Skip to main content

How Blockbuster could WiMaximise their distribution

I last wrote about the developing business cases for WiMax, on of the favourites in TV over WiMax.

The bandwidth and transmission distances make this technology, in many peoples eyes, a good platform for IPTV. The UK is in the stages of going digital anyway so most people will have to get used to the idea of some form of set top box, might as well be some form of WLAN modem.

The pressure that Cinema is facing, see the plea from Mark Cuban, to try and get some form of ROI in the film business is in large part down to the challenge that home entertainment lays down. The convenience factor of being in your home with your widescreen TV, DVD player and Home Theatre with full Dolby support means that the effort required to pull people out of their LazyBoys and head in to the cinema is large. As Mark mentions during a first weekend a typical distributor can end up paying $12 per head in advertising to get them to come and buy a $5 cinema ticket.

One of the leaders in the home entertainment enablement has long been Blockbuster. With operations in US, UK and Australia to name a few there are already re-engineering their business model as they come to terms with the inconvenience people feel on heading down to the shop, getting the rental and having to return it to the shop on time.

Their unlimited buffet of movies allows you to order online, build a queue of films that you would like to see and sends the media to your door. You can then return it to them in a postage paid envelope.

To me it would seem to be a simple step to adopt WiMax technology to transmit the film over wireless broadband and save the media costs.

The strength in the business model today is the knowledge that they have of the customer. They have a wish list of films, they have the customers history of not only genre of film and/or actor but spending patterns as well. This is the sort of knowledge that the telco's are going to have mine in order to transition their businesses successfully in the new emerging technologies, but more of that later.

The ability to browse, select, order and watch a film in my home over one technology is a real pull for many end users and will put Blockbuster in the same domain as cable operators.

The other benefit for them would be the softening of the impact on technology choice. They will soon face the same problem they had in the Betamax and VHS days. The different and conflicting formats of HD DVD will mean the will have to double on stock or be ready to upset some customers. Going to wireless delivery will mitigate the risk as IP is IP. There are different technologies and vendors in the WiMax loop but the packet based streamed delivery is the bit that Blockbuster have to worry about.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Crisis Connections

What the flood situation in Thailand has shown once again is the power of social networks to fill the void of communication. In recent times the role of Facebook, Twitter, and Blackberry messenger has been shown in good and bad light.  The same methods that released the Arab Spring have also been used to coordinate the London Riots . Love them or loathe social networks are here to stay and what the floods show is how they keep people connected.  Some will say there should be no communication void if central government is on top of its game, but with a situation that can change so rapidly, and over such a large area the traditional press certainly struggle to keep the public up to date. Twitter and Facebook have been saviours for those of us outside Thailand at this time.  With roving reporters and connected people like Patee Sarasin and Jetrin out doing and tweeting many more people are kept up to date. Equally useful is the ability to time shift news updates...
Post a Comment
Read more

AaI and Net Neutrality

On a previous post on Access as Infrastructure there was a discussion on the government led initiatives for ultra fast broadband. The proposition is that the build out of new access networks is such an expensive activity that the governments of Australia and New Zealand will make the investment, using a combination of public and private money. So with ubiquitous access a near reality and with that access provided in the same way as electricity, water, gas, and roads getting to your house what does this mean for the net neutrality debate? If the telco no longer owns the asset and are merely a party in the trade then surely this solves the net neutrality problem? The incumbent may get preferential treatment because of scale and buying power but this wouldn't be extended to priority routing. Moving the competition from the physical platform to the offering, as long as the telcos, CSPs, and RSPs are not government owned, then we can have comfort that the pipe is there and ev...
Post a Comment
Read more

Muni, Muni, Muni

2006 is going to see an explosion in the activity of Municipal, Muni, Networks. This article from the BBC states that IP access is becoming a basic amenity, in the same way as water and electricity. Philly is the next to be online; with a 135 square mile network being built out by Earthlink and turned on next year. Not far behind is San Francisco with, you've guessed it, Google as one of the prime bidders. They believe they can take their successful advertising revenue stream to provide free IP access to the proletariat. On a brief aside the partnership of Google and NASA, can we expect to see Google in Space? With the benefits of WiFi access to schools, hospitals and police forces around the US it won't take long for a few well publicized examples of how access helped them for the ball to start rolling. I would agree with Paul that the secret to success is a partnership with the existing carriers. Otherwise the likes of SprintNextel could easily freeze the new comers out. Th...
1 comment
Read more