"Nobody really knows how it's going to shake out, what the business model will be so they are trying some different approaches.

The author is a technology writer - one of a niche group of people who want to watch shows online, via their TV sets..." - voice of reason

I think you may be giving the Networks too much credit when you say, “Nobody knows how this will shake out.” I think they know exactly how things will play out and that’s why they are trying to stop it.

Again, I can point to AT&T who knows exactly how things will turn out if they allowed Skype to function on the iPhone. The reason AT&T doesn’t allow this feature isn’t because of any technological restrictions or because they honestly don’t think there is any demand for it – I think it fairly obvious to everyone AT&T refuses to allow it because it jeopardizes their business model. Most people don’t like AT&T and don’t want to buy their expensive call plans – and if Skype were an option they wouldn’t. So AT&T simply eliminated Skype as an option and forced people into their plans.

I also think the very concept of how media is viewed has evolved so much that watching video on a computer (or cell phone!) is as commonplace as watching it on a TV.

The argument used to be that people would never want to listen to music on anything except their home stereos with their massive speakers and equalizers. Now one could argue that the majority of people rarely listen to music on home stereos – but listen to it almost exclusively on their iPods, Blackberry’s, or smart phones. I think a large reason the record execs dragged their feet on the whole digital music scene was because they were afraid that if they couldn’t “bundle” music onto CD’s (that they could sell for $29.99) and allowed people to buy songs at only .99 cents that they’d be at a price disadvantage. Ya got an artist with one mediocre song and 12 crappy ones? Bundle onto a CD and make a million dollars selling that one song. Under the new model the music execs took one look at that and said, “Right now we can sell one good song for $29.99 by bundling it onto a CD. If we switch we’ll only be able to sell that one song for a dollar! Let’s stick with the old way of doing things and just claim there’s ‘no demand’ for buying music online!”

Personally I see the same thinking happening with video.

Right now if you want to watch HBO’s “Deadwood” you have to either pay a premium to HBO or you can pay $129.00 to get the season on DVD.

Gosh, why doesn’t HBO sell each episode of “Deadwood” on iTunes for $1.99 each?

Because by limiting your options and forcing you to buy a bundle they can jack up the price!

I think the demand for buying individual content and watching it on your iPod, PDA or computer is huge – and the only thing stopping it from exploding is the fact that Network execs won’t make the same mistakes (as they see it) that the music execs made. Limiting options, bundling content and jacking up prices is a very, very profitable business model. They do not under any circumstances want to give up the advantage they have.

The demand is there – but the giants of video content/distribution don’t want to give up their advantage.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-09-21-ala-carte-cable-lawsuit_N.htm

How interesting.

I guess other's are seeing that "bundling" is just another way to inflate prices.

I wonder what impact this would have on video content being sold on the Internet?

If we could break the bundling of cable channels -- would that make selling shows a la carte online more attractive?

So the President lied to us about his rationale for committing us to an invasion an occuptation of Iraq and broke a few international laws in the process.

So what?

This is just an attempt to distract for the real news which is how Britney Spears raises her kids!

I wonder if any TV news outlet will give this story more than 5mins?

I can see Katie Couric right now reading the teleprompter:

"Today some dude in other country claims he spoke to Pres. Bush and Bush said he was commited to invading Iraq no matter what the UN said. The White House was asked for comment and denied it. In other news...."

I'll be shocked if it's given that much coverage.