Why Apple, Google and Intel May Not Disrupt the TV Business After All

Digital Cord Cutting

Why Google, Intel and Apple May Not Disrupt the TV Business After All

As speculation centers on the ways that Google, Apple and Intel could disrupt the cable TV business, there’s also a fair degree of pessimism that the new players will lead to something consumers crave: Lower monthly bills.

On Friday, FCC commissioners praised the results of a report showing increasing competition for cable, as online services like Netflix, telcos like AT&T’s U-verse, and satellite providers like DirecTV expand their footprint.

Mignon Clyburn, acting chairwoman of the FCC, said that the increased competition is “leading to more choices in terms of programming packages and prices, and that’s great for consumers.” Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel noted the Emmy nominations for web series as a sign of progress. Commissioner Ajit Pai suggested a new Golden Age of Television, noting that there “is no time like the present for those who savor quality content.”

SEE ALSO: Google Eyes Internet TV Challenge to Cable and Satellite

But there’s concern, to put it mildly, among public interest groups that even with the new playing field, what will remain is a landscape of pricey tiers, particularly with the costs of sports channels rising, and the prospect that cable giants will still control the online video marketplace if it imposes data caps, or pricing based on usage.

John Bergmayer, senior staff attorney for Public Knowledge, said that the latest FCC report “shows that the industry itself has not changed much, and it’s not evolving fast enough to meet consumers’ evolving demands. Coupled with the FCC’s reports on cable industry prices, a pattern emerges of consumers paying more each year for more of the same.”

SEE ALSO: Apple Baking New Ad-Skipping TV Service

In May, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) created some waves when he introduced legislation that would force cable providers to begin offering channels on an ala caret basis. But his bill is given little chance of getting very far, and some in the cable industry argue that even if ala carte programming were available, consumers still would face the prospect of high prices, or even higher prices, for the most desirable channels, like ESPN.

Matt Wood, policy director for the public interest group Free Press,  questions whether much will change at all. In a statement, he suggested that “it’s a sure sign of a broken market when the best that giants like Google and Apple can promise is a better cable box.” To be sure, neither company has officially unveiled their plans, albeit reports have surfaced of their efforts at getting into the multichannel marketplace.

“It’s not an actual alternative if customers are still tied to the cable model,” Wood wrote. “Until we break apart the forced channel bundles and get rid of unnecessary online data caps, we’ll never see more than baby-step innovations and skyrocketing prices.”

The FCC’s report shows that cable’s share of the marketplace has fallen, from 59.3% at the end of 2010 to 55.7% in June, 2012, even as the overall number of multichannel subscribers increased to 101 million. The gains came from satellite, which grew from 33.1% market share to 33.6%, and telephone subscribers, like those coming from AT&T’s U-verse and Verizon’s FIOS, which increased from 6.9% in 2010 to 8.4% in 2011.

The number of households with Internet connected TVs was increasing, the FCC said, with 41.6 million in 2012, or 35.4% of all households, according to an SNL Kagan study. But the majority of those still retain their cable, satellite or telco subscriptions.

In other words, while online video is competing for viewers’ eyeballs, what remains to be seen is whether it can be comparable competition that replaces a cable provider, offering ESPN, TNT and all the rest.

Bergmayer said that the “barrier is the deals,” in that video providers have enough buying power to prevent content from going online. Even then, if demands can be made that cable, satellite and telcos bundle channels, why not the new entrants?

“The media marketplace is so concentrated, on both the production and distribution side, that just one or two companies can veto new entrants,” he wrote in a recent blog post.

Clyburn did note that online entrants could help subscribers save money by eliminating the need to rent set-top boxes. Apple’s plans reportedly involve improving apps on its Apple TV to make that possible.

That, however, may not shave much off the overall cost of a bill. Satellite and telcos entered the multichannel market as competition to cable, and consumers’ bills haven’t exactly plunged. So when it comes to online entrants being the next great disruptors, there’s ample reason for skepticism, or to only believe it when you see it.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 4

Leave a Reply

4 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Matthew B says:

    The price of cable and satellite is outrageous because the bundles always include sports channels which we are forced to purchase. I wish I could dump espn forever. I’d also dump the 50 channels that no one ever watches including the music only stations that no one wants but must pay for. If I want to listen to music I certainly don’t turn on my television. probably the only deal that seems reasonable is FIOS but of course it’s not available on my street.

  2. joe says:

    Found you can own your own satellite system with no monthly fee. Free To Air Channels are broadcast for every country in the world. Seek and you shall find…

  3. morofsky says:

    ….put an antenna on your roof and pick up digital tv channels for free……just like the old days ! ! ! ……

  4. It’s not about the fees, it’s about the experience.

    What the new tech arrivals offer and why they’re gaining traction is simply this: a much better service.

    Television is terrible, at least in broadcast, whether satellite or cable, it’s a lousy experience, from the scheduling to the ads. We hear a lot of the new golden age of television, what we are actually in is a golden age of long form drama, which is as much a part of the culture of box sets/online downloads/streaming sites as anything you might term ‘television’.

    The viewers want their stories where and when and how they want it and they are willing to pay to get away from unwanted ads and the ability to set their own schedule.

    The aim for current adopters of internet provided television, true cord-cutters, is not lower prices. The aim is to get away.

    We are not in a competitive market here, we are in a market where the deals are acting as a retardant on the move for all media to the internet pipe. All they are doing is slowing down the transition. There is no other trajectory in play.

    The competition which will give us lower prices we will see once that transition has passed.

More Biz News from Variety

Loading