Intel to Launch Cable TV Service and Set Top Box at CES 2013

Glideslope said:

Don't underestimate Global Foundries. They have a strong presence in NY currently. IMO, the search committee favors NY over Oregon. TSC is less capable, IMO.

Click to expand...

I didn't under estimate them, but do they want the business? They've showed no indication of wanting the business. Apple has a tendency to screw its supplies, and its showing in a general lack of interest in building Apples chips. IBM isn't interested, Intel isn't Interested, GF has showed no interest, and TSMC rejected Apples deal.

Yes, ARM is an instruction set. However, it is one that Intel cannot use until Paul Otellini is gone, and a person not living in an X86 bubble changes course. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Intel has little reason to produce ARM chips. I think they spun off their ARM business years ago due to low profit margins from what I remember.

At the moment, Intels bread and butter is Laptop and Desktop Chips, server chips. ARM does not have a foothold, or even the same performance.

The way I see it, the vast vast majority of the worlds software is written for X86, and there is no reason to abandon it.

Mobile right now is ARM, but mobile also lacks any kind of useful software or performance.

I would love more options so I can dump Charter.

damir00 said:

Drawing a blank on the last piece of Intel software I used might have been...

Click to expand...

You're using it right now... the microcode in the Intel CPU you use.

According to a new story at 9to5Mac, Intel has only been able to secure one content provider and will therefore not launch at CES. Such a project, if it ever launches, is now expected no earlier than the 2nd half of 2013.

Intel wants to offer a more a la carte service and entertainment companies want significantly more money in such a scenario because their current model is to bundle popular channels with lesser known ones and sell them as a package. As an a la carte model would favor the popular channels, the entertainment companies want more money for them to offset the lost revenues from the lesser-known channels not being offered. (Much as HobeSoundDarryl has been arguing.)

G51989 said:

I didn't under estimate them, but do they want the business? They've showed no indication of wanting the business. Apple has a tendency to screw its supplies, and its showing in a general lack of interest in building Apples chips. IBM isn't interested, Intel isn't Interested, GF has showed no interest, and TSMC rejected Apples deal.



Intel has little reason to produce ARM chips. I think they spun off their ARM business years ago due to low profit margins from what I remember.

At the moment, Intels bread and butter is Laptop and Desktop Chips, server chips. ARM does not have a foothold, or even the same performance.

The way I see it, the vast vast majority of the worlds software is written for X86, and there is no reason to abandon it.

Mobile right now is ARM, but mobile also lacks any kind of useful software or performance.

Click to expand...

Well, looks like TSCM is ready to make a batch of A6X's from todays news.
So, I'll retract my GF opinion.

TSCM could put a fab in NY from Project Azalea. I'll bet Global Foundries would love the competition next door.

"Useful Software/Performance " is too subjective.

dfuerpo said:

You're using it right now... the microcode in the Intel CPU you use.

Click to expand...

By definition, microcode is not software.

MisterMe said:

Cable providers love digital because a single NTSC channel can transmit only one analog program stream. When repurposed to digital, however, that sample channel can transmit 27 Clear QAM or scrambled standard definition program streams.

Click to expand...

It not the bandwidth they really like, it's the per-TV pricing and ease of add-on sales I mentioned. It's the 80's and their decoder-rental scheme all over again for them. If it was about the bandwidth they could just change to ClearQAM and be done with it. No box would be required (which would lower their support costs) and they'd still get the benefits of non-analog channel streams.

i would like to see this in my city. but i do live just outside the city, so i wonder i would still get access to this?

SeaFox said:

It not the bandwidth they really like, it's the per-TV pricing and ease of add-on sales I mentioned. It's the 80's and their decoder-rental scheme all over again for them. If it was about the bandwidth they could just change to ClearQAM and be done with it. No box would be required (which would lower their support costs) and they'd still get the benefits of non-analog channel streams.

Click to expand...

You are not paying attention. Some cable providers have done precisely what you say. It is true that other providers have taken a different tack. However, this has to do with their current transmission infrastructure and other considerations.

MisterMe said:

You are not paying attention. Some cable providers have done precisely what you say. It is true that other providers have taken a different tack. However, this has to do with their current transmission infrastructure and other considerations.

Click to expand...

As a cable subscriber yes I certainly have been paying attention. The entire 75 channel "basic" cable package used to be available on ClearQAM here and I recieved it fine on my TV with no converter box, but as time has gone on the number of channels available on the analog basic service has gone down, while at the same time they are being changed to encrypted feeds on the digial service. The service is still called basic cable, and doesn't include any of the digital tiers, but to get all the stations you have to get a digital box now. It's a "slippery slope" situation. Only in this case you slide uphill on your monthly bill to keep what you had before.

As for "infrastructure reasons" I can only assume you're referring to switched-digital cable. I am reminded that the only reason the original analog bandwidth isn't sufficient is because there are so many more stations now. But there's the old saying "200 channels and nothing to watch". Cutting out the cruft and reruns you could get the same amount of content on a smaller number of stations. There really is no reason for there to be as many ESPNs as there are.

What if your TV Dreams Become Reality

There is a company who will be offering Cable TV, high speed internet and a home phone for less than what people are paying for basic cable and internet now. So the middlemen you are referring to can be and will be eliminated.. Thus your dream will soon be coming true.