# The future of TV is coming into focus, and looks pretty great



## onan38 (Jul 17, 2008)

http://qz.com/184378/the-future-of-tv-is-coming-into-focus-and-looks-pretty-great/


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

At least it mentions something that a LOT of people forget...

$20-$30 sounds nice for IPTV.... until you realize that has less content than you have today on cable/satellite AND doesn't include the cost of your broadband service which is likely another $40+ and might have bandwidth overage charges to boot!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The "personal" nature of the subscription will also be a limit. How many devices does a $20-$30 subscription cover? How many people can share a subscription?

Technically (read the TOS) both DISH and DirecTV sell individual full subscriptions per receiver but give a discount to people who have all of their receivers connected to the same phone or Internet connection. Extending that concept to IPTV there may be a $20-$30 subscription for the first device and $5 for a second device - if that device can be proven to be owned or in the possession of the person with the first subscription. Or they could sell as $10 for a second device on some sort of "family" plan (billed together).

Plenty of details to work out as we enter the brave new world of packaged IPTV.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Wouldn't it make sense to charge the same amount and allow "X" amount if devices? Let's say five devices 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Wouldn't it make sense to charge the same amount and allow "X" amount if devices? Let's say five devices


Sure. $100 for five devices? $150?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Also... consider if you wanted to have multiple devices for unique viewing in different rooms at the same time... that would really eat up your ISP bandwidth in a hurry.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Wouldn't it make sense to charge the same amount and allow "X" amount if devices? Let's say five devices


Not if the ISP is going to charge the carrier for bandwidth (as appears to be the deal between Comcast and Netflix). The idea behind IPTV is that the ISP bears the burden of delivery as opposed to the outfit that is selling the content. If you use up to five times as much bandwidth as someone else and the ISP demands compensation (as opposed to putting you on measured broadband service), you're being subsidized by the one device subscriber.

Bandwidth is in no way a free and limitless commodity.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Not if the ISP is going to charge the carrier for bandwidth (as appears to be the deal between Comcast and Netflix).


That is a hosting agreement. Netflix wants to be closer to their customers, so they are placing server clusters on Comcast's networks. It does not reduce the fees Netflix charges to customers.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Amazon Prime can be shared among up to four accounts, but the Instant Videos are not included. You can however have multiple devices registered to a single account.

The catch is that you can only stream a program to one device at a time (although I can't find the clause right now).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> That is a hosting agreement. Netflix wants to be closer to their customers, so they are placing server clusters on Comcast's networks. It does not reduce the fees Netflix charges to customers.


The fees that Netflix is paying didn't sound like something that simply covered the cost of co-location.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> The fees that Netflix is paying didn't sound like something that simply covered the cost of co-location.





> The video-rental company has agreed to pay Comcast for direct access to its broadband network, sources told The Wall Street Journal, which was first to report the deal. . . . Under the so-called "paid peering" deal, Netflix will be allowed to connect directly to Comcast's network instead of going through intermediaries, as it formerly did.


I believe they were talking co-location at one of the other providers ... but a private connection from their servers to the ISP's network(s) serves the same purpose. Getting the data to the customer without the bottleneck of the rest of the Internet.

It will improve customer experience ... but does not reduce the customer's cost of the service.

The largest cost for any cable/satellite television company is the programming. Paying $20-$30 per month for a "personal subscription" and expecting all the content one gets on a $100 per month cable/satellite subscription is overly optimistic. While that customer does not need an installed and maintained satellite dish (saving some of the cost of installation) the company providing the service still needs to run servers with the content. And someone will pay for those servers and bandwidth.

Remember SkyAngel? They started off as a satellite service using their licenses and leasing DISH's satellite at 61.5. Then they converted to IPTV and sold their satellite licenses. The networks they carried were mostly free to air - but their cost as an IPTV provider didn't change from when they were on satellite. They still had to pay for their end of the Internet connection, servers and to run their business. (I didn't realize it but SkyAngel ceased as an IPTV provider on January 14th.)

Don't expect packaged IPTV to be cheap. The providers are charging for content.


----------

