Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Are you crazy?

7 (25%)

I doubt it would work

1 (3.6%)

Spend your time on music

8 (28.6%)

Go!

12 (42.9%)

Total Members Voted: 27

[JimH]

It would have a lot of movies, of course.  And music and news.

What else?  What programs would you expect it to carry?

[Mr ChriZ]

Tell us more, How would it make money?

[JimH]

You'd pay for it.  Like you pay for cable.  But it would be cheaper and better.  It would replace your cable.  It would work with your TV and your PC.  It would sync to your portable device.

[ThoBar]

If you're suggesting an on-demand IP based subscription service (have I got it right?), then definitely

[glynor]

If you're suggesting an on-demand IP based subscription service (have I got it right?), then definitely

I'm thinking he means more of a "programed" type service, rather than on-demand (which the **AA conglomerates wouldn't allow).  So, much like a regular old cable TV channel, but online instead of via Cable/Satellite.

All I can say is .... I've wondered why no one has been doing it already.  If HBO, Comedy Central, and Discovery offered their channels via the Internet, I'd pay them MORE than what they're getting out of me now (and the Cable company gets a sizable cut now -- not to mention transmission and delivery costs), so that I could cancel all the crap I don't watch!

Heck... I'd probably pay $15-$18 per month direct to HBO for that service, as long as they offered the same programming as I get via Digital Cable now!

[ThoBar]

... and as long as we can get in Australia 

[JimH]

It would be a combination of on-demand and programmed.

[glynor]

OR...

Perhaps he means to actually BECOME a cable company.  But rather than delivering the service via a physical phone or cable or satellite feed into your house, it would just use transport over IP to get the signal in... So they'd become like Time Warner or Comcast, except only selling TV services.

If that's the case... Then I'd consider it.  It'd be difficult for you to be cost competitive though, because of the bundling the cable companies can do.  For example, right now for my home connection I pay:

$88/month (including most taxes and fees -- I think the actual bill is $88.72 or something like that)

That includes:
Cable Internet (5m down, 768k up -- advertised, not real, of course)
"basic" Digital Cable (a hundred channels or so -- mostly crap -- and a bunch of XM music channels and stuff)
HBO (including all the extra "versions" and East/West coast feeds)

The problem is that if I switch to Cable Internet only, my price per month goes to $54.  So, you'd have to offer a comparable service, including HBO for around $34 per month for it to be worth it, and it'd have to be TiVO-friendly and VCR-friendly (which might be tough with enforced DRM from the media companies).

[JimH]

Perhaps he means to actually BECOME a cable company.  But rather than delivering the service via a physical phone or cable or satellite feed into your house, it would just use transport over IP to get the signal in... So they'd become like Time Warner or Comcast, except only selling TV services.

Correct.  Think about what google may do with the spectrum they want to purchase.

I just bought 3mb/s service from a wireless company that is blanketing Minneapolis.  The cost was less than $20/month.

http://www.usiwireless.com/service/pricing.htm

Then, my favorite... peer to peer Internet.  A connection whenever you can see a house or car.

[glynor]

I just bought 3mb/s service from a wireless company that is blanketing Minneapolis.  The cost was less than $20/month.

It'll be a LONG FRICKIN' TIME before anything that cool is offered in West Bum-Frick Maine.

Right now, it's pretty much $50/month Time Warner or crappy down-all-the-time Verizon DSL, which is only $24 per month -- oh wait, you need a phone number and a fancy package so the real cost is $70 per month (and I use VOIP so that's not a good value at all)...

EDIT: If you were somehow able to get licensed to offer the service Internationally (I doubt it) then you'd probably have a HUGE market.  Think of all those poor people in the UK or Germany or Taiwan with their fantastic home IP pipes, but terrible TV options!

[glynor]

Then, my favorite... peer to peer Internet.  A connection whenever you can see a house or car.

I, for one, welcome our new Grid networking Overlords.   

[ThoBar]

Heh, it was just announced that my little ol' town will be getting <7mbit wireless soonish
[edited to make sense, due to stupid fat fingers typing incorrect mathematical operators]

will probably cost me all my limbs and maybe one of the wife's too though

peer to peer Internet

...drooooool ....

[glynor]

WiMAX has potential, but even that is going to take forever to have a nationwide, non-major-city, rollout.  This looks cool though: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070925-when-wireless-dsl-sprint-motorola-show-off-wimax-on-the-chicago-river.html

[mlefebvre]

Let's see... I know I had $50M lying around here somewhere... Canadian of course, but these days we at par... ;-)

Knowing what you guys can do, I'll just lend it to you for this project... That is as soon as I find it.... My office is so cluttered right now... 

...Michel.

[datdude]

The main thing I do not like about my cable service is the cost of the different packages.  If I only want a few more channels why should I have to pay double or triple more just to get that package?  It would be great to only pay for the channels I want!

The reason why it is that way now, is that certain channels don't want to be left out of the main stream which would hurt their advertising.   So that likely will never happen, but if JRiver could do it, I would fully support it.  I could even still have my existing cable service, but then just buy a channel or 2 from JRiver.

So I would suggest maybe picking some of those channels that are only provided on the premium packages that are niche genres that users really want, like say the NFL network, and working with those on delivering content.  I could easily see HBO working with this because they don't deal with advertising, so the more individual subscriptions the better.

I'm sure there are tons of channels that I have never heard of because of my location, those would be great choices for this service.

You could also potentially penetrate the slingbox market by delivering local channels without needing a slingbox device.  Say you moved, but still wanted to get the local sports or music coverage. 

[datdude]

Here is what AT&T is doing: http://www.att.com/gen/sites/iptv?pid=9148

It is still quite expensive and not a la carte nor do the channels look very enticing.  If JRiver can get some unique stuff a la carte, I would do it.

[Mr ChriZ]

You'd pay for it.  Like you pay for cable.  But it would be cheaper and better.  It would replace your cable.  It would work with your TV and your PC.  It would sync to your portable device.

I'd be interested.  Of course the question would be what was available and how
much it would cost, but sounds good :-)

[KingSparta]

consitering google paid a chunk of change for youtube.com (crazy idea that was, management on acid again) I think $50 mil is chump change.

I Am Still accepting Donations To Support KingSparta's Lifestyle Trust Fund.

[datdude]

Interesting C-net article from 2005: http://www.news.com/A-la-carte-TV/2100-1038_3-5980800.html

AT&T says it would support A la carte model back then, so it looks like that hope failed miserably.

You mention that JRiver's service would be better and cheaper.  How would it be better?

[jgreen]

JimH, that fifty bucks is absolutely burning a hole in your pocket, isn't it?  However, I vote GO on this one, with a couple of provisos:

--You have the wherewithall to penetrate the market ahead of ATT and VZ, who are building a hardware-based offering.  If it takes 2 years, is $50 enough?

--You have costed out your menu of services and know that you can make money offering ALA CARTE channels, which cable companies don't.  This is your selling point.

--You have figured out a way around the current (Republican) NON-equal access internet.  AFAIK, VZ and ATT are well within their rights to block or slow your packets.  A cable company offering internet, however, cannot do the same to them (or you).

All the same, GO GO GO!  Your customer service will be no worse than a cable company's,  and if 50 can get you to the finish line, I think you'll have something that you can sell.

[benn600]

Are you accepting investors?

[jgreen]

Um, benn, while an investment in IPTV is a great idea, definitely, how about cold fusion?  I've been doing some important work on this in my spare time, and I really think I've got it to the point where it could benefit from a cash infusion of, say, $50 million.  Any interest?  It doesn't necessarily have to be $50 million all at once--you could do, say $5 million to start off with, or $1 million.  Or if you're willing to send me a check for $50,000 I would be grateful for that.  Or $5,000.   

Barring any direct cash participation, do you think you could have your Dad call Citibank on my behalf?  My recent conversations with their Credit Card Collections department lead me to suspect that their representatives lack the intellect ever to understand the potential of cold fusion.

[benn600]

Yes or no.  Not, OOO, let me send you money!

[jgreen]

benn, JimH may promise you a "ground-floor opportunity", but I can get you a place in the potato cellar.

Did I mention this $50 million could take the form of a loan?

[horse]

For $50M I'm guessing you will be using wholesale providors for the actual connectivity to the home and have them switch your customers to you as the ISP. Although from the thread you will be more of a Content Providor than a Internet Providor.
I'm looking for MaaS (Media as a Service) . . . . . . Following on from SaaS and CaaS (Software as a Service and Computing as a Service)

Either way, I will pay good money for the first company in the Bay Area (supposed hi tech center of the US :-)  ) to provide: -

• Network Based Tivo so I can watch ALL my TV programs when I want to from anywhere with NO adverts and no need for a slingbox
• Network Based MC12 video, photo and music collection.
  When I buy a CD/DVD I don't actually get the disk, it is stored "In the network" and accessable from anywhere
• Radio streaming
• IP/TV for the times I want to watch sports etc. but still with PVR functionality
• Network Storage and hence access to my video's and photo's
• IP Telephony and Video conferencing with a unified messaging box (voice,video,email and fax)
• Oh and I want to be able access the internet as well !
• If you can throw in my own customizable portal with plugin support so I can have all the sites I visit daily on the internet all viewed in a single page, that would be nice!

Basically I want to get rid of all the back end stuff I have a home with just clients to access the media I want to listen or view. My home will be a connected home with a single high speed IP connection for all services except my cell phone so I can call you should the connection fail.

[cncb]

How about the video and sound quality?  It would have to be near high-definition and surround sound for me to be interested.

[newsposter]

It's not the hardware or applications or bandwidth that is the marketing issue.

Like the guy in the IBM commercial says "cool costs me money!!".

It's the software/data/programming that is the issue.  Unless you're able to offer new stuff at the rate that the 'traditional' video networks & channels do you're sunk.

Remember that Joe Six-pack or even Joe-Merlot doesn't give a ** about 'portable media'.  They want their 50" flat screen with live football or Dancing with the Stars or Seinfeld reruns.

Look at the ratings for various programs on cable tv and sat then you'll understand.  If you subscribe to the Neilson back-end data, you can break down ratings by zip code, income, and education.  It's not a pretty picture.

Understand also that media spend by consumers has been flat/falling for years.  Yes, loads of new players but those players are slicing what is turning out to be a fixed-price pie into smaller and smaller chunks.  It's only because working capital has been essentially 'free' (rates at well under 4%) the past 10-15 years that so many marginal cable and sat TV networks have survived.  Why do you think that 2 out of 5 new Hollywood TV and movie productions are done in Canada or Eastern Europe?  Lower cost of production to compensate for the smaller pieces of the pie available.

Just like no one drags a PDA or laptop into the can to read on-line newspapers or paperback books (prefering the dead-tree version), not enough people will spend enough $$ on 'portable media' to make any kind of new investment or market bet worthwhile.

Take that $50 mil and buy pull tabs.

[hit_ny]

Think of all those poor people in the UK or Germany or Taiwan with their fantastic home IP pipes, but terrible TV options!

Fantastic home IP pipes is all you need