Report: Cable carriers considering online video services

Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35PM EST

See Comments (10)

Big cable's (apparent) strategy against online video threats like Hulu and Boxee? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

That's the word from the Wall Street Journal (via Reuters), which reports that cable carriers such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable are considering their own, subscriber-only services that would offer streaming network TV shows plus "exclusive" extra content.

The idea, apparently, is that these cable-backed video Web sties would draw eyeballs away from Hulu.com by "offering a large amount of previously unavailable video," according to the Journal.

Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable have been talking to the likes of NBC, Viacom (owner of MTV, TNT, and USA), and Time Warner Inc. (itself a producer of network TV shows) about joining the supposed service.

OK, so what would this "previously unavailable video" entail? Reuters is sketchy on that point, but I'd imagine we're talking deleted scenes, Webisodes, interviews with cast and crew, and the like. (And yes, ads would be included.)

Now, from a viewer's standpoint, not all that interesting (or at least, not to me) … but the news underlines how streaming video—once just an afterthought for big cable and the networks—is fast becoming a significant source of revenue, and for now, big cable doesn’t have a clear piece of it.

And frankly, were I running Comcast or another of the big carriers, I'd be feeling pretty anxious about the future. There's clearly a demand for streaming video sites like Hulu, as well as a means for delivering streaming content to the TV in your living room—think Boxee. (Yes, Hulu pulled its streams from Boxee as of today, but as ZDNet's Larry Dignan wrote Thursday, the "Web video genie is out of the bottle.")

Now, there's still a piece of the puzzle for cable in terms of broadband Internet service, but what happens when wireless carriers (like Verizon Wireless and AT&T) start offering 4G data service, which is just as fast (or faster) than the broadband coming from your cable modem? Uh oh.

What cable needs is a serious online strategy, something akin to Netflix's brilliant "Watch Now" streaming service (which, as Netflix execs already know, is destined to replace the company's signature DVDs-by-mail service). OK, but what'll it be? I don't know, but exclusive deleted scenes and interviews probably won't cut it.

So, what do you think—what kind of "exclusive" online video would lure you away from Hulu.com? Deleted scenes and extras? Or what about a massive archive of episodes, bigger than the limited selection on Hulu? Now that might be interesting.

Related:
Cable providers eye offering TV shows online: report [Reuters]

Comments on Report: Cable carriers considering online video services

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 1 Posted by jseyfield on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    I know people say "tv is horrible these days" so much it's practically background noise but I do think it's true these days. The motto is "content is king" but content sucks these days. Yes I'm sure there are diehard fans of shows like the Office or Battlestar Galactica or whatever that will argue otherwise but as a whole its slim pickings these days. I only mention this is because the irony is that distribution has never been better, iTunes, Hulu, YouTube, you have so many choices these days but nothing worthwhile to watch in them.

  • 2 Posted by phil.seymour on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:09PM EDT Report Abuse

    I enjoy Hulu, YouTube, BlipTV and all the rest. I enjoy broadcast HDTV. Would I pay to see more stuff? Probably not. I already pay for high speed internet, why should I pay for another service, like cable? It seems like big corporations aren't content with a reasonable profit, and feel ripped off if they are missing a revenue stream. It's a mistake to get too greedy. jseyfield, you can watch "classic" programs too. I hope you feel better, soon. Try the Simpsons, or The Daily Show, and call me in the morning.

  • 3 Posted by rtrapasso on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:55PM EDT Report Abuse

    I have to agree with the first post; there's just not that much. Sure, I have a few of my own 'diehards' (24, House, Friday Night Lights), but besides that, some sports and movies-on-demand, I don't see why people dish out $60+ for digital cable and the like. I can watch my two FOX shows on the network website, as I can FNL on NBC/Hulu. A new model needs to be thought up or prices need to come down... Greatly.

  • 4 Posted by alan_r_cam on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    The people running cable have blinkers on- just like at hulu.com They are blind to ANY opportunity outside the U.S. border. The first one to tap the World market, as in WORLD Wide Web, will be the true winner.

  • 5 Posted by forrestgump14093 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:01PM EDT Report Abuse

    I think the cable companies are a little too slow in their thinking. If there was a way to get just the programs I want to watch on my television, instead of having to pay for 115 channels of which I only watch four or five I would have gotten rid of cable years ago. I think we will really see things change when we get the full convergence of tv and the internet. Then it will be to late for them.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment


My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.