Topic: Cable? Satellite? No longer necessary

[charlesoakwood]

 
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1#ixzz2GkSFccYf

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.


 http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2012/12/30/why-intels-new-iptv-service-will-do-what-google-apple-and-microsoft-cant/

...
Intel has also quietly been working on a top-secret set-top box that could not only be better than what Apple, Google, and even Microsoft offer today, but also kill the cable industry as we know it.
...

Intel has approached Hollywood with much more dedication (and dollars), this is likely the single reason that Intel, more than any company before it, has the potential to really bring to consumers the things we have never seen in online content before, such as live sports, release schedules that match broadcast, and first episode through current libraries for video on demand.
...


This is ever so pleasing to read.  Around this house eliminating Cable/Satellite is not an option no matter my desire so I am stuck with long term contracts and bundles in order to cut cost.  It will be a joy to cut them off at the end of my contract.  The phone company was shocked and indignant at my audacity when I cut them loose, I'm looking forward to the same from this provider.  Oh schadenfreude, Oh schadenfreude...  

[Weisshaupt]

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.

There is some liberal math from the Business Insider article.  1) lets assume the people watching ESPN would support a $20 price point ( I doubt it)  2) lets assume Disney doesn't understand marginal utility. 3) Lets assume $5 is what it costs to provide ESPN---

. Liberal mindset. ESPN obviously must be subsidized by  the 75% who don't watch it, just as everyone must subsidize NP or the National Endowment for the Arts, no matter what crap they turn out.  Disney can get away with charging $5 for ESPN in a bundle because otherwise they withhold the programming people are willing to pay more for. The actual cost might be $1  per current sub to provide the programming. If Disney is willing to take lower margins ( or is forced to)  to get marginally more revenue, they will do it.

Of course, that is assuming a profit motive is the primary factor..  These big entertainment companies push bundles because then they can force others to subsidize their narrative ( as Ann Barnhardt has mentioned many times) - Its not that consumers don't want a la carte programming - its that the distributors don't want to provide it. If IBM fails, that will be the reason.  Amazon, iTunes, Hulu, and many of the networks are already providing per SHOW/per season  a la carte programming.  In the modern world a "channel" is just a stream of different programs selected by someone not you. IN that context the entire Disney line of content is a "Channel", and if they are only willing to sell it as a bundle then they will find that they will get fewer takers.  It makes way more sense to sell off individual shows, or bundles of shows (Disney has 3 different "channel streams" for kids of different ages)  they will get more takers.  Even smarter is cut out the middle man and deliver content directly. Missed NICS? You can watch it right on CBS's website. Disney has iOS apps for delivering its content directly as well. Like coupons, its a bit more work to get to the content on other devices ( not just flipping on the box and going to a channel) but they are charging what the traffic will bear. You are willing to clip coupons or you are not, but two options exist, and those providers that refuse to  do so will have fewer sales.

[Glock32]

There is no doubt that bundling is motivated by narrative programming. Content providers will require a distributor to carry Y channel if they carry X channel. Y channel is most likely something that has no market viability on its own, so they force the more popular X channel to subsidize it. Think crap like the "Logo" channel for homos. Who actually has any interest whatsoever in that channel, outside of the 1-2% of the population who engage in crude mockeries of the reproductive act in the large intestines of other men? Nobody. It could never survive if forced to operate on its own revenues.

I certainly like the idea of a general purpose content delivery model, where you pay for exactly what you want and no more. But it will not be allowed to derail the Narrative Programming. If it gets to the point of replacing traditional broadcast models, the FCC will cite some "compelling interest" in requiring them to make certain things mandatory. They will cite emergency communication and public notification as the reason for having to exert control over the content. While you might be thinking that just means the FCC will require them to deliver localized weather warnings and such, in practice it will simply be a subterfuge for making sure viewers are forced to pay for cultural rot.

[charlesoakwood]

"Liberal mindset", yeah, accurate but generous in allowing that they have a mind to set.  Hmmm, that's about all one can do with a liberal mind.

Forbes article set the baseline at $80 for cable; $80 will purchase a lot of programming and Intel expects to be competitive. Also, it said Intel has already "talked" to Hollywood and it mentioned Billions of dollars in investment.  Metaphorically this may well be aircraft carrier Intel sending battleship Cable to the scrapyard.

[ToddF]

Ain't gonna happen unless media companies say so.  And they ain't gonna say so until people in mass start dropping cable.

Intel can dream all it wants as Roku can do now what Intel is calling for...if the media companies cooperated.

[Pandora]

I'd like to ditch the cable.  Most of the programming is crap, as y'all have noted, and we're paying dearly for the little bit we do watch.  Just recently, two channels were put off-limits to those not in possession of one of their "free" (at the third year, they start charging) boxes.  This is going backward if I need a box today that I didn't need yesterday, and I don't want their damn box in my house.

[TeachX3]

This morning, at about 8 am, I called my t.v. provider and cancelled service.  They did everything to try and keep my business... offered to lower my monthly bill, give me a 200$ gift card, etc... but, it would of put me into a new one year contract.  I'm tired of my husband working two jobs, I don't know where this economy is headed, and I sure don't trust 'government'.  So, off it goes as of midnight, much to the despair of my 18 year old daughter who has her favorite shows / channels and my dear husband who only watches sports (HOCKEY!)... I'll miss my 'news', (fox, closest I can get on the tube)    but we will survive without a t.v.

Edited to correct spelling  :/

[charlesoakwood]

I'd like to ditch the cable.  Most of the programming is crap, as y'all have noted, and we're paying dearly for the little bit we do watch.  Just recently, two channels were put off-limits to those not in possession of one of their "free" (at the third year, they start charging) boxes.  This is going backward if I need a box today that I didn't need yesterday, and I don't want their damn box in my house.

That's it.  They have gathered NO GOODWILL and NO CUSTOMER LOYALTY and just like government work they are already charging more because they are losing revenue.  How do I know they are losing revenue?  They are losing revenue because  Hawk, TeachX3 and I are not the only households who are kissing them a good good bye.  If this works it will blow Cable/Sat (img:: USS New Jersey firing all guns at once::img)out of the water. 

Now all they need to do is work a deal with Sierra type cards to make them economically feasible and we can watch Fox News anywhere anytime in the continental USA. Woooo!
 

[Libertas]

The TV programing market does not operate as a real market because in a true profit-motivated market people would have full choice over the channels they wish to see and not be extorted to support the lousy channel programming like they do now.  In a real market-based environment the most popular channels with the more in demand programming should be cheaper to subscribe to because of the sheer volume of customers flocking to it, not that they wouldn't try to get as high a premium they could get, but there would be the equilibrium of demand and cost that would naturally come into play, and the advertisers would want higher viewership than less, that is for certain, so there should be a natural bias towards fairer pricing on the in-demand channels.  The crap like the queer Logo network would need to charge much higher prices just to stay on the air and would no doubt have to institute the PBS model and pimp the public for additional support and go begging to the fed's and local govt to support their drivel.  But the free-market aspect of this Intel plan is also the biggest reason the industry PTBs and the political busybodies will do all they can to kill it dead.

[RickZ]

They have gathered NO GOODWILL and NO CUSTOMER LOYALTY and just like government work they are already charging more because they are losing revenue.

Cable companies are like the government and are already charging more due to the fact that a cable company in any given area is a monopoly.  If cable companies had to actually compete for your cable dollars, that is, I could go with some other company than Time Warner, the monthly bills would plummet.  Local politicians have wrapped up huge 'donations' by giving cable companies exclusivity contracts, including cable company stocks for their votes.

[warpmine]

There is no doubt that bundling is motivated by narrative programming. Content providers will require a distributor to carry Y channel if they carry X channel. Y channel is most likely something that has no market viability on its own, so they force the more popular X channel to subsidize it. Think crap like the "Logo" channel for homos. Who actually has any interest whatsoever in that channel, outside of the 1-2% of the population who engage in crude mockeries of the reproductive act in the large intestines of other men? Nobody. It could never survive if forced to operate on its own revenues.

I certainly like the idea of a general purpose content delivery model, where you pay for exactly what you want and no more. But it will not be allowed to derail the Narrative Programming. If it gets to the point of replacing traditional broadcast models, the FCC will cite some "compelling interest" in requiring them to make certain things mandatory. They will cite emergency communication and public notification as the reason for having to exert control over the content. While you might be thinking that just means the FCC will require them to deliver localized weather warnings and such, in practice it will simply be a subterfuge for making sure viewers are forced to pay for cultural rot.

Here's hoping that they elect to come after my guns first then I can have all the entertainment I can muster perhaps some new youtube vids showing silly liberals dying for a chance to catch the bullet(s) 

I personally hate about 97% of the offerings from cable presently so getting rid of the rest is a goal in as much as instituting the second republic.

[charlesoakwood]

It's free:

http://www.flash-game.net/game/1121/turkey-shoot.html

[AlanS]

I personally hate about 97% of the offerings from cable presently .......

Same here. Why would I want to pay $50-100 for 300 channels and nothing on when I can have my antenna and get 15 channels and nothing on for free?

[TeachX3]

I personally hate about 97% of the offerings from cable presently .......

Same here. Why would I want to pay $50-100 for 300 channels and nothing on when I can have my antenna and get 15 channels and nothing on for free?

We can still get channels using an antenna?  I thought it all went digital and one had to have some sort of box or something?

[Alphabet Soup]

I've been threatening to create a parody of the song Shenandoah calling it "Oh Schadenfreude"  

One of my Schadenfreude moments has been the "entertainment" industry falling on increasingly hard times.

These oafish bass turds have spent the better part of 30 years slandering everything that was decent about America, especially virtuous and honorable conservatives. As a natural consequence normal people with equally normal sensibilities have turned their backs on the traditional conduits: newspapers, magazines, hollyweird, and the alphabet boob-toob channels.

I gave up the boob-toob when they abandoned analog broadcasts. It actually didn't hurt that bad and I've never looked back. Now I get drones of all stripes coming to me and begging me for business. I smile and decline and, if they persist, I tell them exactly-  graphically - why I'll never support their products again. Why would I hand over my hard-earned cash to people who not only do not respect me, but actively go out of their way to insult me and mine?

The cable companies come to me about once a week. Sometimes I ask them if they could give me just Fox News (bewildered expressions abound ;-)  Sometimes I ask if I can get a deduction for every channel that won't ever watch - which of course would equate to getting their crappy cable for free. Most times I just ask them, "Are you sh!tting me?! Why would I knowingly pollute my house with that crap?!"

[Libertas]

It's free:

http://www.flash-game.net/game/1121/turkey-shoot.html

Awaiting the great donkey shoot.   

[Glock32]

I personally hate about 97% of the offerings from cable presently .......

Same here. Why would I want to pay $50-100 for 300 channels and nothing on when I can have my antenna and get 15 channels and nothing on for free?

We can still get channels using an antenna?  I thought it all went digital and one had to have some sort of box or something?

Local affiliates still broadcast over the air, it's just in a digital format now. If you have a TV made in the past few years, it probably has a built-in tuner for the new format (ATSC). If you have an older TV, you'll have to use a converter box.

As for your teenage daughter being distraught over missing her favorite shows, she can probably watch most of them on a streaming service like Hulu for a small subscription fee. Some shows are free.  Also, she could probably find any show she wants through a Torrent. It's illegal, but since when does rule of law mean anything in this country?

[Predator Don]

This morning, at about 8 am, I called my t.v. provider and cancelled service.  They did everything to try and keep my business... offered to lower my monthly bill, give me a 200$ gift card, etc... but, it would of put me into a new one year contract.  I'm tired of my husband working two jobs, I don't know where this economy is headed, and I sure don't trust 'government'.  So, off it goes as of midnight, much to the despair of my 18 year old daughter who has her favorite shows / channels and my dear husband who only watches sports (HOCKEY!)... I'll miss my 'news', (fox, closest I can get on the tube)    but we will survive without a t.v.

Edited to correct spelling  :/

If he is a hockey fan......he is sure disappointed this year. As a huge hockey fan myself, season tic holder for the Nashville predators, I'm looking forward to some type of season.

[Libertas]

This morning, at about 8 am, I called my t.v. provider and cancelled service.  They did everything to try and keep my business... offered to lower my monthly bill, give me a 200$ gift card, etc... but, it would of put me into a new one year contract.  I'm tired of my husband working two jobs, I don't know where this economy is headed, and I sure don't trust 'government'.  So, off it goes as of midnight, much to the despair of my 18 year old daughter who has her favorite shows / channels and my dear husband who only watches sports (HOCKEY!)... I'll miss my 'news', (fox, closest I can get on the tube)    but we will survive without a t.v.

Edited to correct spelling  :/

If he is a hockey fan......he is sure disappointed this year. As a huge hockey fan myself, season tic holder for the Nashville predators, I'm looking forward to some type of season.

I hear they are close to a deal to kick off a 48 game schedule or something around mid-January (no non-conf games), but what a ridiculous mad dash to the playoffs that would be, any cup winner should have a fat asterisk next to it or be awarded something other than the real cup, better off scrubbing the season than have it tainted.

At least college hockey is available, and the 4th ranked Gophers throttled the top ranked BC Eagles 8-1 this past weekend and now are #1 with BC being #2.  We have those 3rd ranked Golden Domer's coming in next Tuesday night, should be a good one.  Heck, even the Gopher BB team is ranked 9th in the AP and beat Mich St here by 13, winter college sports are good, I'm not missing the NHL at all!

[ToddF]

Yep, the shows are probably available on Hulu.  Older shows certainly on Netflix.  Then there's an entire world of entertainment that's taken hold on various net based services.  Sports?  Well, there's where you have to suck it up, take one for the team, and force pro sports (and college more and more) into a model that doesn't involve exclusive cable deals.  Money talks.