Reports indicate Intel may offer a set top box with a la cart programming.
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1
Another way in which movies aren't as different as they may appear...unixguru said:Paying for a season of anything is like paying for a song vs the entire album.
and that shifts the costs for delivery down the line so the ISP will need to upgrade local areas to have more bandwidth to cover online TV.unixguru said:Oops! Yes, of course.
So what is the speculation as to how much of the 4.5% is carriage fees? Let's guess 2/3 or 3%. That means that content is around 40% of a bill. And the delivery service is around 60%.
If I look at my bill that tells me I can save a huge amount of money using internet delivery. Even if I double my internet bandwidth.
That all sounds very time-consuming and in this day, with all that people have going on, who, among adults, has time to sit down and actively look for music, TV, etc? We are a very passive country, and we tend to go with we know. I work hard on a daily basis, the last thing I want to do is work to find entertainment content."unixguru" said:My teenager regularly goes browsing for music on iTunes. Then he mentions good stuff to us (we all happen to like jazz/sax). His friends also suggest things to him - probably let him listen to it on their device. He likes Piano Guys - found them on YouTube. My wife also browses for music, movies, and TV programs regularly. In other words, other than word-of-mouth, actively looking for stuff.
Seeing or hearing something passively as it goes by isn't the only way.
For those of us who know that a la carte will actually cost us more, why would we cheer for someone to lobby for it?harsh said:Do you remember the other provider that went before Congress to lobby for a la carte?
!rollingtonyd79 said:For those of us who know that a la carte will actually cost us more, why would we cheer for someone to lobby for it?
Here, here..."SayWhat?" said:Why is this here and not in a non-provider specific section?
Another thing is advertising income for small, obscure channels. A big company such as Discovery Communications has a few "high profile" channels such as Discovery Channel and TLC, but also has a number of "lesser" channels such as Military Channel and Fit&Health.Satelliteracer said:From a technology perspective, absolutely. From a business perspective...will ESPN let themselves be contained in a sports only tier? Will CNN and FOX be contained in a news tier? What about a channel that does movies and family and something else? I don't know. Hard to see how that works.
Yes. But the content that can be downloaded via those sites is not offered with the consent of the owner of said content. One can argue the legality of a torrent site (as they actually do not store ANY content, just a link that allows hundreds of hosts to share said content), but having the content on your hard drive, and subsequently uploading it to others (to keep the ratio kosher) is copyright infringement and illegal under U.S. laws.fireponcoal said:Last time I checked a la carte does exist in the form of the various private BitTorrent sites that exist and thrive. Simply keep that ratio kosher and all is well.
But what if I subscribe to two providers and sub to every movie channel on one of those providers(fios)? Yeah, didn't think so but the practice continues and the communities thrive...Thanks for the quick lesson in US copyright law though.."maartena" said:Yes. But the content that can be downloaded via those sites is not offered with the consent of the owner of said content. One can argue the legality of a torrent site (as they actually do not store ANY content, just a link that allows hundreds of hosts to share said content), but having the content on your hard drive, and subsequently uploading it to others (to keep the ratio kosher) is copyright infringement and illegal under U.S. laws.
Hulu (Plus) fails to reach critical mass in features. That doesn't automatically mean the concept is rejected by consumers.Satelliteracer said:Another interesting article on the topic
http://www.thestreet.com/story/1180...ly-make-cable-tv-stronger.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
Sure. they tried. Couldn't make enough money to make them abandon the existing model. Ther'es no overwhelming need or demand for this, and it's not proving to be all that profitable. Businesses need both of those things to shift paradigms. All you have now is a small number or people kavetching yet still paying for the current model.unixguru said:Hulu (Plus) fails to reach critical mass in features. That doesn't automatically mean the concept is rejected by consumers.
Just a quick check of their capabilities (their web site is strangely devoid of information) shows a few killers: 1) only streaming [supported on TiVo but it sounds like you can't use DVR functionality with their content], 2) no CBS network, 3) max 720p ("when available").
Here I discuss a winning way to do this. Not streaming "live", more of a On Demand method. Off-hours bandwidth utilization. Then consumer has DVR functionality and 1080i/p is less impact. As I stated in that post - the problem is content jail.
Although, I find it interesting that many claim this will never happen due to distribution companies owning their content and not wanting to break their monopoly (er, I mean model) yet lots of them... well... did do something different with Hulu.
I typically use something called a "radio" for that. Not only is the content free, it consumes less electricity than my television/home theater.tulanejosh said:Or what about when i just want something on in the background - call it the news - that i don't have to pay close attention to.
Check out http://www.playlater.tv/unixguru said:Here I discuss a winning way to do this. Not streaming "live", more of a On Demand method. Off-hours bandwidth utilization. Then consumer has DVR functionality and 1080i/p is less impact.
That's cool, but what if i don't want to do it that way? What if i prefer.... Headline News or TNT? You forcing your preferences on me is as ridiculous as me telling you that you need to watch CNN instead of listening to the radio. Care to decide what I'm having for dinner tonight as well?Tubaman-Z said:I typically use something called a "radio" for that. Not only is the content free, it consumes less electricity than my television/home theater.
Not true. Sports are neither DVR proof nor do they have to be watched live. Many of us watch on delay, recording it and starting to watch an hour or more into it to avoid yakking taking head pregame crap and commercials and halftime/intermissions. I watch almost all the sports I really care about that way."tulanejosh" said:And it certainly won't work for Sports, which are DVR proof and have to be watched live.
I never meant to imply that you should be limited to my preferences, merely that there are options and stating what I choose to do. I don't think that I gave any direction to anyone on what they should do. I poked around a bit and admittedly was not able to find an audio stream of HLN, but I am currently listening to CNN via TuneIn. Thanks for the (indirect) suggestion. I was unaware that TNT had news.tulanejosh said:That's cool, but what if i don't want to do it that way? What if i prefer.... Headline News or TNT? You forcing your preferences on me is as ridiculous as me telling you that you need to watch CNN instead of listening to the radio. Care to decide what I'm having for dinner tonight as well?
And BTW - according to unixguru, broadcast is dead, so you might want to find a podcast or something.
+1FLWingNut said:Not true. Sports are neither DVR proof nor do they have to be watched live. Many of us watch on delay, recording it and starting to watch an hour or more into it to avoid yakking taking head pregame crap and commercials and halftime/intermissions. I watch almost all the sports I really care about that way.
I think you'll find that you are the exception and not the rule. There are many people who have no issue with or even prefer to watch sports on a delay - my father is one of them - but you'll find many more people who prefer to watch the game live. And any a la carte, on demand, streaming solution needs to have a way that (up to) millions of people can stream a game live in HD - and Unix's system did/does not address that. And much like Tuba, you are basically saying "I'm ok with delayed viewing, and it works for me, so you should be ok with it as well".FLWingNut said:Not true. Sports are neither DVR proof nor do they have to be watched live. Many of us watch on delay, recording it and starting to watch an hour or more into it to avoid yakking taking head pregame crap and commercials and halftime/intermissions. I watch almost all the sports I really care about that way.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I happen to agree that on-demand type distribution is not a great business model at this time, and I respect those who chose to watch sports live. My only comment was to the poster who claimed sports are "DVR-proof," when they are no such thing. For me and for many others, we can avoid knowing the score for a few hours and it's worth the extra effort to avoid commercials, intermissions and pregame blather. I know I'm in the minority and that's fine. To each their own."tulanejosh" said:I think you'll find that you are the exception and not the rule. There are many people who have no issue with or even prefer to watch sports on a delay - my father is one of them - but you'll find many more people who prefer to watch the game live. And any a la carte, on demand, streaming solution needs to have a way that (up to) millions of people can stream a game live in HD - and Unix's system did/does not address that. And much like Tuba, you are basically saying "I'm ok with delayed viewing, and it works for me, so you should be ok with it as well".
Personally - with smart phones and various other forms of media - i find it very difficult to not know the outcome of a sports event I'm interested in. And it takes some of the enjoyment out of it for me knowing the outcome. I would not care to rely on a system where delayed viewing is the norm. You want the buy in of millions of mainstream sports fans, you need a solution that allows us to watch whatever we want at no more than what I'm currently paying (or what I'm paying in whatever year this future takes place in), on whatever device i choose, and whenever we want (whether that's LIVE or whether that's on demand at a later time). T
tulanejosh said:Sure. they tried. Couldn't make enough money to make them abandon the existing model. Ther'es no overwhelming need or demand for this, and it's not proving to be all that profitable. Businesses need both of those things to shift paradigms. All you have now is a small number or people kavetching yet still paying for the current model.
People are increasingly unhappy with the cost of the current model. If that continues - and real alternatives become available...tulanejosh said:I also find it interesting that you point to the internet as the pipe. I find a great potential for hypocrasy there. On one hand - you want to pay for only what you consume when it comes to video distribution, but how many Internet video a la carte advocates would apply that same pricing model to their data consumption?
And Sirius XM is extremely successful. It's got over 20MM subscribers, which is comparable to Netflix. it's also more profitable, while delivering slightly less revenue. I bring up Netflix because it's the largest most prominent player in the cord cutting a la carte on demand movement. You've shown no data to support your assertion that broadcast is dying.
Your model is far too complicated, and requires too much planning and pre-work to watch television. It might work for you, but it's not going to work the the legions of average people that just want to watch Jay Leno for 30 minutes before falling asleep. Or what about when i just want something on in the background - call it the news - that i don't have to pay close attention to.
And it certainly won't work for Sports, which are DVR proof and have to be watched live.