Attention To All Viewership

Verizon, the telecommunications giant behind FiOS TV, wants to change the way it pays television providers for their content. As the chief programming negotiator for Verizon Fios TV, Terry Denson, told the Wall Street Journal: "We are paying for a customer who never goes to the channel." Yes, because let's face it, while we have a plethora of channel options, some of them catering to even the rarest interests and audiences, most channels are just noise for most people. So should program providers charge fees based on how many homes their channels are shot into or how many homes actually watch their channel?

Of course the major media companies are going to favor the traditional model. So Verizon is trying to start discussions with small and mid-tier providers in the hopes the general tides will force the bigger waves in their direction eventually. In the eyes of the big media companies: why risk anything? But the greater good, and most efficient and logical choice, may be to charge based on who actually watches the channels. Long ago, the current model made sense, but with the flux of niche channels and advent of set-top boxes, it may be necessary and possible to precisely chart what people are checking out. And it shouldn't be said that Verizon is being inconsiderate. They're simply basing a view of a channel on a household tuning in for at least five minutes a month. Frankly, I think that threshold could reasonably be raised. If I tune-in for only ten minutes a month to a channel, I would not consider myself a viewer of it, let alone five minutes. I would raise the bar to 30 minutes, the length of a standard show, in an entire month. But fine, let's keep the five minute bar. It's the right direction nonetheless. How hard is that to meet? Why would you be against this unless you truly believe no one is watching your material, in which case, maybe you shouldn't exist.

Yes, there are details to be mended. Along with the actual fees to be negotiated, there's the issue of how demographics would be exactly considered. Currently, channels with viewers that fit within the highly coveted demographics to advertisers (18-49) earn far more in fees from providers than others. With the company's big reveil, Terry Denson pointed out that his company pays $5.04 a month per household to ESPN. USA Network, which has about 300,000 more unique viewers, only receives $0.68 a month per household.

This could marginally drop rates and greatly stabilize them. Who likes price increases every month? Frankly, the television industry in respect to television service providers could do a lot to clean up their acts and this is a good step forward to making it possible from the side of content and channel line-ups. What can cable and satellite providers do on their ends? Well, I'm glad I asked. With so many channels, it's an eyesore to still have an equivalent standard-definition and HD version for so many channels. Like black-and-white going the way of the dodo, standard-definition should be scrapped when there is an HD version available. However they want to do it, they should just do it. Make a grace period to warn people of the standard-definition signals being scrapped and give them some rebates on HD set-top boxes or free offers for a basic model. Build that foundation for a solid base and go from there. Aside from free set-top boxes to current customers for the purpose of upgrading, the set-top box should be eliminated as an option to future customers and replaced with a small DVR at the lowest end of pricing. Who doesn't look at a normal set-top box and wonder to themselves: "We used to just connect a cable from the wall. Why the hell do we need to add a box now that visibly doesn't do anything and still makes the fancy remote that came with my TV obsolete?"

Instead of focusing on pure hardware changes every year that give bigger hard drives or update minute software features, put in the effort to properly design three or four differently-priced DVR models based on hard drive space and types of customers (ex. one-TV household vs. a multi-TV household) that nonetheless function on one fundamental platform. These boxes can simultaneously include a built-in wireless modem for bundled internet customers, a built-in wireless router for networking otherwise, web-browsing capabilities, certain ports for potential devices to license, expandable memory or just more seamless execution with your TV's built-in features like PIP that sometimes don't crossover once a box from a provider is put in. Whatever's there, it would be based on what the television service provider is prepared to offer.

Regardless of what operating system is designed to cover all models from a certain provider, they should be prepared to use the hardware for a period of years like gaming consoles do and focus in the short-term on any additions/upgrades being by means of software/firmware updates that are provided to those DVR's through connections. As for the long-term: over the course of a current DVR's generation, design and plan for the next generation like Sony does for a jump from Playstation 3 to Playstation 4. This is how to create a sustainable TV industry: by setting the spark and fueling it steadily.

Also a flaw in today's DVR layouts are the various takes on multi-room systems. Sometimes all you can do is continue a show in another room. Is that the best we can do? Companies are focusing so much on second screen devices, which is great, but we can't ignore the TV itself. Companies need to make it easy for a single household to connect multiple TV's to the same system without an ordeal. Make a comfortable organization of how it all works and stick to it; don't reinvent the basics every year. Create a single DVR terminal as the hub to be placed in a living room. Allow additional TV's to connect to the hub and interact with it to watch channels and piggyback off that main hard drive for recording by means of smaller wireless receiver boxes that orbit the main body like a satellite or, better yet, wireless HDMI sticks that you can just plug into any of your TV's standard ports to relay encrypted information from the main terminal. Encrypted so as not to make possible for outsiders to use your cable signal.

Because wireless satellite boxes/sticks would run on the main hard drive, eliminating separate local physical storage in each room, individual privacy may become an extra issue within a household. Too allow privacy for recordings which are made somewhat public by default when stored on the main terminal's hard drive, which itself is designed to be accessible to any of the satellite boxes: allow folders to be created for organizing each family member's or room's recordings. So then discreet folders would be visible on and accessible from any room's screen. But also allow optional invisibility locks for those folders if certain members of the household don't want to have their recordings viewed by anyone else. So then while there might be a folder, there would be no information about its contents (i.e. channels, titles, file sizes, ratings) without a code. It will very well appear empty unless the code is punched in. Parents would technically have their personal recordings stored on the main hub to be viewed anywhere in theory, but optionally password-protected to control viewing by guests, kids, or even by specific satellite boxes connected to the system. For example: even if you know the password, you can only access the invisible recordings from the living room and the master bedroom, thus adding another level of protection. Don't want your kid's allowed to hide their recordings like you do? Easy, the invisibility feature could be blocked from being allowed unless with a password. If you promote simple, safe accessibility for more TV's, people will be more prone to investing in sets and paying for the content to make those sets viable.

So is everyone listening? That means you Television Service Providers in the back. Let's summarize with these steps:

1) Offer free set-top box or discounted DVR (basic model) to convert current customers to HD programming while gradually dropping standard-definition broadcasts as HD versions become available to avoid duplication of material. This should lend to simplifying channel packages offered to two or three listed options and dropping subscription rates for customers with the premier standalone TV package around $60/month and the smallest around $25/month (reg. prices/non-promotional). For bundling with internet service to utilize high-speed modem in DVR, if applicable: add $25 to chosen package.

2) Eliminate standard set-top box for new customers.

3) Begin to offer three or four defined DVR's that operate on the same basic features and platform across the board, but differ only in the type of customer and hard drive space, as the example scheme below suggests:

-250GB DVR (for single-TV customer) for $150
(Included: $50 rebate guaranteed-for-life on future DVR if you trade-in your old one)

-500GB DVR (for single-TV customer) for $200
(Included: $50 rebate guaranteed-for-life on future DVR if you trade-in your old one)

-1TB Multi-room DVR system for $350
Main terminal + 1 satellite box (or HDMI stick) included
(Each additional satellite box/HDMI stick: $100)

-2TB Multi-room DVR system for $500
Main terminal + 2 satellite boxes (or HDMI sticks) included
(Each additional satellite box/HDMI stick: $100)

4) Begin designing the next generation DVR for your service and impress the masses with ability.

But what do I know; I just watch TV.