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

[ILikeTurtles]

This is a BS story if I ever read one.

You don't just decide to start up a cable tv service and roll it out on a city by city basis. There are utility laws/regs that come in to play. Those same issues that were MAJOR hurdles for Verizon FIOS when the began their service. And still today are the main reason why you can't get Verizon FIOS in your home.

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl

What likely doesn't work is the idea that we are somehow going to be able to get just what we want to get (channels or shows) for something like 80% or less than we pay now. Apple has already taken a good cut at the commercial-free, on-demand, al-a-carte dream with iTunes video offerings as is. What's missing? The super discount that we keep imagining should come with al-a-carte. That's the part that will never happen. All the players besides us want any new model- from Apple or elsewhere- to help them make MORE money, not substantially less. None of the other links in the chain are going to take the huge hit so that we consumers can pay a fraction of what we pay now.

Exactly! People expect al-a-carte channel selections to reduce their cable bill.

But the cable companies would never allow such a thing!

The reason you get 500 channels for $100 a month is because of all the bundling. You may pay for channels you don't want... but that's what allows the cable company to carry all those channels in the first place.

You will never get to choose your favorite 50 channels for $10 a month... or 10 channels for $2 a month.

[mpgolfpro]

Originally Posted by Manderby

Besides: I actually don't know many people who DO watch lots of TV. Most of them don't even have a TV. And the rest maybe watches 15 minutes per day (the News).

Wow, you are really out of the loop, LOL. You don't know many people who own a TV? Im not sure I know a person who DOESN"T own a TV. I would guess that most people I know, watch an average of 2-3 hours of TV a day.

[lazyrighteye]

Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl

Best implementation of al-a-carte is to use the fav channel feature of your set-top box now to hide all those channels you never watch. Then, they can keep running in the background (invisible to you) generating revenues from their commercials that you never have to see. That commercial revenue is subsidy money (other people paying money to run those commercials) that helps keep our overall cost of television service as low as it is now. I've shown the approx. average subsidy per household before in similar threads. I estimate it at about $54 per household. For those that dream of commercial free, that would be about $54 per household to make up out of pocket.

It would be naive to do the math like this: $100/month cable bill for 200 channels = .50 (cents) per channel. I only watch 10 channels. My bill in al-a-carte world should be $5 per month.

The reality of al-a-carte world is that all the players would still want to make at least what they make now. So if we all selected only about 10 channels, I would expect those favorite 10 to cost us each about $100 per month (or about $10 per channel). But, since al-a-carte world would likely kill off a lot of those filler channels "I" never watch, the commercial revenue subsidies generated by those channels would cease to flow to content creators which would likely mean that either we pay a bit more in total out-of-pocket or the quality and/or breadth of programming that we do like would probably go down.

In short, I think al-a-carte world yields higher costs for us consumers (making up for the lost revenues of commercials running on channels we never watch) for much less breadth of programming options. I also think quality of programming would go down unless we all agree on our favorite 10 or 20 channels (which will never happen). I also think this would significantly up the risk for those who fund pilots of new shows such that the abundance of new shows will cease.

Don't get me wrong. I love the concept of it myself. It's just the implementation where it gets really messy. If we bend the dream to our desires as a consumers, it seems like it's a complete win (for us). But for us to "win" by getting a 90% or more reduction in our collective television service bills, somebody else in the chain takes a 90%+ loss over the "as is" model now. Knowing the middlemen- be that a Comcast or an Apple- will not take such hits- it seems that much of that would hit the content creators. If so, the quality of their output would likely have to go down.

I know the comeback is that they could just focus their reduced compensation on a fewer number of "really good shows" but then who gets to decide what is a "really good show"? Kardashians has a huge following. Is that a good show? Soap Operas? Hoarders? Honey Boo Boo? Etc. In thinking beyond our own situation, imagine how it would really play out. Who takes the hit so that we can pay only $5 per month or so? Is Apple going to lose money to do this? Is the tollmaster of our broadband pipe going to lose money? Who's left? If it's not us, it has to be the content creators. We have no-cost/low-cost "programming" available in abundance on youtube & similar. If our collective bills are going to be cut by about 90% or more, that's probably a good proxy for the new programming we can expect.

Yep. TV (speaking solely about the US experience) is much more complicated than music or telco. Hence why it's not yet been cracked. Everyone (namely the consumer, more namely people in these forums) is talking about the same two things here: a la carte and cheaper fees. For some consumers, these two can align. But for most mainstream consumers, they will get the former but not the latter. As many have stated, content providers have zero interest in making less money than they are now. So how can they maintain - and potentially even grow - their revenue stream(s) while giving the consumer the control they desire? It will mainly be a 2-step process (with hundreds of little steps within). 1) Channel apps and 2) phasing/cutting out the middlemen (aka: service providers).

Channel apps would come in 2 flavors: free and plus. Example, NBC app may offer the consumer a limited menu of NBC programming (local news and other non-prime time programming). NBC+ app will offer some of the more "desirable" primetime content (Parks & Rec, The Voice, CSI Des Moines, etc.) on a seasonally-based fee structure. Look no further than CBS' March Madness app as an example of how these channel+ apps could function. Once any given channel's seasonal programming ends, that app will no longer function, requiring the consumer to purchase said channel app's next season - if they so choose. A more streamlined approach would be to offer a channel app with seasonally-based in-app pricing options. And with users now not tied to their home television sets for consumption, content provider's channel app become more valuable. In my mind, the sweet spot for consumers, per channel app, per season is around $4.99-9.99 - with the HBOs of the world likely to come in at the higher $9.99 price point. Prices will not be prorated should consumers jump in mid-season. Thus, content providers will position early season adoption as the best value. At these rates, and with the number of channel apps most consumers would purchase on a regular basis, the content providers stand to reap the similar revenue they've grown accustomed to - with the potential to gain more form those with more basic cable packages.

In the above scenario, content providers and consumers look to be pretty happy. Who is missing out on all the fun? The exact same people that are most scared of the changes on the horizon: The middlemen. The service providers. The Comcasts of the world. While formidable hurdles with deep pockets, the writing is on the wall: adapt or die. And while they have diversified with home security and other short-term offerings, it seems focus was needed more than diversification - if longevity is/was a goal (and I can't imagine it wasn't). Wether stationary (home) or mobile, cable/satellite companies should have focused on owning every facet of broadband delivery and not spread themselves thin trying to fabricate value on top of what it is they really peddle: broadband. They're not unlike any other utility company. But it may be too late. With the AT&Ts of the world better equipped to serve the mobile consumer, hitting a stationary consumer in their home (which they are already doing) should prove a no-brainer. Adding even more pressure on the Comcasts.

** Slightly off-topic: Why don't the major Hollywood studios forego the HBOs of the world and simply offer their own apps? Like a Paramount or Sony Pictures app? **

Clearly, all of the above is pretty broad strokes - undoubtedly chockfull of holes. So please, poke away. That's what makes this such a great community.

[d21mike]

After reading a lot of these threads it seems like some would prefer to pay $50 per month for 25 channels then $50 per month for 200 channels so they can say that they only pay for the channels they want and not for channels they do not want. The cost is only secondary.

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by d21mike

After reading a lot of these threads it seems like some would prefer to pay $50 per month for 25 channels then $50 per month for 200 channels so they can say that they only pay for the channels they want and not for channels they do not want. The cost is only secondary.

So what is the primary?

If you are getting the extra channels for the same amount of money... why not just take them and enjoy them?

Who knows what you'll find on those channels.

[d21mike]

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip

So what is the primary?

Control. The need to be in Control. It is so important to be able to pick what shows they are paying for then the actual cost of those shows. It has been clearly pointed out on a number of these threads that you are paying for a bundle of channels because that is how they are sold to the Cable Companies. And if they were somehow able to sell us less channels or if Apple were to somehow offer us only the channels we want then our cost of broadband would likewise go up.

As we all know you can simply buy the shows you want on iTunes but the cost would be more then you are currently paying for the dreaded bundles and you would still need to get your Live News and Sports channels from somewhere (like OTA).

My position is FIOS (my provider) is the best option out there for Fast Internet and a good selection of bundles. My only problem is with the hardware. I would like to get rid of the $50+/month bills for the 2 DVRs and 3 STB's. I would rather use CableCards buy my STB's and DVR's which is what I am working on (HDHomeRun Prime and WDTVLive etc. but still not there yet - Apple could really help with this). But, I feel the actual content on top of a fast internet connection is not a bad deal for me.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by Consultant

So Intel is resorting to copying actual Apple laptops to copying rumors of potential Apple product. That's going to end well.

Set top boxes? Have been around for a very long time.

And where this this Laptop that Intel produces.....I'd like to see one.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Right. First Intel tries to kill off the Macbook Air. Now it is trying to kill off the Apple TV.

Apple needs to teach Intel a lesson, but good! Apple can make better chips than they can buy from Intel. There are plenty of options for better CPUs.

Where are these better CPUs?

Intel isn't trying to kill off the MacBook Air, Intel doesn't care weather its chips are in Macs or PCs.

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by d21mike

Control. The need to be in Control. It is so important to be able to pick what shows they are paying for then the actual cost of those shows. It has been clearly pointed out on a number of these threads that you are paying for a bundle of channels because that is how they are sold to the Cable Companies. And if they were somehow able to sell us less channels or if Apple were to somehow offer us only the channels we want then our cost of broadband would likewise go up.

As we all know you can simply buy the shows you want on iTunes but the cost would be more then you are currently paying for the dreaded bundles and you would still need to get your Live News and Sports channels from somewhere (like OTA).

My position is FIOS (my provider) is the best option out there for Fast Internet and a good selection of bundles. My only problem is with the hardware. I would like to get rid of the $50+/month bills for the 2 DVRs and 3 STB's. I would rather use CableCards buy my STB's and DVR's which is what I am working on (HDHomeRun Prime and WDTVLive etc. but still not there yet - Apple could really help with this). But, I feel the actual content on top of a fast internet connection is not a bad deal for me.

But like I said in another comment... why not just pay for shows instead of channels?

A channel runs 24 hours a day... and you will never be able to consume all of it. And there's another problem with channels: if you pay for ABC because you like "Castle"... you are also paying for "The View"

That doesn't seem like a good mix

Obviously most people don't have a problem paying for the firehose of channels on cable and satellite. But I guess it depends on how much of a TV watcher you are.

You can "cut the cord" and only buy the certain shows you want.

Or you can pay for the firehose.

And if you are paying for the firehose anyway... why not get the most channels you can get?

I never understood the "I get too many channels" argument...

[d21mike]

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip

But like I said in another comment... why not just pay for shows instead of channels?

A channel runs 24 hours a day... and you will never be able to consume all of it. And there's another problem with channels: if you pay for ABC because you like "Castle"... you are also paying for "The View"

That doesn't seem like a good mix

Obviously most people don't have a problem paying for the firehose of channels on cable and satellite. But I guess it depends on how much of a TV watcher you are.

You can "cut the cord" and only buy the certain shows you want.

Or you can pay for the firehose.

And if you are paying for the firehose anyway... why not get the most channels you can get?

I never understood the "I get too many channels" argument...

I agree. My point was that buying a bundle does not necessarily mean more money. Example: Verizon FIOS has a "Local Digital 75 Ch, 16 HD" bundle. Next more expensive Bundle is "Prime HD 274 Ch, 71 HD". I assume other providers have a similar plans if you simply want the less channels to go with Broadband Internet. Then create your favorite's list of most watched channels.

For me 90% of my regular shows are all on the DVR so I seldom worry about the number of channels I have available.

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by d21mike

I agree. My point was that buying a bundle does not necessarily mean more money. Example: Verizon FIOS has a "Local Digital 75 Ch, 16 HD" bundle. Next more expensive Bundle is "Prime HD 274 Ch, 71 HD". I assume other providers have a similar plans if you simply want the less channels to go with Broadband Internet. Then create your favorite's list of most watched channels.

For me 90% of my regular shows are all on the DVR so I seldom worry about the number of channels I have available.

Gotcha.

Yeah... cable companies usually have different tiers that offer more channels.

Basic
Expanded Basic
Digital Premium
etc

I just checked Time Warner Cable's website and these are the plans that came up:

$33.99 - 20+ Channels
$41.95 - 150+ Channels
$49.99 - 200+ Channels

$8 more per month gets you 7 times as many channels. Or $16 more per month for 10 times as many channels. At that point it doesn't really make sense to go with the lower tiers.

But people still complain "I'm paying for C-SPAN even though I never watch it."

Ugh...

[Lil Chillbil]

dang I need more cable

I didn't even know I needed this until they showed me

[SeaFox]

Originally Posted by Lil Chillbil

dang I need more cable

I didn't even know I needed this until they showed me

Of course.

It's the entertainment industry's wet dream that not only everyone subscribe to pay TV, but they subscribe to TWO pay TV packages.

With Intel's wording about this being used to "supplement" an existing cable TV subscription, I wonder if their licensing terms require users have active cable TV service to be able to subscribe. That would certainly explain the need to negotiate the licensing on a city-by-city basis. They have to make agreements with the incumbent pay TV provider and possibly the local franchising authority will be involved.

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip

I just checked Time Warner Cable's website and these are the plans that came up:

$33.99 - 20+ Channels
$41.95 - 150+ Channels
$49.99 - 200+ Channels

$8 more per month gets you 7 times as many channels. Or $16 more per month for 10 times as many channels. At that point it doesn't really make sense to go with the lower tiers.

That's what they want you to think.

The $33.99 package is likely an analog cable service. In other words, straight to the TV, no boxes required, flat rate for the whole house. Digital service will require equipment fees on top of the $41.95/mo. You're now paying extra per set in the house. Plus, the headaches that their boxes bring.

Digital cable is a gateway drug to get you hooked on expensive PPV/VOD offerings and subscribe to premium channel packages down the road. It's much easier to do this when you can change services with a simple phone call or order with a few presses of the remote, whereas with analog service they have to send a tech out to remove filters on the pole.

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by SeaFox

That's what they want you to think.

The $33.99 package is likely an analog cable service. In other words, straight to the TV, no boxes required, flat rate for the whole house. Digital service will require equipment fees on top of the $41.95/mo. You're now paying extra per set in the house. Plus, the headaches that their boxes bring.

Digital cable is a gateway drug to get you hooked on expensive PPV/VOD offerings and subscribe to premium channel packages down the road. It's much easier to do this when you can change services with a simple phone call or order with a few presses of the remote, whereas with analog service they have to send a tech out to remove filters on the pole.

True... but any rational person would want a DVR these days... which would require a box anyway.

My point was... cable companies already offer different levels of service.

Can cable service get rather expensive? Sure. But you are getting 200 channels... 24 hours a day... and that's a ton of programming for one monthly fee.

I don't see that changing anytime soon. That business model is pretty well baked.

There are alternatives... iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon... but cable and satellite will be around for a while.

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by SeaFox

Of course.

It's the entertainment industry's wet dream that not only everyone subscribe to pay TV, but they subscribe to TWO pay TV packages.

With Intel's wording about this being used to "supplement" an existing cable TV subscription, I wonder if their licensing terms require users have active cable TV service to be able to subscribe. That would certainly explain the need to negotiate the licensing on a city-by-city basis. They have to make agreements with the incumbent pay TV provider and possibly the local franchising authority will be involved.




That's what they want you to think.

The $33.99 package is likely an analog cable service. In other words, straight to the TV, no boxes required, flat rate for the whole house. Digital service will require equipment fees on top of the $41.95/mo. You're now paying extra per set in the house. Plus, the headaches that their boxes bring.

Digital cable is a gateway drug to get you hooked on expensive PPV/VOD offerings and subscribe to premium channel packages down the road. It's much easier to do this when you can change services with a simple phone call or order with a few presses of the remote, whereas with analog service they have to send a tech out to remove filters on the pole.

It is truly amazing that so many people are making comments about TV distribution while having not a clue about current industry trends. One such trend is the disappearance of analog cable. Comcast implemented its all digital Xfinity service so as to require a set top box. My local Suddenlink franchise is now 100% digital, but requires a STB only for premium channels.

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.

[Lil Chillbil]

hmmmmm something that will most likely fail because you need to own the system before you can get the add on

where have I seen this before

[designs216]

Sounds good (although the cable TV monopolies are entrenched like kudzu).

[RobNYC]

Originally Posted by bigpics

Last I read they've abandoned further rollouts of the service altogether - they're maintaining subscribers in the areas they've already "wired," but for whatever reasons - cap investment or low uptake or whatever - expansion doesn't seem in their cards. Or hasn't.

What I read was at least a year or two old, though..... ....so if someone wants to correct me, as the landscape is changing and the Fios tech might be promising in that landscape in ways it wasn't then....

...and they still market to equipped homes. My apartment building was set up and I still get email offers for sign-up packages.

You have it right at least from what I remember reading too. I think they're still expanding in cities they had already gotten franchise rights or whatever. So here in NYC, they're still rolling out to new neighborhoods. Unfortunately, they still have yet to hook my block up despite the fact that our building is all fiber optically wired and ready to go.

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by Consultant

So Intel is resorting to copying actual Apple laptops to copying rumors of potential Apple product. That's going to end well.

IMO, also confirms a need to find other i5/i7 sales. All Mac devices will be ARM in a few years, and Intel is aware.

[RobNYC]

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip

Gotcha.

Yeah... cable companies usually have different tiers that offer more channels.

Basic
Expanded Basic
Digital Premium
etc

I just checked Time Warner Cable's website and these are the plans that came up:

$33.99 - 20+ Channels
$41.95 - 150+ Channels
$49.99 - 200+ Channels

$8 more per month gets you 7 times as many channels. Or $16 more per month for 10 times as many channels. At that point it doesn't really make sense to go with the lower tiers.

But people still complain "I'm paying for C-SPAN even though I never watch it."

Ugh...

Time Warner also makes you pay for the Digital Cable package if you want an HD box. They can technically claim they don't charge for HD channels but only if you're paying for digital cable. For everyone else they have to upgrade their service.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

IMO, also confirms a need to find other i5/i7 sales. All Mac devices will be ARM in a few years, and Intel is aware.

Apple would most likely make a huge mistake going to ARM for their desktops and laptops. They'd lose performance. Big time, and ruin the user experience of the Mac, by making it incompatible with the majority of the Desktop software in the world.

And even if Macs went all ARM, Intel doesn't need Apple to do well.

I'm personally welcoming any new players into the game, competition is always good.

And for all these comments that Intel has no experience, well if we used your logic. Apple should have never made the iPhone, because they had no experience in making a phone.

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by G51989

Apple would most likely make a huge mistake going to ARM for their desktops and laptops. They'd lose performance. Big time, and ruin the user experience of the Mac, by making it incompatible with the majority of the Desktop software in the world.

And even if Macs went all ARM, Intel doesn't need Apple to do well.

I'm personally welcoming any new players into the game, competition is always good.

And for all these comments that Intel has no experience, well if we used your logic. Apple should have never made the iPhone, because they had no experience in making a phone.

Never said Intel has no experience.

Personally I would LOVE to see Intel Fab ARM Chipsets Designed by Apple. But they insist on their 22nm ATOM. Once other fabs get their 22nm up and producing ARM sets, Intel will no longer have any advantage. IMO, ATOM will never see the lower power consumption of ARM.

Global Foundries, or TSC will fab Apple ARM designs with an entire plant dedicated to Apple. IMO, it will be Global Foundries. IMO, the new plant will be in Upstate, NY not Oregon.

6-30-14 ends the chip contract with Samsung. Apple needs to kiss and make up, or have a new supplier with some supply constraints possible into Q2 2015.Personally, I think it will be the latter. But one never knows in todays word.

6m is an eternity.

[G51989]

Originally Posted by Glideslope

Never said Intel has no experience.

Didn't say you said that, lots of people have

Personally I would LOVE to see Intel Fab ARM Chipsets Designed by Apple. But they insist on their 22nm ATOM. Once other fabs get their 22nm up and producing ARM sets, Intel will no longer have any advantage. IMO, ATOM will never see the lower power consumption of ARM.

The thing is, Intel is using all of their capacity, they would make less money fabbing chips for Apple than they do fabbing chips for themselves, whats in it for them?

And who says Intel can't catch up to ARM chips in power consumption? 2 things.

1: The only reason ARM chips consume less power is because the best ARM has to offer is 2002-2004 desktop performance, thats about a decade behind the curve, I personally wouldn't be willing to move to a low performing system.
2: ARM is just an instruction set, there is no reasons that an X86 based chip can't be just as power efficient as an ARM chip.

Global Foundries, or TSC will fab Apple ARM designs with an entire plant dedicated to Apple. IMO, it will be Global Foundries. IMO, the new plant will be in Upstate, NY not Oregon.

It will most likely be TSCM, I have not seen any other fabs interested in Apples orders, at least on the level Apple wants. GF, Intel, and IBM don't seem interested.

6-30-14 ends the chip contract with Samsung. Apple needs to kiss and make up, or have a new supplier with some supply constraints possible into Q2 2015.Personally, I think it will be the latter. But one never knows in todays word.

Exactly, its why Apple it looking for other Fabs other than Samsung.

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by G51989

Didn't say you said that, lots of people have



The thing is, Intel is using all of their capacity, they would make less money fabbing chips for Apple than they do fabbing chips for themselves, whats in it for them?

And who says Intel can't catch up to ARM chips in power consumption? 2 things.

1: The only reason ARM chips consume less power is because the best ARM has to offer is 2002-2004 desktop performance, thats about a decade behind the curve, I personally wouldn't be willing to move to a low performing system.
2: ARM is just an instruction set, there is no reasons that an X86 based chip can't be just as power efficient as an ARM chip.



It will most likely be TSCM, I have not seen any other fabs interested in Apples orders, at least on the level Apple wants. GF, Intel, and IBM don't seem interested.



Exactly, its why Apple it looking for other Fabs other than Samsung.

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.

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.