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
The only comprehensive list is from 2009 (http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/)...add 25% for a rough current estimate, or spend a lot of time searching for individual channels.unixguru said:Has someone done/published a spreadsheet with the wholesale estimates?
Don't be so sure...to support 100 million households streaming all their evening entertainment over the Internet would require MASSIVE upgrades in infrastructure. We're talking numbers a magnitude greater than all the money spent by both satellite companies on satellites combined.unixguru said:So your $40 wholesale is $115 retail or $75 markup. $900/yr for infrastructure, operations, profit, etc PER account.
This is why sat will go into decline. Internet (even upgraded) infrastructure and operations will cost a fraction of that...
And think of the usage caps the ISPs will nail, extort, and charge us for.Diana C said:Don't be so sure...to support 100 million households streaming all their evening entertainment over the Internet would require MASSIVE upgrades in infrastructure. We're talking numbers a magnitude greater than all the money spent by both satellite companies on satellites combined.
http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/public/sep11/cloonan_01a_0911.pdfDiana C said:Don't be so sure...to support 100 million households streaming all their evening entertainment over the Internet would require MASSIVE upgrades in infrastructure. We're talking numbers a magnitude greater than all the money spent by both satellite companies on satellites combined.
Capacity planning is not just about averages. It is also about peaks with locations.unixguru said:http://www.ieee802.org/3/ad_hoc/bwa/public/sep11/cloonan_01a_0911.pdf
See slide 12:
If a 20 Mbps, 3D-HD, H.264 video feed is sent to (on average) 2.3 people per home, then each home should be satiated with an average bandwidth offer
of (20 Mbps)*(2.3)=46 Mbps.... which we predict we will hit by ~2023
You have stated in other posts that the DirecTV bitrate is 6-12 Mbps so the average is less than 10. H.265 will reduce this another 40% to around 6 Mbps average.
That's 1/3 of what that quote references. That pulls in the date from 10 years to what, 5 or less? Do 2.3 people per home watch TV 24 hours a day? We watch about 6 hours so with a DVR that's a quarter of the load per day (spread out over entire day).
Slide 29:
The Downstream growth rate has been roughly 1.5x per year... Web-Surfing was the driver of growth in 2000... P2P was the driver of growth in 2008... IP Video is the driver of growth today
Intel would not be entering this market, whether it is ultimately successful or not, if there wasn't infrastructure and growth projections to support it.
Very little of the cable market is dependent on the live experience. On most networks, programming is prerecorded and shown in heavy rotation. Many people record the first run of the show to time shift or watch later and skip commercials. The "live experience" is overrated, except in very specific cases. Many people would not care whether these shows were live or streamed.bakerfall said:1.) Existing streaming services (Hulu, Netflix specifically) while compelling, are not providing the live TV experience. Making that leap is a HuGE change and challenge. Prerecorded, streaming content can be compressed higher and is far less content compared to the non-stop live TV of 700 channels
True, but the margins for the broadband portion of the business is huge, and they don't have to deal with content providers jacking their costs every chance they get. Given the recent history of last second deals and stoppages of retransmission due to failed recarriage agreements, I think that it is only a matter of time before cable companies tell networks to sell a la carte if they want that higher rate. Look at Dish and Disney. Viacom and DirecTV.bakerfall said:2.) Internet providers, at least in the US, are almost always also TV providers. While they no doubt understand that supporting streaming services is a large reason why people want broadband, they're not going to let a direct competitor (i.e. a live TV internet based provider) beat them at their own game. Caps and other restrictions would be inevitable.
The hardware aspect is intriguing. So far, Apple and Microsoft have not put tuners in their systems. I could see an Xbox augmented as a set top box allowing access to both streaming content and OTA/cable content. It would also allow game play and internet access.bakerfall said:3.) This theoretical company who is going to provide internet streamed live TV is not going to be some altruistic company charging wholesale, they'd be in it to make money. Intel, Apple, (insert company name) would only be interested in this space (if they were at all) to sell hardware and would be subject to the same contract negotiations and deals all other providers are. Those costs may start lower, but not substantially lower. The only real example we've seen of this is Google Fiber service which is cheaper and quite frankly is awesome, but that's such a small sample size and we don't know what their margins are. It will be interesting to see what happens, if they expand.
I don't see myself cutting the cord in the near future, mostly because of live sports. I have the programming level I do for Fox Soccer and NBC Sports network. Believe it or not, the kids aren't the issue. They are for the most part happy with Youtube and Netflicks. There is some timeshifting of shows, but there are a number of shows on the DVR that don't get watched.bakerfall said:4.) Cord cutters that I know, of which there are many to be honest, do so to save money with an understanding that their experience will not be equal. You can get a very compelling product pairing antenna with hulu/netflix, but it is not an equal one. If I was single I might even consider it. At this point in my life with a wife and 3 kids all with different viewing habits, having a convenient whole home DVR service with everything in one place makes my life easier and quite frankly, paying DIrecTV every month doesn't impact my finances. Most people I know that have "cut the cord" have done so to save money because they're students, they have lost an income, bought a house, etc. Those circumstances will no doubt change for most, and I would bet most will chose convenience in the long term.
Hulu and Netflix are not the only players. Check out Vudu. Their highest tier PPV is no different than DirecTV.bakerfall said:There are a few problems with the theory that internet streaming services are going to become direct competition for cable/satellite providers.
1.) Existing streaming services (Hulu, Netflix specifically) while compelling, are not providing the live TV experience. Making that leap is a HuGE change and challenge. Prerecorded, streaming content can be compressed higher and is far less content compared to the non-stop live TV of 700 channels
They won't care in the least. They will get money either through TV or internet bandwidth. Which is cheaper for them to buy, programming or bandwidth? Yep, bandwidth... by far.bakerfall said:2.) Internet providers, at least in the US, are almost always also TV providers. While they no doubt understand that supporting streaming services is a large reason why people want broadband, they're not going to let a direct competitor (i.e. a live TV internet based provider) beat them at their own game. Caps and other restrictions would be inevitable.
These companies are not stupid. There must be a compelling argument to buy their service. If it's exactly the same bundling, tiering, and pricing as cable and sat then I agree they will be DOA. It won't be.bakerfall said:3.) This theoretical company who is going to provide internet streamed live TV is not going to be some altruistic company charging wholesale, they'd be in it to make money. Intel, Apple, (insert company name) would only be interested in this space (if they were at all) to sell hardware and would be subject to the same contract negotiations and deals all other providers are. Those costs may start lower, but not substantially lower.
If the next generation of the Channel Master DVR fixes the design/quality problems (or another product like it comes out) then OTA and movies (via Vudu) will be the same experience. My household will then ask the question of whether the cost of traditional TV services justifies the additional low-quality programming.bakerfall said:4.) Cord cutters that I know, of which there are many to be honest, do so to save money with an understanding that their experience will not be equal. You can get a very compelling product pairing antenna with hulu/netflix, but it is not an equal one. If I was single I might even consider it. At this point in my life with a wife and 3 kids all with different viewing habits, having a convenient whole home DVR service with everything in one place makes my life easier and quite frankly, paying DIrecTV every month doesn't impact my finances. Most people I know that have "cut the cord" have done so to save money because they're students, they have lost an income, bought a house, etc. Those circumstances will no doubt change for most, and I would bet most will chose convenience in the long term.
With a DVR it doesn't matter what time you watch. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3067523#post3067523Tom Robertson said:Capacity planning is not just about averages. It is also about peaks with locations.
It doesn't matter if I get 40Mbs at 3am. It matters when most of the families are watching TV in primetime. We often have 3 or 4 tuners recording in the evening.
Again, when you watch it means nothing. Unless you are convincing networks to change when they are airing primetime TV, you are still recording it during those hours, which means the bandwidth is being utilized during those hours at a higher rate.unixguru said:With a DVR it doesn't matter what time you watch. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3067523#post3067523
Our household, like many others, rarely watches anything live.
Over half the homes in America with TV don't have a DVR...so they're live viewers. Now, factor in those with a DVR who still watch live and the numbers increase. You make it seem like it's the norm when it's not.unixguru said:With a DVR it doesn't matter what time you watch. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3067523#post3067523
Our household, like many others, rarely watches anything live.
http://rbr.com/dvr-penetration-raising-eyebrows/According to Nielsen, 50.3 million of the nation's 114.2 million homes with a television have a DVR - nearly half of all homes with a TV set.
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.bakerfall said:You make some interesting points, but this is almost all conjecture. What evidence do you have that "very little" of the cable market is dependent on live tv? You mention sports, which is huge, but you are leaving off a large segment of the population that doesn't even have DVR. I have DVRs in every room and still watch live TV in at least some fasion, daily. News, sports, movies, etc. While DVRs are prevalent, live TV is still critical to the cable experience.
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.bakerfall said:Cable can't decide to drop channels and then offer them as subscription. What packages channels are in, how their grouped, what they cost, is all dictated by very lucrative programming agreements. In order for the cable (or satellite) provider to make these changes, they'd have to have the cooperation of the channels/networks. That isn't going to come because one cable/satellite provider wants it, they'd have to ALL want it.
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 ). 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.bakerfall said:Timeshifting is a far bigger deal for the networks in terms of ad revenue than for the the cable/sat providers. The providers love DVR, it's increased their revenue by making a value add a must have. People pay more to have DVR, they pay more for hardware, they pay more per month, all of this is good.
They have sports lovers by the ....bakerfall said:The biggest hurdle in my cord cutting, aside from WAF, is sports. I care primarily about my local teams (Bears, Cubs, Blackhawks, Bulls) and aside from the handful of games on WGN, I need to have a pay TV provider for games. The only way this changes is if streaming agreements remove local blackouts. That would be a huge game changer, and is exactly why it won't happen anytime soon.
Based on what? The rate of cord cutting is extremely slow and the number of people subscribing to pay TV goes up each year.unixguru said:But it isn't going to take as long as others believe.
You didn't read the post I referred to.bakerfall said:Why do you think that the # of reruns, how many times a story reairs, etc. has ANY bearing on how much bandwidth it needs. If things are being broadcast live, they need bandwidth. It doesn't matter if it was aired before, it's being aired again. This is completely irrelevant. Now how much of that content matters to you, or to most people for that matter, is a different story.
Read my referenced post.bakerfall said:Again, when you watch it means nothing. Unless you are convincing networks to change when they are airing primetime TV, you are still recording it during those hours, which means the bandwidth is being utilized during those hours at a higher rate.
Those are your viewing habits. Not necessarily indicative of the masses.unixguru said: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.
I have the opposite reaction - wow, that's a huge penetration in little time.sigma1914 said:Over half the homes in America with TV don't have a DVR...so they're live viewers. Now, factor in those with a DVR who still watch live and the numbers increase. You make it seem like it's the norm when it's not.
http://rbr.com/dvr-penetration-raising-eyebrows/
When you can queue up streamed programs to download overnight and then watch them at your leisure, that 40Mbs at 3 am does matter.Tom Robertson said:It doesn't matter if I get 40Mbs at 3am. It matters when most of the families are watching TV in primetime.
...despite the fact that the trend is in their favor year after year?unixguru;3182876 said:That should scare the pants off DirecTV.
I expect product placement and shows that are essentially extended commercials will become more prevalent.unixguru said: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 ). 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.
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.unixguru said: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.