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

Intel’s New Cable Service Could Cripple Companies Like TiVo and DirecTV

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Johncv, Aug 2, 2013.

  1. unitron

    unitron Active Member

    16,387
    2
    Apr 28, 2006
    semi-coastal NC
    What little description there was of what Intel's TV thing was going to be before they gave up and sold the pieces to Verizon didn't sound like it had to have Intel specifically involved.

    It could have been anyone with enough money to throw at getting it started, and someone like Amazon or Google probably has more experience with the whole "massive server farm talking to every household in the country at the same time" deal anyway.
     
  2. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    This is why need Google Fiber to shake things up. While all the other providers are a TV provider first, internet provider second. Google Fiber is an internet provider first, TV provider second. I think if they HAD to dump the TV portion, they would do it in a second.
     
  3. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,448
    166
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    I think a LOT of people would take it up. The only reason we have 500 channels is because of bundling. Most people would eliminate 95% of their channels if they had an option to do so. And if there was a true VOD option, without forced commercials, then people would be all over it.

    That being said the content providers would never go for either system, so it's never going to happen.
     
  4. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    I think a VOD system would take off, but buying 10 linear channels is a half-measure, and the type of people who get buy with netflix only want a netflix style interface. That's part of the whole point of going with something like that.

    You're right, though, the programmers are never going to go for it, and to be honest I don't blame them. I don't want to pay $100 for the 10 channels I want which is what an a la carte system would cost. People think that going to a la carte, paying $20 in total, and everyone eliminating their $150 cable bills would be some wonderful utopia, but the media companies aren't going to keep producing what little bit of good content they do produce if 70% of their revenues dry up.
     
  5. Dan203

    Dan203 Super Moderator Staff Member TCF Club

    37,448
    166
    Apr 17, 2000
    Nevada
    In Canada there is apparently some law that prevents bundling of channels, so apparently what the networks are doing now is taking their most popular programs from their primary channel and moving them to their less popular channels. That way the MSOs still have to buy all the crappy secondary channels. This is apparently why Always Sunny got moved from FX to FXX and apparently there are a few shows on Discovery that did this as well. There is a thread in this forum about it somewhere.
     
  6. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    That also has the added benefit of forcing US carriers to not drop them or pick them up as they convert old channels and launch new ones.
     
  7. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,029
    0
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    I would imagine that becomes hard to sustain over time. Do they wait until a show gets popular on a popular network and then suddenly move it? That's not going to sit well with people.
     
  8. mattack

    mattack Active Member

    20,734
    4
    Apr 9, 2001
    sunnyvale
    I think you're overestimating the cost, and I've said before and I'll say it again -- I'd gladly pay THE SAME I'm paying now for *the exact channels I want to watch*.

    That way, it presumably cuts some costs for me (e.g. several bucks a month for ESPN(*) per subscriber), and "costs more" because I would turn off the shopping and religion channels that supposedly pay the cable company to be carried.. But since I think I'd turn off the vast majority of channels, I would think at worst the price would stay the same. I'd pay EVEN MORE for everything without commercials.. not tons more, but a bit more.

    I'm actually on a smaller bundle than I had at my old house, and miss a few channels, like National Geographic (though I think only for a couple of the specials, even not the well known ones) and GSN (but again that was mostly for High Stakes Poker, which isn't making new eps now).. but there are probably a few more I don't remember..

    (*) ESPN is one of the few where I *MIGHT* pay the imho way too expensive prices of a buck or two an episode, for WSOP.. that and the hot dog eating contest on July 4 are about the only things I *regularly* watch on ESPN.

    This would at least get realistic values for how many people REALLY want each channel.
     
  9. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    So what would be the point of completely upending the way things work if the price stayed the same, or only changed a few dollars? What does it matter that you get channels you don't watch if you're willing to pay the same price without them? What you're talking about would be an insanely complicated system, and for anyone who might want to watch all of them would be crazy expensive. And, costs would go up, no doubt, not down. You assume that less channels means less cost, but a lot of channels are cheap because they're in front of a lot of eyeballs and in a lot of homes so they can extract higher ad rates. A la carte ruins that so costs would go way, way up. And, when you say you'd pay "a bit more" for a channel with no commercials, that will never happen either. Ad rates make up way more than subscriber fees, so even if you didn't go a la carte but went to no commercials, rates would have to like quadruple.

    It's nice to say what you want and what you'd pay for it, but there's no way in a million years any of that will ever happen and the industry maintain the same amount and/or quality of content.
     
  10. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,996
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    I agree about price. Why bother with a la carte if it doesn't reduce my cost?

    I'm not convinced about the "insanely complicated system". They already have a la carte premium channel packages so they're already dealing with this "complication". Just need to scale it up.
     
  11. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Well, I primarily meant in terms of if the price stays the same. You'd have dozens of packages or even worse hundreds of channels to try to pick. How would it be priced? What about people who want everything? etc. There are a lot of things to consider that make it complicated.
     
  12. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,996
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    Such complications are easily handled when profit (or just survival) is seen as the result. The problem is the cable cos don't see a great potential for increasing profit here.
     
  13. JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Actually, it has been shown over and over that too many options decrease profits. Customers get paralyzed by the number of options and either don't buy as much or give up or otherwise. There's a sweet spot. You want to have enough options to satisfy everyone at each price point but not so many that it's overwhelming.
     
  14. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    6,996
    16
    Jul 6, 2006
    Near...
    Yeah, I guess people who are overwhelmed by restaurant menus would be in trouble. :D
     

Share This Page