Intel attempts to break Cable Model?
 

http://www.businessinsider.com/intel...#ixzz2GkSFccYf

I would absolutely love to buy only the channels\shows I wanted...

If they succeed, about damn time!

+1 for sure.

IPTV is going to destroy a lot of money hungry TV services, cable or otherwise.

About damn time. Thank you Intel, and PLEASE go through with it.

Pretty neat. I haven't watched tv in months.

Turn on Tv, look around, nothing on, turn off(600 channels of nothing I like)

Good luck intel, hope u succeed.

this is why I like hulu plus

This would be just awesome. I would actually use this as there were only 5 channels I ever watched before I cut cable.

It sounds too good to be true. Many interests will fight this tooth and nail. If anyone can do this it would be intel though.

This would be great!!! I hope they succeed in this venture:)

Oh please make this happen. I know of a few people that would really like to subscribe to just one or two channels, and not the whole lot.

i dont know anyone who actually watches live TV any more. cable isnt a big thing in the Au, so its either DVD/BD rentals, or downloads (legal or otherwise)


companies not already in the 'TV' market need to step in and change things worldwide, and i guess intel has the money and power to do just that.

Good Idea .....But what will the Cable do if you go over your download caps?Charge you extra for it.Take mine for instance ,I go over my 80 gigs a month they charge an extra $1.50 per gig....So if Intel does this You will probably pay the same amount maybe more IF they have Netflix(paid sub a month $29.99 Canadian)Then add Hulu Plus and all the other channels up......Not saying Intel is wrong just think about the hidden costs after that some Cable company will try to pull on you.Really is it worth it.

Internet cost
$49.99 +$1.50 per gig over your Download caps.
$29.99 a month for Netflix
$19.99 a month for Hulu Plus (it is paid service up here)
$5 per channel you watch ...Say you want sports channels Like NFL /TSN/ESPN/FOX/NBC/CBS/ABC that = $35 a month
Now add all that up and you get the same amount as a cable bill.

Help me to understand why this will ever happen. I can see the dialog going like this:

Intel: We want to offer unbundled cable channels.
Content Provider (CP): How?
Intel: We offer an IP TV service, with our own box.
CP: OK, you have a platform. You need our content. What benefits do you offer over traditional medium?
Intel: We charge a higher per channel price, while offering consumers the perceived ability to cut out what they don't want.
CP: So, how do we support tertiary or new channels?
Intel:.... Consumers choose what they want. It's better than them completely skipping out on cable....
CP: I think we're done here. Good luck getting consumers to switch over, given that you don't have any content.


Intel has to get someone ballsy to step-up and take the first swing. I don't see it happening, given that large networks have only just embraced a new delivery medium (see Hulu and Netflix). They would see unbundled TV channels as a threat to their bread and butter. Once TV is on its last legs I see this as more prevalent.

Hopefully I'm just a jaded fool. It seems like professionals seem to agree with the sentiments. All I know is that the math is pretty bleak either way.

Internet: 69.99
Cable: 72.99 (minimum package giving me the 5 channels I really want)
Total: 142.98

Internet: 69.99
Cable (5 channels@ $5): 25
Hulu Subscription: 7.99
Netflix Subscription: 7.99
Total: 110.97

Saving 32 dollars a month is a free week of transportation. I don't see why cable companies are necessary for content providers. They stand between them and the customer, artificially raising the price of the service. Intel wants to cut them out, and save the consumer. There is only one huge obstacle in the way....

i pay like 37 euro for tv and internet unlimited ammount of gb's in downloading
i only got a speed cap of 1mb download speed and 130kb's upload speed

The only fear I have is Cable\Internet companies in the US will refuse to change bandwidth caps to accommodate this. As it is, Comcast doesn't count bandwidth used for their services (Xfinity and Voice) but does for competing services, which I think is about as anti-competitive as it gets. Hopefully Google Fiber takes off and spreads like a virus because I have no problem paying more for a service that is infinitely superior...

I am only interested in a handful of channels; HBO, Showtime, FX, ESPN, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, and the standard basic local\broadcast channels. So assuming 10 channels, even at a staggering $5 a pop, I'd still be paying less than I would for just basic cable--which is about $60-80 a month here.

This has been coming for some time. Comcast has no choice to but to stop the bandwidth games and it all ready has. They no longer cap total internet data. I predict in about 5 years they will be no cable tv companies only internet channels.

I would get this without question. I watch FX...and FX, and more FX. And AMC. There's maybe a FEW other channels I'd want, namely the History Channel, USA...and that is about it. No sense paying for all those channels only to watch a few.

Exactly. I watch maybe 5-10 channels when I actually turn my TV on, which is usually never.

+1,,,,Same here. I have a 48"television , a 21"flat panel Television, and My PC in the Same "Man Cave", and I've ONLY turned on the Bigger of the Two T.V.'s to play Gran Turismo , and that was over a year and a half ago.The smaller only get's turned on so I can watch local new's, or if My internet goes out. I cannot believe that this has been able to continue for SO long now(cable Co's policies). I truly hope this happens sooner than later.For ALL of our sake.

This is all fine and dandy if you have high speed Internet......sadly a lot of the US doesn't. Also most cable companies maintain the lines. Not Intel. Good luck Intel.

I have to agree with mailman, Once cable providers see people going to this intelbox they will start restricting internet due to that being their only cash cow. its going to be a big play on the weakest link!

Well, it sounds good but guess what? The ISP's (at least in the US) will start capping bandwidth or useage to those who don't also subscribe to TV if this turns out to eat thier market share.

May not be true for places that have alternative ISP's like cable and FIOS (forget DSL).

I like the idea a lot, who knows if it'll pan out.

EDIT: Mailman and Brandon beat me to it!

ISPs do TV too there? Can't you switch ISP's if that is the case? I can probably choose from at least 5 ISP's with at least 100/25 here. Or is this another example of how inferior the US is? :roll:

EDIT: They do TV here too, but you usually have tons of choices.

Your nation is smaller than most states man. Its apples to Mars when it comes to size and population density when comparing Europe to the US and ISP's. Its getting better but in some places in the US you can't hardly get a phone due to the remoteness of some areas, never mind Internet.

I know I know. :)