Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel's Attempt At A-La-Carte Television Hits Delays

Posted by samzenpus on from the watch-as-you-go dept.

bill_mcgonigle writes "Updating the previous story, Forbes and Gigaom are now reporting that Intel is running an internal startup aimed at offering an internet-connected set top box with a-la-carte 'cable' channel subscriptions. They also apparently plan to record everything and offer all content on-demand. While some are skeptical that content providers will give up their cable cash cow and they've run into licensing problems already, perhaps the economic effects of cord-cutters will finally make this business model viable."

26 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Just give up pay TV content by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We had cable until COX took Turner Classic Movies off of analog cable and put it on digital cable, at which point we had enough. Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, The History Channel, and Sci-Fi/SyFy were already on the way down but hadn't hit rock bottom yet.

    We don't miss it. Between XBMC, free content or ad-supported streaming content via our network-connected Blu-ray player, and free content via web browser, there's no reason to pay for content that still comes with ads anymore.

    Cut the cord permanently.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Just give up pay TV content by TWX · · Score: 2

      That's what we did. Between MeTV, "This", RTV, Bounce, Tuff TV, Create (rebadged as Life here), PBS World, and a bunch of other subcarrier channels there's often actually something that I want to watch, which is more than I found with extended analog cable.

      There have been ads on TV for companies to install antennas on houses. This makes me laugh, given the fade that industry saw for many years.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Just give up pay TV content by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      At the beginning of the economic downturn, I took a pay cut (it was that or go look for a job -- good luck with that) and as a consequence we dropped several things, including cable TV. I bought an outside antenna (not allowed by our HOA, but I dared them to try to make me take it down, and they declined) and a roku box, and that plus netflix kept wife and daughter happy. (I watch close to zero tv, so it didn't matter to me either way.) Cable at the time was full ride with two DVR set top boxes, and dumping all that was like getting a raise. I'm now almost back to what I was making then, but we've gotten used to not having cable. My only regret is the money I've wasted on cable all those years, and what I could have done with it instead.

      This sometimes means that wife or daughter are up to a year behind on some pay channel show, but eventually everything worth watching gets released in some non-cable form, and it's just not worth the $$ just to see something the moment it gets released.

      Cable ranks up there with an AOL account as something that people think they need, but really don't.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Just give up pay TV content by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      We get Dish Network's ESPN GameDay package, which is much less than that price but does give us all of the ESPN- and ABC-filmed college football games that aren't otherwise airing in our area.

      During the commercial breaks, they show just the funny ESPN college commercials. They do get a little old. Of course, since we're recording, we start with at least a 45-minute delay and don't have to watch that many of them.

      At halftime they cut to ESPN radio over screens showing scores and stats of all the day's games.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    4. Re:Just give up pay TV content by timeOday · · Score: 2
      Well, that would be against the TOS:

      "TERMS OF SERVICE AND LICENSE TERMS FOR 2012 DIRECTV NFL SUNDAY TICKET APPLICATION AND SERVICE: ...

      LIMITATIONS ON USE. All Content is provided for your private non-commercial use and home viewing. You may not display, and the Content may not be viewed, in areas open to the public or in commercial establishments."

      And: "commercial locations require an appropriate licensee agreement"

    5. Re:Just give up pay TV content by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have found that the cost of one month of cable can pay for one or two seasons of a show a month. We went through M*A*S*H, Star Treks TOS and TNG, a bunch of Doctor Who and Torchwood, Inspector Morse and Lewis, and we're halfway through Farscape, with La Femme Nikita and Babylon 5 to follow.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Just give up pay TV content by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 2

      Interesting. Morons-only it is then.

    7. Re:Just give up pay TV content by ZombieThoughts · · Score: 3, Informative

      I worked at a sports bar bartending, but I also set up their audio/video and computer systems. The price is based upon maximum occupancy.

  2. Guaranteed success! by swimboy · · Score: 2

    I bet the first thing you'll be able to watch on this device is "Duke Nukem Forever: The Movie".

    --
    Ask me how the Heisenberg Principle may or may not have saved my life.
  3. Misguided in so many ways... by picoboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else read the arrogant comment attributed to some unnamed source at Intel, stating that Intel was frustrated with "everyone doing a half-assed Google TV so it's going to do it themselves and do it right." ?

    So, not surprisingly, Intel has now run into "delays" in securing agreements with content providers (in this case, the word "delay" means a quantity of time as large as forever). Why on earth would Intel believe that they have the consumer electronics clout to pull this off where Apple and Google continue to fail?

    And who in their right mind at Intel decided to blast the media with their arrogant claims before they actually secured the elusive content agreements? Are they this completely incompetent as to think that Internet TV has anything at all to do with their fabulous semiconductor technology, instead of realizing it has everything to do with negotiation and leverage?

    The kool-aid must run strong...

    1. Re:Misguided in so many ways... by headhot · · Score: 2

      Exactly my thought. They technology has been around to do this for a decade or more. Every tech company with a set top box has been dreaming about and trying to work out an agreement with the content industry to no avail.

    2. Re:Misguided in so many ways... by headhot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The content industry wont let cable do it, and the vast majority of the operators want ala carte.
      If they wont let cable do it they would never ever let an over the top provider do it. Intel has no understanding of this market.

    3. Re:Misguided in so many ways... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      > So, not surprisingly, Intel has now run into "delays" in securing agreements with content providers (in this case, the word "delay" means a quantity of time as large as forever). Why on earth would Intel believe that they have the consumer electronics clout to pull this off where Apple and Google continue to fail?

      It doesn't really matter. Arrogance aside, it's good for us the consumers that they're trying, even if they succeed partially or not at all. It's yet another sign to the content providers that the business model is changing. The industry survivors will have found a way to change with the times.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  4. Can this work without owning the fiber? by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2

    I mean, net neutrality is nice and all, but I hardly think that Google and ATT will just roll over and let Intel use their backbone fiber without a fight.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  5. They'll relent eventually by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When almost everything consumers already have hooked up to their TVs (game consoles, TiVos, blu-ray players, hell even the TVs themselves now) are able to stream media over the internet, it's becoming less and less necessary to have a cable subscription. It doesn't take long to get over the "OMG I CAN'T WATCH THE LATEST EPISODE OF [new show] TONIGHT" feeling, and once that is gone the wealth of streaming-available content is overwhelming.

    Assuming they already have a broadband connection (which most people do), for under $20/month plus the initial outlay for an antenna, people can have access to Netflix ($7.99), Hulu Plus ($7.99), YouTube (free), and broadcast TV (free). Unless someone is really addicted to one particular cable channel, that's an extremely hard offer to beat and will offer far, far, far more choices than anyone could ever get through.

    As more and more people realize this and get rid of their cable subscriptions, more cable networks will put their shows on Netflix/Hulu/Youtube and cable TV will fade away.

    1. Re:They'll relent eventually by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      People usually subscribe to an ISP for other reasons.

      So it's not like your ISP bill is some "dedicated cable bill". It's something you're already paying for. The marginal cost of Internet transport of your video entertainment option is ZERO.

      Find another straw to grasp at.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:They'll relent eventually by Dan667 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the mpaa and riaa are still suing people who download stuff online so don't get your hopes up. If I was a stockholder I would be pissed at movie and tv companies missing the boat in moving to internet distribution. Only music is half way decent because Apple (and Amazon) dragged them kicking and screaming while throwing huge wads of cash at their faces (which I am actually surprised they accepted, the riaa only cares about control). Idiots.

    3. Re:They'll relent eventually by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      I think the important point is that the clock is ticking, both for the infrastructure and content providers. The ones that continue to cling to the old business model have a limited lifespan.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:They'll relent eventually by jroysdon · · Score: 2

      I'm not a lawyer, blah, blah. However, last I checked, they can't sue you for downloading, only uploading (by default, most BitTorrent clients are going to upload).

      Even if they could go after you for downloading, there are plenty of Binary USENET providers that offer bundled VPN service.

      Plenty of DVR solutions have been out for years which will automate downloading of all your favorite shows via USENET services. Game over for the media companies a long time ago for anyone with a technical clue.

      Now that Comcast removed the download caps again, it's very viable.

      The only holdover most guys have are sports, and old people want live news.

    5. Re:They'll relent eventually by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      A large part of the problem is simply overcoming inertia and a lack of awareness.

      I heard a story a few months back from my parents. Around that time they had a couple in their mid-to-late 30s over for dinner, and over the course of the conversation, the wife apparently made a comment about how expensive cable TV is, asking my parents what their approach to it was. My parents informed her that they used an antenna to pick up broadcast TV, and that though the selection wasn't as good, it was entirely free and the reception was nearly perfect with newer antennas.

      The wife (I kid you not) wasn't even aware that you could do such a thing, and when she heard of it, she was convinced it must be illegal and that my parents were stealing from the TV companies (i.e. something akin to hooking up your neighbor's cable TV to your house). It took her husband and my parents several minutes to convince her that not only was it perfectly legal (ironic side note: my dad is a pastor), it was the way TV had predominately worked up until just a few decades ago, and that the option had never disappeared to do so. What's boggling is that she's old enough that she should have remembered a time before cable TV being commonplace.

      I also find it surprising how often I have friends who complain about poor finances, yet the notion of cutting their cable had never even occurred to them. To them, it's a part of living, just like having their electricity and water turned on. To me, that boggles the mind. When I cut my cable a few years after college, I quickly discovered that I generally preferred waiting until seasons were done, that way I could watch more episodes at a time, and that there were VERY few shows I was interested in that I was unable to procure legally for FAR less than I would have been paying for cable.

    6. Re:They'll relent eventually by wynterwynd · · Score: 2

      Strangely enough, I kinda missed the commercials.

      It's a little awkward being in a conversation where someone says "Oh yeah, like that commercial with the guy and the duck and the jetpack!" and everybody else laughs for some reason you can't fathom. You then have two choices: 1) Smug up the place with comments about how you cut the cord and it's so much better and blah blah hipsterblah 2) Fake it and chuckle along weakly in a quiet, merry lie.

      Plus, some of the commercials on the tube are really amusing. And even if they're bad, I think seeing the same ones over and over and OVER AND OVER in a single one-hour show (Hulu, take notes) is really freaking annoying.

      --
      "Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
  6. Duh by headhot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intel managed to make themselves look completely clueless and oblivious to the market. If it were so easy, Apple would have done this 5 years ago with the AppleTV, that was their plan to begin with.
    Ala carte over the top is the holy grail that every tech company has been chasing. Google, MS, Apple, Sony, Netflix, Tivo, Roku, Nitendo, anyone with an box with an internet connection and a tv output.
    All of them have been stymied because it would be the end of big contents business model. Making people pay for content they don't want or need and running adds on it.

    1. Re:Duh by balsy2001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly, and they won't change until enough people cut the cord. When there are enough of us, they will be forced to change their behavior. As I see it, they can get nothing from me or they can offer me the product I want for a reasonable price. For me that product is A-La-Carte programming for around $1 per channel per month (except ESPN which I would probably pay several times that).

      --
      GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  7. Re:yep by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sickbeard is the "DVR" app that cable companies should have released. I would have even paid for it. Web accessable. I log in. I type in a show. Say I want it. Tada. Shows magically appear on my hard drive.

    I can put them on my phone, my tablet my laptop. XBMC indexes them they're available on my TV and projector.

  8. Subliminal DIstractions by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sickbeard is the "DVR" app that cable companies should have released.

    I would use it, but the front page of shows is sending me a powerful message to stay away:

    Breaking Bad
    Criminal Minds
    Destroyed in Seconds

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. Who is unserved by OTA TV? by tepples · · Score: 2

    Of course you are assuming people are within range of an OTA tower.

    Yes, it has become fashionable to assume people are in the vast majority. There is an implicit claim that terrestrial free-to-air TV reaches the vast majority of people in the major anglophone markets. If you dispute this, I'm willing to take a look at your evidence.