view:

topics flat nest

Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT Simba7 Member So... My idea (CATVoIP) might actually come to life? Is the world ending?

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16 ITALIAN926 Member Re: So... That was YOUR idea?

dib22

join:2002-01-27

Kansas City, MO dib22 to Simba7

Member to Simba7

said by Simba7: My idea (CATVoIP) might actually come to life? Is the world ending? Time warner (and it's clones brighthouse and cox) has been running it's cable over IP since the 90's.

v6movement

@135.23.225.x v6movement Anon Re: So... said by dib22: Time warner (and it's clones brighthouse and cox) has been running it's cable over IP since the 90's. If only that was true. BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT BiggA to dib22

Premium Member to dib22

Not the last mile. Although AT&T has been doing this for nearly a decade now with U-Verse, although that's on a closed network, not OTT.

Sarick

It's Only Logical

Premium Member

join:2003-06-03

USA Sarick to Simba7

Premium Member to Simba7

A few people out there have minds that think alike.

Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 18.2 1.6

1 edit Simba7 Member Re: So... said by Sarick: A few people out there have minds that think alike.



Heck, I remember when I told my parents (back in 1991) that, sometime in the future, we'll be able to watch movies on a disc the size of a CD.



They were like "Mhmm.." Of course, 4 years later.. out comes the DVD.. Unless you count the VCD, which was 2 years later and not well known in the U.S.



..of course I was 14 at the time. True.. True..Heck, I remember when I told my parents (back in 1991) that, sometime in the future, we'll be able to watch movies on a disc the size of a CD.They were like "Mhmm.." Of course, 4 years later.. out comes the DVD.. Unless you count the VCD, which was 2 years later and not well known in the U.S...of course I was 14 at the time.

Sarick

It's Only Logical

Premium Member

join:2003-06-03

USA 4 edits Sarick Premium Member Re: So...



LaserDisc or (LD) is a home video format and the first commercial optical disc storage medium, initially licensed, sold, and marketed as MCA DiscoVision (also known as simply "DiscoVision") in North America in 1978.



»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaserDisc



Keep in mind back when those big dish satellites took off a-la-carte channels where very popular. When the smaller digital dishs came and al-carte channels slowly went away.



What we're seeing is something of a method of reintroduction of a-la-carte channels using a newer distribution technology that can dump the middleman entierly.



I assume the reason why pay-per-channel was eliminated was because big cable companies and satellite providers took full control of the distribution outlets. This allowed the content providers to negotiate directly with big cable/satellite bypassing the costumers ability to choose a-al-carta channels. All because the distribution medium was a monopolized market of big cable/satellite companies.



With the internet having being opened up the neutral video distribution medium it grants people direct access to content owners so they can get content without going through cable/satellite providers negotiations. This enabling the customers more direct competition with the content owners who force bundled deals to big cable/satellite companies.



It's just a new way to get a-la-carte content. (please excuse my confusion with the spelling of a-la-carte) i can't remember how to spell it right. Yea but, they already had laserdisc back in the late 70's with the exception of the size that you mentioned.LaserDisc or (LD) is a home video format and the first commercial optical disc storage medium, initially licensed, sold, and marketed as MCA DiscoVision (also known as simply "DiscoVision") in North America in 1978.Keep in mind back when those big dish satellites took off a-la-carte channels where very popular. When the smaller digital dishs came and al-carte channels slowly went away.What we're seeing is something of a method of reintroduction of a-la-carte channels using a newer distribution technology that can dump the middleman entierly.I assume the reason why pay-per-channel was eliminated was because big cable companies and satellite providers took full control of the distribution outlets. This allowed the content providers to negotiate directly with big cable/satellite bypassing the costumers ability to choose a-al-carta channels. All because the distribution medium was a monopolized market of big cable/satellite companies.With the internet having being opened up the neutral video distribution medium it grants people direct access to content owners so they can get content without going through cable/satellite providers negotiations. This enabling the customers more direct competition with the content owners who force bundled deals to big cable/satellite companies.It's just a new way to get a-la-carte content. (please excuse my confusion with the spelling of a-la-carte) i can't remember how to spell it right.

Simba7

I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24

Fromberg, MT 18.2 1.6

Simba7 Member Re: So... said by Sarick: Yea but, they already had laserdisc back in the late 70's with the exception of the size that you mentioned.



I also have Star Wars 4, 5, and 6 on LD. It's nice to see a version of Star Wars without it constantly changing with every release. I'm familiar with LaserDisc. I have 2 players here, a Pioneer and an RCA. The Pioneer is hooked up to my desktop via a capture card. That, and a Panasonic AG-1970.I also have Star Wars 4, 5, and 6 on LD. It's nice to see a version of Star Wars without it constantly changing with every release.

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA maartena Premium Member Good news! This is good news! This move can create a whole range of new media startups. Or even Netflix adding a "channel add on" to its streaming package or something.



On the other hand, if this doesn't go hand in hand with scrapping some of the more severe datacaps that exist with some smaller providers, it's not going to help some consumers.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16 ITALIAN926 Member Re: Good news! Its not going to help anyone. Standalone channels will be way more expensive individually. 54761437 (banned)

join:2013-01-18

Durham, NC 54761437 (banned) Member Re: Good news! Great. Then if no one subscribes to any of them, networks and content producers will either have to reduce their costs and lower the monthly price, or go out of business. Sounds like a win-win considering cable TV is utter garbage now. KyL416

join:2005-12-28

Tobyhanna, PA KyL416 Member Re: Good news! One small problem, it's the utter garbage that gets the higher ratings and will survive

NoBundling

@50.182.138.x NoBundling to maartena

Anon to maartena

said by maartena: This is good news! This move can create a whole range of new media startups. Or even Netflix adding a "channel add on" to its streaming package or something.



On the other hand, if this doesn't go hand in hand with scrapping some of the more severe datacaps that exist with some smaller providers, it's not going to help some consumers. I'd be more impressed if Wheeler also fought to let cable companies have the right to buy unbundled shows like he wants to give to OTT providers. In other words, prevent the content companies from forcing bundling on any company they deal with. 81037901 (banned)

join:2014-10-27

USA 81037901 (banned) Member Re: Good news! Who says cable doesn't already have this option? Nobody knows what goes on behind those closed doors except the people behind them. Until then nobody knows nothing. 81037901 81037901 (banned) to maartena

Member to maartena

Others have been doing this. This only gives those companies access to more channels. But in the same time it adds a new tax onto those companies. More regulation instead of letting the open market decide what goes on.



More regulation is not always the answer, especially in this case.

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA maartena Premium Member double double

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18

Moscow, ID karlmarx Member Don't forget the data caps What's the point of ANY video over IP if you are subjected to data caps? I mean, if an average HD stream is about 1.5GB/hour, you could get about 5 hours a day total (assuming you did NOTHING ELSE). I for one, would be more than willing to pay $1-2.00 per channel, and only chose the 5-6 channels I watch. But with data caps, there's literally no point, since the overage charges would FAR exceed the cost savings you would get from the 5-6 channels.

Yucca Servic

join:2012-11-27

Rio Rancho, NM Yucca Servic Member Solve what Does this solve the I want what I want, any show,movie I want it now, anytime I want it, Where I want it?

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member Re: Solve what said by Yucca Servic: Does this solve the I want what I want, any show,movie I want it now, anytime I want it, Where I want it?

because of the start-up costs are high it is very much in the production companies favor to work like TV has functioned before this (and used to do better for way less)

Nope! you just might have to pay different content consolidators what they think that individual channels are worth. and they still might decide to sell by the season or package only, as that is the way THEY commit to buy X number of shows/or a season.because of the start-up costs are high it is very much in the production companies favor to work like TV has functioned before this (and used to do better for way less)

tinyTime

@206.155.91.x tinyTime Anon Not sure it really matters... ...because as long as companies like Comcast have a lock on content, they can charge exhorbitant retransmission fees and enforce bundling. "Sure, you can have ESPN but to get it, you also have to buy the Ecuadorian Lawn Bowling channel and the Norweigian Slug Racing Today channels..."



But it's a start.

trollstumper

join:2014-10-28 1 recommendation trollstumper Member Re: Not sure it really matters... I love those channels Papageno

join:2011-01-26

Portland, OR Papageno to tinyTime

Member to tinyTime

How about I want Comedy Central and TNT and all that, but I don't want to pay for the expensive ESPNs. 8744675

join:2000-10-10

Decatur, GA 8744675 Member It sounds like a Comcast driven ploy to me.... This sounds like something instigated by Comcast lobbyists so they can claim they will have competitors in order to get their merger passed. Then they'll come along after the merger they'll use their massive power to get protectionist laws passed that erect barriers for new start ups to enter the market.



And don't forget who used to be an industry lobbyist!

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member What about the swimming pool? The imbedded pay TV providers had to pay off many local politicians to get a franchise. Do the "OTT" people get to skirt the TV franchise rules?

moi

@24.3.138.x moi Anon Re: What about the swimming pool? they are not a franchise

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: What about the swimming pool? said by moi : they are not a franchise I know but they should be; if they walk like a duck and quack like a duck they are a duck. AT&T tried to say they didn't need a franchise to deploy U-Verse and deliver TV by IP. How did that fly? Like a duck. 81037901 (banned)

join:2014-10-27

USA 81037901 (banned) to batterup

Member to batterup

And yes they do not have to go to each city and state since they do not own the last mile network. Instead it's a service over top of one. Basically the same as Netflix is an OTT service. This also could be a SaaS. Software as a Service as they basically are selling you a STB- software based with software to bring in those channels.

mixdup

join:2003-06-28

Atlanta, GA 12.8 1.0

mixdup Member So? Ok, so internet providers can now have access to the same programming as cable companies. What does that actually change? Bundling isn't inherent to facilities based delivery. If Disney wants to bundle its channels, they will bundle them even with an "OTT" provider. This isn't forced a la carte or unbundling. It will just result in OTT providers having to offer the same bundles, or, it will result in regular cable companies unbundling channels.



Everyone thinks its the cable companies forcing bundling but it's the program providers.

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: So? said by mixdup: Everyone thinks its the cable companies forcing bundling but it's the program providers.



What stinks is letting a CATV company also be a content producer. Vertical integration is what caused the breakup of the Bell System. What's the big deal if Comcast has 100% of the cable market? No cable companies compete in the same area anyway. Letting them buy NBC is where the trouble is. The providers may force three or four channels to be bundled. The CATV company forces hundreds.What stinks is letting a CATV company also be a content producer. Vertical integration is what caused the breakup of the Bell System. What's the big deal if Comcast has 100% of the cable market? No cable companies compete in the same area anyway. Letting them buy NBC is where the trouble is. jjeffeory

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04

Bullhead City, AZ jjeffeory Member Re: So? There are some cable companies that compete in the same area, but not very many. Wow and TWC overlap in the Midwest in a few areas, for example. Comcast and RCN on the East coast in a few places.... It's just rare.

mixdup

join:2003-06-28

Atlanta, GA 12.8 1.0

mixdup to batterup

Member to batterup

said by batterup: said by mixdup: Everyone thinks its the cable companies forcing bundling but it's the program providers.



What stinks is letting a CATV company also be a content producer. Vertical integration is what caused the breakup of the Bell System. What's the big deal if Comcast has 100% of the cable market? No cable companies compete in the same area anyway. Letting them buy NBC is where the trouble is. The providers may force three or four channels to be bundled. The CATV company forces hundreds.What stinks is letting a CATV company also be a content producer. Vertical integration is what caused the breakup of the Bell System. What's the big deal if Comcast has 100% of the cable market? No cable companies compete in the same area anyway. Letting them buy NBC is where the trouble is. But in the long run whatever "OTT" competitors do, the cable companies will follow. This is good for competition, but it's not going to drastically lower prices (since the cable companies control the price of the pipe into your house and can drive the price of their video service to zero) and it's probably not going to result in 100% a la carte. rradina

join:2000-08-08

Chesterfield, MO 920.3 39.3

·Charter

rradina Member Aereo Anyone? What does this do for something like Aereo? Recall they look and smell like a CATV company enough to lose their retransmission fee battle with broadcasters but after losing and wanting to actually be a cable company and pay for access to content -- well they weren't a cable company after all. firedrakes

join:2009-01-29

Arcadia, FL firedrakes Member finale about dam time binded2

join:2009-08-11

Providence, RI binded2 Member Just going to cost more in end It's just going to cost the user to have to pay more for there Internet connections. The isp/video providers just are not going to give up there 120 a month bill they send you.



They all charge you for boxes modems battery's for backups for the roll out to your house. All of them fake under the line charges that are are bull shit and made up so they can get another 20$ or more a month.



Internet packages to go up in cost.



It's just like gas you will never again see a 2.00$ gas price again.



They give you 10 bucks less a month for two year by then there rates have gone up 25% or more.



Every month or two I read on here that some cable company increased there price by not less then a few bucks.



All the while true cost to provide the services continue to go down.



Pretty much assume there going to make that lost income up some where's.



The true out come will be more cost for less provided... 54761437 (banned)

join:2013-01-18

Durham, NC 54761437 (banned) Member Re: Just going to cost more in end As that happens, all but the biggest MSOs will stop offering cable TV altogether, as some smaller providers already have due to astronomical costs. Google Fiber is already running into prohibitively high TV costs, and Google has very deep pockets, so imagine the impact on regional and municipal providers. Eventually, it'll just be Comcast trying to get you to watch Lizard Lick Towing or whatever.

Sarick

It's Only Logical

Premium Member

join:2003-06-03

USA Sarick Premium Member This sounds like a good idea as a hybrid choice. This might be a good idea for some but not for others.



Cord cutters could pick nd choose. People with large bulk channel packages could drop to the minimal lineup package and pick a few of the higher tier channels separately.



In the long run it may force content providers to be more competitive and actually want more subscribers.



The issue we have now is most content providers not only want paid for channels we watch but, also channels we'll never watch. They even have the gal to put advertisements on these channels and negotiate for absurd prices.



I'm one of those people who don't want most sports channels. The only near sports related content I'll really watch isn't even sports. So why should people like me have these channels bundled into our packages? Answer, so they're cheaper for people who watch them and they can make more $$. your comment..

