NYT follows up on online video debate at the Cable Show
Tweaking the Cable Model, to Avoid Newspapers’ Fate [NYT Bits Blog]
NYT's Bits published a good follow-up piece about the convergence debate that was one of the main issues discussed at last week's Cable Show. The post by writer Saul Hansell focuses on whether content creators are opening a Pandora's box by posting full-length shows on the Internet for free viewing without a business model that can support the creation of new content. And does giving users an expectation that all their shows and movies are available for free to legally view online set an unrealistic expectation? Won't viewers begin to believe that there is little value in paying a subscription for the content they can view online a short time later? In short, does Hollywood risk going the way of newspapers if this is the model content producers adopt?
Operators and programmers are seeking common ground to work together to offer online video to those who otherwise have access to a network's programming. First, however, there has to be a seamless authentication system in place to authorize access to the programming.
Solving the authentication issue is the key in advancing these subscriber video portals. That is, how do you provide the maximum flexibility for subscribers to view content, whether at home or away, while making sure that the content is secure from hacking or viewing by non-subscribers. As Pat Esser, CEO of Cox Communications says in the article:
Both Comcast and Time Warner Cable are in the process of building online video portals for their subscribers. I'm looking forward to seeing how they tackle the issue of authentication, and just how flexible their platform will be for activities like watching video on mobile devices.



