I had Charter installed at my house a couple of weeks ago. I had been on Dish but decided to save a few bucks when I moved into this house. We only watch a few channels (4 main channels - old movies and shows plus the Big Bang theory).
Honestly, the Charter user interface is awefu. The program descriptions are very uninformative and too small to read. Finding a station is painful to say the least. But most of all, what I really miss is the skip forward button we had on dish so I could easily hop over commercials. Surely it had to be debated when they designed the system.
Ideally, I would like Apple to negotiate with the content providers so I would only need a broadband connection and buy the channels I want but I realize that the big content providers will only bunde their offerings so I will have to live in that world.though not ideal, ill bite the cable system bullet but it would be nice to at least have it operate as such:
1). I'm stuck with buying a cable subscription and a broadband subscription. 2). The cable system terminates in a single location in my house as a network connection with wifi where I setup as my own network. 3). Each TV in the house has its own Apple TV and are connected to the network either via wifi or hard wired. 4) the Apple TV box provides the interface for the entire cable offering plus Netflix, Hulu, and Apple's other offerings.
This saves the cable company a lot in installation costs and system maintenance and I get a better interface than I now have. Since the content is stored in the cloud but buffered on the Apple TV, I can have my skip commercial option and 'record' movies for later viewing.
Somehow I feel that the overwhelming desire for a la carte pricing will not result in a net savings for the subscriber. I have always felt that. I just think that there will be minor savings if any at all even after you pare down to "only" the channels that you watch and pay for each one individually. I hope I am wrong.
I am confused why Apple gets in trouble for anti-competitive behaviour when Cable companies are allowed to preserve their monopoly by forcing Apple to adopt to their wishes. Ala Carte programming is what I want.
Without DVR it will be of limited interest unless they can figure out some way of providing DVR-like functionality without adding a pay per play cost. I believe DVR box rental is about $12/month. I suppose I would pay that per month plus whatever the Lineup costs to have this functionality on an ATV. However, I would expect some sort of discount if this is all streaming over my Time Warner Cable Modem service that I pay separately for.
I am confused why Apple gets in trouble for anti-competitive behaviour when Cable companies are allowed to preserve their monopoly by forcing Apple to adopt to their wishes. Ala Carte programming is what I want.
I'd think this would only be anti-competitive if they ALSO require you to subscribe to their internet service (i.e. you can only access it if you have TW internet and cable).
Unfortunately, because it's a utility, there are defacto regional monopolies in the U.S. In my area, I can only get Comcast (or satellite, which is ish for internet). The problem is that the U.S. doesn't seem keen on enforcing the "dumb pipe" rule.
Time Warner, Comcast, etc. have paid off more people in power?
One has to consider the huge capital expenditure it takes to build and maintain a cable network, if these companies aren't given some type of monopoly that'll ensure that the infrastructure investment doesn't pay dividends then nobody would ever bother to build a network.
I'd think this would only be anti-competitive if they ALSO require you to subscribe to their internet service (i.e. you can only access it if you have TW internet and cable).
Unfortunately, because it's a utility, there are defacto regional monopolies in the U.S. In my area, I can only get Comcast (or satellite, which is ish for internet). The problem is that the U.S. doesn't seem keen on enforcing the "dumb pipe" rule.
Cable and telcos aren't utilities. To be a utility one has to bill by usage (like gas and electric) and not by a flat monthly rate, the telcos stop being a utility when they went with monthly plans.
This is the last piece of the puzzle, as I see it. If the cable companies would control their content with software rather than with their ugly, useless set-top boxes and equally pathetic remotes, we could finally have the AppleTV (the one with the screen) we all dream of (and I think that Steve Jobs dreamed of.)
With cable content being an app, just like any other, we can finally have that consistent, intuitive user experience that could have easily been envisioned if the cable companies weren't so stupid and paranoid.
I'd say the "last piece" would be allowing subscriptions directly through iTunes, as in not requiring me to contact TW at all, or have them run cable to my house. Then I could get TW in a "Comcast-only" zone for instance.
You know other cable companies would rush in to make sure they have a competing option. This would drive prices down, as now there's open competition (which rarely exists currently).
Th real "last piece" though would be when AppleTV has a big enough user base (or this is also allowed on iPads) to have a stronger negotiating position.
Cable and telcos aren't utilities. To be a utility one has to bill by usage (like gas and electric) and not by a flat monthly rate, the telcos stop being a utility when they went with monthly plans.
I'm saying they're essentially a utility, and in practice they act like one. Usually there's only one or two choices for utilities in an area. In my area, for cable there is ONLY Comcast. That's it. No competition, besides satellite — which is only good for TV, not internet.
Don't actual utilities have regulations on the amount they charge?
"Users who access WatchESPN on the Apple TV must have an active cable subscription, while HBO Go can only be streamed to customers who subscribe to HBO through their cable provider."
IOW, you still have to subscribe to the whole package of crap from your cable provider to access the channel you want on the ATV.
The Holy Grail consumers want is to be able to choose and pay for ONLY the content they want. This news item is a long way short of that, as consumers are still stuck with whatever bundling is demanded by the cable provider.
Some options have begun to appear: NHL and MLB have separate season passes, but this is a long way from offering content ala carte.
FWIW, I would pay a reasonable one day fee for sports. HNIC, NFL Sunday, TdF, Olympics. $5 for the day? A commercial free option would be interesting, but most sports productions are designed around TV timeouts anyway, so I'm not sure if it's viable.
I'm saying they're essentially a utility, and in practice they act like one. Usually there's only one or two choices for utilities in an area. In my area, for cable there is ONLY Comcast. That's it. No competition, besides satellite — which is only good for TV, not internet.
Don't actual utilities have regulations on the amount they charge?
Yes utilities must get permission to raise rates and also have to post their intentions to raise rates in the local periodicals.
At some point in the future, when all the cable companies, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner etc. have apps on the Apple TV, will one of them release the dogs and allow watching with just a payment via iTunes to someone with no cable contract? At that point, if there is an à la carte option too, we will have reached a paradigm shift
FIOS and att uverse already do this on the xbox. you don't need a cable box to watch cable TV
The Holy Grail consumers want is to be able to choose and pay for ONLY the content they want. This news item is a long way short of that, as consumers are still stuck with whatever bundling is demanded by the cable provider.
Some options have begun to appear: NHL and MLB have separate season passes, but this is a long way from offering content ala carte.
It's not going to happen. At least not for 10+ years. This boat isn't going to turn around easily- so you might as well tuck that dream away along with hover cars and teleport machines.
NHL and MLB (and NBA) aren't feasible options for the majority of the public, because they still black out your local team- so that doesn't help local fans in the slightest. And every single exclusive local deal professional teams are getting are at a minimum 10 years- with several 20+. So why would Fox sports hand over the Rangers broadcast rights for a single fee for one channel, when they can package that up with their dozens of other channels and force the cable company to buy it as a package?
Again, great idea- love it... but it ain't gonna happen.
"Users who access WatchESPN on the Apple TV must have an active cable subscription, while HBO Go can only be streamed to customers who subscribe to HBO through their cable provider."
IOW, you still have to subscribe to the whole package of crap from your cable provider to access the channel you want on the ATV.
The Holy Grail consumers want is to be able to choose and pay for ONLY the content they want. This news item is a long way short of that, as consumers are still stuck with whatever bundling is demanded by the cable provider.
Some options have begun to appear: NHL and MLB have separate season passes, but this is a long way from offering content ala carte.
FWIW, I would pay a reasonable one day fee for sports. HNIC, NFL Sunday, TdF, Olympics. $5 for the day? A commercial free option would be interesting, but most sports productions are designed around TV timeouts anyway, so I'm not sure if it's viable.
This is just one step. It's a slow dance.
If Apple ever gets TW or someone else to allow direct on-device subscriptions (i.e. Comcast could be my ISP, but I can use ATV to subscribe to TW television), that will really open the floodgates, what with actual competition and all.
Of course, then they'll conspire to raise internet rates, or throttle traffic, or impose harsh data caps (unless you subscribe to both TV and Internet through on provider of course), because the FTC and DOJ look the other way.
wouldn't watchESPN give you access to played games?
Do they currently do this?
Everything that seems to "make sense" in this discussion is likely encumbered by onerous licensing deals with outdated terms that make everything a murky grey area and invite lawsuits whenever someone wants to be trailblazer.
wouldn't watchESPN give you access to played games?
No. WatchESPN doesn't have any games- just clips for the most part. ESPN3 app has the occasional spare college game. But the major networks own all the broadcast and reproduction rights. So even if ESPN wanted to re-air the broadcast, they'd only be able to do anything ABC owns. Otherwise, what benefit would Fox, CBS, NBC to hand it over to them?
Sports fans get screwed and can't ever cut the cord. They have us by the balls. If I could just watch all the Cowboys and Rangers games- and the occasional Mavericks game, I'd be fine with just buying the handful of shows I watch on iTunes (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones). But, alas, I can't.
Comments
Honestly, the Charter user interface is awefu. The program descriptions are very uninformative and too small to read. Finding a station is painful to say the least. But most of all, what I really miss is the skip forward button we had on dish so I could easily hop over commercials. Surely it had to be debated when they designed the system.
Ideally, I would like Apple to negotiate with the content providers so I would only need a broadband connection and buy the channels I want but I realize that the big content providers will only bunde their offerings so I will have to live in that world.though not ideal, ill bite the cable system bullet but it would be nice to at least have it operate as such:
1). I'm stuck with buying a cable subscription and a broadband subscription.
2). The cable system terminates in a single location in my house as a network connection with wifi where I setup as my own network.
3). Each TV in the house has its own Apple TV and are connected to the network either via wifi or hard wired.
4) the Apple TV box provides the interface for the entire cable offering plus Netflix, Hulu, and Apple's other offerings.
This saves the cable company a lot in installation costs and system maintenance and I get a better interface than I now have. Since the content is stored in the cloud but buffered on the Apple TV, I can have my skip commercial option and 'record' movies for later viewing.
This topic needs a review. Careful, it's a bit NSFW
Without DVR it will be of limited interest unless they can figure out some way of providing DVR-like functionality without adding a pay per play cost. I believe DVR box rental is about $12/month. I suppose I would pay that per month plus whatever the Lineup costs to have this functionality on an ATV. However, I would expect some sort of discount if this is all streaming over my Time Warner Cable Modem service that I pay separately for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I'm curious, with the availability of on demand HD why do you see a need to record / store anything?
Doesn't OnDemand HD have a pay per play cost? On My DVR, I record once watch many times at no extra cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I am confused why Apple gets in trouble for anti-competitive behaviour when Cable companies are allowed to preserve their monopoly by forcing Apple to adopt to their wishes. Ala Carte programming is what I want.
I'd think this would only be anti-competitive if they ALSO require you to subscribe to their internet service (i.e. you can only access it if you have TW internet and cable).
Unfortunately, because it's a utility, there are defacto regional monopolies in the U.S. In my area, I can only get Comcast (or satellite, which is ish for internet). The problem is that the U.S. doesn't seem keen on enforcing the "dumb pipe" rule.
One has to consider the huge capital expenditure it takes to build and maintain a cable network, if these companies aren't given some type of monopoly that'll ensure that the infrastructure investment doesn't pay dividends then nobody would ever bother to build a network.
Cable and telcos aren't utilities. To be a utility one has to bill by usage (like gas and electric) and not by a flat monthly rate, the telcos stop being a utility when they went with monthly plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave
This is the last piece of the puzzle, as I see it. If the cable companies would control their content with software rather than with their ugly, useless set-top boxes and equally pathetic remotes, we could finally have the AppleTV (the one with the screen) we all dream of (and I think that Steve Jobs dreamed of.)
With cable content being an app, just like any other, we can finally have that consistent, intuitive user experience that could have easily been envisioned if the cable companies weren't so stupid and paranoid.
I'd say the "last piece" would be allowing subscriptions directly through iTunes, as in not requiring me to contact TW at all, or have them run cable to my house. Then I could get TW in a "Comcast-only" zone for instance.
You know other cable companies would rush in to make sure they have a competing option. This would drive prices down, as now there's open competition (which rarely exists currently).
Th real "last piece" though would be when AppleTV has a big enough user base (or this is also allowed on iPads) to have a stronger negotiating position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Cable and telcos aren't utilities. To be a utility one has to bill by usage (like gas and electric) and not by a flat monthly rate, the telcos stop being a utility when they went with monthly plans.
I'm saying they're essentially a utility, and in practice they act like one. Usually there's only one or two choices for utilities in an area. In my area, for cable there is ONLY Comcast. That's it. No competition, besides satellite — which is only good for TV, not internet.
Don't actual utilities have regulations on the amount they charge?
"Users who access WatchESPN on the Apple TV must have an active cable subscription, while HBO Go can only be streamed to customers who subscribe to HBO through their cable provider."
IOW, you still have to subscribe to the whole package of crap from your cable provider to access the channel you want on the ATV.
The Holy Grail consumers want is to be able to choose and pay for ONLY the content they want. This news item is a long way short of that, as consumers are still stuck with whatever bundling is demanded by the cable provider.
Some options have begun to appear: NHL and MLB have separate season passes, but this is a long way from offering content ala carte.
FWIW, I would pay a reasonable one day fee for sports. HNIC, NFL Sunday, TdF, Olympics. $5 for the day? A commercial free option would be interesting, but most sports productions are designed around TV timeouts anyway, so I'm not sure if it's viable.
Yes utilities must get permission to raise rates and also have to post their intentions to raise rates in the local periodicals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I'm curious, with the availability of on demand HD why do you see a need to record / store anything?
For me- sports. Particularly football- I don't start a game until about 45 minutes into it so I can fly through the commercials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
That was my reaction.
At some point in the future, when all the cable companies, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner etc. have apps on the Apple TV, will one of them release the dogs and allow watching with just a payment via iTunes to someone with no cable contract? At that point, if there is an à la carte option too, we will have reached a paradigm shift
FIOS and att uverse already do this on the xbox. you don't need a cable box to watch cable TV
no need for itunes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
For me- sports. Particularly football- I don't start a game until about 45 minutes into it so I can fly through the commercials.
wouldn't watchESPN give you access to played games?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Yes utilities must get permission to raise rates and also have to post their intentions to raise rates in the local periodicals.
Do cable companies have to do anything similar? That pretty similar monopolistic positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero
The Holy Grail consumers want is to be able to choose and pay for ONLY the content they want. This news item is a long way short of that, as consumers are still stuck with whatever bundling is demanded by the cable provider.
Some options have begun to appear: NHL and MLB have separate season passes, but this is a long way from offering content ala carte.
It's not going to happen. At least not for 10+ years. This boat isn't going to turn around easily- so you might as well tuck that dream away along with hover cars and teleport machines.
NHL and MLB (and NBA) aren't feasible options for the majority of the public, because they still black out your local team- so that doesn't help local fans in the slightest. And every single exclusive local deal professional teams are getting are at a minimum 10 years- with several 20+. So why would Fox sports hand over the Rangers broadcast rights for a single fee for one channel, when they can package that up with their dozens of other channels and force the cable company to buy it as a package?
Again, great idea- love it... but it ain't gonna happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero
This isn't the panacea claimed:
"Users who access WatchESPN on the Apple TV must have an active cable subscription, while HBO Go can only be streamed to customers who subscribe to HBO through their cable provider."
IOW, you still have to subscribe to the whole package of crap from your cable provider to access the channel you want on the ATV.
The Holy Grail consumers want is to be able to choose and pay for ONLY the content they want. This news item is a long way short of that, as consumers are still stuck with whatever bundling is demanded by the cable provider.
Some options have begun to appear: NHL and MLB have separate season passes, but this is a long way from offering content ala carte.
FWIW, I would pay a reasonable one day fee for sports. HNIC, NFL Sunday, TdF, Olympics. $5 for the day? A commercial free option would be interesting, but most sports productions are designed around TV timeouts anyway, so I'm not sure if it's viable.
This is just one step. It's a slow dance.
If Apple ever gets TW or someone else to allow direct on-device subscriptions (i.e. Comcast could be my ISP, but I can use ATV to subscribe to TW television), that will really open the floodgates, what with actual competition and all.
Of course, then they'll conspire to raise internet rates, or throttle traffic, or impose harsh data caps (unless you subscribe to both TV and Internet through on provider of course), because the FTC and DOJ look the other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
wouldn't watchESPN give you access to played games?
Do they currently do this?
Everything that seems to "make sense" in this discussion is likely encumbered by onerous licensing deals with outdated terms that make everything a murky grey area and invite lawsuits whenever someone wants to be trailblazer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
wouldn't watchESPN give you access to played games?
No. WatchESPN doesn't have any games- just clips for the most part. ESPN3 app has the occasional spare college game. But the major networks own all the broadcast and reproduction rights. So even if ESPN wanted to re-air the broadcast, they'd only be able to do anything ABC owns. Otherwise, what benefit would Fox, CBS, NBC to hand it over to them?
Sports fans get screwed and can't ever cut the cord. They have us by the balls. If I could just watch all the Cowboys and Rangers games- and the occasional Mavericks game, I'd be fine with just buying the handful of shows I watch on iTunes (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones). But, alas, I can't.