Intel's set-top TV effort snags on cable
Inspiration hits immovable force
Intel's plans for a set-top box that would provide US television viewers' nirvana – being able to subscribe to the good stuff and not a bundle of useless channels – is being delayed by, amazingly enough, the cable industry.
Sources within Chipzilla had talked about a release of the devices early this year, with beta units going out in March. But others have told the Wall Street Journal that intransigence among the cable industry will hold the launch up until at least the last quarter of 2013.
Intel has one media partner on board, but is having problems cutting a deal with others to provide either a totally unbundled service or some new stacking of channels, the report states. Channel bundling is a long-standing and very lucrative practice, and since the networks argue that it's the only way to preserve specialist programming, it's not a surprise that Intel is having problems.
Way back in 2007, Intel launched its first SoC aimed at TV, and has made wild claims about the Smart TV future, with its chips integrating the internet into the television market in a way consumers would find irresistible. It didn't work out like that, with manufacturers reporting little demand.
Intel gave up on the idea, but there have been persistent rumors that it's planning a move of its own into the TV arena with a series of set-top boxes with DVR added, that would use both fixed and wireless connections to deliver content. The company has also patented facial recognition technology with DRM support for set-top boxes of the future.
Breaking out of the pure computing area into consumer devices has been something Intel has been trying to do since before soon-to-no-longer-be-CEO Paul Otellini's reign, but haven't puled it off. The world apparently isn't clamoring for smart TVs, and Intel's Atom efforts in smartphones are not proving popular.
Intel is hardly the first to have the idea, either. Apple and Google have their own TV products, but they aren't that popular (witness the speedy dropping of the Nexus Q) and no one has yet convinced consumers that they need an internet-enabled TV, particularly since it's increasingly likely that they'll have a tablet in their lap while watching the screen anyway.
If Intel believes it can succeed where others are failing, well, fair play to it, but it's unlikely that the cable companies will play ball. After all, what's in it for them? Customers may be happier but profits might fall, so don't expect much to change. ®
Bootnote
While all this is going on, the BBC is missing a huge revenue source in the US due to its continued failure to sort out its iPlayer system.
Currently those overseas can get most BBC Radio via the iPlayer app, but almost none of the TV content. Given that BBC America, the cable channel shown on this side of the Atlantic, gets 25 million viewers a month and numerous awards, a simple licensing system on iPlayer for TV content could be a huge money-spinner.
Even a straight conversion to dollars of the cheap current price of £145.50 for UK license-payers would make the BBC one of the best value US options, and would help make up for some of the funding shortfall Aunty Beeb is now facing. Such a move might annoy the cable industry, but would be worth it in the long run.
COMMENTS
Re: Don't know I'd back Intel, specifically...
Yes, I got rid of my cable TV, so I have Time Warner, Roadrunner, Comcast, etc actually sending physical sales people to my door. One of the deal breakers is "and I can have just the channels I want?" "oh yes, we have many lineups!!" "no... you're not listening..."
Don't know I'd back Intel, specifically...
but I wish somebody would break the channel-bundling mindset. Why do I have to pay for 50+ channels of fucking ESPN? I'm an IT nerd, I don't watch sports other than maybe X-Games stuff. And then I have to pay for 75 OTHER (non-ESPN I guess) sports channels, 40+ Jesus channels, 20 shopping channels, and untold numbers of channels in languages I don't even speak?
Here's an idea, Cable Industry: let me pick the 20 or 30 channels I want to watch, and you charge me, say, $1.50 per channel per month. That includes you, DirectTV and DishNetwork. And you can even keep charging a premium for the "premium" movie channels like HBO, Showtime, etc.
Re: Don't know I'd back Intel, specifically...
Err, the channels I watch all run commercials, so that should ideally be their revenue stream, same as it was for broadcast TV. If the cable channels were commercial-free, I could see your point. But they aren't. They are laden with commercials.
And as others have said, if a channel isn't popular enough to stand on its own, then why does it get to stay?
Re: Don't know I'd back Intel, specifically...
And the problem with that would be?
If they are not popular enough to stand on their own at $1.50/mo, then why should they be subsidized?
BTW, I haven't had cable for 13 years, since I moved into a house and the cable company told me I would have to pay to have the previous owners channel choices removed.
Fail for the cable providers.
Die, TBN, Die
I have been asking for unbundled cable/sat tv for ages. Where I am currently living, I would have to subscribe to all three levels of packages to get the 5-7 channels that I would watch. Like other here, I would get the nerd package including Discovery, TLC, NatGeo, Science, History, BBC and perhaps a couple of others. I would much rather have 4 channels of BBC offerings than 12 channels of ESPN. I don't care for sport.
I understand the business model of packaging, but there can be other models that can support individual choice. Many lesser watched channels and networks may have to close if this happens. I hardily support the Darwinian selection process for TV. As I "believe" in Darwin more than a supreme being, I am not interested in having a couple of dozen religious channels that I have to edit out every time there is a lineup reorg. The age old saying of "500 channels and nothing on" is still relevant after a the few decades since it was coined.
I worked for a specialty magazine that folded after a couple of years as its subject matter wasn't broad enough to bring in a large enough subscription base. The prices that can be charged for advertising is tied to the number of subscribers and a magazine needs to make at least a certain amount of money every month or it can't survive even with the leanest staffing. Sucked for me as I really enjoyed the work. After the magazine ceased publication there was some talk about an online version that could be produced for less since they wouldn't need premises and some of the staff involved with preparing a printed edition, but that fell through since ad rates for online ads are even less than printed ads.
The above story may be what happens to some of the specialty channels that can't draw a big enough audience. A few might be able to change to an online format and many others will die. Why should there be welfare for TV shows?
Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to any TV service anymore.
