Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1

    Default Will Intel undermine the basic cable TV model?

    Interesting story on Intel apparently preparing to launch a set-top box that will allow customers to order only individual channels that they desire, greatly reducing their cable bills. However, there's an argument later in the story that broadcasters won't want this to happen because they profit from being bundled in a cable package.

    How many people here are cable subscribers??? I remember Din Kong mentioning recently that he doesn't even watch TV.


    Intel Is Reportedly Going To Destroy The Cable Model By Offering People The Ability To Subscribe To Individual Channels

    Intel is reportedly on the cusp of delivering something that consumers around the world have been wanting for a long, long time.

    Kelly Clay at Forbes reports Intel is going to blow up the cable industry with its own set-top box and an unbundled cable service.

    Clay says Intel is planning to deliver cable content to any device with an Internet connection. And instead of having to pay $80 a month for two hundred channels you don't want, you'll be able to subscribe to specific channels of your choosing.

    Here's the key paragraph:

    This set-top box, said by industry insiders to be available to a limited beta of customers in March, will offer cable channels delivered “over the top” to televisions anywhere there is an Internet connection regardless of provider. (Microsoft Mediaroom, for example, requires AT&T’s service, and Xbox has limited offerings for Comcast and FiOS customers). For the first time, consumers will be able to subscribe to content per channel, unlike bundled cable services, and you may also be able to subscribe per show as well. Intel’s set-top box will also have access to Intel’s already existing app marketplace for apps, casual games, and video on demand. Leveraging the speed of current broadband, and the vast shared resources of the cloud, Intel plans to give customers the ability to use “Cloud DVR”, a feature intended to allow users to watch any past TV show at any time, without the need to record it ahead of time, pause live tv, and rewind shows in progress.

    This is a holy-grail of sorts for people that subscribe to cable.

    We've been skeptical of Intel's ability to make a dent in the TV market. If it somehow manages to deliver this unbundled channel option, we're more optimistic Intel could have success.

    Before anyone gets too excited, Janko Roettgers at GigaOm is skeptical it happens. Roettgers knows the TV business very well.

    The reason its unlikely to happen is that content companies don't really want to see cable blown up. It's been very good to them.

    Last summer, Peter Kafka at All Things D poured cold water on the idea of Intel unbundling. Not only is going to be hard to make it happen, it's unclear if it would even save money for cable subscribers:

    Those bundles are core to today’s TV ecosystem. And the TV guys insist that consumers really don’t want “a la carte” programming, because if they do, the channels/shows they like today will end up costing much, much more.

    Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.


    http://www.businessinsider.com/intel...-2013-1?fark=1

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,746

    Default

    I have cable, but for good internet and TV, for now, I figure $100 a month isn't so bad. Now if I could knock down the TV portion down with only about 8 channels we use MAX that'd be great.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    905
    Posts
    20,452

    Default

    Seeing as this is reliant on having an Internet connection and most people get theirs from their cable provider... that's a logistical bottleneck already. There's no way [insert cable company] is gonna let you use their services to circumvent their main source of income. They're amongst the greediest and most underhanded cocksuckers ever.
    アッシュ

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    Originally Posted by Cbear
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    Enter the Bear. Game over.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Castlevania
    Posts
    14,420

    Default

    Should be interesting to see how it plays out, but Ash makes a good point. If they are going to offer it, they better look into providing the internet service as well.

    Also, the article makes an interesting point with the ESPN example. However, ESPN is definitely not typical as far as what they charge providers. I established service for a 40 unit property through Dish, and the package with about 90 channels (most popular stations like all the Viacom channels (MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, etc) and many other channels) was only a couple bucks a month per unit, but just adding the espn channels was an additional 6 bucks or so (over twice the other 90 channels combined) and locals were only about .50.

    I'd be all over it if it seems reasonable.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  5. #5

    Default

    ESPN is ~$5.50 of your cable bill.

    I only know this because the Time WArner Sports package (which I had to beg my TV provider to put on their lineup) was wanting an additional $5.25 and it was second only to ESPN (which is absurd imo - but my wife is a Lakers fan...)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    65,031

    Default

    I regularly watch probably 10-20 channels max so I would love to unbundle the other 300 channels.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    Sinners repent!

  7. Default

    The only shows I still watch are either on Fox or AMC, I haven't had cable in over 14 years and haven't had Dish for about the last three years. When I stopped the service I didn't tell my son because I wanted to see how long it would take him to notice, it was about two months before he said anything about it.
    We are either on the Xbox or our computers when we are home, but if there were a way to get the channels I wanted for the time period I wanted then I think I would probably go for that.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    65,031

    Default

    Ok, I dont have the xbox or that stuff. Am I at the point of just watching tv on my ipad? Local tv for news/weather, nat geo, history, cooking, a & e, food network, fx, fox........not much more.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    Sinners repent!

  9. #9

    Default

    I don't watch much TV but I think most people would still prefer the bundle due to the love of "surfing".

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skinny View Post
    I don't watch much TV but I think most people would still prefer the bundle due to the love of "surfing".
    100% correct. Though I prolly only regularly watch 10 to 20 channels, surfing you might come across something interesting. Plus if Intel does this, channels definelty gonna charge more per than they do the cable networks. Good chance you don't see savings or the ratio will be terrible. Like maybe 50 as opposed to 100 dollars a month, but with well below 50% of the channels.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •