FCC proposes rule change to open a la carte internet television streaming

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2014
Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler floated a proposal Wednesday that would give Internet-based video services the same access to live content from cable and local stations as traditional television broadcasters.

FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler


The proposal, which seeks to alter the definition of "multichannel video programming distributor" (MVPD) to be technology-agnostic, would pave the way for consumers to subscribe to channels ? la carte from internet services. Fans of Breaking Bad, for instance, could subscribe to AMC without also paying for channels like Lifetime, in which they are not interested.

"Consumers have long complained about how their cable service forces them to buy channels they never watch," Wheeler wrote in a blog post. "The move of video onto the Internet can do something about that frustration - but first Internet video services need access to the programs."

The definition of MVPD is one of the items that got "antenna subscription" service Aereo into trouble with federal authorities. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that Aereo had no right to rebroadcast content under the provision.

If the rule change is eventually implemented, prospective streaming providers would still need to reach financial agreements with the content owners. They also would not be allowed to provide programming on-demand -- only "linear channels, which offer the viewer a prescheduled lineup of programs," would be covered.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    stompystompy Posts: 408member

    I'm intrigued to find out how individual channels will be priced. It might even be a new source of income for some people: channels like QVC would have to pay ME to subscribe!

  • Reply 2 of 44
    Let the games begin!
  • Reply 3 of 44
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,241member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stompy View Post

     

    I'm intrigued to find out how individual channels will be priced. It might even be a new source of income for some people: channels like QVC would have to pay ME to subscribe! </s>


    Exactly! There are so many channels on cable that have no business being there. I like the fact there are non-english channels for those people who really want to watch them but I don't so I see no reason to pay for them. Add all those stupid shopping channels and biased news channels and I'd trim my channels down to the bare minimum.

  • Reply 4 of 44
    mactmact Posts: 26member
    I am willing to bet that the cost of each subscription will add up, and we will find ourselves paying the same amount as we do now.
  • Reply 5 of 44

    First the music cartel. Then the phone carrier cartel. Then low-quality/cheap PCs. Now retailers.

     

    Next up, the cable luddites. And a little further drown the road, the movie/TV network cartel.

     

    The revolution will be televised.....

  • Reply 6 of 44
    I watch to many different channels for this to be a viable option. Now IF I could subscribe to shows, not channels, that would be great!
  • Reply 7 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MACT View Post



    I am willing to bet that the cost of each subscription will add up, and we will find ourselves paying the same amount as we do now.



    You'll end up paying more.

  • Reply 8 of 44

    They had me up until the point where they said VOD was not included. WTF? I have to have a DVR to watch my internet programing when I want too? Tim, talk some sense to the man. :)

  • Reply 9 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MACT View Post



    I am willing to bet that the cost of each subscription will add up, and we will find ourselves paying the same amount as we do now.

    I am willing to bet you're exactly right. Currently, I pay ~$130 for TV and Internet through the only cable provider in my area. They provide Internet without cable for ~$55. A handful of my favorite channels at $5-10 a pop will get me right back up to $130. If the masses start moving to this model, their revenue stream will decline due to all the people dropping cable and leaving only Internet. This will force them to raise the price of their Internet.

     

    It's bad enough that virtually every one of the hundreds of channels I receive has commercials. This means I'm paying $75 a month just for the conduit to bring those advertisement-infested channels into my home.

  • Reply 10 of 44
    Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition! I want this to pass so badly I can barely breathe.
  • Reply 11 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MACT View Post



    I am willing to bet that the cost of each subscription will add up, and we will find ourselves paying the same amount as we do now.

    Perhaps. :)

     

    I, for one, only watch Fareed Zakaria (GPS) on CNN and Formula one. 

  • Reply 12 of 44
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

     

    Exactly! There are so many channels on cable that have no business being there. I like the fact there are non-english channels for those people who really want to watch them but I don't so I see no reason to pay for them. Add all those stupid shopping channels and biased news channels and I'd trim my channels down to the bare minimum.


    When I live in Calif, I have two cables coming into my house, the A and B and lucky for me my TV allowed two Cable inputs, but most people had a box on the TV to switch between A and B. Most everything I watch was on A, and I think one or two things were on B, however, most everything on B was non-English programming. I called up the Cable company and ask them to turn off B and cut my bill in half, I explained them it was only fair since B actually contained more channel than A did so Half price was a fair compromise. Yeah they laugh at me and said it was not going to happen.

  • Reply 13 of 44
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    zroger73 wrote: »
    I am willing to bet you're exactly right. Currently, I pay ~$130 for TV and Internet through the only cable provider in my area. They provide Internet without cable for ~$55. A handful of my favorite channels at $5-10 a pop will get me right back up to $130. If the masses start moving to this model, their revenue stream will decline due to all the people dropping cable and leaving only Internet. This will force them to raise the price of their Internet.

    It's bad enough that virtually every one of the hundreds of channels I receive has commercials. This means I'm paying $75 a month just for the conduit to bring those advertisement-infested channels into my home.

    The cable companies have to either be regulated or face more competition. As it is they are, in far too many areas, like feudal barons. I would not even put it past them to be operating cartels in areas with several 'competing'. We need a paradigm shift in internet access.
  • Reply 14 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    First the music cartel. Then the phone carrier cartel. Then low-quality/cheap PCs. Now retailers.

     

    Next up, the cable luddites. And a little further drown the road, the movie/TV network cartel.

     

    The revolution will be televised.....


    Exactly! The cable providers have manipulated the government into allowing them to operate fiefdoms where they can charge exorbitant prices while  providing poor quality, clunky interfaces and lousy customer service.

  • Reply 15 of 44
    I have not had cable TV for about 15 years now. I can't recall a single time that I missed it.
  • Reply 16 of 44
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    I hope this goes through and we are probably looking at yrs before anything changes. What we need is Apple spending some of those $B on lobbying the government on this. You know the Cable companies will fight this to the bitter end. Apple can out spend them all if they wanted too.

     

    Just to be clear, yes the Cable companies are evil, however, it really the content owners who are the evil ones. They restrict who is allow to have what content and when. Notice that the FCC position is Streaming live content over the Internet happens it will be linear content (i.e. you will be barred from recording it or time shifting it.  In the past if it send over the air ways you can pretty much do what you wanted as long as you were not making money off it. For some reason even though the content is still broadcast over the air if you are getting it from cable you restricted on what you can do with it.

  • Reply 17 of 44
    jakebjakeb Posts: 562member
    "only "linear channels, which offer the viewer a prescheduled lineup of programs," would be covered"

    WELL. Baby steps, I guess.
  • Reply 18 of 44
    Id prefer to see ala carte done by show and not channel. I feel like by channel, it will still end up costing as much as cable.

    For instance, the Walking Dead on AMC. Its the only show i watch on that channel. Why pay $4.99 a month for AMC to watch one show? I'd rather just pay $9.99 for subscription to the Walking Dead season. Watch it live or on-demand the day after it airs.
  • Reply 19 of 44
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    boriscleto wrote: »

    You'll end up paying more.

    Absolutely. The media companies own a lot of networks so to keep those niche networks operating, they'll charge more for the popular ones.
  • Reply 20 of 44
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stompy View Post

     

    I'm intrigued to find out how individual channels will be priced. It might even be a new source of income for some people: channels like QVC would have to pay ME to subscribe!


    They might, but you can bet you'd be required to watch it some minimum amount if they did.

Sign In or Register to comment.