The end of big bundles? Going "a la carte" via OTT

OK, first let me take care of clarifying the terminology.

Assembling big (often 50+ channels) bundles of cable networks has been the primary strategy of multichannel video service providers (cable, DBS, telco cable, etc.) for the last couple of decades. Keeping bundles big helps minimize transaction costs for the bundler, while offering maximal potential audience reach for advertisers, and maximizing the viewer's ability to browse and discover the value of channels and their content.  On the other hand, critics complain that it "forces consumers to purchase channels they aren't interested in."  That's not necessarily true, as purchase decisions are based on the aggregate perceived value of the bundle, not the "costs" of undesired channels (see here for more detailed analysis).

Still, as the networks and local stations seek to increase licensing fees from multichannel providers, those costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher bundle prices.  Bundle subscription costs are rising rapidly, and may be nearing a threshold point for many subscribers - the point where their perceived value of the bundle is less than the subscription price.  We're seeing the beginning of this in the rise of cord-cutters - those replacing paid multichannel access with a combination of online and free over-the-air TV sources.

However irrelevant, the claim of paying for unwanted channels is a major theme for those who would prefer to force multichannel services to unbundle channels and offer them to consumers in small focused bundles (like the various Discovery channels), or individually (i.e. "a la carte").  This may seem to be a good deal for consumers - until you realize that going a la carte will, in most cases, reduce audience reach numbers significantly.  One study (discussed here) forecast that forced unbundling could result in a loss of 60% of advertising revenues for cable networks, and result in more than 100 channels going out of business.  And since cable networks would need to significantly increase their a la carte prices to recapture some of those losses, going a la carte would also likely result in higher total costs for cable network access for most consumers.

Meanwhile, some multichannel video providers are finding that the increased licensing demands made by some networks are crossing that value threshold, and are dropping channels, or in one case offering to provide the channel - but only as an a la carte service.  The networks have so far been smart enough to realize that either option is a net loss for them, but the gleam of a licensing El Dorado of unlimited wealth keeps them trying to push licensing fees ever higher.  Viacom, and its package of networks, is the latest battleground, with their channels being dropped by a number of mid-range and smaller cable systems unwilling to cave into their licensing demands.  As one analyst noted,

“The stage is set... As consumers are less interested in large bundles, somebody is going to get hurt in the process by asking for too much.”

If multichannel service providers remained the only option for access, the impact on the industry would be bad enough.  However, they're facing rapid growth in the ability of broadband internet connections to provide access to high-quality TV streams to mobile devices and wired connected devices.  The term OTT (over-the-top) refers to these alternative sources of video and TV content. Both the diffusion and use of these technologies for TV viewing are growing rapidly (see here and here).  Combined with increased time-shifting of programs and place-shifting, audience TV viewing habits are clearly changing.  For cable networks, going online for their content distribution - either as single channels or as a part of a more limited (and much less expensive) bundle offered online - is an increasingly viable supplement, and potential substitute, for traditional delivery media.

The viability of online TV delivery has been a significant component of the "TV Everywhere" marketing push.  The initial conceptualization, though, saw "TV Everywhere" as a way of achieving multichannel services beyond the household's TV sets - and not as a substitute or replacement for those services.  That was one reason for the rapid reaction to the Aereo service.  One would think that local stations and networks would be eager to extend their range of service via mobile as a way of enhancing (or at least maintaining) audience reach.  However, it seemed that the industry hated the notion of a video service that paid no licensing fees; and the courts bought that argument.

More recently, the industry has seen several TV networks pursue the option of offering their programs and content online. The WWE initiated a very successful online subscription service last year, and many of the Pay TV networks have announced plans for providing online access channels separate from multichannel provider subscriptions.  HBO, in particular, is scheduled to provide a separate online channel called HBO Now starting April 12, 2015.  A research report released in January by Park Associates suggested that HBO Now could generate an additional 15 million subscribers.  More critically for multichannel providers, half of those interested in HBO Now said they'd not only be likely to drop HBO pay channels, they'd drop the whole multichannel pay service (about 7 million subscribers).  That's still a big win for HBO, who not only would likely net an added 8 million subscribers, but would not have to split the subscription fee with the multichannel provider.

In addition, CBS has been offering an online video service since last fall, and it is thought that ABC, NBC, and ESPN are considering taking their online video channels public (currently access is limited to subscribers of some of the largest multichannel providers).  Most cable networks provide some access to their content, but not to live streams of the channel.

Still, it's likely that the new DishTV service, Sling-TV, may unleash the deluge.  Sling-TV is an OTT service that bundles a number of the most popular cable networks as a minibundle at a very low subscription price ($20/mo. for about 20 channels), and supplements that with targeted minibundles (sports, movies, children, etc.) at $5 a pop.  The service combines live streams of the network, as well as on-demand access to the previous week's programs. Sling-TV has managed to sign up some 100,000 subscribers in its first month, despite being initially limited to those with a Roku OTT box.

The Sling-TV service could well force the big multichannel services to start unbundling.  It offers an intriguing alternative for those who would be satisfied with a lesser selection of channels.  And even for those viewers who place high value on channels not included in the Sling TV packages, the price contrast between the "big bundle" options ($50-$150+ on new subscriber deals) and Sling-TV will prompt consumers to reconsider if their demand for favorite channels will justify the price differential (and to wonder how the costs of channels they don't want inflate bundle prices).

The big multichannel providers have been shedding TV subscribers slowly, but consistently, for years.  Now that viable and less costly OTT and online video options are coming available, expect the decline in pay TV subscribers to increase, particularly for major MSOs and multichannel providers.

Sources - Updating: HBO Now The Big Test for Cord Cutters?, Online Video Daily VidBlog
Sling TV notches 100,000 users in a month, TechHive
Seventeen percent of U.S. broadband households are likely to subscribe to an OTT HBO service, Parks Associates report.
Provider's Dispute with Viacom Highlights Skirmish Over the Cable Bundle, New York Times

Pew - Demographics and Local News Habits

From Pew, some nice graphics on demographic differences in local news use.

Infographic shows rise of online video viewing

From the fine folks at ComScore:

Some highlights:

-- Broadcast network live viewing down 30% over last 5-6 years
-- 87% of US Internet users report regular online video viewing
-- 40% of online video viewing is done on mobile devices
-- 15% of internet users report watching video on smartphones daily

-- viewing on tablets and OTT are leading a shift to online video viewing

Source:  ComScore Infographic Shows Marketers Where the Viewers Are,  OnlineVideo.net

TV on the verge of transformation

Is the television industry on the threshold of a major transformation?  A number of recent industry research and reports are suggesting that major changes in how people access and view television is coming, and that will severely impact advertising revenues for local TV stations, broadcast networks, and multichannel video distributors (cable, DBS, etc.)

The changes have been going on for a decade or more, as video shifted to digital, as Internet connection speeds increased, and as new viewing platforms (PCs, smartphones, mobile tablets) emerged, and huge new collections of video content have been made available to viewers (YouTube, Netflix, etc.)  These have opened new options for viewing, and have shifted control over viewing from the media outlet to the audience.  Online video (from online rather than traditional TV sources) is booming, audiences are increasingly using options for time-shifting. The last few years have also seen audiences becoming increasingly multi-platform - watching TV on a wider range of devices.  Use of mobile devices for watching video has risen rapidly in the last few years, particularly among younger audiences and ethnic audiences.

A recent Morgan Stanley analysis noted that shifting viewing patterns have contributed to a 50% drop in broadcast network average "live" ratings over the last decade - the measure of audience that watched the initial live broadcast. While some of that decline has resulted from cable networks capturing various niche segments, more recent declines have resulted from the rise of time-shifting options. This has led the TV industry to push for a shift to other ratings measures that include delayed viewing - Live+3 (any viewing within three days of initial broadcast) and Live+7 (any viewing within a week).
Underlying this has been a major shift in what ratings represent - from audience at a certain time, to audience for a specific program/episode.  And created a problem for advertisers, as the delayed viewing options do not necessarily include the advertisements aired during the initial live broadcast.
The figure above shows that the decline hasn't been fully reflected in TV advertising rates and revenues.

The broadcast networks have been able to remain the access points for the very large, mass, audiences, and have used that status that to push advertising rates higher (on a CPM, or per-viewer, basis).  But the advertising industry is starting to push back, as some cable networks are reaching broadcast network viewing levels (for certain programs, at least) and mass advertisers are less willing to buy ads at inflated CPMs for programs with large proportions of delayed viewing.  Analysts suggest that the broadcast networks will be unable to maintain all of the current premium CPM pricing in the long term.

The shift in audience viewing patterns is holding true for cable networks as well.  While the decline in live viewing for cable networks has not been as precipitous as that of networks, they are subject to the same change in audience viewing behaviors.  The impact on cable networks, however, is mitigated by the fact that many get the majority of their revenues from licensing/subscription fees.  Those rates and prices are based on audience demand for access, rather than the number of viewers.  Thus, while cable networks may take a hit on advertising revenues, the overall impact on revenues is lessened.
The relative stability of licensing/subscription revenues is encouraging broadcast networks and stations to explore, and try to exploit, that additional source of potential revenue.  Licensing and subscription revenue levels have been increasing rapidly over the last decade or so, and are rapidly nearing the cross-over point - where the TV industry will earn more revenues from licensing than it will from advertising.
 The last year has seen a number of retransmission consent battles between the broadcast networks and major MSOs - with the networks arguing that their licensing fees should reflect their audience levels.  However, as noted earlier, licensing/subscription prices and revenues are based on audience demand for content, not on advertiser demand for audiences.  And general-interest mass channels have relatively low overall values for their content, more competition, and more close substitutes, than the targeted niche cable networks.  Licensing network access is not likely to generate the audience demand required to replace advertising losses - although the networks might find better success licensing specific programs rather than the network overall.  (Particularly if the broadcast networks continue to distribute their content through free, over-the-air TV stations.  Audiences are not likely to pay for network content when it's available over-the-air for free).

Increased licensing and subscription fees is already driving some viewers out of the traditional pay TV market.  These "cord-cutters" are finding that online video sources and free over-the-air TV can provide the video content they desire at much lower cost that multichannel bundles.  While the phenomenon is fairly new, studies suggest some 8% of the TV consumers have dropped all traditional pay sources (cable, DBS, etc.), another 15-20% have cut back on pay TV, going for smaller bundles of channels, and/or dropping Pay-TV services (like HBO) in favor of streaming video services (like Netflix).
The newest challenge for traditional multichannel systems is Dish's new SlingTV streaming video service, which bundles live streaming of 15 of the high-value cable networks and Video-On-Demand for just $20 month.  (See earlier post on the subject).  The SlingTV basic bundle is likely to prove to be a close substitute for basic multichannel bundles that cost 3-5 times as much, feeding the flurry of cord-cutting.
One analyst argued that the shift in audience TV viewing behaviors reflects a structural transition from ad-supported networks to streaming video services. It's certainly in progress, particularly among younger viewers. How long the transition will take, or how complete it will be, is still unknown.  But the change is structural. The bad news for traditional TV services is that with a structural change, it is unlikely that viewers will return to old habits.


Sources -   Broadcasters fear falling revenues as viewers switch to on-demand TV, ft.com (Financial Times)
BRUTAL: 50% Decline In TV Viewership Shows Why Your Cable Bill Is So High, Business Insider
CHARTS: Why Audience Ratings Have Collapsed For Cable TV Shows, Business Insider
The Evolution of TV: 7 dynamics transforming TV, ThinkWithGoogle white paper.
Evolution of TV: Reaching Audiences Across Screens, ThinkWithGoogle white paper.

Infographic - Best times for posting on social media

From The Payroll Blog

Is FCC violating process again with Net Neutrality action? Or just being Shortsighted and Stupid?

The first two FCC attempts to impose some "network neutrality" rules were vacated by the Federal Courts because the rulemaking was based, in large part, on imputed authority that the FCC did not statutorily have (see earlier post here), further supported by evidence that the FCC had violated its own procedures for rulemaking.  At the time of the second Court decision, many policy folks (myself included), commented that if the FCC wanted to move forward with Net governance and regulation, the best approach was to base a claim for regulatory authority under Title II of the Communication Act - which does cover telecommunication networks.
With the FCC deciding that it will issue a rulemaking addressing Network Neutrality this Thursday, without publicly releasing the actual rules being considered, the FCC would again be clearly violating the spirit, if not the letter of its own (statutory) rules on due process.
The FCC, when considering new rules and regulations, is supposed to undertake a multistage process that starts with a public Notice of Inquiry, a period to allow public (and industry comment), then a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that outlines the proposals, followed by more opportunity for public comment.  Normally, if the FCC wants to consider substantive changes to proposed rules and regulations, it posts a Further Notice outlining the changes, and offers an additional period for public comment.
Tom Wheeler, the current head of the FCC, argues that the FCC has already gone through several NOIs, NPMs, and public comment periods.  However, the proposed regulatory framework for those appears to be totally different from what is to be acted on this week.  While the FCC doesn't have to refile Further Notices for every little change in the rules, because the proposals that had been discussed are substantially different from those to be voted on, this case clearly violates the both the spirit of the rulemaking process in that it hasn't allowed any time for public review and comment on what seems to be a wholly different set of rules and arguments than what had been previously proposed and discussed.  In addition to tossing claims of being "transparent" onto the growing dustheap of broken promises of transparency by this administration.  (In fact, as a Senator in 2007, Obama called the FCC's attempt to pass rules without full public disclosure and opportunity for public comment "irresponsible.")  Furthermore, the FCC is supposed to be an independent regulatory authority, not one that would toss aside several years of proposed rulemaking and public discussion to (allegedly) adopt - in full and without review, discussion, or amendment - a plan written by political operatives in the White House.

Regardless of the ethics of the current Chairman's behavior, and the potential authority Title II provides for regulating telecommunication networks, bringing the Internet under Title II is not necessarily reasonable or appropriate - in large part because of the statutory language in the 1934 Communication Act and the 1996 Telecommunication Act.
The 1934 Communication Act gave the FCC regulatory authority in two areas: Title I dealt with radio transmissions (including broadcasting), and Title II dealt with, basically, telephone networks.  More specifically, it was designed to deal with the existing local monopoly wired, switched, telephone system.  (The FCC was granted oversight of cable systems - redefined as multichannel video delivery services - by the 1984 Cable Act).
With the rise of the first use of wired telecommunications for computer communications in the late 1950s and 1960s, the FCC examined the question of whether computer networks should be regulated under Title II.  They reached a conclusion that it would not fall under Title II for several reasons: the computer network (later expanded to information) services typically did not own and run the actual wired networks they employed, but rather leased lines from telephone companies (the separation of service from network is explicit in FCC definitions of those terms.

There is a hard and fast statutory line separating the information services that utilize telecomm networks, and the telecomm-based distribution networks that deliver those services.  The current language would seem to explicitly exclude Information Services from falling under Title II. Also, on the technological side, the developing computer networks and information services used quite different technologies than telephony, and so the part of Title II that deals with technical standards would be largely irrelevant (if not applied) and inappropriate (if applied).  But most importantly, the FCC felt that trying to set standards and apply Title II regulation to computer networks and information services would restrict developments and innovations by imposing a governance structure that favored certain uses over others.

The main philosophy of Title II's network regulatory approach is that networks should act as common carriers (a regulatory philosophy borrowed from railroads and freight services). The essence of common carrier status is that the network should not discriminate among its users - that they shouldn't give favored treatment to one user over another. 

 One of the widespread fallacies in Network Neutrality discussions is that common carriers can't treat users differentially (thus everyone should have the same rate for internet connectivity). Actually, there's a long history of permissible differential treatment, as well as a long history pointing out the social benefits that can be acheived through appropriate cross-subsidies. Telecomms can treat users in different localities differently, and more critically, can differentiate on the basis of level of service. All they need to do is show that the costs of providing a particular type of network connection are different (a content-neutral rationale). The FCC has even allowed differential treatment for certain general classes of services (911, toll-free numbers, added-charge numbers). Furthermore, the 1996 Telecommunications Act removed many aspects of telecomm regulation from FCC oversight.

 In addressing the Title II approach, policymakers and pundits need to recognize that i) Title II is largely limited to telecommunication network operators, and the existing statutory language is not readily, or easily, extendable to Information Services and most ISP operations; ii) many of the aspects of the 1934 Act that regulators want to rely on for the new Internet rules have been superseded by the 1996 Act; and some issues are addressed by other laws and statutes (for example, copyright and privacy laws that expressly address ISPs, Information Services, and digital network operators). Many of the areas and concerns that Network Neutrality proponents are primarily concerned with may not be covered by a simple extension of Title II regulatory authority to the Internet.

While Title II can be a better foundation for asserting regulatory authority, just claiming that "We've changed our minds, information services and ISPs fall under Title II" is not likely to pass judicial review - because what they do doesn't fit the existing statutory language. Doing a sweeping assertion of authority is what got the FCC in trouble in previous attempts, and going the Title II route without serious review - if the action isn't quickly overturned - is going to create a virtual minefield of implementation problems and legal challenges - with the FCC and the Courts having to then decide which of the 100+ pages of telephone regulations should apply to the Internet, its backbone network providers (who already effectively act as common carriers anyway), ISPs (many of which are a mix of network operators and information services), and the Information Services that provide the content and services to users.  Should Universal Service apply to ISPs? Should ISPs be subject to the specific taxes applied to telephony (including one designed to help retire the Spanish-American War debt - which was paid off about 100 years ago - but still shows up on your telephone bill). Should the FCC's authority over pricing in the Internet apply only to interstate and international connections (the only price authority the FCC has over telephone rates under Title II in the 1934 Act, and which was sunseted out in the 1996  Act - leaving the FCC without statutory authority to regulate telecomm (ISP) rates and services)?

In other words - going the Title II route really needs extensive discussion of the proposed rules and policies to work out the problems and kinks that would be associated with that approach.  But the current FCC Chair and Democratic Commissioners seems determined to take the easy and quick approach of simple proclamation and promulgation of a massive set of new regulations, rather than doing the smart thing of working out the details and gaining some consensus from the various stakeholders that would be impacted by the new rules.  Or even considering if there is really any need for a massive overhaul and imposition of governmental (possibly politicized) oversight and control of a significant, and efficient major sector of the economy, and an increasingly vital source of information by both private and public sectors.

As I said with the last two FCC attempts at grabbing Internet oversight - this is too important, and too critical, to take short cuts.  If the FCC is going to do this, they need to do it the right way - with true transparency and plenty of opportunity for the public to point out the problems and pitfalls that always comes with trying to set uniform rules for very complex systems.  And first asking the most important question - do we really need to impose any kind of regulatory structure on the an efficient, innovative, and highly flexible Internet and Information Services sectors?

A bad week for US News Industry

It's been a tough news week for U.S. news outlets and journalists.  Of course, by now most of us have heard the main headline-grabbers - Brian Williams being called out for "elaborating" his account of being under fire in Iraq and his subsequent suspension from his position as Managing Editor and anchor of the NBC Nightly News, and Jon Stewart announcing that he will be leaving Comedy Central's The Daily Show.
As NBC now formally investigates a growing number of allegations that Williams had sensationalized and/or exaggerated his personal involvement in other news stories (Katrina, etc.), most journalists and pundits feel that he has so damaged his credibility that he's unlikely to return in a senior news position.  And while one anchor is being punished for sensationalizing and manipulating "the truth" in his news coverage, Jon Stewart, who made his career from sensationalizing and manipulating his coverage of news stories, said he'd had enough.
Stewart was increasingly being challenged over whether he slanted stories and left important elements out in his efforts to sensationalize stories and to challenge guests on his program.  Stewart has long held that his show was satire and thus should not be held to the same standard as traditional news, although he also wanted the imprimatur of news for his program.
One consequence of the two announcements has been a level of self-examination within the news business over just how important credibility and straight factual coverage is, or should be, for both reporters and news outlets.  (And the somewhat facetious suggestion making the rounds that Brian Williams should just take over for Jon Stewart - where he wouldn't be expected to be objective and honest)
A less controversial, and more disheartening, story was last night's announcement that CBSNews' Bob Simon had been killed in a car crash in New York City.  Simon was a passenger in a limo whose driver apparently lost control, and was hit by another car.
On a slightly lighter note, a local TV news crew from San Francisco were assaulted and robbed of their equipment as they were wrapping up after a live remote.  And that robbery and attack was only the latest in a growing number of attacks on TV news crews in the San Francisco area.  The situation was so bad that for a while some news stations hired security for their remote crews.

Added: This week has also seen the release of the latest World Press Freedom Report, which states that 2014 saw a "drastic decline" in press freedoms - and that respect for journalists and press freedom saw declines in two-thirds of the countries in the world.

And while the debate of how honest and credible news should be continued, the reputation of major news outlets was taking flack from other recent events. First, a continuing litany of complaints from the Washington press corps of a lack of access and transparency from the Executive Branch (and most notably from the White House), to allegations of blatant efforts to manipulate pool coverage reporting and spy on reporters.  Add to that the President's recent habit of ignoring major news outlets in favor of politicized web outlets and talk shows in the granting of interviews, and you have major news outlets questioning their role and importance.
Then came a story in the New York Observer about an activist who outlined how he intentionally manipulated media coverage.

The unspoken conspiracy... that exists between journalists and those seeking publicity is very real. If you have a story that provokes—real or not—they have the time. Give them the promise of traffic and a little plausible denial and you’re in.

In the story, the activist provides a blueprint for how to plant and hype a story, essentially through astroturfing controversy and building "growing concern" through social media.

Such a revelation would normally be dismissed, especially by self-proclaimed "elite" news outlets, which would claim that while such activities might catch their attention, the stories would still be subjected to rigourous fact-checking and reviews to ensure that the resulting stories complied with their normal standards of objective reporting.  The much-vaunted "layers and layers" of review position, however, took a big hit with the recent UVA rape story - which very quickly and publicly unraveled, but only after the initial (now thoroughly discredited) story had been unquestioningly reprinted by a large number of news outlets.  Meanwhile, the argument that journalistic norms are applied consistently is now taking a hit as stories about potential GOP presidential candidates' history in high school and college are actively being investigated and challenged by major newspapers - newspapers who uniformly argued that it was improper to look at the backgrounds of Democratic Presidential candidates in recent election cycles.
And NBC's current concern with credibility and objectivity seems somewhat hypocritical, given the behavior of its cable news channel (MSNBC) - identified as the most blatantly partisan news source by Pew Research.

All of this is feeding the American news-consuming public's increasingly critical opinion of traditional news outlets, and may be part of their increasing reliance on online sources for news.

Sources - Bob Simon of '60 Minutes' Bob Simon killed in car crash, New York Post
KTVU news crew attacked, robbed in Hayward, SFGate
EXCLUSIVE: How This Left-Wing Activist Manipulates the Media to Spread His Message, New York Observer


Freedom Of Press Witnesses 'Drastic Decline' Globally Amid Emerging Threats To Journalists, International Business Times

Edit track: Added brief paragraph on World Press Freedom report, along with source link.

New challengers for Cable, Multichannel

Cable really started having trouble as it transitioned into its third stage - Cable as broadband (see Bates & Chambers, 2004).  A large consequence of this transition was the opportunities digital content and media provided for competition - first through DBS (satellite), then through telco-based broadband/video providers.  The last couple of years has continued the onslaught, with the spread of mobile devices and video streaming that's led to the growth of "cord-cutting", particularly among younger TV content consumers.

In addition to the explosion of competition, the cable/multichannel provider market (which includes DBS and telco-cable services) is having to deal with the growing demand for carriage rights for channels and content - leading to substantial increases in the cost of channels which are inevitably passed through to increased costs for multichannel customers (see Bates, 2014).  While the multichannels consider breaking their bundles, or going "a la carte" (offering single channels to viewers), the online streaming markets have been booming, offering a wealth of content choices for a fraction of the price.  Until recently, though, that has not included live carriage of major networks.

Carriage of major network content actually started a couple of years ago, when the major broadcast networks started making some of their primetime series to audiences through their own websites, multichannel on-demand services, and even some streaming video services.  Then CBS upped the ante, announcing their own subscription streaming service that would greatly expand access to network content, and both HBO and Sony have announced plans that would offer access to their channels and content online, and independent of having a multichannel subscription.  (TV Everywhere also boasts streamed access to cable channels, but require that consumers subscribe to those channels through a multichannel provider).

The degree to which these streaming efforts are impacting the TV marketplace is reflected in the FCC's recent announcement that it's considering revising its definition of multichannel service to include online sites that offer multiple channels or streams.

Still, DishTV's announcement that it will offer US consumers a SlingTV bundle of basic cable channels (without requiring a Dish subscription) for an initial price of $20/mo. is a significant new competitive challenge.  The basic package includes top channels in many niche categories (ESPN, ESPN2, TNT, TBS, Food Network, HGTV, Travel Channel, Adult Swim, AMC, Cartoon Network, Disney Channel, ABC Family, CNN, El Rey and Galavision, as well as access to Sling TV’s video-on-demand library), with three add-on bundles at $5/mo (Kids Extra, News/Info Extra, Sports Extra). And there seems to be a buzz growing about Apple assembling something similar to the SlingTV bundles for its own entry into the OTT market.

The initial problem for the big multichannels is that the basic service plus an add-on or two, provides access to much of the channels desired by a big segment of current multichannel subscribers, but at a fraction of the cost of the bigger bundles of channels that multichannels now offer.  Multichannels will have to respond with similar mini-bundles at competitive prices, or significant loss in customers to cord-shaving or cord-cutting.

Sources - Sling TV Debuts With Major Cable Channels, MediaDailyNews
Cable-TV Desperately Searches for Ways to Stop the Cord-Cutting, The Street

Editted - added pics.

Infographic: Top Mistakes on Mobile

From Formstack:

Infographic - The changing face of mobile

From the 2014 U.S. edition of Deloitte's Global Mobile Consumer Survey.