FCC admits CableCARD a failure

Yep, total failure. There is no real 3rd party marketplace for CableCARDs and what the network operators provide is limited in functionality while costing the same as a set top box (e.g. Comcrap’s CableCARD doesn’t support on demand). On top of everything else, the signal processing capabilities in the CableCARDs was suspect, in my own experience I found the image to be highly pixelated compared to set top boxes.

CableCARD was supposed to be the fix, but it was slow to deploy, was never widely supported, and had huge limitations. Early versions of the host spec supported only one-way access, so electronic program guides, video-on-demand, and other two-way services didn’t function. The FCC then tried to force the industry’s hand, all but demanding innovation by requiring cable operators to use CableCARDs even inside their own leased set-top boxes, just to level the playing field.

[From FCC admits CableCARD a failure, vows to try something else]

The cable industry has a boot to the neck of consumers and Comcast in particular is intent on having a piece of it’s equipment between every television and cable end on their network. As I wrote here, they have been successful in dismantling the very notion of “basic cable” and it was one of the reasons why I dumped them for Directv.

With the tech industry preoccupied with the FCC regulating the internet I am concerned that cable companies will use the time to tighten their stranglehold on customers. Given the way that licensing works these companies are operating regional monopolies with government stamps of approval yet there is little in the way of on the ground regulatory action that is intended to increase competition. As convergence between the Internet and television draws nearer this is not a good set of conditions to deliver innovation in, and with Comcast acquiring content networks there is much to be concerned about.

Newsday.com Destined for Failure with Pay Wall

Cablevision must have gotten punch drunk with all of the talk coming out of newspapers about going to a subscription model for their online services, because they are going big, really big, with a $260 a year pricing plan for Newsday.com

Those who are not customers of Optimum Online or the newspaper – both owned by Bethpage-based Cablevision Systems Corp. – will have to pay a $5 weekly fee. However, nonpaying customers will have access to some of newsday.com’s information, including the home page, school closings, weather, obituaries, classified and entertainment listings. There also will be some limited access to Newsday stories.

[From Newsday.com moves to subscriber model]

In reality this is a lot of talk about something that will actually have very little impact on revenue because if you are a Newsday subscribers or a Cablevision cable customer you will have access to the Newsday.com site for no extra charge. Given that Newsday is concentrated on Long Island and Cablevision has a virtual lock on that region, what the online pricing plan is doing is not increasing revenue but defending revenue that is under assault by adding the online service as something extra subscribers get.

In the final analysis, this is exactly why it will fail. By creating a pricing plan that defends rather than attacks a market the company is conceding defeat in print and this strategy will have the effect of slowing audience growth online in the one segment that the paper requires, young people. I am willing to give Newsday and Cablevision some credit for being creative with a multichannel strategy that covers TV, print and online, but this pricing plan is a throwback to a subscription model that simply doesn’t work anymore.

More on this topic (What's this?) Read more on Cablevision Systems, Newspapers at Wikinvest