So, I recently sent Comcast (cable TV) packing, because I'm tired of paying $100 a month for 800 channels of total garbage, when I'm really only interested in a handful shows/networks. Until the major networks and the cable and satellite companies can figure out a better way of providing pay-as-you-go types of services, or allowing me to build my own channel bundles that are more reasonably priced, I'll be getting my digital entertainment elsewhere (OTA, netflix/amazon on demand, hulu, google.tv, etc...).
In looking into alternatives to cable/satellite services, I stumbled on this new startup (it happenss to be local to me), that is causing a bit of a stir.
It's called IVI TV (pronounced like "Ivy"). They are rebroadcasting network television claiming they have the right to because it's already in the public domain as a broadcast signal.
They are charging ~$5 a month for what looks like (on the surface) is a pretty decent selection of channels.
Here is the company main site
http://www.ivi.tv/The client is Laptop/Desktop only (for now, but they plan on expanding to mobile clients like phones and tablets as well).
There is obviously a lot of controversy about this. They received cease and desist orders from the major broadcast networks almost as fast as they went live, but they claim what they are doing is all perfectly legal. Based on this alone, it's probably not worth signing up until the legal battles are over, although they do offer 30 days free service, so it might be worth checking out...
However, in looking at this a little closer, there are some serious concerns....
This article by Dave Taylor at the Huffington Post outlines some potential pitfalls
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-tayl ... 35678.htmlThe client software is peer-to-peer, which means that you are broadcasting their content, and possibly could be held liable for whatever laws this company might be breaking (they do mention in the license agreement that you agree to participate in the Peer to Peer network).
Other downsides include the fact that the video quality is apparently fairly low. Suitable for small window laptop viewing, but probably not something you want to try to watch on your big screen. Also, since they are just re-broadcasting the live broadcast signal, all of the annoying commercials will still be intact...
Unless they have some really good lawyers, I suspect ivi.tv will get shut down fairly quickly, or at least have to change their business model to one where they can pay whatever fees and royalties (and their undoubtedly substantial legal bills) the networks require.
Another article I found via a google
news search of 'cable tv subscriber losses' linked me to this google news article reposted from The Canadian Press that talks about cable companies are losing TV subscribers at record rates.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... Id=5044859While some believe this is because of the rising popularity of streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, others (myself included) tend to believe that the core reason is that the bundling practices that cable and satellite companies are offering are just completely ridiculous in terms of value, and with the economy being what it is now, many people are just looking for more affordable alternatives, and are finding services like Netflix and Hulu to be better for their budgets.
I learned something from that article that I find interesting. Apparently the cable companies hands are somewhat tied by the six major networks in determining what channel packages are bundled together. In other words, Disney for example, either requires, or provides strong financial incentives, to the providers for bundling certain of their channels together, regardless of what the consumers needs or desires are.
I'll quote the last part of the Canadian Press Article as a teaser
The Canadian Press via Google News wrote:
Cable companies would like to get low-income customers back with cheaper cable packages, but their hands are tied. Content providers such as The Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. won't license their channels one by one, so subscribers have to take big, expensive channel packages, or very basic ones, which offer little beyond what's available with an antenna.
Content providers now get billions of dollars in fees from cable service providers, and they want to make sure that whatever new industry model comes along, they'll get paid. It's not obvious yet that Internet video will let them sustain their profit levels.
Six companies create the content that consumes 85 per cent of U.S. viewing hours, Moffett said. "Until they get on board, the train's not leaving the station."
I am somewhat heartened by the fact that people are voting with their wallets and sending a message to the cable companies, and indirectly to the networks, that we want to improve the signal to noise ratio of our cable packages. I'm willing to pay more 'per channel' (significantly more) for the channels I want, or even better, just the shows I want, especially if I can get them without annoying commercials every 15 minutes,a nd get them at a time that is convenient to me.
I hope this is the start of a long term trend away from the traditional all-or-nothing bundle packages and towards more specific channel bundling options, or even better, pay-as-you-go, on-demand options.... If that happens, I might get back on the train...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
