Intel to take out ESPiN? Bah-bye cable TV deals

[froginaustin]

http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1?fark=1

. . .

This set-top box, said by industry insiders to be available to a limited beta of customers in March, will offer cable channels delivered “over the top” to televisions anywhere there is an Internet connection regardless of provider. (Microsoft Mediaroom, for example, requires AT&T’s service, and Xbox has limited offerings for Comcast and FiOS customers). For the first time, consumers will be able to subscribe to content per channel, unlike bundled cable services, and you may also be able to subscribe per show as well. Intel’s set-top box will also have access to Intel’s already existing app marketplace for apps, casual games, and video on demand.

. . ..

 

[10 Key Frog]

A la carte cable is what I've been waiting for. There's really only about 20-30 channels I regularly use but subscribe to one of the largest fios packages to get them all.

 

[froginaustin]

If, and that's a real big if, a la carte cable comes around,

we'll see what the BTN and the Longhorn Network are really worth. I'm honestly curious. This post is not the gloating it resembles.

 

[10 Key Frog]

If, and that's a real big if, a la carte cable comes around,

we'll see what the BTN and the Longhorn Network are really worth. I'm honestly curious. This post is not the gloating it resembles.

Agreed. And even beyond those it'll likely kill off a lot of fluff channels that Viacom, Disney, etc cram down everyone's throats and force providers to add by withholding their popular channels. Thus forcing the end subscriber to pay for all of them.

 

[joejordan]

The channels will go from cents per household to significant dollars.

 

[FeistyFrog]

Buy Intel. It has been hammered the last year or so and really should be a good buy.

 

[Bonner4Prez]

They will be taking out Comcast, etc. as well then right?

 

[Stables Bartender]

read the article down further they stated that popular channels could cost more. Take ESPN group charges $5.00 per subscriber per month but only 25% of the Subscribers watch on a regular basis. So the 25% regular and lets say 10% casual watcher have to make up the 65% drop in revenue. That is what would happen to every channel and you would end up paying more per channel, less options and in many cases more than you are paying now.

Also Intel would have to obtain agreements with every programmer and do you think the programmers want to upset the the cable/satellite operators, their bread and butter.

 

[frogbyproxy]

If I'm correct they will still have to offer local channel's no matter what because FCC regulations but I'm for single channel sales. I only watch three channels that are not local so I could save. As it stands I pay $100 a month for the three channels I watch. Dumb I know but it's the system we have.

 

[matmoo123]

What is technically feasible is vastly different from the content deals they can put together. For example, Comcast owns NBCU, so they aren't letting that content walk out the door cheap and easy. The rest of the networks, studios, etc all have a vested interest in the status quo. All the "newer" service providers have had challenges getting content up to speed (AT&T, Verizon, Google). Not saying it can't happen, but will be a serious challenge.

 

[joejordan]

I am a hopeless channel surfer with an aversion to commercials. I like the cornucopia of channels, the opportunity to stumble upon something interesting and to sometimes see Kim Kardashians latest exploits. Such fun.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I wonder how much I'd have to pay to keep getting the BYU Network?

 

[Scott]

I wonder how much I'd have to pay to keep getting the BYU Network?

 

[gohornedfrogs]

Clearly, this is a "be careful what you wish for" moment...

 

[Limey Frog]

read the article down further they stated that popular channels could cost more. Take ESPN group charges $5.00 per subscriber per month but only 25% of the Subscribers watch on a regular basis. So the 25% regular and lets say 10% casual watcher have to make up the 65% drop in revenue. That is what would happen to every channel and you would end up paying more per channel, less options and in many cases more than you are paying now.

Also Intel would have to obtain agreements with every programmer and do you think the programmers want to upset the the cable/satellite operators, their bread and butter.

ESPN currently gets $4.50 per subscriber and another $.50 for ESPN2. They could move that up to $8-10 total and many households would still see a massive decline in their total TV bill because they could drop other channels they don't watch. I watch probably fewer than a dozen channels. I'll gladly pay them all what they're worth and give nothing to the others. More power to the consumer, more power to the producer of quality products that are actually in demand, less power to the bottom-feeding hangers-on.

If only the entire world worked that way...

 

[pcf]

Buy Intel. It has been hammered the last year or so and really should be a good buy.

I had just been looking at them because of a bit about their buybacks.

They borrowed money at low rates to buy back shares. The guy calculated a 0% return on the buyback.

I still think it is possible the smaller number of shares outstanding could really ratchet up shares prices if they hit on something. Of course, people are pessimistic because of the PC, but we'll see. I like the 4% dividend and the story. OTOH, I don't need another Nokia.

 

[frogbyproxy]

Clearly, this is a "be careful what you wish for" moment...

You're correct! I was originally a systems manager for Storer Communications in Saginaw, Lake Worth and Watauga. Cities helped establish pricing ceilings on basic and premium channels with contracts but because of a ruling by FCC everything they established went down the drain. This will probably open the door to escalating prices again.

 

[FeistyFrog]

I had just been looking at them because of a bit about their buybacks.

They borrowed money at low rates to buy back shares. The guy calculated a 0% return on the buyback.

I still think it is possible the smaller number of shares outstanding could really ratchet up shares prices if they hit on something. Of course, people are pessimistic because of the PC, but we'll see. I like the 4% dividend and the story. OTOH, I don't need another Nokia.

Intel still dominates their primary market and unlike Nokia they have very good forward thinking management.

 

[pcf]

Intel still dominates their primary market and unlike Nokia they have very good forward thinking management.

True, but good companies that dominate their markets can still sit there like a bump on a log forever.

 

[Horned Toad]

I say bring it on. There's nothing like a paradigm shift to shake up competition.