Duh! Online TV Viewing is Growing

Confirming what you already knew, the Conference Board reports that online TV viewing has been gaining in popularity. Nearly 20 percent of American Internet households watch television broadcasts online, double the viewership from 2006. And as if to underscore the observation that both professional and user-generated content are getting traction, the study shows the top two destinations for online broadcasts are programming network home pages and YouTube.com.

Aside from other important considerations Comcast and some other service providers--wired and wireless--may have in enforcing usage caps, such limits also help limit the potential damage from a massive switch to downloading and streaming content direct from the source rather than buying subscription video packages. At the same time, usage caps also create a packaging opportunity: "download from my site and the bits don't count against your cap."

Another trend you probably didn't need further evidence confirmation about: most consumers do not like being forced to observe a set schedule when watching video. "Being able to watch broadcasts on their own time and at their convenience are the top reasons users tune in online," the Conference Board says.

Of course, avoiding commercials and content portability also are important. Nearly 72 percent of online households log on for entertainment purposes on a daily basis, and one in ten users indicates entertainment as the most important Internet activity.

“Most consumers are pressed for time and require flexibility in their daily schedules and TV viewing habits,” says Lynn Franco, The Conference Board Consumer Research Center director. “Being able to watch broadcasts on their own time and at their convenience are clearly reasons why we are seeing a greater number turning to the Internet. And, it is the reason why we would expect to see this trend continue.”

The top five types of shows viewed online are news, drama, sitcom/comedy, reality shows and sports, with user generated content following close behind. Among consumers connecting to online broadcasts, 43 percent tune into the news, 39 percent watch drama shows, 34 percent view sitcom/comedy shows, 23 percent watch reality shows, 16 percent view sports, and 15 percent view user generated content. Other categories attracting viewers include previews, additional content from favorite shows, soap operas, and advertisements.

Among online TV viewers, almost nine out of ten watch online broadcasts at home. About 15 percent say they watch internet broadcasts in the office, and 6 percent watch TV online from other locations, including the library or a friend’s home.

“The shift from appointment TV to content on demand is well underway,” says Michael Saxon, Senior Vice President, Brand and Communications, TNS. “Fundamentally, consumers expect content to be available when they want it, and on the screen of their choice – TV, PC, or mobile. For consumers, PCs enhance content on demand from simply time-shifting to place-shifting. Online content can be viewed in any room in the house, or at work or school.”

The top methods for viewing broadcasts online are streaming video, used by 68 percent of online TV viewers, and free download, used by 38 percent of viewers. The top two destinations for online broadcasts are programming network home pages, accessed by 65 percent of viewers, and YouTube.com, accessed by 41 percent of viewers. Other sites used for access include iTunes, Hulu, file sharing sites, social networking sites, and Limewire. Few consumers are willing--at least so far--to enroll in pay-per-download and subscription services.

The catch there is that advertising is the way users can view "no additional fee" content. Despite the user preference for ad skipping, at some point, ad-supported "no additional fee" programming will not be widely available without ad support. And advertisers won't pay at all, or not as much, if they think the ads can be skipped over.

iPhone Browsing Share Keeps Climbing

There isn't much doubt about the observation that Apple iPhone users surf the mobile Web more than users of other smart phones.  Net Applications, for example, reported that, after five months on the market, the Apple iPhone had browser market share 33 percent greater than that of Windows Mobile devices, despite the vastly-larger installed base of those devices.

The accomplishment? In less than six months, Apple passed Microsoft’s 10-year-plus mobile platform in terms of browser use, and installed base of about 20 million devices. 

So has that behavioral pattern continued? Seeking Alpha writer Ram Krishnan says it has. "I charted the browsing market share of both iPhone and Windows Mobile over six quarters," he says. "Clearly, iPhone is continuing its dizzying ascent, widening its lead significantly over Windows Mobile."

"The market share today stands at four times that of Windows Mobile," says Krishnan. "At this rate, given iPhone 3G’s worldwide distribution, it is quite conceivable that iPhone/iPod will be the fourth largest computing platform in terms of browsing market share (behind only Windows XP, Windows Vista, MacIntel and Mac OS) by end of this year."

Krishnan points out that iPhone will have surpassed the browsing market share of Linux, Windows 2000 and Windows NT platforms.

Australia Broadband Access Plan Will Feature Open Access

Would-be bidders for the Australian broadband access upgrade now seem to be just two: Telstra, the incumbent, and a rival bidding group called Terria, lead by long-time foe Optus, remain in serious contention, according to the Australian. Final proposals are due on November 26. The project entails construction of a  national broadband network that will reach 98 per cent of Australians.

The network is expected to cost A$9.4 billion ($7.8 billion), and the Australian government will help fund about A$4.7 billion worth of the cost. 

Both bidders say they will (obviously) abide by rules requiring wholesale access to the network by retail competitors, though Telstra opposes any formal structural separation of the network, while the Optus-lead group thinks that is not a bad idea. 

Are Broadband Prices Rising or Falling?

It typically is somewhat difficult to measure price changes for a variety of consumer goods, in large part because the "product" changes over time, so nominal prices tell part of the story, but not the whole story. PC hardware, for example, has seen both nominal price declines and vast improves in functionality, all at the same time. That tends to be true in the software area as well, at least in terms of number of features and capabilities.

Multi-channel video service prices tend to rise over time, but the nature of the product also changes. There are more channels and features, even as the price rises.

In the voice area, one can note that mobile and fixed voice services now feature many more features and lower nominal prices, for the most part, though some prices, as in the case of text messaging, are rising. 

One might argue that when service providers increase bandwidth without increasing prices, something like that process of product improvement is at work. Still, recent data from the Pew Internet & American Life project suggests that broadband prices are a bit lower, while dial-up prices are rising. 

Broadband users reported an average monthly bill of $34.50 in April 2008, down from $36 in December 2005, researchers at Pew say. That has happened despite the fact that nearly one-third of home broadband users have a premium broadband

service that gives them a faster connection to the Internet, and for which they pay a higher monthly price. 

Dial-up users, on the other hand, reported monthly bills of $19.70, up nine percent from the $18 figure from December 2005.

The reported average cost of digital subscriber line service ($31.50) continues to be less than cable modem service ($37.50), Pew researchers say.

Given the fact that higher-priced, but higher-capacity products increasingly are available, the simple question "are broadband prices increasing or decreasing" cannot be answered very well. If users want more bandwidth, and buy plans that provide that access, but at higher prices, that is comparing apples and oranges. 

To get to an answer, one would have to compare prices over time for products of equivalent functionality. Aggregate prices alone will not provide answers. 

Wireless Backhaul: Big Bucks?

Mobile backhaul has been a big topic of discussion among service providers over the past several years. In part the interest is driven by the concentrated nature of the opportunity. With multiple new broadband networks being built, and upgrades required to virtually all the existing mobile networks,  providers have a few big customers who can order up thousands of links at a time.

And though it remains unclear just how much more backhaul bandwidth will be required, at least some observers think that once networks such as Clearwire get up to speed, and acquire some customer mass, the requirements at each base station might be as high as 2 Gbps. For providers used to selling T1 connections to mobile cell sites, that's a huge opportunity. 

At Least 96% of U.S. Households Can Buy Cable Modem Service

In Canada, virtually all households in urban centers and 78 percent of households in rural areas were within the broadband footprint at the end of 2006, says the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Broadband coverage is also extensive in the OECD’s second largest country, the United States. High-speed cable modem service is available to 96 percent of end-user premises in the United States. DSL coverage is in the high-70s percent penetration. 

Metered or Bucketed Usage Plans? Only One is a Problem

Looking at moves to bandwidth caps by Comcast and other service providers, some observers are concerned about the possible impact of what is termed "metered" usage on user behavior. It's a reasonable concern. Back in the old days of dial-up access, metered usage clearly depressed usage, which exploded in the U.S. market when AOL moved to "unlimited" packaging. 

So observers are right to worry about potential depressing effects on new user behaviors and applications. The concern probably is misplaced, however. There is a difference between "buckets," which feature a usage cap, and "metered" usage. The customer reaction also is quite different. 

Metered usage isn't welcomed by users, primarily because it introduces uncertainty. Users do not like to wonder what their bills will look like, so there is a clear preference for predictability.

But if the buckets are sized appropriately, and when users have some experience to gauge the appropriate buckets, usage does not seem to suffer. Strict metering undoubtedly would depress usage. Buckets will not, if constructed with reasonable parameters and when users have some way to predict and adjust their plans if needed.

The other issue is that lots of other services are offered on a strictly metered basis, and that can be good for light users. Light text message users benefit from a la carte, metered usage charges. Moderate usage quickly allows users to figure out that a bucket is a better deal.

And even metered usage is tolerated, if the prices are reasonable enough. Most users pay for water, natural gas or electricity on a simple metered basis. As long as users know roughly what to expect, and the rates are not outrageous, it does not seem to be a problem. 

Buckets of wireless minutes, buckets of usage that blur the distinction between "long distance" and "local" consumption clearly have encouraged usage.