As long as they keep paying for TV.

But even if consumers go for that deal, the TV guys need to make sure that advertisers buy in, too.

And that won’t happen until the TV guys can get some basic stuff right. Like counting eyeballs, no matter where they watch a show.

That could still take a while. Witness Comcast’s announcement yesterday, made at the cable industry’s annual convention in Boston, that it has been working with Nielsen on a plan to count viewers when they watched video on an iPad*, using Comcast’s Xfinity app.

For various technical reasons, this is much harder than you’d think, and the two companies have already been beavering away at this for 18 months. Now they’re launching a trial, and Comcast executive Matt Strauss is optimistic that they can work the kinks out by 2013, and advertisers could have true “multiplatform measurement.”

But that only works if all of the big pay-TV providers sign on to the new technology. And the media-measurement business is full of different tests and initiatives, all shooting off in different directions.

Last week, for instance, Spanish-language powerhouse Univision announced a “video neutral” deal with media-buying agency Starcom, which is supposed to mean Univision gets credit for its stuff no matter where anyone watches it. But the announcement describing the deal doesn’t explain how Univision or Starcom will track those eyeballs.

Meanwhile, Nielsen’s rival eyeball-counter comScore recently announced that it had its own technology in place to measure mobile devices like phones and tablets. And earlier this year it announced its own “multiscreen research initiative,” where it paired up with AT&T.

But comScore isn’t tracking any traffic on connected devices, like Google TVs, Apple TVs or Microsoft Xboxes. So if any of that really is taking off, that’s yet another headache.

Shouldn’t this stuff be easier? After all, we’ve figured out how to get the video all of these places — why can’t we count it, too?

On the other hand, recall that the iPhone is still a mere five years old, and the iPad is only two. That’s a blink of an eye for the measurement guys, who move deliberately because there’s billions of ad dollars at stake, no matter what they do. But they may still have to speed things up.

*Or, theoretically, on another tablet.

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock/Liewluck)

Here’s a screenshot of the Netflix CEO’s most recent post, where he gripes that Comcast won’t let its subscribers watch HBO Go — the pay channel’s “TV Everywhere” app — via an Xbox 360, and goes on to talk about the way the cable provider enforces its broadband usage cap.

Both of these complaints are the kind of thing that most people don’t care about, but vex a certain kind of technically savvy user. They are important, though, because they underscore some of the tensions between programmers and providers that have made “TV Everywhere” more conceptual than it ought to be, nearly three years after Time Warner and Comcast announced a grand launch plan.

Still, this is one of those stories where the form matters more than the content — it’s just interesting to see the head of a public company handling company business on Facebook. Then again, Hastings happens to be on Facebook’s board of directors.

Also note that Hastings doesn’t just gripe about Comcast on Facebook. Here he is a couple days ago, praising the company’s new Xbox app, and complimenting/wooing Comcast executive Sam Schwartz. And then he gripes, just a tiny bit, about Streampix, Comcast’s sorta-kinda Netflix-killer.

Nearly three years after Time Warner Inc. and Comcast Corp. kicked off a drive to make cable programming available online for cable subscribers, the idea of TV Everywhere remains mired in technical holdups, slow deal-making and disputes over who will control TV customers in the future.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Some of the college basketball tourney’s games will only be available to Web users whose cable providers have deals with Turner Sports, or those who pay a $3.99 one-time fee to access the games on PCs, Google/Android and Apple/iOS devices.

Games that CBS broadcasts, though, will still be available to anyone with a Web browser, through the network’s own site.

Here’s the practical breakdown, nicely summarized by BTIG’s Rich Greenfield (registration required):

• CBS will stream the games airing on the CBS Network throughout the country live on CBSSports.com for free. Consumers will only be able to watch on PCs/Macs, with no tablet/smartphone access.
• TBS, TNT and TruTV will stream the games airing on each network live at TBS.com, TNT.tv and truTV.com for consumers who authenticate their respective MVPD service provider (currently all major MVPDs authenticate these network Web sites, except Time Warner Cable). As with CBS, the games will only be available via PC/Mac (no portability).
• Complete access to March Madness on Demand via PC/Mac, smartphone and tablets with interactive features, regardless of whether you have subscribed to MVPD service, will cost a consumer $3.99 (one-time fee for the whole tournament). Streaming online and across portable devices will be available from the selection show through the championship game.

A few more notes: CBS and Turner split the games, so you won’t run into the paywall every time you want to watch — Turner will have 41 of the games. And as Greenfield notes, most pay-TV operators have deals with Turner, which says that means about 75 million homes will have Web access via “authentication.” That said, if you’re planning on watching the games that way, better prepare now, by hunting down your subscriber info, etc. — the process isn’t nearly as easy as it ought to be.

Big picture: This is a switch from the precedent CBS established in 2006, when it started streaming all of the tournament’s games on the Web for free (for three years before that, it had charged around $15 to watch online).

Each year, the network loudly trumpeted the number of eyeballs and ad dollars that Web streams attracted, while arguing that it didn’t hurt traditional TV ratings at all. Last year, you could even watch the tournament on an iPad for free.

But it’s in keeping with the broader move we’ve seen from big media companies, who are pulling back on free Web video. Back when Hulu launched in 2008, it seemed that most big TV networks were going to put all their shows online, but in the last couple of years, we’ve seen the pendulum swing the other way, as networks tie “free” Web TV to pay-TV subscriptions.

Was phone hacking indicative of a larger culture problem at News Corp.? asked Walt Mossberg, who interviewed Carey on stage at D: Dive Into Media this afternoon.

“No,” Carey replied. “While all this noise exists, one of our challenges is to manage our businesses, and we’re quite proud of them.”

(This might be a good time to mention that Carey is our boss, since AllThingsD.com is owned by News Corp.)

Mossberg eventually moved onto SOPA and PIPA, the recently withdrawn anti-piracy bills. Wouldn’t it have been better for Hollywood to work together with Silicon Valley to hash out a solution that worked for both of them? he asked.

Carey doesn’t think so. “We’re the ones who are having our product pirated, so we appropriately tried to get it dealt with,” he said.

So was SOPA a bad bill?

Carey wouldn’t go that far, though he declined to comment on the specifics of the bill. “Without having read it, it probably could have been a bit better focused,” he said.

The next big topic was online television distribution and cutting the cord — two of the leading themes of today’s conference.

For the short term, News Corp.’s best option is what’s called “TV everywhere,” where watchers log in to view online programs based on their paid television accounts. Carey admitted this authentication hasn’t been executed all that well.

Over time, Carey said, News Corp. expects to increasingly address viewers who want content on their own terms. But it wants to figure out how to make money.

On a more specific note, what about Hulu, the premium video streaming site that News Corp. owns in part and tried to sell last year?

“I’m not sure where Hulu goes,” Carey said. “But it’s something a lot of people would cut off their arms for, to have that sort of leadership in the digital arena.”

The two companies say the service will go into a “brief beta trial” and will then be available to all Time Warner Cable subscribers (again, as long as they’re also HBO customers), “in the next month.”

Depending on how you look at it, the agreement either extends the reach of Time Warner’s “TV Everywhere” program, or fills an embarrassing hole. Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two separate companies that split up in 2009, so programming deals between the two aren’t automatic, by any means.

But that explanation didn’t do much to appease Time Warner Cable customers who wanted the service. The cable company has 14 million subscribers, making it the country’s second-biggest cable provider after Comcast.

Time Warner rolled out HBO Go this summer to very positive reviews; Time Warner says users have downloaded five million apps for Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android devices. Earlier this month, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said that HBO Go users watch up to 50 percent more of the channel’s programming.

HBO Go users, who can watch shows like “Game of Thrones” on their iPad, iPhones, and Android devices, watch 30 percent to 50 percent more than non-users*, Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes said today at the UBS media conference.

But Bewkes said that the pay channel’s subscriber count had been “stable” in the past year, which would mean it still has about 28 million paying customers.

That makes sense, given that the “TV Everywhere” strategy Bewkes has been pushing isn’t focused on attracting more customers but in keeping the ones he has — especially those tempted to seek out video entertainment via the Web, or services like Netflix.

Meanwhile, Bewkes was careful to note that those viewership bumps may not continue, given that HBO Go is still primarily in the hands of early adopters, though that’s still a decent-sized number. Last month Time Warner announced that the HBO Go app had hit the 5 million download mark for Android and iOS users.

Speaking of Netflix — just in case you didn’t get the message via this weekend’s interview with the Financial Times — Bewkes reiterated his position on the service. He’s happy to sell them stuff he can’t sell anymore. Services like Netflix and Hulu “can definitely add value to all of us, if you’re trying to get that obscure movie that you haven’t seen yet,” he said.

That kind of faint praise may explain why Bewkes’s initial assessment of Reed Hastings’s company today — “Netflix is our friend” — drew laughs from the audience.

*Bewkes didn’t specify whether that 30 to 50 percent increase was for TV viewing, or an aggregate number that includes TV + devices. I’m assuming the latter, but have asked Time Warner reps to clarify. UPDATE: Yup, aggregate.

Which sounds cool!

But let’s be clear about what this is: An extension of the “TV Everywhere”/“authentication” concept that lets cable subscribers watch programming via alternate delivery systems.

And let’s be clear about what this isn’t: A tool for cable cord cutters or cord shavers.

Bloomberg laid most of this out last month in a story previewing tomorrow’s announcement. Steve Ballmer has been “promoting the Xbox 360 console as a way to switch easily between games, DVDs and pay TV” — not as a way to ditch cable. Which is why cable providers and programmers like Comcast and Verizon are working with him.

Another way to think about it: Look at the iPad and iPhone apps we’ve already seen from the likes of Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision and ESPN. They let subscribers watch some (though usually not all) of what they can get from their various cable packages on a different device. The Xbox deals should work the same way.

A more direct analogy: This will be an extension of deals Microsoft has already put together with the likes of ESPN, which gives some cable subscribers access to the network’s ESPN3 digital channel via their game boxes. (UPDATE: Readers note that the ESPN3-Xbox deal doesn’t require a cable subscription, but a broadband Internet subscription from particular providers. So it’s theoretically possible for an Xbox owner to get Comcast broadband — but not cable — and still get sports beamed to his TV.)

There’s always a miniscule chance that one of Microsoft’s partners will stray way outside the reservation and actually offer cable-like programming without requiring a cable subscription. One day, for instance, I could see Time Warner finally giving its HBO unit the go-ahead to start selling a la carte subscriptions to the pay service, at the same rates that it’s charging the cable guys.

The cable guys wouldn’t like it, but they didn’t like when HBO, et al, did the same with the satellite guys in the ’90s. There’s not much they can do about it.

But given that Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes is the chief proponent of the cable-protecting “TV Everywhere” plan, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.

More tomorrow, once Microsoft makes it all official.

And they do! But they also require subscribers to do some work.

Part of that is because the cable guys really haven’t worked out the technology yet (Facebook could help here).

But it’s really because the point of The Great Free TV Web Pullback of 2011 (alternate title: The Great Web Video Piracy Boom of 2011) isn’t to make it easy to watch TV shows on the Web. It’s meant to protect the traditional TV business.

And it looks like the new “authentication” program that Fox announced last night, which will pull back free TV shows on Hulu and Fox.com, will follow form. (News Corp., which owns Fox, also owns this Web site.)

Take a look at the Web site that Fox rolled out last night in conjunction with the move. It warns surfers that in order to watch shows on the Web, they’ll need to:

• Be a Dish Network subscriber.
• Create an online Dish Network subscriber ID and password, which will require them to dig up their account number from their paper bill.
• Be prepared to log in again every 30 days.

This is about standard for authenticated TV, and while it’s not rocket science, it’s also not much fun. (Quick quiz: Where is your most recent cable bill?)

On the other hand, it is easier than being waterboarded, as “Glee’s” awesome Jane Lynch reminds us in a 15-second video. But it’s certainly nowhere near as easy as the instant gratification you can get by going to Fox.com or Hulu.com and watching last night’s “MasterChef” (or just stealing a peek from a pirate site).

Speaking of Hulu — it’s interesting to note that there’s absolutely no mention of the site on Fox’s Web page, even though Hulu Plus customers can also get access to the Fox programming. But also not surprising.

Unless they’re Time Warner Cable subscribers.

That company’s 14 million customers don’t get access to the digitized CNN feed, even though just about every other big pay TV provider –  AT&T, Comcast, Cox, DISH Network, Verizon — has signed on.

This isn’t the first time that Time Warner Cable subscribers have been shut out of a Time Warner TV Everywhere service. Earlier this year, Time Warner’s HBO released HBO Go, a very good iPad app, for customers of just about every big cable provider — except Time Warner Cable.

What gives? The short answer is that Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two entirely separate companies that share a name but nothing else. The two formally split up in 2009, part of a decade-long corporate slim down on the part of Time Warner (also jettisoned: Warner Music Group, AOL, and not nearly as much of Time Inc. as many had predicted).

OK. But what really gives? Here I don’t have a good answer.

Some wags suggest that Time Warner Cable has some sort of theological/business strategy problem with TV Everywhere products that allow people to stream video outside of the home, because Time Warner Cable only sells broadband access to the living room. That is, if you’re streaming HBO Go on your iPad in an airport, using AT&T’s bandwidth, then Time Warner Cable doesn’t really get a chance to participate: It wants you to consume most of your broadband through its pipes, so it can charge you for it.

But that seems a bit of a stretch, particularly since Time Warner Cable subscribers can use some TV Everywhere products — just not the ones from Time Warner. Time Warner Cable customers can use ESPN’s excellent ESPN Watch app, for instance, and stream live sports anywhere they can tote an iPhone, no matter whose bandwidth they’re consuming.

Another theory: Time Warner and Time Warner Cable’s executives simply don’t like each other, a residue of the divorce proceedings. That also seems a bit of a stretch — in the cable business, nobody really likes each other. They just tolerate each other because they spend all their time negotiating incredibly complicated, expensive carriage deals, that ultimately let both sides make a bunch of money.

Still, if anyone can shed any light, I’m all ears: Neither Time Warner Cable nor Time Warner wanted to comment for this one.

As advertised, the free app is a mirror of HBO’s existing broadband service: It lets the channel’s subscribers stream a very deep catalog of HBO’s shows and movies, on demand, via both Wi-Fi and wireless networks.

It will also work on Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch, as well as 20 phones running Google’s Android; it won’t work on tablets running Google’s newest Honeycomb OS, though. (Demo video from BTIG’s Rich Greenfield at the bottom of this post)

The two catches:

• The service is available to most cable customers, with the exception of Time Warner Cable and Cablevision subscribers. Time Warner Cable says it’s working on a deal; Cablevision won’t comment.
• It’s a very deep catalog–1,400 titles, including the complete run of great series like “The Sopranos” and “The Wire”–but it will still have gaps that could frustrate HBO’s most avid users. I’d like to try David Simon’s “Treme” again, for instance, but I can’t get last season’s episodes; just the new ones that started airing last week.

Some of you will bemoan the fact that you have to be a cable subscriber to get this–there’s no broadband-only option, a la Netflix and Hulu Plus. But that’s the point: Parent company Time Warner is completely wedded to the cable industry and wants to build as many incentives as it can to keep you there, too.

Still, this stuff is lightyears ahead of where the cable business was just a couple years ago, where paying subscribers had no way to get these shows except on their TVs, or by buying it again on DVD or iTunes.

And if you really are a dedicated cord-cutter, and a patient one, you may eventually get your way: I can imagine a scenario where HBO does offer this stuff directly to consumers, and if it happens within a few years, I won’t be completely shocked.

The idea was that whatever/whenever access would be enough to keep cable TV subscribers paying their monthly bill instead of cutting the cord for Hulu, Netflix, Apple TV, etc. And while it sounded pretty good on paper, it’s been very slow going since.

But here’s what it’s supposed to look like: ESPN’s new “WatchESPN” app, which does just what you think it does. It lets you watch the sports network live, for free, on your iPad, iPhone or iPod touch, no matter where you are.

It seems to work pretty well, too. Here’s a screenshot of live TV I took from my iPad. Note that the app is technically an iPhone app (an iPad-optimized one is coming), but the image looks pretty nice even blown up at 2x:

Catches? Of course.

• The biggest one is that Disney’s network has carriage deals so far only with Time Warner Cable, Brighthouse TV and Verizon FiOS. That covers 18 million homes, but that won’t make you any happier if you don’t live in one of them. It’s worth noting that Comcast, the country’s biggest cable provider, isn’t included here, even though it has previously set up broadband programming deals with ESPN.
• There’s no app for Google’s Android platform, though ESPN says that’s coming.
• ESPN says there are a “few circumstances” where it still doesn’t have the rights to transmit its on-air programming online. The biggest one you’ll care about is “Monday Night Football,” which the network can’t transmit to mobile phones because Verizon has paid big money for those rights. But ESPN says it can send the game to your iPad, regardless of where it is or what connection you’re using.

But given the nature of this stuff, that’s still a pretty short list.

And unlike the iPhone and iPad apps we’ve seen recently from Time Warner Cable, Comcast and Cablevision, which either don’t work outside your house or do with limitations, this is one where you don’t have to scratch your head for a reason to use it. This is stuff you’ll want to use if you like sports but aren’t able to watch from your couch. Simple, useful.

Note for ad folks: The apps don’t carry any ads right now at all–when a commercial break comes on, viewers just get a temporary graphic. But ESPN ad boss Sean Bratches says by August, his company will have technology that will allow it to serve up different ads to different users at the same time. And when that’s available, he’ll start selling access to tablet and phone eyeballs in conjunction with TV ad buys.

The two companies say they will make ESPN’s flagship channel available online for TV subscribers of Time Warner Cable. Those who can confirm their TV subscription through an online registration process can watch live programming on the Web just as it appears on TV for no additional charge—a model known as “TV Everywhere.”

Most of the industry’s forays in TV Everywhere so far have put scripted shows online in an on-demand format—usually sometime after they air on TV. For the most part, TV networks have yet to put their channels on the Web in real time, and doing so with one of the most popular cable networks and live sports programming—the best source of high audience ratings for TV—offers a high-profile stage for a risky experiment.

“We think this can be a catalyst to drive the industry towards broader adoption of the authentication model,” said Sean Bratches, executive vice president of sales with ESPN. “We anticipate doing this with a number of other affiliates.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

1. Print editions of newspapers are going, going, gone.
2. TV may not be going anywhere. But it will get a lot better when we can use the Web to find our favorite shows.

And here’s the Los Angeles Times’ retort: “TV Times,” a new 44-page TV guide insert that will be bundled with the paper’s Sunday edition.

Here’s what you get: “A 24-hour daily grid listings spanning morning, afternoon, primetime and late-night programming, four pages of alphabetized TV/cable/satellite movie listings, a full-page cover story, a TV-related crossword puzzle, episode highlights and synopses, and a dedicated sports programming page.”

In a Hulu/GoogleTV/iTunes/BitTorrent/Clicker/TV Everywhere/Etc., etc., etc. age, why would you possibly want this? Because you don’t use any of the aforementioned services. The LAT, owned by bankrupt Tribune Co., doesn’t spell this out, but that’s clearly the thrust here: Anyone who still reads our print edition probably doesn’t spend much time online. Let’s see if they’ll pay up for more paper.

And the Times does expect people to pay, by the way. The LAT is charging its subscribers an extra $3 a month for this.

Steve Burke is about to take on a very big job: Combining GE’s (GE) NBC Universal with Comcast’s programming assets to create a television colossus. Good thing he has spent a lifetime in TV preparing for it.

But even without those responsibilities, Burke has plenty on his plate. As COO of the country’s biggest cable company, he helps steer Comcast (CMCSA) through tricky waters: Net neutrality, feisty file-sharers, sleeping tech guys, etc.

In certain circles–perhaps one you’re in sitting right now–the central question Burke and Comcast have to answer is: How are you going to survive the attempts of Google/Apple/everyone on the Web to turn you into an irrelevant dumb-pipe provider?

But the flip side of this question is just as valid: How can anyone really dislodge the company that controls the pipe that makes TV?

Liveblog

Kara starts off with the basics: Why do you want to buy NBC?

Burke: We’ve always believed that content and distribution go better together. We’ve had distribution, we’ve been trying to get content for a while. Tried to get Disney (DIS), came close to buying Universal when Vivendi owned the whole thing.

8:16 am: Kara–but lots of companies have tried marrying content and distribution. That doesn’t always work.

8:16 am: Burke–It has for News Corp. (NWS). But in our case, we already have the ability to put up 70,000 hours of content for video on demand. But we don’t have all the content we’d like. We don’t have day-and-date movies. We’d like all prime-time programming on VOD, etc. The thing that slows that down is the natural negotiations that you have to go through when you don’t own the content.

8:18 am: Kara–You’re also worried about becoming a dumb pipe, without control, right?

8:18 am: Burke: I like to think of it as opportunities. Look at DreamWorks (DWA)–they are worried about declining DVD sales, and they’d like to be able to do electronic sell-through. We’re in a position to help craft that evolution.

8:19 am: Kara–Are you sure consumers really want to watch this stuff on TVs, as opposed to iPads, etc?

8:20 am: Burke–We’re all for choice, anytime, anywhere. We believe consumers want that, too, and “it’s frustratingly slow” to get that to happen. “But I think that’s the world we’re all crashing into,” and “you can’t stop it anyway.”

8:21 am: What’s going with Hulu, which you’re going to own a piece of?

8:21 am: Burke–Whether it’s Hulu or Fancast, which we own all of, “people want their shows on the Internet. And they’re going to get their shows on the Internet.” Not sure if it’s going to be ad-supported or a paid model. “I know–I’ve read”–that Hulu is going to try a paid model.

8:22 am: We also support the TV-everywhere concept (spearheaded by Time Warner–get what you want on the Web, as long as you pay for a cable subscription).

8:23 am: Kara–you’re going to be running NBC, right?

8:23 am: When the deal closes, Jeff Zucker will run the entity. But he’ll report to me.

8:24 am: By the way, content and distribution don’t naturally work together. You have to make them work together. You have to do things that sometimes aren’t immediately advantageous for both sides.

8:24 am: Kara–Let’s talk about your individual businesses, as well as Steve Jobs’s expressed lack of interest in getting into TV. So cable is most important to you, right?

8:25 am: Burke–Cable provides the majority of NBCU’s cash flow. They’re the best part of the media landscape right now. Majority of cash at most entertainment companies comes from cable right now, and even more so at NBCU. But we also think there’s upside with Universal studio and NBC broadcast.

8:26 am: Okay, but give me an honest assessment of broadcast. What did you think of the Conan deal? Did they call you?

8:27 am: Burke–as the deal closes, it’s not our company. We can’t manage anything. To a degree, we’re watching things in the same way you are. There’s clearly a separation that exists. Because of regulators [natch].

8:27 am: Anyway, broadcast TV has been challenged for some time. But right now it looks to be on the upswing. Ads are coming back. retrans consent, where broadcasters will get money from cable operators, is coming. But broadly, if you look at TV, including cable, the overall television business is making as much money as ever.

8:29 am: Kara–do you still need broadcast networks anymore, anyway?

8:29 am: Burke–for big events, you can’t get a bigger audience. And that’s very attractive. We’re not naive. We know the business is “very challenged.” But in the next few years, there can be a real upside. We can invest in the business. If you’re in the network TV business, you have to spend the money to be competitive: on pilots, on encouraging creative people to work, etc. Note that NBC spent a lot more on pilots for this fall than they did a year ago. “If you’re in it, you have to be in it to invest and win. You can’t cut your way to success in broadcast TV.” [Which was Zucker's strategy last year. So what does that mean?]

8:31 am: Burke moves on to the Universal movie studio. It can move the existing library to different platforms, help it migrate from DVD to electronic sell-through, etc.

8:32 am: Will Burke have to do a lot of cost-cutting? When we bought AT&T (T), we did. But in this case, it’s not about costs. There’s very little overlap. It’s more of a case of trying to put everything together.

8:33 am: Kara: So will you sell anything off after the deal goes through?

Burke: No. We want the cable systems, but the other stuff has value, too. And all of the parts can work together.

8:34 am: Kara–How do you look at competitors like Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG). What do you think of Google TV?

8:34 am: Our real competitors are the satellite companies and telcos. Right now. The real challenge is delivering all that data. You need infrastructure–pipe–for that. That’s how you deliver tonnage. And it’s going to be that way for a long time. The Web can deliver video, but not the same tonnage, in the same way. There are a lot of companies that want to get to the TV set. And I think all of them can be complementary. But people who subscribe to us want ESPN, CNBC, etc.

8:36 am: Kara–But why do need bundles and tiers, anyway?

8:36 am: Burke: The programmers we work with want full distribution. And you pay $50, $60, and you get 200 channels. And the ecosystem works very well for the programmers, and it works well for us.

8:36 am: Kara–and for customers?

8:37 am: Burke–TV in the U.S. is better than anywhere in the world. It’s natural to say you only want to pay for two channels. And we could technically do that, and we could offer a less expensive bundle. But I think the business model has evolved to be what it is right now, and it’s been successful for both sides of the equation.

8:37 am: But again, people are picking and choosing what they want on the Web. And some of them seem to be turning off cable as well. Aren’t you worried about that?

8:38 am: Burke: We worry all the time. But the fact of the matter is, it’s counterintuitive. I have five kids. And they all consume media different ways. But quarter after quarter, year after year, cable subs go up. It has never gone down. There’s no evidence that people are giving up their cable. If people want ESPN or CNBC, they’re going to subscribe. In the future, you’ll have more stuff on more devices. But at the end of the day, it’s in the programmers’ interest to get affiliate fees for their stuff.

8:40 am: Kara–But don’t you think people want a la carte?

8:40 am: Burke–I’d like to buy the first section of the Wall Street Journal, and not the rest of the paper [followed by Kara fumbling with some math].

8:40 am: In any case, you’ve got much more choice now than you had 10 years ago. It’ll be the same thing in the next 10 years.

8:41 am: Kara–which devices are important to you beyond TV?

8:41 am: Burke–The iPad, of course. We just showed off that new iPad app/TV controller that will replace the crummy search and navigation that exists on the set-top box now.

8:43 am: Kara–Is 3-D coming to the home?

8:43 am: Burke–Yep. This won’t be like HD sets, where they started off very expensive and came down relatively slowly. We’ll get a point pretty quickly where if you’re buying a nice TV set, it will have 3-D. Now there are a lot of places where 3-D doesn’t enhance the experience. And they need to figure it out. For instance, you don’t 3-D when you have overhead shots at at a football game. So we need to figure out what percent of stuff you watch will have 3-D. But it’s coming.

8:44 am: Kara–Jobs talked about collapsing windows, but windows don’t really seem to ever collapse.

8:45 am: Burke–Right. They are narrowing, but only slightly. You want to have windows, but make sure they have a purpose. For instance, I think the best place to have a movie for the general public is the movie theater. I think that’s going to be the same for a long time.

8:46 am: Kara–But what if you don’t want to go the theater?

8:46 am: Burke–I don’t know. I think there’s a real benefit to having it in theaters opening weekend. But 90 days out, I’m not sure. It probably doesn’t have to be windowed for 90 days; you should be able to get it on VOD, etc.

8:47 am: Kara–One more time: What’s the most important device, either real or overhyped?

8:47 am: Burke–The iPad. I bring it everywhere I go. It’s so elegant. And so early in its life cycle. But I’m looking forward to other tablets, too. The big picture is that all this stuff will enhance the value of great content. That’s the bet we made with NBC, that it can get to more people, over more devices, and get more valuable that way. People are always worried about technology draining value from media, but each new wave of technology has been additive.

Q&A:

Q: Do you think your pipe business will become separate from rest of your business and become commoditized?

Burke: For starters, we’re already separating programming from video (which includes TV, high-speed, etc.

Q: What about the theory that big mergers, like the ones you’re doing, are products of hubris more than business savvy?

Burke: I know that theory. We’ve done a lot of deals. “Every single time we’ve done a deal, Wall Street has said, ‘Why are you doing that?’” But we have a view that content and distribution work together if properly managed. And that a company that gets bigger can do cool things with technology, if you do it right. “But we’re totally aware that there are a lot of people saying–’Why don’t you stay where you are?’ We think we’re getting a fairly priced deal for NBCU.”

Q: Do you think there will be a market for set-top boxes that consumers buy on their own, with features they want?

Burke: Complicated question. Each MSO is a conglomeration of different technologies. We’d love it if people bought their own set-top boxes. We’d save a ton of money. But the different technologies involved make that difficult.

Q: What’s your mobile strategy?

Burke: We’ve invested in Clearwire. We’re rolling out WiMax. We’re big believers in Wi-Fi. The iPad makes you want Wi-Fi meshing in cities, and we’re working on that. But the traditional cellphone business, as a fourth product to complement TV, landline and Web, doesn’t make sense for us.

Q: You guys have been good about chasing after malware, botnets, etc. What can you do to get others to emulate you?

Burke: The Internet business is crucial for us. It’s a growth driver. So we have to provide really reliable, really fast Internet service. And we believe in open internet. But you have to deal with congestion and protect copyrights and prevent malware and spam, and we invest a lot in that. It’s a very tricky balancing act, to make sure that the highway is really fast, but also controlled.

Q: I run Hillcrest, and Hulu blocked my service. Will you do something different when you own NBC?

Burke: “It’s not time for me to answer that question.”

Kara: “Really?”

Burke: “Really.”

Q: Your customers hate you. What are doing about that?

Burke: We’re working on customer service, spending a lot of money on it. If you don’t take care of your customers, they’re going to go somewhere else. The physical networks are getting more sophisticated. But we want to improve them.

Q: Apologies, missed the question here.

Burke is explaining that TV software platform is “balkanized” compared with the Web, where it’s much easier to get stuff to work together.

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as possible. It is not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

Here’s Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, for instance, showing off a forthcoming iPad app that allows you to program and control your TV remotely.

Looks cool. And while I think there’s actually a limited-use case for programming your TV while you’re out of your house, the ability to search for shows on the app should be better than the crappy experience you get from your remote and set-top box.

So you’ll likely get more use out of this thing when you’re actually sitting on your couch in front of your TV.

Note that the app won’t allow you to actually watch shows on your iPad, but Roberts says that’s coming, too. Comcast (CMCSA) officials say the company has plans to allow cable subscribers to pull down whatever’s available via the company’s Fancast video portal to the Apple (AAPL) gadget.

Haven’t heard yet about timing and other details (3G versus Wi-Fi-only, etc.), and there will probably be some roadblocks. It’s unlikely, for instance, that you’ll get the Hulu feed that Fancast has, since Hulu plans to charge for access on the iPad. But people seem very happy with the ABC iPad app, so if Comcast can deliver something similar, it should expect some pats on the back.

Meanwhile, Time Warner (TWX) used the cable industry’s annual convention to announce that it has expanded its “TV Everywhere” program–people who pay for TV get access to the same shows on the Web–to include subscribers to Verizon’s (VZ) Fios TV service.

That makes sense inasmuch as Time Warner’s HBO picked Verizon as the first carrier partner for its HBO Go service a few months back.

The thread here is consistent: Cable providers and cable programmers want the world to know they’re happy to give you all the Web you want–as long subscribers keep paying their monthly bills and getting a bundle of TV channels in return.

If we ever get to the world where you can start buying individual channels–doesn’t matter if they’re on TV or the Web–then all bets are off and TV economics get radically reshuffled. But we’re not getting there anytime soon, and I’m not convinced we ever will.

Not going to happen. At least not anytime soon, says Jeff Bewkes. The Time Warner (TWX) boss was asked about that scenario during yesterday’s earnings call and promptly batted it down. The short version goes something like this: The cable business is a very good business for us. Why would we want to screw with that?

The longer version, via Seeking Alpha, is worth reading, too:

Don’t get ahead of yourself. I would say, yes, HBO could easily do that. The question is, is whether it would in its interest to do that. Remember, HBO GO means that all the HBO subscribers in the United States are going to have HBO programming on demand across every device for no extra charge. So that is a powerful offering. And that will mean, if they want to access it on the broadband device, including any device made by any company, could be Korean, could be Apple, when they turn the thing on, they’ll be looking at HBO. So they don’t need to make a deal or an arrangement or diffuse some of the money or leverage to a device maker because they’ll view on every device for no extra charge. It’s a very powerful position. Not only HBO will be in that position, every network on the dial is going to be in that position, and so is every magazine.

There’s a twofer buried in there:

• A reiteration of the “TV Everywhere” strategy Bewkes champions, whereby paying cable subscribers–but only paying cable subscribers–get to watch their shows on the Web, too.
• And some chest-pounding about not letting Apple (AAPL) or anyone else dictate how Time Warner distributes its stuff.

Still! Note that Time Warner’s Time Inc. unit is falling over itself to rush out magazine apps for Apple’s iPad. Apple has a great deal of say over how those apps work, and it gets to collect 30 percent of the sale price. So Bewkes’s position has plenty of flexibility.

In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked if HBO does market an online-only subscription in a couple of years, especially if cord-cutting moves from apocryphal trend to documented fact.

The cable guys won’t like it, but the cable guys didn’t like it when HBO and other networks began selling their stuff to the satellite guys back in the 90s. As long as Bewkes can tell the cable guys that he’s selling his online stuff at the same price as his offline stuff, there’s not a lot they can do.

But Cablevision says it will let subscribers pull this trick off without extra cables or boxes and promises they’ll love it. The Long Island-based cable company will be testing the technology later this spring, under a clunky but accurate moniker: “PC to TV Media Relay.”

That means you can move anything you can put on your monitor or laptop screen–from streaming video to photos to word processing documents, if you are so inclined–to your TV. Audio, too.

Of course, that’s the idea behind plenty of services and gadgets, from Boxee to Internet-connected TVs to Apple’s (AAPL) not very successful Apple TV box.

And, of course, you can already do this without any of that stuff, and it’s not that hard to pull off. Time Warner Cable (TWC) even showed its customers how during its fight with News Corp. (NWS) over subscription fees for Fox and other channels.*

But the do-it-yourself version still requires at least a couple steps: Figuring out what kind of cord you need to connect your computer to your TV and then, actually connecting it. From a consumer’s perspective, Cablevision’s solution is more elegant, since it’s cable-free; the company says you’ll only need to download one piece of software.

But it’s quite a bit of work on Cablevision’s end, since the company has to port your stuff from your PC through its network and back down to your TV through a set-top box to a channel reserved just for your stuff.

Why go to all this trouble?

If you sort of squint at this for a while, it sort of looks like Cablevision’s version of the “TV Everywhere” idea that Time Warner (TWX) and cable players like Comcast (CMCSA) have been pushing. But in reverse.

TV Everywhere’s offer is that if you pay for cable, you can watch your TV shows on your PC. Cablevision lets you watch your PC on your plasma. But both ideas end up at the same place: They’re meant to give cable subscribers another reason to keep subscribing to cable.

Cablevision (CVC) says the service will launch by June in a “technical trial,” which likely means just a fraction of its three million New York-area subscribers will get to try it. And they’ll have to be Windows users; the cable company says a Mac version will be introduced later.

One thing Cablevision wouldn’t tell me is what it expects to hear from Hulu, the Web video joint venture owned by Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC and Disney’s (DIS) ABC.

Hulu’s attitude about people watching the TV programming it delivers via the Web on a TV screen has ranged from disapproving to downright hostile–just ask Boxee.

That’s partly because Hulu’s TV owners want to enforce the idea that Hulu is a complement to TV, not a replacement for TV. And it’s also because Hulu’s owners see Hulu on a big screen as a feature worth paying for.

In any case, Hulu will have a hard time complaining openly about Cablevision’s plan. Because unlike Boxee’s solution, Cablevision is literally just moving what’s on your PC to your TV.

But there may still be some interesting emails flying back and forth from Long Island to Santa Monica in the next few days.

*Now that its Fox fight is resolved, Time Warner Cable has yanked its cord-cutting instructions. But I have thoughtfully archived them for you. You’re welcome!

That’s the thesis behind Clicker, a would-be TV Guide for Web video, which has raised an $11 million B round led by JAFCO Ventures, with participation from earlier investors Benchmark Capital and Redpoint Ventures. The funding follows an $8 million round announced last fall that was actually raised in 2008.

I assumed the money would be targeted to build up a sales and marketing team for the 32-person company, which launched in October but has no revenue to speak of. In fact, CEO Jim Lanzone says the money will go in the start-up’s bank account for now.

“We didn’t need the money yet,” he says. “But we had multiple firms interested, and we had the opportunity to pick the best one for us and get it done. It was kind of a no-brainer.”

Clicker is a clever Web video play because it takes advantage of Web video’s popularity without getting clobbered by the cost and copyright problems that have felled start-ups like Joost and Veoh.

Clicker doesn’t have to pay to produce or stream Web video because it doesn’t make or host its own clips, though it will run embedded clips from other services. And it doesn’t have copyright problems because it only indexes professionally produced stuff. (Here’s Katie Boehret’s review from last November.)

The service doesn’t have significant traffic yet–comScore (SCOR) reports 226,000 unique visitors in January, though Lanzone says his internal numbers show 750,000–but it is getting a warm reception from the traditional TV business, which likes the idea of central hub for “legitimate” content.

And the industry needs one if it’s going to get users to embrace its “TV Everywhere” strategy. Again, viewers shouldn’t care if they’re watching “The Pacific” on Time Warner’s (TWX) HBO Go or via Comcast’s (CMCSA) Fancast–they just want to find the show.

And if you’re a Verizon (VZ) Fios TV subscriber and you pay for HBO, you’ll get access to it for free starting tomorrow. But if you don’t want to wait–and you’re both a Comcast (CMCSA) and HBO subscriber–you can go to Comcast’s Fancast.com and watch the same programming there. It’s all the same stuff.

So to be clear: HBO Go isn’t really a new service. It’s a new site and player*, which perches on top of the same “TV Everywhere” strategy parent company Time Warner (TWX) has been pushing for a year or so. Which you can boil down to: If you pay the cable guys to watch it on TV, they’ll let you watch it online, too.

You can debate the merits of this strategy and whether the programming guys would be better off selling their stuff directly to consumers and skipping the cable middlemen altogether all you want. But the cable-first strategy isn’t going to change anytime soon.

HBO’s aim is to be both “consumer friendly” and “affiliate friendly,” HBO co-president Eric Kessler explained today. Translation: The company wants to make sure it gets paid by the cable guys, who get paid by you and me.

But couldn’t there be some fee I could pay HBO to just go directly to the Web, even at a premium of the price for a regular TV subscription? Nope, says Kessler, who then repeats something you often hear from the cable TV industry:

“The scale of the audience that wants to watch HBO that isn’t buying television, it’s a very small audience.”

Meanwhile, HBO Go points out the difficulty would-be online competitors like Netflix (NFLX) and Apple (AAPL) et al will have providing consumers with what they want when they want it: A lot of the digital rights to the stuff they want are already locked up by the likes of HBO during various “windows.”

One other point: Networks like HBO and cable providers like Comcast both want to be the viewers’ gateway to online video, for obvious reasons. But viewers won’t care whether they’re watching “Curb Your Enthusiasm” on HBO’s site or via Fancast; they just want to watch that episode where Marty Funkhouser tells Jerry Seinfeld a really dirty joke.

So someone–it could be the cable guys themselves or a start-up like Clicker–needs to build a comprehensive TV Guide for the Web. And then hope that they’re right about all those people who are happy to keep paying for TV.

*Because you now need to ask this with every consumer tech rollout: No, HBO Go won’t work on the iPad. Because the site’s player is built with Adobe’s (ADBE) Flash, and Apple wants nothing to do with Flash.

Comcast (CMCSA) will be holding a press conference shortly to walk reporters through this. But if you’re a Comcast customer who is paying for both digital cable and broadband–that’s something less than 14 15.7 million people nationwide–you should be able to check this out now, by heading to either Comcast.net or Fancast.

If things are working right, you’ll notice that Comcast has added an “xfinity TV” logo, which is the new service’s unwieldy new name. If you try to watch a show that’s included in the test, you’ll be guided through a download process that will install both a Move player and an Adobe (ADBE) AIR app, which the cable company says you’ll need to deal with only once to watch this stuff.

Once that’s done, you’ll actually watch the show via your Web browser. The login process I went through told me that I could authorize up three computers for the service.

I’ve played around briefly with the service, via a side door, and can confirm that it does indeed work. Hard to get a good grip on what the new service is offering subscribers, though, since the Fancast menu doesn’t really delineate what’s only available to subs instead of freeloaders.

But I was able to watch some of the last episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” which is only available to subs who have Comcast digital cable and broadband and are paying for Time Warner’s (TWX) HBO–and it looked pretty good (as long you don’t fast-forward).

Comcast is starting its press conference now. I’ll update here if there’s anything of note:

• The cable operator says that once you’ve logged in, you’ll be getting a “personalized” homepage that knows what shows/movies different subscribers have access to.
• One important point: Sometime in the next year, Comcast says that simply being a Comcast subscriber will be enough to qualify you for the service, i.e., you won’t have to get your broadband from Comcast in order to watch this stuff. It’s a “dual-play” offering right now, the company, says, because that was the easiest way for it figure out the “authentication”/security element.
• Mobile device access? Nope. Maybe next year. International? Nope. But do note that you don’t actually have to be on a Comcast connection to watch the programming–as long as your computer is authorized, you can see it anywhere you can connect (in the U.S.).
• Key unanswered question: When will Nielsen (or someone else) figure out how to treat online views in the same way that it counts “regular” ratings–and convince advertisers to do the same? Because until that happens, you’re unlikely to see a whole lot of authorized TV on the Web, period.

And here’s the release (warning: Not much info here):

COMCAST MAKES ON DEMAND ONLINE VIDEO ENTERTAINMENT EXPERIENCE AVAILABLE NATIONALLY

Comcast Brings Top Cable Television, Movie and Independent Programming to Customers At Home and On-the-Go for No Additional Cost

Philadelphia, PA, December 15, 2009 — Comcast Corporation (NASDAQ: CMCSA, CMCSK), one of the nation’s leading providers of entertainment, information and communication products and services, announced today that it has made its On Demand Online experience available nationally in beta at no additional cost to customers. The innovative new service now called Fancast XFINITY TV, gives customers an “anytime anywhere” entertainment experience–at home and on-the-go–and expands the video content customers can watch online by giving them quick and easy access to thousands of hours of cable TV shows, movies and independently produced content.

“Fancast XFINITY TV is a win for consumers and content producers. We’re giving customers access to content they love in new ways and opening up new opportunities for established and independent producers to make their content available on-demand” said Matt Bond, Executive Vice President of Content Acquisition. “This new service brings consumers many movies and TV shows that have never been available online before.”

Both Comcast customers and non-Comcast customers across the nation currently have access to over 12,000 hours of great online content through Fancast.com–the company’s online TV site and a top TV destination on the web–for free. Now, as a benefit of their cable subscription, Comcast customers will enjoy even more access to thousands of titles from the cable channels in their subscription packages at no additional cost through Fancast XFINITY TV.

“This is a beta product only, but the consumer feedback has been great so far. We look forward to more feedback as we make it available to even more customers” said Amy Banse, President of Comcast Interactive Media. “We think Fancast XFINITY TV gets us one step closer to our multiplatform goal and is just the beginning of delivering an entirely new TV viewing experience.”

Beginning today, any Comcast customer with a digital cable and Internet subscription can visit www.comcast.net or www.fancast.com, sign-in with their Comcast email user name and password and watch their favorite subscription content at no charge.

On the call: Comcast (CMCSA) CEO Brian Roberts, COO Steve Burke, CFO Michael Angelakis

CEO Brian Roberts: The deal will make us “strategically complete.” [Translation: We promise not buy anything else!]

Obligatory praise for Jeff Zucker for “completely transforming NBC into one of the premier cable operators in the business,” which is the same way Zucker likes to describe himself.

This deal is so incredibly easy for us to finance that we’re increasing our dividend by 40 percent. [Also, we're doing this with both hands tied behind our back!]

CFO Michael Angelakis: If you get confused, there’s an appendix at the end of our presentation.

Did you know that Fandango is a “female-oriented” site? Me either.

Comcast has a “clear path to control” the joint venture by buying out GE’s (GE) interest, but future payouts are capped at $5.75 billion.

Debt ratings agencies have signed off on this, so don’t worry. They never get this wrong.

Roberts: Can’t stress this enough: We’re not buying a faltering film company and a flailing broadcaster; we’re buying a bunch of profitable cable channels. Cable channels. Cable channels.

Also, we’re buying at the bottom of the cycle, so some of the duds that we’re buying may end up having upside.

[Roberts is right about this, by the way: Networks really do rise and fall over time, almost independently of what management does. Remember ABC's peril in the pre-“Lost" era?]

Oh yeah. There are some theme parks, too.

Okay. Back to the deal: Cable channels, cable channels, cable channels. They are great. We love them. Affiliate fees are growing 12 percent a year, ad sales are up seven percent a year. Check out the awesome slide on page 19. “I think this is a wow slide” (see below).

Some more praise for Zucker.

COO Steve Burke: Cable channels. Cable channels. Cable channels. We love the ones we own, but they’re “subscale” compared to what we’re buying from GE.

We’re going to cross-promote the heck out of these and figure out how to make G, Style and Versus more valuable, like NBCU does with Bravo, etc.

[We're about 40 minutes into the call, and this is the first discussion about the Web.] The JV will be a Top 10 company with 82 million uniques.

At least for now, Comcast is still talking about “On Demand Online,” not XTREME ONLINE RAWKS or whatever the company is supposedly going to call it.

Q&A:

Can you give us more color on new businesses you may create once you combine? Also, what are you going to sell off?

Burke: There are “literally dozens of innovative ideas that come out of this combination.” Like interactive advertising. Targeting, etc. (via cable, not Web). We can launch new channels, new video-on-demand packages, more windows. A lot of opportunities.

Roberts: We don’t plan on selling anything. But “we have a long time between signing and closing” to learn about the assets we’re buying.

A lot of people have tried vertical integrations like this and they haven’t worked. What’s going on here? Also, how are you going to work with businesses like Hulu, which threaten your business?

Roberts: Some of these have worked. Think of [Liberty Media Chairman] John Malone’s deals. Or Time Warner (TWX) buying Turner. Or even News Corp. (NWS) and DirecTV. Anyway, that’s the past. Let’s look to the future. More important is that we believe this deal works with zero synergy benefits. [That's for you, Jeff Bewkes.]

[Um, anyone else get bumped off the call? Nope, just me. Apologies, will go get the Hulu the rest of Roberts's answer later, but I'm guess it was something along the lines of "we love Hulu and have no intent to crush it like a bug, and besides, we're one of three networks that will own it."]

Please explain how you’ll negotiate for, say, the Olympics and other assets when you don’t actually own NBC yet.

Roberts: [GE CEO] Jeff [Immelt] and Jeff [Zucker] will have to run their business until the deal closes.

What about regulatory hassles?

Roberts: No worries. This is a “pro-consumer transaction.” And check out all the things we said to that effect earlier this morning.

Burke: Both local advertising and national advertising are recovering. An analyst notes that GE has never told us much about NBCU because it hasn’t had to. So we’re going to get a much better look at how the business works going forward.

Why are you sticking your regional sports deals into this joint venture? Also, why not just hand the money you’re spending on this deal back to investors, via share buybacks?

Burke (I think): When you think of sports, its hard not to think of NBC Sports and Dick Ebersol [ahem]. Also, we think there’s some synergy with some of NBC’s local broadcast stations.

Angelakis (I think): We’ve already bought back $14 billion worth of stock in six years, and we’ll keep buying back stock. Also, check out our dividend. But we need a balance. This deal gives us financial returns and long-term strategic returns.

Roberts (I think): The timing is good. Size is appropriate–we can handle it. “You gotta like the business….We think it’s a reasonable risk. That’s what we’ve always done at Comcast.”

As for regulatory risk, if Washington wants us to make a really really serious change that blows up the rationale for doing this, we have the ability to back out. But we don’t think that’s going to happen. “Is there a break-up fee?” the questioner asks. Answer: No.

What does this mean for TV Everywhere/On Demand Online? (and Hulu)?

Burke: NBC has been careful not to put too much cable content on the Internet. We think that’s a smart strategy, “not that they asked us.” We think that going forward, you’re going to continue to have free broadcast stuff on Hulu, and cable stuff on TV Everywhere.

Roberts: Windows in general, our focus has been on expanding offerings, putting them on multiple platforms. All of those things are more likely to occur in a way that benefits distributors, content owners and consumers. “What about Hulu premium?” the questioner asks. Answer: “That’s certainly not in the cards.”

Here’s Comcast’s pitch in chart form:

ComcastNewPDF_12.3.09 –

Google’s video site has been trying to convince the TV industry to let it stream individual shows for a fee, multiple sources tell me.

YouTube already lets users watch a smattering of TV shows for free, with advertising. Now it envisions something similar to what Apple and Amazon already offer: First-run shows, without commercials, for $1.99 an episode, available the day after they air on broadcast or cable.

Sources say the site’s negotiations with the networks and studios that own the shows are preliminary. But both sides seem optimistic, since models for such deals already exist. No comment from YouTube.

The biggest stumbling block may be consumers. That’s because Google (GOOG) is talking about streaming the shows instead of letting consumers download them to their computers, as both Apple (AAPL) and Amazon (AMZN) do. But the networks and studios, which control pricing, will want to sell the streamed shows at the same price as downloads; they fear that offering them at a different price will force them to go back and rework their existing deals.

Executives at YouTube and TV insist that the disparity is simply a perception problem and cite studies showing that most people who download TV episodes only watch them once, anyway. But that’s a tough sell.

It’s also possible that YouTube may skirt the issue by launching a TV rental business without the big hits that Apple and Amazon offer. One possibility: The video site could start by moving immediately to long- and mid-“tail” shows and videos that aren’t available other places and don’t have to match existing prices.

No matter how it proceeds, YouTube is likely to be just one of several outlets trying to get consumers to pay for TV on the Web in 2010.

Among others: In addition to its a la carte offering, Apple is trying to create a monthly subscription service. Hulu, the free TV site co-owned by News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and Disney’s (DIS) ABC, is expected to launch a subscription service of its own. And cable operators like Comcast (CMCSA) will be launching different versions of “TV Everywhere” services, which give subscribers expanded access to online shows.

TV executives are generally enthusiastic about all of the above, since they are meant to create additional revenue streams without threatening the industry’s existing business. That is, they’re supposed to protect existing business from the digital disruption that has ravaged music, newspapers, etc.

But while Web users have an insatiable appetite for video, they’ve yet demonstrate much interest in paying for it. If any of this is going to work, that will have to change.

But will they actually pay up? Here, the conventional wisdom is not so helpful. Nor are studies predicting consumer behavior. To wit:

• Nearly 50 percent of U.S. Web users are willing to pay for online news, says the Boston Consulting Group.
• Not a chance, says Forrester (FORR): Try 20 percent.

For what it’s worth, my money’s on the Forrester number, or one that’s even lower. My gut says people love consuming news, but only in the broadest sense–Obama doesn’t really Twitter! What was Belichick thinking?–and that sort of stuff, which appeals to a very large audience, will always be free, and you’ll get it from Google (GOOG) or something like Yahoo (YHOO). Which leaves you with a small audience willing to pay for everything else.

But! We should note that people are indeed paying for “content” right now. In fact, they’re paying for a lot of it: $115 a month, up seven percent from last year, says NPD Group. The breakdown:

As of August 2009, 81 percent of U.S. households subscribed to a television service (satellite TV, basic/premium cable, or fiber-optic television service). A similar percentage of households (76 percent) paid for Internet subscriptions. Seventeen percent subscribed to an online music service or satellite radio; and 14 percent subscribed to online gaming subscription services.

More traditional forms of entertainment subscriptions, however, did not fare so well. The number of people subscribing to newspapers fell by 2 percentage points to reach 29 percent in August 2009. Forty-one percent of consumers subscribed to magazines this year, compared to 43 percent who did so last year.

According to NPD, an influx of new smartphone owners has led to an increase in mobile data-plan subscriptions: 9 percent of U.S. consumers had mobile data subscriptions this year, versus just 6 percent last year. Fourteen percent of consumers subscribed to a home-video subscription service, like Netflix, this year, which is 2 percentage points higher than last year.

Ah, see? Problem solved: If you want Americans to pony up for stuff on the Web, just link it to something they’re already paying for, like their cable or Internet subscription.

This is what smart guys like John Malone have been talking about for a while, and it’s also the core of the strategy behind the Time Warner (TWX)/Comcast (CMCSA)/everyone else “TV Everywhere” gambit. But it’s also what many people have been trying to do for a very long time–ask the music industry–with limited success.