# Intel attempts to break Cable Model?



## xenocide (Jan 2, 2013)

http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1#ixzz2GkSFccYf

I would absolutely love to buy only the channels\shows I wanted...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 2, 2013)

If they succeed, about damn time!


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Jan 2, 2013)

+1 for sure.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 2, 2013)

IPTV is going to destroy a lot of money hungry TV services, cable or otherwise.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 2, 2013)

About damn time. Thank you Intel, and PLEASE go through with it.


----------



## natr0n (Jan 2, 2013)

Pretty neat. I haven't watched tv in months.


----------



## KainXS (Jan 2, 2013)

Turn on Tv, look around, nothing on, turn off(600 channels of nothing I like)

Good luck intel, hope u succeed.

this is why I like hulu plus


----------



## Nordic (Jan 2, 2013)

This would be just awesome. I would actually use this as there were only 5 channels I ever watched before I cut cable.

It sounds too good to be true. Many interests will fight this tooth and nail. If anyone can do this it would be intel though.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 2, 2013)

This would be great!!! I hope they succeed in this venture


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 2, 2013)

Oh please make this happen. I know of a few people that would really like to subscribe to just one or two channels, and not the whole lot.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 2, 2013)

i dont know anyone who actually watches live TV any more. cable isnt a big thing in the Au, so its either DVD/BD rentals, or downloads (legal or otherwise)


companies not already in the 'TV' market need to step in and change things worldwide, and i guess intel has the money and power to do just that.


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Jan 2, 2013)

Good Idea .....But what will the Cable do if you go over your download caps?Charge you extra for it.Take mine for instance ,I go over my 80 gigs a month they charge an extra $1.50 per gig....So if Intel does this You will probably pay the same amount maybe more IF they have Netflix(paid sub a month $29.99 Canadian)Then add Hulu Plus and all the other channels up......Not saying Intel is wrong just think about the hidden costs after that some Cable company will try to pull on you.Really is it worth it.

Internet cost 
$49.99 +$1.50 per gig over your Download caps.
$29.99 a month for Netflix
$19.99 a month for Hulu Plus (it is paid service up here)
$5 per channel you watch ...Say you want sports channels Like NFL /TSN/ESPN/FOX/NBC/CBS/ABC that = $35 a month 
Now add all that up and you get the same amount as a cable bill.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 2, 2013)

Help me to understand why this will ever happen.  I can see the dialog going like this:

Intel: We want to offer unbundled cable channels.
Content Provider (CP): How?
Intel: We offer an IP TV service, with our own box.  
CP: OK, you have a platform.  You need our content.  What benefits do you offer over traditional medium?
Intel: We charge a higher per channel price, while offering consumers the perceived ability to cut out what they don't want.
CP: So, how do we support tertiary or new channels?
Intel:....  Consumers choose what they want.  It's better than them completely skipping out on cable....
CP: I think we're done here.  Good luck getting consumers to switch over, given that you don't have any content.


Intel has to get someone ballsy to step-up and take the first swing.  I don't see it happening, given that large networks have only just embraced a new delivery medium (see Hulu and Netflix).  They would see unbundled TV channels as a threat to their bread and butter.  Once TV is on its last legs I see this as more prevalent.  

Hopefully I'm just a jaded fool.  It seems like professionals seem to agree with the sentiments.  All I know is that the math is pretty bleak either way.

Internet: 69.99
Cable: 72.99 (minimum package giving me the 5 channels I really want)
Total: 142.98

Internet: 69.99
Cable (5 channels@ $5): 25
Hulu Subscription: 7.99
Netflix Subscription: 7.99 
Total: 110.97

Saving 32 dollars a month is a free week of transportation.  I don't see why cable companies are necessary for content providers.  They stand between them and the customer, artificially raising the price of the service.  Intel wants to cut them out, and save the consumer.  There is only one huge obstacle in the way....


----------



## Morgoth (Jan 2, 2013)

i pay like 37 euro for tv and internet unlimited ammount of gb's in downloading 
i only got a speed cap of 1mb download speed and 130kb's upload speed


----------



## xenocide (Jan 2, 2013)

The only fear I have is Cable\Internet companies in the US will refuse to change bandwidth caps to accommodate this.  As it is, Comcast doesn't count bandwidth used for their services (Xfinity and Voice) but does for competing services, which I think is about as anti-competitive as it gets.  Hopefully Google Fiber takes off and spreads like a virus because I have no problem paying more for a service that is infinitely superior...

I am only interested in a handful of channels;  HBO, Showtime, FX, ESPN, Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, and the standard basic local\broadcast channels.  So assuming 10 channels, even at a staggering $5 a pop, I'd still be paying less than I would for just *basic* cable--which is about $60-80 a month here.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 2, 2013)

This has been coming for some time. Comcast has no choice to but to stop the bandwidth games and it all ready has. They no longer cap total internet data. I predict in about 5 years they will be no cable tv companies only internet channels.


----------



## Guitar (Jan 2, 2013)

I would get this without question. I watch FX...and FX, and more FX. And AMC. There's maybe a FEW other channels I'd want, namely the History Channel, USA...and that is about it. No sense paying for all those channels only to watch a few.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jan 2, 2013)

Guitarrassdeamor said:


> I would get this without question. I watch FX...and FX, and more FX. And AMC. There's maybe a FEW other channels I'd want, namely the History Channel, USA...and that is about it. No sense paying for all those channels only to watch a few.



Exactly. I watch maybe 5-10 channels when I actually turn my TV on, which is usually never.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 2, 2013)

Jstn7477 said:


> Exactly. I watch maybe 5-10 channels when I actually turn my TV on, which is usually never.



+1,,,,Same here. I have a 48"television , a 21"flat panel Television, and My PC in the Same "Man Cave", and I've ONLY turned on the Bigger of the Two T.V.'s to play Gran Turismo , and that was over a year and a half ago.The smaller only get's turned on so I can watch local new's, or if My internet goes out. I cannot believe that this has been able to continue for SO long now(cable Co's policies). I truly hope this happens sooner than later.For ALL of our sake.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2013)

This is all fine and dandy if you have high speed Internet......sadly a lot of the US doesn't. Also most cable companies maintain the lines. Not Intel. Good luck Intel.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 2, 2013)

I have to agree with mailman, Once cable providers see people going to this intelbox they will start restricting internet due to that being their only cash cow. its going to be a big play on the weakest link!


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 2, 2013)

Well, it sounds good but guess what?  The ISP's (at least in the US) will start capping bandwidth or useage to those who don't also subscribe to TV if this turns out to eat thier market share.

May not be true for places that have alternative ISP's like cable and FIOS (forget DSL).

I like the idea a lot, who knows if it'll pan out.

EDIT:  Mailman and Brandon beat me to it!


----------



## Frick (Jan 2, 2013)

Sasqui said:


> Well, it sounds good but guess what?  The ISP's (at least in the US) will start capping bandwidth or useage to those who don't also subscribe to TV if this turns out to eat thier market share.



ISPs do TV too there? Can't you switch ISP's if that is the case? I can probably choose from at least 5 ISP's with at least 100/25 here. Or is this another example of how inferior the US is? 

EDIT: They do TV here too, but you usually have tons of choices.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2013)

Frick said:


> ISPs do TV too there? Can't you switch ISP's if that is the case? I can probably choose from at least 5 ISP's with at least 100/25 here. Or is this another example of how inferior the US is?
> 
> EDIT: They do TV here too, but you usually have tons of choices.



Your nation is smaller than most states man. Its apples to Mars when it comes to size and population density when comparing Europe to the US and ISP's. Its getting better but in some places in the US you can't hardly get a phone due to the remoteness of some areas, never mind Internet.


----------



## Frick (Jan 2, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Your nation is smaller than most states man. Its apples to Mars when it comes to size and population density when comparing Europe to the US and ISP's. Its getting better but in some places in the US you can't hardly get a phone due to the remoteness of some areas, never mind Internet.



I know I know.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 2, 2013)

Frick said:


> ISPs do TV too there? Can't you switch ISP's if that is the case? I can probably choose from at least 5 ISP's with at least 100/25 here. Or is this another example of how inferior the US is?
> 
> EDIT: They do TV here too, but you usually have tons of choices.



Where I am, and I'm not alone, it's a monopoly.  Broadband cable is the only game in town, by one company - here it's Comcast.  The only other choice is DSL (which sucks) and dial-up.  FIOS is supposed to be here sometime, but doesn't seem to be moving our way in any hurry.  My guess is that Comcast has something to do with NOT having any competition.

And yes, the ISP provides TV, phone, and a bunch of other things.  The only other choice for TV is OTA (over the air), Dish Network or Dish DirectTV (which also sucks balls).

And yes, it's embarrassing!


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 2, 2013)

Same here, Were I am located we have one provider for fast internet and thats charter cable. They provide TV, Internet, and Phone with their "BUNDLE" thing. You can get just internet from them but its more expensive without the "BUNDLE".


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 2, 2013)

brandonwh64 said:


> You can get just internet from them but its more expensive without the "BUNDLE".



It comes with a puppy too!  (inside joke)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2013)

Sasqui said:


> It comes with a puppy too!  (inside joke)



EVERYONE BUNDLES. WE ALL BUNDLE. I hate that commercial.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 2, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> EVERYONE BUNDLES. WE ALL BUNDLE. I hate that commercial.



The woman's face when she says puppy is priceless!


----------



## ALMOSTunseen (Jan 2, 2013)

Well what some ISP's in Aus are doing, don't know if this is happening in the USA, but they are doing IPTV bundles with your internet, and it doesn't count for your monthly cap. Hopefully my ISP will do this when they release it, it will be so much better then anything else.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2013)

brandonwh64 said:


> The woman's face when she says puppy is priceless!



I just wanna molest that blonde.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 2, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This is all fine and dandy if you have high speed Internet......sadly a lot of the US doesn't. Also most cable companies maintain the lines. Not Intel. Good luck Intel.



720p needs only 3 Mb/s.


I can run 6 TVs@ 720p off of my 25Mb/s line, no problem, and still be able to surf the web and watch Youtube @ 1080p.


I've had similar service for near 5 years now, all major TV shows are available via Video On Demand, commercials included for prime-time catch-up, but shows older than 2 weeks are commercial-free. The second something airs live, I can watch, pause, rewind, fast-forward...the service is great.


This is hardly new, really, just the fact that Intel is going to provide similar service is.


BTW, the platform used locally is Microsoft's MediaRoom. This means that it works well with all Microsoft-OS devices, I can stream to my PC or laptop, and I could use an XBOX360 as both a cable box and PVR.


All that said, since I don't have to sit my ass on the couch at specific times to watch anything, I watch TV even less than I did before having this service.  As long as Intel provides the ability to stream content to mobile devices, they will do well, but if they do not, I do not see this being successful.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> 720p needs only 3 Mb/s.
> 
> 
> I can run 6 TVs@ 720p off of my 25Mb/s line, no problem, and still be able to surf the web and watch Youtube @ 1080p.
> ...



In the US cable companies lease the lines. Intel will have to lease them also and I doubt the iron grip cable companies have that will change anytime soon. Also 3 Mb/s is way higher then some people can get. My father just this past month was able to upgrade to 1.5 Mb over 56k due to his local. However people "down the road" from him cannot even get 56k. Hes 15 miles from the closest paved road and "down the road" is almost 30 miles. MILLIONS of people live in remote parts of the US. Cell phones don't even work where he lives.

Intel has a very uphill battle in front of it I think.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 2, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> In the US cable companies lease the lines. Intel will have to lease them also and I doubt the iron grip cable companies have that will change anytime soon. Also 3 Mb/s is way higher then some people can get. My father just this past month was able to upgrade to 1.5 Mb over 56k due to his local. However people "down the road" from him cannot even get 56k. Hes 15 miles from the closest paved road and "down the road" is almost 30 miles. MILLIONS of people live in remote parts of the US.
> 
> Intel has a very uphill battle in front of it I think.



I used to work for Comcast. I know the American cable system better than you might guess. There is NOTHING preventing this from being a success when it comes to line quality. They can even use the cell network(4G/LTE), and none of that is of any concern.

4G/LTE was designed with video content streaming in mind, FYI. The number of 4G users that have faster internet on their phone than at home with actual physical wires is astounding.


----------



## Frick (Jan 2, 2013)

Sasqui said:


> Where I am, and I'm not alone, it's a monopoly.  Broadband cable is the only game in town, by one company - here it's Comcast.  The only other choice is DSL (which sucks) and dial-up.  FIOS is supposed to be here sometime, but doesn't seem to be moving our way in any hurry.  My guess is that Comcast has something to do with NOT having any competition.
> 
> And yes, the ISP provides TV, phone, and a bunch of other things.  The only other choice for TV is OTA (over the air), Dish Network or Dish DirectTV (which also sucks balls).





brandonwh64 said:


> Same here, Were I am located we have one provider for fast internet and thats charter cable. They provide TV, Internet, and Phone with their "BUNDLE" thing. You can get just internet from them but its more expensive without the "BUNDLE".



I Googled your locations and at least Manchester looks pretty big so I'd imagine you'd have some choices. DSL here is up to 30mbps, and it often works quite well. Some ISP's have 60mbit/s DSL (actual speed 30-60mbps), don't know what kind of coverage that has.



cadaveca said:


> 720p needs only 3 Mb/s.



Which still is more than a lot of people have. My parents have 250kb/s DSL.


----------



## Frick (Jan 2, 2013)

cadaveca said:


> 4G/LTE was designed with video content streaming in mind, FYI. The number of 4G users that have faster internet on their phone than at home with actual physical wires is astounding.



IF they are in a 4G area that is.. Even 3G coverege is dodgy (read: nonexistent) outside the cities. At least here, I imagine it's the same in Canada and the US.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 2, 2013)

Frick said:


> IF they are in a 4G area that is.. Even 3G coverege is dodgy (read: nonexistent) outside the cities. At least here, I imagine it's the same in Canada and the US.



Naturally. But Intel has more cash than any cable provider, IMHO, so constructing towers to provide service should be of no consequence.

It's only money that that really limits this, and I understand why most people think lightly of this being possible, but to me, that is EXACTLY why Intel is exploring this in the first place. They can pony up the cash now to set up equipment, and then run the service for many years to pay off that cost. Cable providers just don't have the financials possible for that.

4G is capable, at the top, of 1 Gb/s. Most people use 15 Mb/s service in Canada. There is TONNES of room for growth on the 4G network.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 2, 2013)

Frick said:


> I Googled your locations and at least Manchester looks pretty big so I'd imagine you'd have some choices. DSL here is up to 30mbps, and it often works quite well. Some ISP's have 60mbit/s DSL (actual speed 30-60mbps), don't know what kind of coverage that has.
> 
> 
> 
> Which still is more than a lot of people have. My parents have 250kb/s DSL.



True there is some DSL providers but again they offer TV, Internet, and Phone bundles (This would be ATT).


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 2, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> In the US cable companies lease the lines.



As far as I know, here in Manchester, NH, Comcast OWNS the cables that are strung on the poles.



Frick said:


> I Googled your locations and at least Manchester looks pretty big so I'd imagine you'd have some choices. DSL here is up to 30mbps, and it often works quite well. Some ISP's have 60mbit/s DSL (actual speed 30-60mbps), don't know what kind of coverage that has.



DSL here is notoriously sucky, though they way claim up to 60mb/s, it's usually like 0.5.  There really are no other choices, and satellite is a joke with useage caps that make dial-up look attractive.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 2, 2013)

Sasqui said:


> ADSL here is notoriously sucky, though they way claim up to 60mb/s, it's usually like 0.5.  There really are no other choices, and satellite is a joke with useage caps that make dial-up look attractive.



Same here. My wifes mom has 10MB DSL (I don't know why cause she doesn't even know how to turn a PC on much less use the internet but AGAIN it was cheaper to BUNDLE) and its so SLOW getting around 200-600KB sec download speeds max and ping times 100+MS


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 2, 2013)

brandonwh64 said:


> Same here. My wifes mom has 10MB DSL (I don't know why cause she doesn't even know how to turn a PC on much less use the internet but AGAIN it was cheaper to BUNDLE) and its so SLOW getting around 200-600KB sec download speeds max and ping times 100+MS



LOL...  I think they measure the speeds at the building right next to the DSL hub.

I personally know two people who've tried it right here in town and not only was it slow, it was also terribly unreliable.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2013)

Sasqui said:


> As far as I know, here in Manchester, NH, Comcast OWNS the cables that are strung on the poles.


 Depends on the area really. Even if Comcast owns the lines they are leased through the power company unless they are dedicated polls which most areas do not have.


----------



## Disparia (Jan 2, 2013)

Of course it will leave some people out. If we had to wait on everyone for everything, we'd still be using {insert old-timey technology here}.

I think Intel's plan is to just shift the costs. You'll pay $30 less for TV but $30 more for Internet. The "more" part has already happened here in Orlando as 40Mb is $30 over the 20Mb price. Hard to justify for many when they pay so much for TV, but not so much if TV service was ala carte.

- People will believe they have a choice and be happy.

- Industry will continue to bring in the revenue they have been getting.

- Intel will benefit, but not from their TV service. It's obviously just phase 1 of a much larger scheme which relies an improved network infrastructure.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 2, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Depends on the area really. Even if Comcast owns the lines they are leased through the power company unless they are dedicated polls which most areas do not have.



It probably depends on the state and municipality.  Most places, the util poles are owned by the power company and communication/data lines are owned by the respective companies, but they pay a lease fee to the power company to use the poles.

Did we get off topic?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 2, 2013)

Jizzler said:


> Of course it will leave some people out. If we had to wait on everyone for everything, we'd still be using {insert old-timey technology here}.
> 
> I think Intel's plan is to just shift the costs. You'll pay $30 less for TV but $30 more for Internet. The "more" part has already happened here in Orlando as 40Mb is $30 over the 20Mb price. Hard to justify for many when they pay so much for TV, but not so much if TV service was ala carte.
> 
> ...



You are in Orlando? Get Brigthouse man. I pay $119 for Cable w/ two DVR, 60 MB/s Internet (no cap) and Phone with unlimited long distance.



Sasqui said:


> It probably depends on the state and municipality.  Most places, the util poles are owned by the power company and communication/data lines are owned by the respective companies, but they pay a lease fee to the power company to use the poles.
> 
> Did we get off topic?



Not really. Those who control the lease control the service. I doubt Intel will be able to shake those grips.


----------



## Disparia (Jan 2, 2013)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are in Orlando? Get Brigthouse man. I pay $119 for Cable w/ two DVR, 60 MB/s Internet (no cap) and Phone with unlimited long distance.



I do have Brighthouse, just Internet though, for $65/month (business line). Was just speculating on how Intel is going to make this attractive to customers while keeping the industry from freaking out.


----------

