "pick what you want to watch whenever you wanted" model we'd end up with something like TV viewing from Idiocracy. They will advertise somewhere.

True, but there has to be balance. Who says movies or TV shows need to cost millions of dollars? If they cost less, then they don't need as much advertising. If the quality goes down too much, then we stop watching and paying. Hmmm... maybe watching less TV isn't such a bad thing either???

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Yet Netflix seems to be doing very well, even purchasing their own first-run series.

They bought one first-run series. We'll see how much this catches on.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Maybe, but you'd get a much higher percentage of quality (to you) content. I mean if Netflix had all the new-aired shows I watch from Dish and had them right away, I'd happily pay Netflix the same amount I pay Dish, instead of paying Dish for 400 channels I couldn't care less about.

I suspect you have realistic expectations, but as you said, this is pretty similar to the ongoing debate about a la carte pricing for cable TV. I know there's some people that say, "gee, all I ever watch is ESPN, Fox Sports TNT, USA and CNN, yet I get all these other channels I never watch" and they reach the conclusion they'd obviously pay less with a la carte pricing. These people forget that a small number of the more popular channels are quite expensive for cable companies to carry, and they would likely get significantly more expensive to carry under an a la carte model. Right now basically everyone is subsidizing everyone else.

Originally Posted by stanger89

I'm thinking there's room for a premium service that provides Blu-ray or DCI quality video. That quality makes streaming impossible or at least impractical for the forseable future (nobody's going to be streaming 30-50Mbps files for a while).

You might be right. I would be surprised if there's that much demand for blu-ray quality streaming video from the general public for downloading to win out over streaming for the mass market, but perhaps there could be premium services. In my mind, I think Netflix HD video already looks pretty good on my 46 inch TV. Noticeably worse than blu-ray sure, but also noticeably better than DVDs. And I suspect I'm pickier than the average user out there (but perhaps less picky than the average Sage user).

Originally Posted by stanger89

And it wouldn't be like today where you "download ahead of time" it would happen automatically, so you'd always have 3 (or 4, or 2, or whatever you paid for) movies already cached on your system all the time. So you'd have quality impossible with streaming, with roughly the same convenience.

Right, but I think in practice it would be awfully close to unlimited streaming in terms of how much use people would get out of it. I wouldn't be able to stream 25mbps on my Internet connection today, but I could probably download it in roughly the same duration as the video itself. So, with a lot of caching I could probably stream it after 20-30 minutes of caching. Or I could download one movie while watching another.

With proper planning, and a reasonably fast Internet connection (even for today), I think a 3-out plan could effectively be unlimited for an individual. Though admittedly things would be different for families and probably needing to pre-fetch a show would have a moderating impact on usage.

[stevech]

With Cable's Switched Digital Video (SDV), in my system, a lot of the popular channels' content is essentially on demand. The "Start over" when first viewing live, is, I believe, SDV moving the tuner to a new SDV channel for the same show, and restarting the streaming from the beginning. Since this is done at the neighborhood area, and upstream of that they have fiber bandwidth back to the disk cache, there is more ability to do this than you'd think. Esp. with the 1,000MHz of bandwith the cable provides (unlike U-Verse's silly twisted pair to the home, but their VRADs do help melt snow).

The SDV Start Over is an opportunity for Sage's recordings scheduler to get clever, with fewer tuners.

But first, we need cableCARD/DRM in Sage, like 7MC, TiVo, et al.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I love satellite with my R-5000HD mods... same/better quality than cable, and only 5Mbps to get it.

This setup makes me happy too, until the playback on extenders stumble with the timeline issues that Sage has known about for at least two years, but won't fix. They say that the R5000 is not supported, but if the recording plays back fine on a client (which I hear it does), it should work on their extenders too.

I've bought 8 extenders over the years, but am now trying to decide if I should build a client or call dish to get DVR from them.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Rob

This setup makes me happy too, until the playback on extenders stumble with the timeline issues that Sage has known about for at least two years, but won't fix. They say that the R5000 is not supported, but if the recording plays back fine on a client (which I hear it does), it should work on their extenders too.

I've bought 8 extenders over the years, but am now trying to decide if I should build a client or call dish to get DVR from them.

Way off topic here, but I've never had a timeline issue with this setup. What is your source? With Dish Network, I've never seen it. Everything plays just fine.

[Rob]

I have two VIP-211's. This issue is rare with short recordings, but in a 3 hour football game it happens in maybe 20% of the recordings.

For me it is not really off topic. If I could know one thing about sages future it would be "Are you going to address this?'" If not, I need to build a client or get a dish dvr.

[peternm22]

I'll echo Rob's comments. I have a R5000 with Shaw Direct up here in Canada, and I get timeline/playback issues every now and then with R5000 recordings when playing back on an extender (HD100 and HD300). Running them through VideoRedo fixes them. This has happened with both my old server (Windows XP) and my new server (Windows 7). There are several other people who have posted over the years on the forums with the same problems.

All recordings play back perfectly on my Windows 7 client.

I sent a half dozen recordings to Sage last year for them to test, but there has yet to be a fix. Last response I had from George at Sage was that he would mention it to the developers again but they didn't have a fix yet.

I have 2 years of e-mails between myself and Sage about the problem, but still no fix.

[mayamaniac]

I would've never put up with the timeline problem since I record lots of sport shows which are usually 2-3 hours long. I'm surprise you guys put up with it for so long. I would've either buy an HD-PVR to replace the R5000 or dump SageTV for another solution.