# Can Intel’s Web TV Compete With Dish and DirecTV?



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Can Intel's Web TV Compete With Dish and DirecTV?

Intel Corp. has decided to enter the pay-TV game, and the chip-maker is confident it can get the programming it would need to compete with Time Warner Inc. and DirecTV.

Intel's plans for a set-top box offering internet-based television were presented Wednesday at the TV of Tomorrow conference in San Francisco. Intel wants to offer streaming TV through the internet like Netflix or Hulu Plus, but with more programming options and a higher price tag like traditional cable.

Intel hasn't revealed how much the service will cost just yet, but the company said it wants to build a customer base similar to the major satellite cable operators DirecTV and Dish Network. Intel is in talks to get programming from Time Warner, Comcast Corp.'s NBC Universal, and Viacom, with deals that could include popular stations like CNN, USA Network, and MTV.

Full Story Here









_Cheatsheet.com_


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

To me this makes no sense at all. Bring in a higher cost service that depends on you having a good enough internet service that you also pay for to get it?

Sounds like a formula for failure to me.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> To me this makes no sense at all. Bring in a higher cost service that depends on you having a good enough internet service that you also pay for to get it?
> 
> Sounds like a formula for failure to me.


I don't think folks who sign up for something like this will be adding an ISP - they will already have and be paying for one.

So - the cost/benefit analysis done by those folks will be to compare their current TV service _only_ vs. the À la carte service Intel is proposing and not bundle in what they are already paying for their current internet service.

For example, I have Charter cable as my ISP, and D* for my TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Athlon646464 said:


> I don't think folks who sign up for something like this will be adding an ISP - they will already have and be paying for one.


The issue isn't having to add an ISP but having to significantly upgrade your broadband Internet services to make up for the performance hit. When you subscribe to CATV for their products, most everything travels in different bands. Intel's product is forcing everything into your Internet connection.

It is one thing to stream a single movie but it is an entirely different proposition to have to stream everyone else's TV viewing at the same time.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

We have enough higher priced services. We need lower priced services with comparable content offerings.

If by 'higher priced', they mean $20 instead of NF's $10, they may be OK.

I they mean $50 or $60 or more like current satellite and cable, forget it.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

The article says their target pricing is in the mid-range. Above Netflix/Hulu type pricing, but below a typical cable/sat bill. They will go forward if they can secure content and keep their pricing in that range and attract those who want to spend less but have more offerings than a Netflix can offer.

I'm guessing they will appeal to folks who want to spend about $50 per month for about 20 of their favorite channels.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The article is vague enough that you really can't say where the pricing will end up. In one place it says:
Intel's plans for a set-top box offering internet-based television were presented Wednesday at the TV of Tomorrow conference in San Francisco. Intel wants to offer streaming TV through the internet like Netflix or Hulu Plus, but with more programming options and a higher price tag like traditional cable.

And in another it says what you have said.

And yes, many would have to up their broadband service to make good use of it. Multiple TVs will make your internal network an issue possibly also. And then there is data caps to consider. While most services are not capping yet, most have already indicated that they will at some point in time. Or like Frontier locally, they have a 'fair use' policy that gives them the ability to cap but are not actually doing it yet. Throw in a bunch of subs to a service such as what Intel is proposing and I think you can expect data caps to become a huge issue.

Again, from my POV, this is a non-starter for a profitable business venture.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

It's a bit vague for sure, however.....

This is Intel we're talking about. Very deep pockets and certainly not dumb or naive. 

Also, by the time an idea like this can really take off our broadband connections will likely be better than they are today. They'll have to be for the reasons you've stated for a service like this as well as all of the other things we'll all be connecting to the 'net in the future.

Either way it will be interesting to see what they will have to offer.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Could this be what it might look like? A mid-priced 60-90 channel offering for $35?

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/206119-cox-flarewatch-beta-brings-iptv-with-60-hd-channels-cloud-dvr-for-35-monthly/


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Update: **Intel Gets Cold Feet, Wants to Dump Web TV Business on Verizon*

Intel's interest in TV may be waning
Chip maker Intel had big plans to bust into the TV business and offer a streaming solution to subscribers by the end of the year, but delays due to licensing negotiations may be wearing thin on the company.

Intel already had to put its plans on pause and look to launch its service in 2014, but as more time has gone by, it appears Intel may want to jump ship before it leaves shore, and pass that captain's hat over to Verizon.

Full Story Here


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

I am definitely switching over from dish to verizon/intel if this goes through. They will definitely have distant locals, and the signal will be coming through the cellphone tower. I am sure verizon will make sure they are streaming at optimal signal to the receivers, I am guessing.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

comizzou573 said:


> I am definitely switching over from dish to verizon/intel if this goes through. They will definitely have distant locals, and the signal will be coming through the cellphone tower. I am sure verizon will make sure they are streaming at optimal signal to the receivers, I am guessing.


I would be interested to see where you see that they would provide locals of any kind let alone distant networks.


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

Joe Tylman said:


> I would be interested to see where you see that they would provide locals of any kind let alone distant networks.


Its live tv and coming through the internet. Through the internet we are free to use whatever news paper we want being from cali or hawaii, and there is some local stations out there that have live feed on the net as well. For the federal government, to block our ip address to access the la times or ny times because we dont live there, would be missed.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

comizzou573 said:


> I am definitely switching over from dish to verizon/intel if this goes through. They will definitely have distant locals, and the signal will be coming through the cellphone tower. I am sure verizon will make sure they are streaming at optimal signal to the receivers, I am guessing.


What makes You think they would use the Cellular network. It doesn't have enough bandwidth for that. Why would Verizon not just cover the area they already have Fios installed.


> the wireless carrier take over all or part of Intel Media, the division in charge of building a web-based subscription TV service.


When The Power went out in my area due to Sandy last year, The Cellular Towers were overloaded in many locations. The only time my Brother could get a dial tone to call out was after Midnight. My Wired Phone in the same location kept on working for incoming and outgoing calls. Guess whose Not cellular phone he was using to make calls. If the service is that marginal to begin with............
Did I mention his cellular AKA Wireless service was with Verizon. In this area they already have FIOS. Fios Internet could handle streaming or Fios TV as already is here too.

Verizon would be under the same constraints as far as locals as any other provider.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

comizzou573 said:


> Its live tv and coming through the internet. Through the internet we are free to use whatever news paper we want being from cali or hawaii, and there is some local stations out there that have live feed on the net as well. For the federal government, to block our ip address to access the la times or ny times because we dont live there, would be missed.


Newspapers and local channels are completely different. Distant networks services will not be provided through any ipTV and most won't even bother with locals as their goal is to try and keep costs down.


----------



## comizzou573 (Aug 6, 2007)

Joe Tylman said:


> Newspapers and local channels are completely different. Distant networks services will not be provided through any ipTV and most won't even bother with locals as their goal is to try and keep costs down.


How about streaming internet radio from another state, they would need to put regulations on that...only difference would be one has picture feed and the other is audio feed.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

comizzou573 said:


> How about streaming internet radio from another state, they would need to put regulations on that...only difference would be one has picture feed and the other is audio feed.


There already are regulations on it. The same that impact OTA TV. You do not see anyone rebroadcasting radio signals without consent of the radio stations. This is why iheartradio and other websites exist. They are either owned or have agreements with the broadcast owners.

Even AERO understands they cannot sell the stations to people outside of the markets they broadcast in. I know there are people gaming the system but those are people intentionally lying not a company doing something it can. Distant network services will not happen over IPTV unless the stations go from locals to national cable only. The only draw here is for sports and you the leagues will do everything they can to protect and preserve their market rights for the teams. This will never be an easy way to get around broadcast rules.


----------

