698 replies to this topic

[Matt_P]

DISH might be on to something with being a one-stop location for all non-sports programming....I think people would prefer that over signing up for several different services, and having to keep track of different bills. Problem I see is that a lot of the programming they'd want to offer is for channels owned by companies that have made huge investments in sports (Disney, FOX, Time Warner, Comcast). They may not want to offer any of their channels....especially Comcast who is also a distributor, and I would think they'd offer their own OTT service before licensing them to DISH under those circumstances. I do think DISH has something up their sleeve though (besides just SlingTV). With all the wireless spectrum they own, they have lots of possibilities and make an attractive partner for someone already in that business.

 

Legally, providers need to give carriage for must-see programming while stations can't deny providers must-see programming.

 

For example, Comcast didn't want to broadcast MASN because Comcast felt that they had the right to the programming and not MASN. Comcast has a strong position in this market and if they don't carry your station then it dies. So, their plan was to refuse to carry MASN, let MASN die and then buy the Orioles/Nationals media rights at a discount. MASN sued and the courts told Comcast they can't pull that.

 

On the other hand, CSN Philly isn't broadcast by DirecTV or DISH. Those two broadcasters sued for the rights and they originally lost due to some crazy technicality that only applies to that station. But in general, that doesn't work.

 

This basically means that it will be hard for DISH to refuse to carry sports and for Fox or Disney (Comcast would be fine with it) to refuse to provide them carriage to other stations. Which means that the courts would need to get involved. But money is a reason to refuse to carry a station and RSNs are getting more expensive. If they divest of their own RSNs then it's not like it would be because they're biased.

 

Dish would have a winning case to demand carriage for other stations and would have a strong case to refuse to carry RSNs on the basic tier. It would be decided in the courts.

[Nigel Tufnel]

MLB tv is on sale today - just $10 for the rest of the season.

[Mark Carver]

Amazon has been making real strides in its attempt to catch up to Netflix, and today the company is delivering a feature that arguably leapfrogs its streaming competitor in sheer utility: offline playback for both iOS and Android devices. An update to the company's mobile video apps for each platform — now renamed "Amazon Video" — lets Prime subscribers download the service's streaming titles for viewing, just as customers had been able to do on Amazon's line of Fire devices. The change takes one of the biggest inconveniences of streaming services and removes it from the equation entirely. Now, if you're in the middle of binging Downton Abbey and need to jump on a plane, you won't have to go without; you'll be able to download a number of episodes and take the Crawleys with you.

 

http://www.theverge....ffline-playback

[NewMarketSean]

http://www.theverge....ffline-playback

 

I am sure Netflix will do this too, shame they couldn't have done it first -- I have hitched my wagon to Netflix.

[Mackus]

http://www.theverge....ffline-playback

 
I am sure Netflix will do this too, shame they couldn't have done it first -- I have hitched my wagon to Netflix.

Prime is worth it even without the streaming, IMO.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I get back what I pay for Prime in one month... rather easily. I'm glad to hear they are stepping up their streaming game. I've liked a couple of their originals, too. Namely, Catastrophe and Mozart in the Jungle.

[RShack]

Prime is worth it even without the streaming, IMO.

 

I agree... had it forever before I even realized they had Prime VIdeo... 

 

Hypocrite that I am, I lament the death of local stores while I buy all my stuff from amazon....

[Mark Carver]

Two changes for Hulu. Ad-free service and acquisition of Epix content.

 

Just as rumored, Hulu has finally decided to offer a version of its subscription without the ad breaks. Ad-free Hulu will cost $12 per month, as opposed to the regular $8 subscription (or the shows it offers for free), and of course it will soon include more movies (that Netflix doesn't have) thanks to the company's deal with Epix. One small catch is revealed by the FAQ, which indicates that due to licensing, a few shows will still have ads before and after (but not during) episodes -- all seven are listed after the break.

 

http://www.engadget....hulu-no-ads-12/

 

Hulu is about to get a load of well-known movies like Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation,Interstellar and Wolf of Wall Street. The US company confirmed the rumor that it will now stream content from Epix, the service owned by Viacom and movie studios Paramount, MGM and Lionsgate. Netflix used to carry films produced by the group, but said earlier today that it wouldn't renew its Epix deal (that only affects content in the US, not the UK). The change means the content will be available to a much smaller streaming audience -- Hulu recently said it has 9 million subscribers, compared to the 65.6 million on Netflix.

 

http://www.engadget....ulti-year-deal/

[You Play to Win the Game]

I'll never go back to Hulu. They are several years late to make that move. Just ridiculous. I asked them to pay more without the ads a few years ago. Obviously they won't make a one off, but the point is, they had customers begging for this for years, and willing to pay a higher price.

[Mark Carver]

The most hated internet provider keeps on piling on...

 

Get ready for your home Internet to feel like your smartphone — bound by data caps, a large overage fee waiting to happen.

Comcast gave some users the bad news Thursday — not surprisingly, before a long weekend. Consumers who exceed 300 GB in a month will have to pay for overages at $10 per 50 GB tier.

Not surprisingly, they have the option to pay an extra $30 to get the service they have currently, without caps.

 

http://www.geekwire....internet-users/

[BSLMikeLowe]

The most hated internet provider keeps on piling on...

 

 

http://www.geekwire....internet-users/

 

They way they (and others) are losing subscribers to their TV packages, it was only a matter of time before this happened. The article says it's just a trial and limited to a few markets, mostly in the South. But I think we can expect Comcast to eventually do this for all customers....and for other ISPs to follow suit.

[Matt_P]

They way they (and others) are losing subscribers to their TV packages, it was only a matter of time before this happened. The article says it's just a trial and limited to a few markets, mostly in the South. But I think we can expect Comcast to eventually do this for all customers....and for other ISPs to follow suit.

 

My understanding is that Comcast has a monopoly in Atlanta. I'm not surprised. If people can't use Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime due to data caps then they need to go back to Comcast for cable.

 

Meanwhile, Comcast can't be happy that Hulu and others are using the unlimited bandwidth they offer (and thus forcing Comcast to make upgrades) to convince people that cable isn't necessary.

[BSLMikeLowe]

Vox: There will be more than 400 scripted TV series this year. That bubble’s bound to burst.

 

http://www.vox.com/2...9301867/peak-tv

[RShack]

My understanding is that Comcast has a monopoly in Atlanta. 

 

Both Comcast and AT&T U-verse in ATL.. not sure of their exact coverage areas though... but lots of people swap back and forth, just to grab discounts...

[Matt_P]

Both Comcast and AT&T U-verse in ATL.. not sure of their exact coverage areas though... but lots of people swap back and forth, just to grab discounts...

 

Interesting. My friends in Atlanta said that there is only Comcast but they live in one of the suburbs. Could be that they're just unlucky.

[Mark Carver]

And this means what to the consumer?

 

FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed reclassifying some linear over-the-top (OTT) video providers as MVPDs to help boost them as a competitor for traditional cable, but OTT provider Amazon is advising the agency not to.

 

In meetings with Republican FCC Commissioners and their staffs earlier this month, Amazon execs and their counsel argued that the OTT marketplace is already "vibrant and growing" without the FCC stepping in.

 

Wheeler's proposal is to require that linear OVDs be given access to cable-affiliated programming and local TV station broadcasts regardless of whether or not they have facilities based distribution platforms. Beyond that, it tees up lots of questions about how to apply that definition and the ramifications of doing so.

 

 

http://www.multichan...finition/393743

 

[RShack]

And this means what to the consumer?

 

 

 

http://www.multichan...finition/393743

 

What a load of gobbledeegook...

 

I think it means that you could get local stations and cable programming online without dealing with either a cable company or a digital equivalent (IPTV = internet TV that requires a dedicated set top box, e.g. AT&T U-verse) ... so, for example, you could get the local news or a cable channel the same way you get Youtube or Amazon Prime... it would make things like getting ESPN via sling-tv more more common, with more competition because you'd have more than just sling.tv trying to sell you access to ESPN...

 

Dunno if it means local stations will let you watch anything they televise online for free (based on your location)... but it might...

[Matt_P]

And this means what to the consumer?

 

It means that the FCC is nervous about the monopoly power that Comcast, Time Warner and others have and they want to disrupt the industry. If Google, Amazon and Hulu can provide cable services and allow you to watch programming then that's a huge blow to Comcast because they can provide anywhere and everywhere. It would also be a huge blow to MLB and Bam Tech.

 

Shack has the right idea. Basically, services like Amazon and Hulu (OTT) would be given the opportunity to provide cable for you. Content providers wouldn't be allowed to refuse to provide their content to these services (for an agreed upon fee).

 

Amazon doesn't like it because of the possible ramifications. They're working on making their own content. If they're an MVPD then do they need to share that content? I mean, MASN can't tell people that they can only get their station via Comcast. They need to offer it to all providers (whether they want to pay for it is a different question).

 

In theory, if they were an MVPD then they'd be unable to discriminate against content creators and may be forced to carry certain stations. They could be forced to become a regular cable company which isn't in their interests.

 

It would basically force Amazon to compete with Comcast. Good for the FCC because they want more competition but bad for Amazon if they don't actually want to compete.

 

http://www.multichan...s-rights/389402

[BSLMikeLowe]

I am all in favor of more competition in television, as that (coupled with large shifts in consumer behavior) are what usually changes things for the better. But I don't think trying to force some of the OTT services like Netflix and Amazon to be MVPDs is the answer.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Finally got an antenna... thanks to Dupin for pointing out the Amazon deal the other day on the Mohu Leaf. Pretty incredible product. This saves me $15/month on Sunday's so I don't have to have two set top boxes to get multiple games. #FirstWorldProblems I know... but what a great product. Especially for $20.00.