If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   Please, please, please let this be true   (businessinsider.com) divider line 360
    More: Hero, Intel, casual games, cable industry  
•       •       •

67249 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jan 2013 at 1:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



360 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-02 02:12:17 AM

enderthexenocide: so if this actually comes true, what channels would you guys choose to pay for?


The Golf Channel, CNN, three of DirecTVs music channels and FSN for baseball.
 
2013-01-02 02:12:29 AM
This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.
 
2013-01-02 02:14:22 AM
img690.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-02 02:14:47 AM
I haven't had a TV that is/was connected to cable or an aerial since before I left to college. The only time I ever watch TV is when I head over to a bar to watch a game.

I watch only via DVD or, now, netflix streaming (or whatever I might find on youtube). The problem with my situation is that I'm not keyed in to all the hot new shows. I don't get the reviews of any recent shows so I don't know what's good to watch or not. Also, some shows that were good (Burn Notice, for me) has become a bit stale, and not very watchable as re-runs.

Movies are also way too long at 2.5Hr or longer. Where are the sub-110minute movies?
 
2013-01-02 02:18:03 AM

fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.


But if you're paying double for the channels you want and the bill comes out to less than what you pay now would it not be better?

IE, a channel you like is normally $1. You pay $3 al a carte. You have 10 channels like this. Your bill is now $30 as opposed to $50.

Also, I still bet I get a better deal bundling like I do now for internet and TV.
 
2013-01-02 02:18:35 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: The next time we hear about this, it'll be during the bribe-driven show trial portion of the massive multi-corporation lawsuit to stop it.


QFT. America needs to grow a pair and actually deal with the bastards that produce media. At this stage they're shooting themselves in the foot half the time.

/Patent trolls, anyone?
//Seriously, creating a market where pirating is financially more viable than legal downloads is insane.
 
2013-01-02 02:18:42 AM
How much do I have to pay to NEVER hear of honey boo boo again?!
 
2013-01-02 02:21:37 AM

sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.


Wow. You rock.
 
2013-01-02 02:26:08 AM

fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.


Yes.

Except all those clever farkers who don't watch tv. Very hip those folks...

No crutches for THEIR imagination....

fark CABLE!
 
2013-01-02 02:26:26 AM

inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.


And you live alone.
 
2013-01-02 02:28:24 AM

MadMattressMack: fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.

But if you're paying double for the channels you want and the bill comes out to less than what you pay now would it not be better?

IE, a channel you like is normally $1. You pay $3 al a carte. You have 10 channels like this. Your bill is now $30 as opposed to $50.

Also, I still bet I get a better deal bundling like I do now for internet and TV.


As pointed out in this thread, this doesn't work.

OMG: TV IS SOCIALIST!!!!
 
2013-01-02 02:29:55 AM

serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Where did you get your economics degree?
 
2013-01-02 02:31:30 AM
I'm thinking of cutting the cord to cable TV AND to the Internet (same company provides both) for one year just to see how my brain reacts and adapts - and to see how much money I save.

Two or three over-the-air channels should be able to reach the TV set I have left. (Work provides sufficient opportunity to keep up with televised current events.)
 
2013-01-02 02:33:45 AM

Vaneshi: Viacom's small fry compared to that monster.


True, but Viacom has one thing at its disposal that Apple, Google and Intel don't: The MPAA/RIAA's dump truck convoy full of lobbyists, lawyers and bribers with seemingly bottomless pockets. Remember SOPA/PIPA/ACTA? The MPAA/RIAA won that battle despite the massive protests and blackouts; they'll have no problem with this one.
 
2013-01-02 02:34:19 AM

serial_crusher: fusillade762: by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.

Why only worry about the people who watch ESPN regularly?  They have to watch everything on the channel?  The only sports I ever watch on TV are Virginia Tech football games, so I wouldn't be in the regular viewership category, but me and thousands of other people like me would gladly pay 10 bucks a season to watch all the Virginia Tech football games.  That's going to add up.

From there, it's easy enough to create other relevant bundles.  Make a college football bundle for the guy who likes to watch every game.  Make a Virginia Tech package that includes all the different sports, but only VT.  And have an "everything" package for the guy who just wants to watch sports.


Yes. That TEN DOLLARS.... PER SEASON NO LESS totally offsets the costs associated with filming and then running your amateur, waste of time, EXTREME niche market football team. Good idea.
 
2013-01-02 02:36:03 AM

inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.


Being a boomer,I rock and roll.
( to old for sex and drugs)
or is that to obscure?
 
2013-01-02 02:36:45 AM
I play on the internet AND watch TV. How can you multi-task with one connection?
 
2013-01-02 02:37:10 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


That's really really stupid.
 
2013-01-02 02:37:32 AM
I got rid of my television about four years ago. I replaced it with a much, much larger HD television and a surround sound system with five speakers and a sub-woofer. I can watch cable television, DVDs, play video games and watch shows via an HDMI cable connected to my computer's high speed internet connection. I don't see the upside to limiting choices by picking channels or shows. There would have to be a real cost benefit and I don't believe they will be able to deliver.
 
2013-01-02 02:37:50 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Vaneshi: Viacom's small fry compared to that monster.

True, but Viacom has one thing at its disposal that Apple, Google and Intel don't: The MPAA/RIAA's dump truck convoy full of lobbyists, lawyers and bribers with seemingly bottomless pockets. Remember SOPA/PIPA/ACTA? The MPAA/RIAA won that battle despite the massive protests and blackouts; they'll have no problem with this one.


If by "won" you mean "got the bill indefinitely delayed instead of outright cancelled" then yes, they "won".
 
2013-01-02 02:38:39 AM

RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]


god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
2013-01-02 02:40:35 AM

Nofun: Cancelled my cable a year ago. Netflix is way cheaper, on demand, and no commercials.

That's where TV needs to go. Of course it will never happen. Too many people whose only job is to sell you crap you don't need would watch their jobs get flushed away... The lawsuits are already incubating to make sure it never happens. They did it with the cable cards a few years ago to make sure you couldn't make your own DVR without giving them "their" cut.


You underestimated... Not only does 'advertising' make a living off of convincing you to buy things you don't ned, thousands of people went to school to sit in rooms and figure out ways, via 30 second movie, to create a longing in your soul for these things you don't need.

If you're in marketing... *drumroll*, kill yourself. -Bill Hicks
 
2013-01-02 02:41:59 AM

WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days


Also there is no shortage of diamonds just a monopolized and controlled market.
 
2013-01-02 02:42:00 AM

dericwater: The problem with my situation is that I'm not keyed in to all the hot new shows. I don't get the reviews of any recent shows so I don't know what's good to watch or not.


That was probably a bigger problem when there were only three or four channels to tune to.

Now there's something to scratch every itch. Picking four or five providers for five bucks a month might make some sense.

One of traditional TVs benefits is just how passive a form of entertainment it is. There's something to be said for letting the box call the shots.
 
2013-01-02 02:44:41 AM

gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.


Wow. Our generation's Nostradamus. Or an idiot.
 
2013-01-02 02:45:44 AM

fisker: This is an easy way for them to charge you more for all the same channels you already have but with a lot less channels.


Maybe, but if saves me $1 and I can drop the 200 channels I never watch I'm in.
 
2013-01-02 02:46:07 AM

serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Really? Making fun of subby when you clearly didn't RTFA?
 
2013-01-02 02:48:23 AM
You mean you want to be able to pick and choose the package you want rather than have a bunch of things you don't want?

Think hard now, because if you feel that passionately about doing so for cable television may I inquire why you are not screaming in RAGE over how health insurance works?

Or even more comically, if you believe in socialized medicine.
 
2013-01-02 02:49:10 AM
Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66
Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion
Percentage of Americans who pay for cable TV: 56
Number of videos rented daily in the U.S.: 6 million
Number of public library items checked out daily: 3 million
Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
 
2013-01-02 02:49:44 AM

red5ish: I got rid of my television about four years ago. I replaced it with a much, much larger HD television and a surround sound system with five speakers and a sub-woofer. I can watch cable television, DVDs, play video games and watch shows via an HDMI cable connected to my computer's high speed internet connection. I don't see the upside to limiting choices by picking channels or shows. There would have to be a real cost benefit and I don't believe they will be able to deliver.


This is the American dream. To get rid of your television so you can buy a television with which to watch television.
 
2013-01-02 02:50:25 AM

Beaver Knievel: inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.

And you live alone.


Incorrect. Hipster.

Who really feels the need to come to fark.com and let us know how foreign television is and COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THEIR LIFE! !.... In a television thread? Who, really?
 
2013-01-02 02:51:21 AM
130 some odd television channels, unlimited adsl line for 30€ a month.
For another 15€ I get a 3g/4g equipped sim carte for my smart phone.
/lives in France
//let me know if you have similar offer in the states
 
2013-01-02 02:51:38 AM
I can't see this going anywhere.

Intel isn't exactly renown for software interfaces.

The image in the article has a big nasty Boxee symbol. I got a Boxee Box, riddled with bugs that still aren't sorted out, needing to be reset fairly often. I can't get all buttons on the RF remote to work with my Harmony with an IR dongle... the browser is shiat, and many of the 'shows' streamed are pretty lousy. Local scrapping of files is filled with errors, Show/Movie art is incorrect or won't suddenly load for a show or two for months on end, to be replaced with a Russian version of a mainstream show... and today, it decides to be slow and unresponsive until I reboot the box. It will play any file I throw at it, but the bugs and interface are a farce. Oh, and Boxee up and left supporting the device a few months ago.
 
2013-01-02 02:52:09 AM
Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.
 
2013-01-02 02:55:40 AM

randomjsa: You mean you want to be able to pick and choose the package you want rather than have a bunch of things you don't want?

Think hard now, because if you feel that passionately about doing so for cable television may I inquire why you are not screaming in RAGE over how health insurance works?

Or even more comically, if you believe in socialized medicine.


I want to know what's wrong with
you. You're messed up and I'd like someone to alert the authorities and have you put in a padded room indefinetely to murmur 'libs libs libs' until you die you useless threadjacking troll.
 
2013-01-02 02:58:41 AM
Two words- Bandwidth Caps.

Fix the farking infrastructure first, then we can talk serious business.


Stupid Netflix won't let me watch Breaking Bad tonight..

loading...loading...loading...
 
2013-01-02 02:59:56 AM

namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.
 
2013-01-02 03:01:09 AM
Can't read. Busy torrenting the 0.5% of mass media that interests me.
 
2013-01-02 03:02:34 AM

BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.


Television shows aren't free to produce. As has been mentioned in this thread, and I'll paraphrase here: cable packages subsidize production, especially after pvr use over commercials. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FOR FREE OR THEY WON'T MAKE IT.

/work in restaurant industry
//pay 100 for cable monthly
 
2013-01-02 03:03:41 AM

serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Who is going to finance high quality professional production under this type of model?
 
2013-01-02 03:04:48 AM

sweet-daddy-2: inclemency: sweet-daddy-2: gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.

That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.

Wow. You rock.

Being a boomer,I rock and roll.
( to old for sex and drugs)
or is that to obscure?


'Boomer' and a hipster? Where do you find the time to be smug?
 
2013-01-02 03:05:08 AM
FTA: Disney, for instance, charges TV distributors about $5 for every subscriber that gets ESPN

And you guys biatch and moan about TF subscriptions.....
 
2013-01-02 03:09:39 AM

yukichigai: If by "won" you mean "got the bill indefinitely delayed instead of outright cancelled" then yes, they "won".


SOPA and PIPA were shelved, but it was passed in semi-secret under the ACTA name. It hasn't gone into effect yet (as far as I know), but it was passed not long after the furor over the other two blew over.

/ACTA is technically a multinational "Treaty" version of the bill, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same damn bill regardless.
//Why are so few people aware of this?
 
2013-01-02 03:12:03 AM

RoyBatty: namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.


I don't have netflix, looking into getting it as it's inexpensive and highly regarded by my peers.

But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well
 
2013-01-02 03:13:09 AM
The guy in the article related to ESPN as a deal breaker. Supporting cable companies, he knew to do that.
ESPN has a lot overhead.

This Intel thing is feasible.
 
2013-01-02 03:14:36 AM

BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.


I think they're hoping to do it nice and businesslike, without nastiness. The reason being that they aren't without their own methods of applying pressure too.

If this was just some random startup I think you'd be dead on: there's no way this would go through, at least not without serious political pressure brought to bear to get it done. The thing is, Intel has the means to apply political pressure where they need to.

Comcast starts throttling bandwidth? Well ignoring a supposed Net Neutrality bill finally being passed, Intel could just say, "hey Comcast, you know all those tiny tiny little processors and transistors you buy from us to make your cable boxes and modems and such? We've decided to stop selling them to you. Have fun negotiating a new contract with AMD, who we will be sure to let know how desperate for a new supplier you are."

If the legislators get involved, Intel can do a WAY better job of paying them off than Comcast could. Between defense contracts and other things, they can easily afford to give any congresscritter enough money in kickbacks for them to build a mansion out of other, smaller mansions. There's also the classic, "gee Senator asshat, I have no idea how the shipment of microprocessors tagged for your specific pork project were all bad, making you eat a huge cost thanks to the nature of our contract with you. Very, very strange. On a related topic, how's that monopoly decision going?"

As someone else said, Intel is the real 650 pound gorilla in this situation. They have the weight to throw around and the capacity to do it. It would take every single company who isn't in favor of this teaming up to match the amount of political and financial pressure Intel could put into the whole arrangement, and that's not even counting Intel's likely heavy-hitting allies, like Apple and Google. The only hope for the networks is that nobody sells to Intel at all, but I'm not sure how likely that is, not to mention that whole "regulated monopoly" thing may actually obligate them to do so (monopoly regulations being very, very strange sometimes).
 
2013-01-02 03:17:54 AM

inclemency: BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.

Television shows aren't free to produce. As has been mentioned in this thread, and I'll paraphrase here: cable packages subsidize production, especially after pvr use over commercials. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FOR FREE OR THEY WON'T MAKE IT.

/work in restaurant industry
//pay 100 for cable monthly


TV shows aren't free to make, but neither are movies. There are ways of making both outside of the mainstream system. For movies, you can go to an investor group like IndieVest. I know that Roger Corman's studio is working directly with Netflix on exclusive content. And so on.

There may not be the million-dollar payrolls with independent productions but if one backloads the contracts with royalties rather than front-loads them with guaranteed pay, it still can be worth it to participate.

The state of TV production today is a structural issue, not one inherent to the medium. There are plenty of profits to be made in funding entertainment. The problem is distribution. IndieVest cracked that nut in movies, and the tech companies pushing the new paradigm can easily set up similar investment companies to compete with the big boys. But by relying on traditional utilities to distribute the content they will still be hamstrung.

The utilities will NOT upgrade infrastructure to accommodate this data usage. They will use it to lower data caps to strangle the competitors. And it will all be done nice and legal.

There is as much money in entertainment as there are in the tech companies. It's just been accumulating in private hands and through the miracle of Hollywood accounting it's damned near invisible. An all-out brawl between tech on one side and entertainment/distribution would be very interesting to watch. I don't think either of the two understands the other or what is at stake.
 
2013-01-02 03:18:01 AM

Counter_Intelligent: This is the American dream. To get rid of your television so you can buy a television with which to watch television.


Not just any television; HD television. 1080i with Dolby surround sound. Toshiro Mifune never looked better.
 
2013-01-02 03:23:18 AM

BolloxReader: inclemency: BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.

Television shows aren't free to produce. As has been mentioned in this thread, and I'll paraphrase here: cable packages subsidize production, especially after pvr use over commercials. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT FOR FREE OR THEY WON'T MAKE IT.

/work in restaurant industry
//pay 100 for cable monthly

TV shows aren't free to make, but neither are movies. There are ways of making both outside of the mainstream system. For movies, you can go to an investor group like IndieVest. I know that Roger Corman's studio is working directly with Netflix on exclusive content. And so on.

There may not be the million-dollar payrolls with independent productions but if one backloads the contracts with royalties rather than front-loads them with guaranteed pay, it still can be worth it to participate.

The state of TV production today is a structural issue, not one inherent to the medium. There are plenty of profits to be made in funding entertainment. The problem is distribution. IndieVest cracked that nut in movies, and the tech companies pushing the new paradigm can easily set up similar investment companies to compete with the big boys. But by relying on traditional utilities to distribute the content they will still be hamstrung.

The utilities will NOT upgrade infrastructure to accommodate this data usage. They will use it to lower data caps to strangle the competitors. And it will all be done nice and legal.

There is as much money in entertainment as there are in the tech companies. It's just been accumulating in private hands and through the miracle of Hollywood accounting it's damned near invisible. An all-out brawl between tech on one side and entertainment/distribution would be very interesting to watch. I don't think either of the two understands the other or what is at stake.


Thank you for that response. I agree with part of it, disagree with part of it but you at make a salient point.
 
2013-01-02 03:27:56 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: yukichigai: If by "won" you mean "got the bill indefinitely delayed instead of outright cancelled" then yes, they "won".

SOPA and PIPA were shelved, but it was passed in semi-secret under the ACTA name. It hasn't gone into effect yet (as far as I know), but it was passed not long after the furor over the other two blew over.

/ACTA is technically a multinational "Treaty" version of the bill, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same damn bill regardless.
//Why are so few people aware of this?


Multinational treaty != U.S. Law

Not only that, the White House only signed the damn thing. It still hasn't been ratified, nor has Congress or the Senate granted any approval to the treaty. We still need to get past that for the treaty to even start to THINK about applying to the U.S.

If the White House could unilaterally agree to international treaties about half the current congress would have strapped on explosive vests and started running for Pennsylvania Avenue by now.
 
Displayed 50 of 360 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report