Quantcast

FCC proposes rule change to open a la carte internet television streaming

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussion' started by sparkyscott21, Oct 29, 2014.

  1. sparkyscott21

    sparkyscott21 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,280
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Northern Mich.
    [​IMG]




    Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler floated a proposal Wednesday that would give Internet-based video services the same access to live content from cable and local stations as traditional television broadcasters.

    The proposal, which seeks to alter the definition of "multichannel video programming distributor" (MVPD) to be technology-agnostic, would pave the way for consumers to subscribe to channels à la carte from internet services. Fans of Breaking Bad, for instance, could subscribe to AMC without also paying for channels like Lifetime, in which they are not interested.

    "Consumers have long complained about how their cable service forces them to buy channels they never watch," Wheeler wrote in a blog post. "The move of video onto the Internet can do something about that frustration - but first Internet video services need access to the programs."

    The definition of MVPD is one of the items that got "antenna subscription" service Aereo into trouble with federal authorities. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Aereo had no right to rebroadcast content under the provision.

    If the rule change is eventually implemented, prospective streaming providers would still need to reach financial agreements with the content owners. They also would not be allowed to provide programming on-demand — only "linear channels, which offer the viewer a prescheduled lineup of programs," would be covered.





    10-29-14

    Source

     
  2. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I thought this was already possible, HBO and CBS have announced plans to start next year. Are there contracts between cable companies and networks that prevent it in some cases and the FCC intends to void those contracts? Hulu, TBN and various internet streaming services seem to be doing this already.
     
  3. sparkyscott21

    sparkyscott21 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    7,280
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Northern Mich.
    My thought as well... But, I seen this and thought it was valid...
     
  4. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The real Apple TV might finally happen if the FCC gets what it wants The Verge (click for full article)

    By Nilay Patel on October 28, 2014 06:04 pm @reckless

    -- There have been rumors of an actual Apple television ever since Steve Jobs told his biographer that he'd "cracked" the interface problem, but it's never been anywhere close to reality — you can't make a successful TV without actual TV programming, and getting that programming has usually meant you have to plug in a cable or satellite box. It doesn't matter who builds your TV if you're forced to use Comcast's cable box; you'll never see Apple's interface anyway. (Or Google's, or Microsoft's, or whatever — every company that's tried to attack the TV market by replacing or hacking the cable box has quickly failed, often in spectacular fashion.)

    What Apple and the others have really needed is deals with all the TV networks to pipe in their channels directly, but it's never been able to get them — many TV networks are owned by cable companies, and no cable company wants to give up control of that primary interface, where it can bombard you with ads and movie rentals and other crap that makes money while chewing at the fabric of your soul.

    But that might all change soon. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler just proposed a rule change that would require cable and broadcast networks to sell their programming to any company that wants to be a TV provider, not just cable or satellite companies. That means Apple could set up an internet TV service and get all the channels it needs to actually replace your cable box — not just a handful of streaming deals like it has now, but a full-on TV package. Microsoft could do the same thing and properly integrate live TV into the next version of the Xbox One, instead of the ill-fated IR blaster hack shipping now. And Google could actually deliver on the promise of Google TV, instead of wiping out so hard it almost crushed Logitech into a fine powder.

    Read more at: The real Apple TV might finally happen if the FCC gets what it wants The Verge
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  5. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with the Verge article the that the HDMI IN (TV provider overlays) on GTV were just a hack so Google could gain control over the primary interface (for monetary purposes). IMO it's not likely any Android TV OEMs are going to go with HDMI IN. The Nexus player doesn't have it because Google realized it did nothing to improve sales. There's a small group of GTV devotees that swear by HDMI IN - but that's it. If the Cable providers would of opened up for deep integration - then HDMI IN would make more sense.

    The thing is IMO it could cost the consumer relatively the same for an internet package of television channels compared to a package of television channels from a cable company. I suppose if the consumer could pick and choose just several channels they might save money over a big cable package. But IMO one of the most popular channels would be ESPN - and it will end up surprising people how expensive it is (if it's available ala carte).
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2014
  6. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did the dam just open for internet TV What the FCC news means for the cable industry and you mdash Tech News and Analysis (click for full article)

    From the article:

    ** Will it change the price I pay for TV? **

    Possibly. But keep in mind that any new breed of internet TV companies that come under the same legal umbrella as the cable and satellite companies would also have to pay “retransmission fees,” which broadcasters can demand as the price to air their signals. Various reports suggest those fees are $1 to $2, meaning a fledgling internet TV provider might have to pass along $8 in retransmission fees every month just to offer the four big broadcast networks (CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox).

    Add in the internet TV providers’ own costs, and price of any speciality channels (such as $7.72 for ESPN or $1.92 for TNT) they might offer, and the final figure could look a lot like a cable bill. But the difference is that, with the arrival of more competitors, consumers could have the option of getting only the channels they want. (It’s also likely that internet TV companies would include other offerings, such as DVR storage or music subscriptions, along with the channel packages.)
     
  7. Travel

    Travel Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston
    It looks like to me that the cable companies/content-providers are just setting up shop on the internet, and you'll end-up getting the same screw job pricing as you left on a traditional cable box subscription.

    If a maverick, internet-streaming company tries to "get in" and undercut their retail prices, they (cable companies/content-providers) won't sell the content to that new company at a viable price; they'll just price them out.

    The FCC isn't going to regulate wholesale content prices, or contract terms to enable legitimate, competitive pricing. Never happen.
     
  8. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am certainly one of the small group of GTV devotees that use the Google TV HDMI input and overlay. That allows combining a traditional TV source, pay TV or OTA, with internet TV sources in one easy to use UI and a single HDMI input. I can't speak to Google's intent since I wasn't part of the decision but it appears clear to me that what I use it for was a pretty important part of the intent..
     
  9. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Of course you never let facts get in the way of a whining rant about the cable companies but those than actually understand what is going on do know, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, Crackle and so many other internet TV providers are buying content to sell to customers at attractive prices or free and supported by advertising.

    Of course if you like to whine about nothing of importance, trying to sound important, you can continue to repeat this false nonsense, over and over and over as you have been doing.
     
  10. Travel

    Travel Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston
    You obviously haven't the foggiest idea of what's going on, yet that doesn't stop you from your idiotic defending of cable companies/providers.

    One wonders how you never wonder why you're the only one on earth who thinks that cable pricing isn't a ripoff.

    And why don't you just stick with your own posts, mind your own business, instead of attacking my posts like an idiot.
     
  11. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why don't you deal with facts, support some of your claims? The reason is the facts don't support your claims. You stated the content owners will never offer content to some maverick start up company, I stated that has already happened and Netflix and others exist for just that reason. Your response, more of the nonsense drivel you always offer.

    You seem to know the studios should sell their content for much lower prices. As soon as you spend $300,000,000 to make a film and a have a pricing plan that is much cheaper and offers a return to investors that means another film can be made, I would consider your claims as based on real knowledge.

    Right now we don't know what HBO is going to charge or even exactly what the service will look like. Currently I am using HBO GO and consider it a great service and at the promo price Comcast is selling it, an incredible deal. That price won't last longer than a year so I am interested to see what HBO comes up with. If it is more than I am willing to pay, I won't buy it but I sure won't whine that HBO is a bunch of thieves. Instead, I will accept HBO knows how to run their business far better than I do.
     
  12. Travel

    Travel Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston
    Thanks for confirming that you have no idea what your talking about.

    And, Netflix isn't a start-up, maverick company, it a the major internet streaming site, and it doesn't offer first run content, and it runs content that's already been sold at least twice, and it already has expensive contracts with providers, and it has already had contracts with providers for DVD sales.

    If you keep this nutty attack crap up, I'm reporting you to the moderators.
     

Share This Page