Intel reportedly close to offering al a carte TV

[MikeD-C05]

I like the idea of being able to buy per show and not necessarily by channel. I have certain shows I like ,but rarely watch the channels they come on ,except for that show. The Walking Dead & Mad Men is all I watch on AMC. For FX all I really watch is American Horror Story. On BBC America , I watch Dr.Who , Grahm Norton show, Being Human. I watch Syfy for Warehouse 13 and the American version of Being Human. I don't watch ANY Sports channels at all. I mostly like network tv & ota sub channels and love having the hopper for it. If I could keep locals and just pay for the shows I watch and not the networks, I would save a ton of money. In fact if DISH would do the Welcome pack in HD and allow me to buy just the shows I watch and not the channels they come on, I could probably save a small fortune a year. DISH could do that by loading of the Vods for each channel and allow you to buy them even if you didn't sub to the channel. The sticking point would be the actual price of each vod. Knowing DISH they would charge $6.99 per show ,making the idea useless.

 

[Dah-Henny]

Nope...satellite is the only game in town. I'm prolly the only one with high speed fiber on my road. I can get PBS and CW OTA, but nothing from Charlotte. I'd have to get a divorce without the big 4.

 

[dare2be]

I like the idea of being able to buy per show and not necessarily by channel. I have certain shows I like ,but rarely watch the channels they come on ,except for that show. The Walking Dead & Mad Men is all I watch on AMC. For FX all I really watch is American Horror Story. On BBC America , I watch Dr.Who , Grahm Norton show, Being Human. I watch Syfy for Warehouse 13 and the American version of Being Human. I don't watch ANY Sports channels at all. I mostly like network tv & ota sub channels and love having the hopper for it. If I could keep locals and just pay for the shows I watch and not the networks, I would save a ton of money. In fact if DISH would do the Welcome pack in HD and allow me to buy just the shows I watch and not the channels they come on, I could probably save a small fortune a year. DISH could do that by loading of the Vods for each channel and allow you to buy them even if you didn't sub to the channel. The sticking point would be the actual price of each vod. Knowing DISH they would charge $6.99 per show ,making the idea useless.

Sounds like my idea for metered usage would be best for you then.

 

[pickone4me]

Hope it happens soon!

 

[Teehar]

What would stop local channels from being made available via the internet?They would be able to get the income direct instead of going through a middle man.imo it would be a good business move for them.They could tell who is in the dma by ip address.

 

[empiretc]

I like the idea of being able to buy per show and not necessarily by channel.

Only problem with that, is they want $3 per episode on Amazon. Hulu is really only good for network stuff. We did the Tivo thing a few years back. We have free local cable (crappy as hell), but that with OTA on the tivo was ok.

If they offered something like the Welcome Pack (in HD), with the option of adding additional channels at ~$2/mo per, we would be all over that. Our bill would probably end up being around the same, but we could then get channels back that are only on AT250 and it would definitely feel like we were getting our money's worth.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Sounds like my idea for metered usage would be best for you then.

I guess you are right. Sounds like an idea that DISH should actually offer. Internet companies offer metered use, why not sat and cable companies do the same? At least on the national cable channels.

 

[Dah-Henny]

I guess those of us that sometimes have the tv on for background noise would get hosed on the metered plan.

 

[Stargazer]

Dish offers a low cost $20 package already and in Canada they have more tiers on bell express vu or at least they used to. I think there may be enough companies out there to justify enough channels to make a possible a LA carte or smaller groups of cheap channel offerings. These may not be include the most popular channels that we like though that insist on being bundled.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[DishSubLA]

The problem is just about all the content providers are AGAINST any type of A la Carte pricing. Only the most narrow channels such as Bloomberg and BabyTV seem to relent on A la Carte, probably because they lack the leverage of not being part of an mega media company such as Disney, NBC/Universal, et al.

Apple's recent move to try and partner with and MSO for their Apple TV product just affirms how utterly unwilling the content providers are to get on board with "Internet TV" service. Let's not forget that Dish has been trying to cobble together a low cost Internet TV service just as others, but Dish claims that the content providers fear that such a service would erode the value of those services with traditional MVPD's, where they make the MOST money today. Dish claims that they are trying to persuade content providers that the Internet TV service would be a whole different subscriber: younger, who refuse to subscribe to any MVPD because of it's high cost, and who feel very comfortable with content via the Web without big boxes and drilling for cables and 2 year commitments, but are willing to pay for content at a lower rate and ONLY for the most popular channels, as RSN's and any other sports channels, all of which are very expensive and are responsible to a fair degree of the high MVPD monthly bills, will NOT be part of such services.

No one has made headway on this. There is just too much money being made with the traditional MVPD's. The wall probably won't be breached until MVPD subs reach their limit (can't be too much further in the future) and start cord cutting as a matter of economic survival. The content providers have NEVER had any vision and were so limited in their vision, they greatly underestimated the explosive popularity of Netflix. They ought to start listening to Apple, Dish, Google, and Intel.

However, back to the Intel "coup": Hmm. Not a single major nor popular media company nor channel was announced nor cited in that article as content available via the Intel box. This conspicuous LACK of horn blowing just means that the Intel box will have its Intel App Store, as cited and, most likely, obscure services similar as seen on your Roku beyond the 3 or 4 real reasons (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu Plus, you fill in the 4th) you pay for a web subscription service. No announcement of Disney, Discover Networks, A&E/Hearst Channels, NBC/Universal channels, et al. not a single channel that people really watch. Me don't thinks one will be getting Deadliest Catch anytime soon on the Intel box.

 

[The Fat Man]

What I never did, but am thinking about doing is seeing how much Comcast charges its subscribers for all of its own channels. They owned quite a bit before buying the NBC/Universal package of channels.

 

[dare2be]

I guess those of us that sometimes have the tv on for background noise would get hosed on the metered plan.

That's why I said metered plans should be an option. It's not for everyone.

For those that say the major content providers would never allow it, never say never. The tipping point is getting closer and closer. It's up to us to make that final push over the edge by lowering package levels or cutting the cord entirely.

 

[rapidturtle]

Only problem with that, is they want $3 per episode on Amazon. Hulu is really only good for network stuff. We did the Tivo thing a few years back. We have free local cable (crappy as hell), but that with OTA on the tivo was ok.

If they offered something like the Welcome Pack (in HD), with the option of adding additional channels at ~$2/mo per, we would be all over that. Our bill would probably end up being around the same, but we could then get channels back that are only on AT250 and it would definitely feel like we were getting our money's worth.

I like your idea. Just give us a base package for $20 or $30 A month and then let us add what we want, instead of being forced into a higher package with channels that we don't watch, just for one or two channels. Your statement of feel like we are getting our money's worth, hits the nail right on the head. I could get away with 20 channels or so, and be a happy camper.
I really think that it will eventually come to this. Maybe not this year or next, but how much longer can we keep absorbing these price increases. $1 or $2 a year increase, I could take, but when they start $5 and $10 a month, that starts to hurt after 3 or 4 years of it.

 

[Blindowl1234]

I hope it works out. We've paid far too long for crap we don't watch and don't want. I can name about 10 channels my family watches on a regular basis. Sadly a few of them are in the top tier so like many we're stuck. Change is coming and not soon enough for me.

 

[DodgerKing]

If you can get any of the same channels you currently get with cable or satellite, I would be willing to bet you will end up paying more for the 20 channels you want vs the 200 you would get with cable or satellite.

 

[DodgerKing]

Until I see a cost per channel and cost per show I won't be excited.

I assume these costs would vary based on the channel and the show.

Who knows, your bill could actually be higher.

Exactly. I would bet it will be higher for the average viewer

 

[wallyhts]

The only thing I can think of is Data Caps Data Caps.

 

[harshness]

The choice is not in their hands, it is in the hands (and wallets) of the consumers, who will need to start saying "no" to the current pay-tv bundling/extortion model. Without the revenue stream, channel providers would be forced to acquiesce.

The problem is that in the interim, the carriers disappear and the content producers are left with nobody to distribute their product.

Intel is no closer to a la carte than any of the other carriers and perhaps not even as close if they cannot serve those without one of the existing carriers to provide broadband service.

 

[mike123abc]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...15692892912404-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwMjEwNDIyWj.html

Looks like the TV cartel is blocking Intel too:

Meanwhile, content licensing is seen as another obstacle. Entertainment companies are typically loath to strike deals with Web TV services, fearing they could undercut the existing lucrative pay-TV ecosystem. One executive at a big TV company said last month that he didn't want to be among the first to negotiate a deal with Intel for fear of disrupting his relationship with existing distributors.

Entertainment companies typically license bundles of channels that include both popular networks and lesser-known channels. The TV executive said Intel wanted to offer channels outside of that conventional pay-TV bundle.

Persuading companies to license individual channels would require far higher fees than the companies currently receive, this executive said, noting that his company and Intel were far from reaching an agreement on financial terms.

But Intel has so far reached at least one content deal, one of the people familiar with Intel's plans said, without identifying the partner.

 

[yaz96]

Agreed, it's like the ala carte naysayers are acting like it'll be ala carte or nothing. Of course that would never work and most would pay more for less. But to have all options of package tiers, ala carte and metered usage would benefit not only the consumers, but the provider as well.

I don't see ANY naysayers here, just some with their heads not in the clouds. It is VERY unlikely the programmers would allow this to happen. That's the reality.