Dish And The Dream Of Internet TV

[Scott Greczkowski]

[h=1]Dish And The Dream Of Internet TV[/h] October 1, 2012 | about: DISH, includes: SNI, VIA

By Ryan Lawler


Dish (DISH) is the latest company interested in building an Internet TV service, as Bloomberg reported last week that it was in talks with various networks about licensing its content and delivering it over the top. But while an over-the-top live TV service would certainly be a welcome choice among video options, it’s unlikely to be as cheap or as competitive as everyone would like it to be.


Dish isn’t alone in this pursuit: Over the last several years, we’ve heard about tech companies like Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft (MSFT) being in discussions with media companies to create their own bundled Internet TV services. Both of those companies backed down, reportedly due to the high cost of putting such a service together, as well as fundamental disagreements over how such an offering would be packaged. I’ve been told that Intel (INTC) is building an Internet TV service, led by former BBC exec Erik Huggers, but sources say that project has hit delays in recent months.

Read the rest at http://seekingalpha.com/article/898...ternet-tv?source=email_rt_article_title&ifp=0

 

[Tampa8]

100% agree.

 

[Juan]

I think ROKU had the best idea. They just provided a "platform" and the individual content providers would strike deals directly with the consumers thus avoiding all the licensing(and carriage disputes) nonsense of DBS and Cable. (I don't know if they receive a cut in the subscription price). Hmm that almost sounds like the "alacart" dream of some of the members of this forum..only pay for what you want. But now that Dish network now has their finger in the ROKU pie.. I think all will be lost and internet TV will just become another form of Cable TV

 

[downriver]

They weren't giving away Rokus out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Stargazer]

I am surprised that such a service has not been offered by now. Services such as Netflix or SkyAngel is as close as one has gotten to doing such a thing.

 

[Scherrman]

I'm assuming it's not as easy or affordable as we think it may be. I can't imagine how big of a pain it would be making agreements with all the networks or movie companies out there.

 

[mattb]

ALACart option would only mean you would actually pay more.. I am kinda happy with getting 200 channels for X dollars a month..

 

[TheKrell]

Yes, we would pay more per channel. But since most of us only watch a few channels, the total take by the networks would be much less. That is precisely why they won't allow it and a la carte will never be implemented except by statute.

 

[Brussam]

Remember when a telephone line was $7 a month. Then the monopoly was busted apart so we could shop for long distance and save money. So what is your telephone bill now?

Ala-carte will not only mean you pay more per channel, your bill in total will be more.

 

[navychop]

Yep. Wishful thinking to expect providers to reduce their take.

 

[samalex]

Honestly I'd do this... we pay $30/month total for the Welcome Package plus DVR and insurance, but i'd gladly pay $3 or $4 a month extra just to add SciFi which is about the only channel we don't get that I'd like to have.

 

[Tyralak]

Remember when a telephone line was $7 a month. Then the monopoly was busted apart so we could shop for long distance and save money. So what is your telephone bill now?

Ala-carte will not only mean you pay more per channel, your bill in total will be more.

I also remember long distance charges at 25 and 30 cents a minute. Ma Bell's monopoly wasn't all that benevolent.

 

[jimdandyvi]

Cheap LD

Until the Feds broke up AT&T you could have a cheap local line and then use a dial around service for cheaper LD. Best of both worlds. Then you had the option for a PIC choice other than AT&T for LD for cost savings.

I see the same thing happening if they force ala carte programming or programming becomes available over the internet you will end up paying more in total than you are currently paying.

 

[TheKrell]

Remember when a telephone line was $7 a month.

No, I do not remember when a telephone line was $7, and my memory goes back quite a ways. Was that some sort of lifeline charge for seniors? Certainly our bills in the 60's were several times higher than that, particularly including long distance. Accounting for inflation, our bills were probably well over $100/mo in today's dollars. (That's a wag.) Remember when the phone company charged you extra for each phone you rented? Remember when they charged extra for a touch-tone phone? Caller-ID? Those were not the good ol' days!

So what is your telephone bill now?

About $7/mo in today's dollars INCLUDING long distance and even overseas calling. Voip of course.

Ala-carte will not only mean you pay more per channel, your bill in total will be more.

I see the same thing happening if they force ala carte programming or programming becomes available over the internet you will end up paying more in total than you are currently paying.

Since there is no a la carte, it's anybody's guess what will happen after the shakeout. But your guess is a whole lot less valuable than the bigwigs that run the networks. They expect their total profits would go down, not up, in an a la carte regime. If you were right, and the network bigwigs agreed with you, they would be embracing a la carte.

 

[Peter Parker]

I think ROKU had the best idea. They just provided a "platform" and the individual content providers would strike deals directly with the consumers thus avoiding all the licensing(and carriage disputes) nonsense of DBS and Cable. (I don't know if they receive a cut in the subscription price). Hmm that almost sounds like the "alacart" dream of some of the members of this forum..only pay for what you want. But now that Dish network now has their finger in the ROKU pie.. I think all will be lost and internet TV will just become another form of Cable TV

How does DISH have their fingers in the pie? DO they own a piece of roku now?

 

[SlyFerret]

They own the Blockbuster service that is very similar to Netflix. If they work that into a STB like roku, and then expand it to include live content, it could work.

The streaming infrastructure is there, which is a high barrier to entry to rolling out a service like that.

The existing relationships with the networks probably helps too.

-SF

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[DWS44]

I like how Dish promotes this vision of Internet TV, yet at the same time, they roll out their latest broadband service with the same bandwidth caps that could seemingly derail the idea of Internet TV.

 

[Scherrman]

I like how Dish promotes this vision of Internet TV, yet at the same time, they roll out their latest broadband service with the same bandwidth caps that could seemingly derail the idea of Internet TV.

Dish has still not reached their ultimate goal when it comes to broadband. So when they talk about how they want to be able to stream TV everywhere dishNET is not the final answer.

 

[downriver]

How does DISH have their fingers in the pie? DO they own a piece of roku now?

Roku is privately held but that is very likely

DISH Network, L.L.C. and Roku, Inc. Sign Strategic Partnership for International Programming

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=8690249

Dish Network Eyes Web TV — And Invests in Roku’s Web TV Box

http://allthingsd.com/20120927/dish-networks-eyes-web-tv-and-invests-in-rokus-web-tv-box/

A person familiar with the matter said Dish Network Corp. is the unnamed strategic investor. Mr. Wood declined comment, as did a spokesman for Dish.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/07/26/set-top-box-startup-roku-gets-media-money/

 

[Tyralak]

I like how Dish promotes this vision of Internet TV, yet at the same time, they roll out their latest broadband service with the same bandwidth caps that could seemingly derail the idea of Internet TV.

Satellite broadband was never meant for streaming. There is very limited bandwidth. It's just there to serve customers is rural areas that have no broadband infrastructure.