1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intel to Offer A La Cart?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by ssm06, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Agreed. This switch isn't going to happen overnight. But it isn't going to take as long as others believe. And it won't be a complete switch - there are many areas that will not have the bandwidth for a long long time. It will probably be similar to sat phones.

    Wouldn't you agree that DVR proliferation has grown rapidly? New customers are getting Genie!

    Agreed. It won't be cable/sat that breaks the mold. The internet will. It will provide incremental revenue from people who won't go along with the cable/sat model. They ARE willing to step outside the broadcast model if it means extra bucks - notice how many of the popular series on premium channels are available, albeit delayed a season or two, on BluRay/DVD.

    Cell phones are another example. They prefer you buy an expensive plan yet they offer prepaid. I've drastically cut my cell phone bill and get the same service (that I use, not what I could use) as before. With iPhones no less.

    Yep. The DVR will eventually really upset the cart. We skip all ads. Once this hurts ad revenue enough then they all have a huge problem. Really only 2 choices: get rid of ads and charge more for content or disable FF/skip. The other night a program was delayed and we lost the last 15 minutes. I downloaded VOD (low def :mad:). I instantly discovered that FF/skip was disabled. We had already watched 45 minutes. We did not watch the VOD. Had I known ahead of time we would not have watched the whole thing via VOD in low def without FF/skip. Understandable that networks hate this. They will have to change. Even without the internet.

    They have sports lovers by the ....
     
  2. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Based on what? The rate of cord cutting is extremely slow and the number of people subscribing to pay TV goes up each year.
     
  3. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    You didn't read the post I referred to.

    The majority of programming does not need to be "live". Today a DVR scrapes off a program once as it goes by. For most programming it goes by many many times.

    It will never be logical to do hundreds of channels of broadcast over the internet. It will require a DVR. The bandwidth to my house is exactly one instance of only the programs I watch.

    Read my referenced post for more details.
     
  4. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Read my referenced post.

    Half of our recordings are primetime network TV (OTA). We are always a few episodes behind. When and how fast a program downloads that I won't watch for several weeks is irrelevant.
     
  5. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Those are your viewing habits. Not necessarily indicative of the masses.
     
  6. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    I have the opposite reaction - wow, that's a huge penetration in little time.

    I loved this:
    Ultimately the TV industry would like to wean consumers off of DVRs in favor of VOD. The primary reason for that is because fast-forwarding is typically disabled on VOD.

    They already know the handwriting is on the wall. That should scare the pants off DirecTV.

    If they disable FF/skip then, in my household, more than half the things we watch will no longer be watched.

    However, there is another business model that they will also employ. Once you have VOD with equal quality (not the low def crap of today) then you can offer the program in two forms: free with ads or fee with no ads. That's the future I hope for - they offer a product at a price and I judge the value for myself.
     
  7. Tubaman-Z

    Tubaman-Z Godfather

    536
    6
    Jul 30, 2007
    When you can queue up streamed programs to download overnight and then watch them at your leisure, that 40Mbs at 3 am does matter.

    http://www.playlater.tv/
     
  8. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    ...despite the fact that the trend is in their favor year after year?
     
  9. Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    Live, in the case of compression is anything sooner than 24 hours after production. A movie takes a full day to reach maximum compression. Sure, in few years that will be down to a few hours--but that still is not "live".

    HLN is not going to compress a story--they still have the live bumpers and intros to do.

    And some of the most watched cable shows are the news shows. They are literally being produced as the show is airing. You aren't going to get anymore compression from them.

    How do you think HBO gets the low bitrate it does? Precompression. They aren't going to get anymore either.

    Peace,
    Tom
     
  10. wmb

    wmb Godfather

    469
    5
    Dec 17, 2008
    I expect product placement and shows that are essentially extended commercials will become more prevalent.

    Also, commercial FF/skipping is a lot of work.
     
  11. bakerfall

    bakerfall Godfather

    458
    0
    Aug 23, 2006
    What you've done is make a compelling argument that for your family, using a service like Hulu largely meats your TV needs. That's the extreme micro, extrapolating that out to the macro and thinking that instills fear in providers is not logical.

    Networks own the content and that's value. It's value in terms of how much revenue they get from the Comcast and DirecTVs of the world and from Hulu and Netflix (Hulu plus has adds even in their paid Hulu plus subscriptions). Even now, somethings can be watched only on a computer. DirecTV has DirecTV everywhere, but many more shows can only be viewed on your iPad while on your wi-fi. That wasn't directv's choice.

    What's the point, contracts are oldschool and largely dranconian. Expecting this to change quickly because you think it should, is naive. I'm an early adapter, high tech person who works in IT. I am not a luddite. I also understand the industry and as nonsensical as it sometimes seems, its doing VERY well. That fact alone means it's not going to fundamentally change anytime soon.

    Bottom line, if live TV means little to you and most of what you watch is network television, then it's dumb to pay for TV. That experience can easily be duplicated using an antenna and streaming providers. If you want live sports, live news (beyond network), etc. you're going to pay for the privilege using existing delivery methods for the foreseeable future.
     
  12. bakerfall

    bakerfall Godfather

    458
    0
    Aug 23, 2006
    95% of my commercial skipping consists of 6 presses of the 30-sec skip button. That is very little work in pretty much every definition of the term.
     
  13. wmb

    wmb Godfather

    469
    5
    Dec 17, 2008
    A year or two ago, Sat Racer said that authentication was a big issue in renegotiations. That is the DirecTV anywhere that is becoming a major part of the product.

    DirecTV should be scared of VOD. They do not have a high bandwidth direct delivery mechanism for on demand content. They are at the mercy of cable providers net neutrality and customers desire to subsidize distribution costs by paying for high band width internet.

    That said, DirecTV also must know that they have a potential opportunity as a content aggregator. This past year, they offered Sunday Ticket over Play Stations, without any other DirecTV product. Imagine people getting DirecTV content on their own hardware, without DirecTV having to install a dish and receivers.
     
  14. bakerfall

    bakerfall Godfather

    458
    0
    Aug 23, 2006
    The NFL ST on PS3 is kind of a unique case as it's filling the role that MLB, NHL and NBA online offerings offer. I don't see them forgoing satellite and providing the complete experience over IP.

    What I think should happen is what we're already seeing with HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, even ABC has a dedicated app. Networks should provide their own streaming apps (or access to Hulu) as part of your subscription to pay tv. Ideally you get to a point where access to those apps can also be purchased a la carte, but every provider having there own model for tv anywhere/VOD is an inefficient mess. The premium channels are way ahead of the curve on this, HBO Go is a fantastic app experience on iPad, xbox and everything I've tried it on.
     
  15. unixguru

    unixguru Godfather

    787
    33
    Jul 9, 2007
    Another thought to consider...

    Delivery services are pushing DVRs because they add revenue through purchase (for some) and services. Revenue that they keep; doesn't pass through to content distributors.

    Content distributors see one of the major uses of DVRs is to skip ads. They can't get delivery services to put no-FF flags on everything as that kills their revenue booster. So they jack up the price the delivery service has to pay for their content. Guess who gets burned in this war?

    It's a double edge blade. All the delivery services have these DVRs - which they can't control.

    So yes, there is a business incentive for the model to change. The content distributors don't give a damn where the money comes from. Preventing FF on their content or charging a no-ad fee is going to look better and better.

    Middlemen are getting squeezed everywhere. Our local news today (Minnesota, BestBuy HQ) had a story about how BB was going to have a new price-matching policy to stop "showrooming" (looking at product in BB and then buying online from somebody else). They are obviously desperate. In our area there is a store every 5 miles in every direction. They simply cannot compete on price (without suicide) and they have little else to offer. Does Samsung, Sony, anybody care whether their products are sold retail or online? Nope. Maybe someday there will be a single mega store in the entire Minneapolis metro that sells marketing space to consumer electronics companies for those people that must see something in person or needs help deciding. Retail consumer electronics will essentially be dead. There is a certain justice here - my elderly parents owned a mom-n-pop small town electronics and appliance store and they were driven out of business by BB years ago (fortunately right about retirement age anyway).
     
  16. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Really? The DVR is not much more than a more capable VCR. VCR/DVRs have been around for 30 years. Not rapid at all, especially when cable/satellite companies have been giving them away.
     
  17. Diana C

    Diana C Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    2,117
    293
    Mar 30, 2007
    New Jersey
    1) 2023 is a long way off. By then 4K and 8K UHD will be a reality and the data rates will need to that much higher.

    2) As was pointed out, averages are not the point. If 10% of the customers of a given ISP are streaming video during primetime, that might be manageable. But when 90% are doing so. that's a whole different story. Now you're going to hit router congestion bottlenecks all the way up the network to the POP on the backbone.

    3) Even if there were the capacity at the viewer end, do you have any idea what is involved in delivering 20 million simultaneous HD streams (the number of viewers of NCIS two weeks ago). Even if the stream were compressed down to 5 megabits/second, that's 100 petabits per second. Now think of what it takes to deliver 100 million - the number of viewers of the Super Bowl.

    This all points to the inherent problem with replacing linear broadcast TV with an internet based system. The internet is based upon a session oriented protocol. To completely replace cable and satellite services you'll need to create a internet wide broadcast protocol. Broadcast protocols exist, but they don't cross routers today. You'll also need a management entity to arbitrate access to "channels" in this internet broadcast model (likely based upon socket numbers). In other words, you'll need to replace all the cable and satellite systems in the country with one big digital cable system. This is EXACTLY how digital cable works today, whether delivered to your home via coax or fiber-optic cable.

    So, in the end, you go around in a circle and end up where you started.
     
  18. tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    What in God's name does this have to do with a la carte television?
     
  19. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Good question. There have been a series of odd comparisons involving completely different scenarios and/or industries.
     
  20. bakerfall

    bakerfall Godfather

    458
    0
    Aug 23, 2006
    There have definitely been some tangents in this thread. I think the main problem is that people think a la carte would be cheaper, so they want it. Traditional providers won't provide it, so the "internet" must be the solution. The problem with that line of thinking is that you need a provider on the internet to share your vision of a la carte. The economics of providing TV service are well defined, so it remains hard to argue for a la carte. Therefore the idea that some mythical company is going to come in and blow everyone out of the water, when they need networks/channels to have a product to provide is a self-defeating prophecy.

    It makes no economic sense for the video providers, the content providers or the internet providers to embrace the model that people want, so it's hard to imagine it happening anytime soon.
     

Share This Page