At times the debate seemed rehearsed, but that is because it started more than a year ago in a combative exchange of blog posts. (One of Cuban's was titled "Why Do Internet People Think Content People Are Stupid?") With the rhetorical groundwork laid, the two executives held nothing back in their face-to-face meeting.
"If you think that the Internet going to replace cable you're crazy," Cuban said, noting that no one in the Internet video space is making money, including Boxee, and that the current model of delivering content for free is going nowhere.
"But people are willing to pay for Internet video right now," Ronan responded. "They are paying for
Netflix, they are paying for MLB, they are paying for a lot of things," he said. "It isn't about free or not free. It is about whether the Internet can deliver video and it can."
How much video and how reliably it can be delivered is a different question. And that is where Cuban made his strongest points. Having a few million users download programming a few times a week is one thing, but what about when it is tens of millions? The Internet simply wasn't built to support that kind of delivery.
"When do you think that ESPN will say
Monday Night Football could have 20 million subscribers, so let's stream it over the Internet?" asked Cuban.
"A couple of years...," began Ronan.
"Ha! Like two years or 200 years!?" snapped Cuban.
The hour-long debate, briefly interrupted by a fire alarm that cleared the Austin Convention Center, also touched on net neutrality, the limits of Wi-Fi home networks, and development platforms for set-top boxes.
Despite the testy exchanges and the ideological divide, there was actually a lot of agreement on practical matters. Ronan acknowledged that pay models needed to evolve and that providers like HDNet should be paid for their content. Cuban offered to put video on any network, including Internet-based platforms, as long as the numbers made sense.
For better or worse, as Cuban put it, "The future of television is television."
On the opening night of ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6dc49dea-4cce-4945-a05a-ca6954264297)
More...
March 13, 2010 2:33 PM
Is there a video of this available online... Because I would pay to see that.
I have already abandoned the cable TV distribution model and will never go back to it. I pay for Netflix for live streaming movies and older television series, and I watch Hulu for current shows. I would certainly pay for Hulu if it came to that. At $15 a month I would pay for Hulu and even tolerate the current commercials they include, or is that not enough money for the content providers?
I realize that we have some infrastructure improvements to undertake before the widespread adoption of internet based TV is a viable option but we are getting there. Millions of people are already relying on internet based services for all of their television needs. It just makes more sense on a consumer level to have access to the shows you want to watch when you want to watch them. Instead of having hundreds of channels with thousands of programs you don't care about for an absurd price.
March 15, 2010 9:27 AM
Like Warri, I also abandoned cable TV many years ago, instead hooking a computer up to my TV. Of course, I don't use Netflix though, but I love life without cable. Whenever I goto a friends house and have to sit through commercials, the benefits of this decision always hit home.
Regarding Cuban's points about the Internet not being built for that type of delivery, I simply think this is another reason why an upgrade to the backbone is imperative. The US already lags far behind in Internet distribution and speeds, with no competition in most places, resulting in an effective monopoly. By following Google's Lead and updating the infrastructure with fiber, Cuban's point is mute...
March 15, 2010 3:54 PM
"The future of television is television."
Not sure what he's trying to say here. Over the Air television is the best delivery method, but you don't get all the channels you want to see, you get endless commericals, and you can't get the best reception. Cable is the second best solution, but prices are extremely expensive, many channels have endless commercials, and you always pay for more channels than you want possibly want to see.
This leaves the only remaining alternative... Internet television. You pay to see exactly what you want, and you get for free the remainder. The solution is to get the Internet on the Television. That's what I'm trying to do.
I gave up cable. I installed an Over The Air antenna. I stream Netflix. I will hook up an Internet receiver if they are on sale. Seems like a Boxee Box might be what I'm looking for.
I'm not worried about Internet bandwidth. Cuban should talk with the ISPs. Companies like Verizon would not be selling the service if they couldn't deliver. I believe things get better if the demand is there. Afterall, why not? Landline telephones and cable services are not the future. The Internet is the future. Make more money from Internet services!!!