Intel to offer a-la-carte TV channel subscriptions

[CLONECONES]

Intel Is Reportedly Going To Destroy The Cable Model By Offering People The Ability To Subscribe To Individual Channels - Business Insider

For the first time, consumers will be able to subscribe to content per channel, unlike bundled cable services, and you may also be able to subscribe per show as well. Intel’s set-top box will also have access to Intel’s already existing app marketplace for apps, casual games, and video on demand.

Leveraging the speed of current broadband, and the vast shared resources of the cloud, Intel plans to give customers the ability to use “Cloud DVRâ€￾, a feature intended to allow users to watch any past TV show at any time, without the need to record it ahead of time, pause live tv, and rewind shows in progress.

It's an interesting read but that's the key paragraph.

DEATH TO CABLE BUNDLING

 

[CycoCyclone]

God, I hope so.

 

[cyhawkdmb]

I have been saying this for years!

 

[IcSyU]

I'd be willing to bet Intel loses a loooooot of money on this if true.

 

[Stewo]

The money-hungry bastards in the right places won't allow it to happen. It would be amazing though.

 

[brianhos]

The companies that own the channels will never go for it.

 

[erikbj]

Not sure how this will play out, could have a bad long term trickle down effect

Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.


If people don't want to pay $20+ for ESPN, it could result in a huge decrease in revenue and ESPN/FOX defaulting on these megadeals they gave the Big 12, and the other conferences.

 

[CysRage]

I can't see every channel agreeing to this. Most media companies forced cable companies to add less popular channels to get the more popular channels. For examples they force them to add Nick Jr in order to get MTV. These media companies will lose money in an ala carte model. In addition, read the bottom of the article, the prices could actually be more expensive for somebody who watches more cable than the average user since costs would raise for some channels in an ala carte model. Don't get me wrong I would love for this to happen but it could and probably be very watered down.

 

[bos]

Cable will definitely need to drop their ******** bandwidth caps.

 

[ia8manfan]

I would pay $20/month during football season to just get ESPN (and also FSN). The rest of cable is just garbage. We cut the cord 18 months ago, and except missing random games, I don't regret it. I was home for Christmas and realized that I was paying $100/month for crap.

 

[iowast8fan]

Unbundled programming will not be cheap...

Those bundles are core to today’s TV ecosystem. And the TV guys insist that consumers really don’t want “a la carte” programming, because if they do, the channels/shows they like today will end up costing much, much more.

Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

​

 

[HFCS]

Not sure how this will play out, could have a bad long term trickle down effect

Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.


If people don't want to pay $20+ for ESPN, it could result in a huge decrease in revenue and ESPN/FOX defaulting on these megadeals they gave the Big 12, and the other conferences.

Wouldn't that be great for ISU staying in a geographically logical power conference long term?

 

[MLawrence]

The companies that own the channels will never go for it.

I agree with this, and it doesn't help that a majority of the channels are owned by the same few companies.

 

[JD720]

As expected...

Intel wants to launch its own set-top box, which would allow people to subscribe to individual channels. The plan was to release it in limited beta this March.
But now it seems that we might have to wait a little while longer.
That's because the company is having a hard time reaching content licensing agreements with media companies, sources familiar with Intel's plans tell the Journal.
Intel reportedly has at least one content deal, but is facing difficulties persuading other companies to license individual channels.


Read more: Intel's Plan To Destroy Cable Is Already Running Into Delays (INTC) - SFGate​

 

[HFCS]

I would pay $20/month during football season to just get ESPN (and also FSN). The rest of cable is just garbage. We cut the cord 18 months ago, and except missing random games, I don't regret it. I was home for Christmas and realized that I was paying $100/month for crap.

I'm the same way. I have DirecTV in my condo building built into my fees, but outside of college football I really don't watch it at all. A rerun of Seinfeld at bedtime twice a month is my non-ESPN tv usage. I watch Chicago Bulls basketball but almost half of those games are free over the air in HD. I also watched live election returns on...PBS...which also would be free in HD over the air.

I think people are generally like us where they watch practically no tv, or they are addicted to 5+ household hours of TV a day which probably would be outrageously expensive a la carte.

 

[Clonefan94]

The companies that own the channels will never go for it.

No kidding, the Big 10 Network would take a huge hit. Especially since it's one of the most expensive channels out there.

 

[ripvdub]

Maybe if theRe weren't so many ****** channels out there it wouldn't be a big deal. I would love to drop cable, but the wife would never go for it. She watches too much crap on crappy stations

 

[benjay]

Not sure how this will play out, could have a bad long term trickle down effect

Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN. And, by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.


If people don't want to pay $20+ for ESPN, it could result in a huge decrease in revenue and ESPN/FOX defaulting on these megadeals they gave the Big 12, and the other conferences.

Maybe it needs to happen. The draconian bundling of channels and the ever-increasing cost of cable is already pushing people to streaming services - which cuts networks much further out of the loop than a la cart channel offerings would.

 

[HFCS]

No kidding, the Big 10 Network would take a huge hit. Especially since it's one of the most expensive channels out there.

It's the example of a type of channel that should be a la carte and unlike Disney or Viacom they don't have other channels with broader appeal. I doubt this model is going to become the norm, but I would love if BTN ends up being a la carte per subscriber and the Big Ten is stuck with their crappy Rutgers/Maryland add.

 

[bos]

Everybody wants to do this, CES will be full of it. I dont see it taking off just yet. Too many politics.