The Cable Tv Industry Media Essay

The Cable Tv Industry Media EssayThe rapid development in the bea of technological innovation that has occurred over the last decades in the telecommunication industry, has led to a thriving flexth in the digital amusement media, sh stimulate by the emergence of rising sophisticated products and a wide re moderning of services. This evolution has ca utilise an increment in competition in the subscriber line goggle box industry. The development of these new technologies and the convergence of media and telecommunications have ceaseed consumers to main course a great number of services. Within this context, streaming sites to watch movies and TV shows over the cyberspace have become a direct competitor to the powerful credit line of channel television system in the U.S. The purpose of this newspaper publisher is to analyze the strategies used by major rail line TV providers in the U.S. to counter, or up to now avoid, the emergence of new competitors. These strategies ge nerate controversy because they might pose a risk a authorizest free market competition.Two main branches, one in charge of production and the other in charge of the distribution bounce the Cable TV industry in the U.S. Together they sh be an estimated $ three hundred billion market value (Arango, 2009). The multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) such as lineage system television systems, direct-broadcast satellite providers, and wireline video providers give the distribution cut tally of the equation. These companies generate revenues close to $100 billion per year, and it mostly comes from monthly cable subscriptions, additional charges from premium channels, and rental fees from set-top boxes (Shen, 2011). These companies are generally known as Multiple System Operators (MSOs) and include firms such as Time Warner and Comcast. These ii providers serve almost half of the demand for cable TV in the U.S.The video programming networks that produce the confine cons umers watch integrate the irregular component of the industry. Broadcaster networks such as ABC, NBC, and CBS, that produce their satisfy, make it on hand(predicate) on cable TV and over-the-air, form the producers network market. There are also non-broadcasters such as MTV, Comedy Central, and TBS whose content is all getable by cable subscriptions (Ammori 2010). As the distribution network, the programming network is a highly concentrated market dominated by a a couple of(prenominal) powerful and prevailing programming networks. These companies mainly derive their revenue from publicise and retransmission fees.Contrasting broadcast television that relies on advertising to originate its revenue, cable networks receive revenue from fees paid by cable operators. For example, Comcast pays closely to $1 billion a year to carry ESPN (Arango, 2010). However, as the costs of pay-TV grow and consumers spending power stays the same, the traditional origin shape take in by cable p roviders appears to need a major reassign. Furtherto a greater extent, the display of new online companies like Netflix and Hulu has put pressure on the cable industry to change their business model. For many years, both systems have harmonized and work unneurotic in a model, that now many predicts will eventually tumble thanks to the proliferation of lucre TV.In an attempt to minimize the effect of this new internet trend and keep the revenue stream and business model of subscription TV, the cable TV providers have discussed the need to prevent the spread of television programs, most of which are now available online free. Consequently, they have discussed the introduction of a new model comm besides known as TV Everywhere. The intent of this initiative is to ensure the delivery of the online content as a inhering extension of the existing Cable TV model. Through this system, consumers can visualise programming online only if they identify themselves as cable TV subscriber, that is, only the cable subscribers can view the most popular content through the internet. The agreement reflects the profound concern of the satellite TV, telecommunications companies and cable industry to allow free access to this content, as it could subscribe to to problems similar to those faced by the music industry and the news, which nowadays have to struggle to establish subscription-based business models. Another argument for the introduction of these barriers lies in the lack of regulation regarding access profits content, which could push subscribers to cancel their TV service and use only the Web. The main promoters of this campaign have been the cable companies, but satellite and telecommunications companies are joining the fight.Due to fear of violating antitrust law through collusion, the cable television executives have tried to hide their actions by eliminating a paper trail. Their outline has been to have informal discussions, leaving nothing in writing. che ck to reports by the New York Times, the electronic media chiefs, including Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes, Jeff Zucker CEO of NBC Universal and Philippe P. Dauman CEO of Viacom, among others, have been more careful to avoid being accused of collusion. Much of the discussions have been on the phone and in private, one-on-one conversations during industry events. Price is rarely, if ever, discussed, according to executives bear on in the discussions (Arango, 2009).The executives have emphasized the importance of finding an industry-wide solution, and this can be achieved only if they collude, as such solution is not in a companys interest unless others agree with one another on the solution. A focal point of a free market economy is that consumers are dampen off if each company follows its own self-interest rather than colluding with its competitors to trick up prices, allocate markets, or otherwise harm consumers and competitors (Ammori, 2010). Stephen B. Burke, the chief operati ng officeholder of Comcast, has publicly admitted that if each current operator and programmer merely followed its own self-interest, just like each should do it under the law in a competitive market), then each company would be worsened off. As the New York Times reported, the problem is that if each goes in various directions some offering more shows free, others holding them back only for cable subscribers then the economics of the industry could crumble.The industry have come a predictable conflict between two discordant models for broadcast content cable TV and the Internet. The circumstances seem difficult, and it suggests the possibility facing the prisoners dilemma. panorama it in a simple scenario, broadcasters and cable companies play the role of the prisoners. Thus, devoted that both cooperate to maintain unlicensed Internet-delivered TV programming off connected-TV sets, they both obtain take ups (Frank, 2010). Whereas broadcast gets its large retransmission fees, cable providers get to shift diverse premium services at a substantial profit. However, the appearance of internet TV has come to propose the dilemma. In the shield of broadcasters, internet TV offers the opportunity to sell programming direct to consumers, at potentially higher margins than through the cable companies. In addition, it allows a more serial control over advanced advertising and interactive capabilities that currently the cable companies are trying to control. Conversely, to cable providers, internet TV gives them the opportunity to gain more advantage in retransmission negotiations by potentially offering content that is free on the Internet for free to their cable customers as well.In most cases, the result of the prisoners dilemma is the desertion of both players, since in price of game theory the defection strictly dominates over cooperation. Although the situation of Internet TV has not yet predict this result, the benefits of desertion still understandably outweigh the benefits of cooperation. Broadcasters are not likely to get more money from online TV providers that cable companies, and cable companies are not likely to gain enough influence to offset the potential dismission of subscribers in case of losing access to popular programming. However, the evolution of Internet TV can lead to broadcasters have to carry between the programming offered on the Internet penetrating that people can watch on TV as well, and the loss of a large part of the growing online audience. Distributors, meanwhile, will have to choose between continuing to pay increasing rates of carriage to holdout bare or take their chances with online television. To avoid this step in the dilemma, the distributors are works with broadcasters on the TV Everywhere concept, which lasted subscriber based on conditional access to video on any device.C. Anticompetitive effects of this new strategyOn the marketsOn the consumersV. Conclusion