How much you wanna bet Verizon will (somehow) get rid of the broadcast licensing restrictions, or bend them in their favor?
After all, they (as in large corporations) are in more control than the government on what can and can not be done.
The restrictions will be lifted by the content owners by giving them enough $$$$$. Doesn't matter how big Verizon is if the content owners don't want to sell the rights they won't. The content owners aren't going to give Verizon broadcast rights just to be nice. And if they think Verizon's new toy will disrupt things to much they won't give Verizon the rights no matter how much money they throw at them.
Yeah right. I don't know where these tech companies get the idea from that their so called "technology" will get them around licensing but, it just never does. And yet for some stupid reason, they keep trying it anyways.
Well they have redbox so they can start with that. If they are smart they add Amazon and Netflix and youtue and go after ATV, chromecast, and Roku.
If they can do local retrans like Aereo but pay, local TV stations will be ALL over that.
From there they can pick up or extend syndication models and then provide original content.
This isn't rocket science. I remember when Fox started out. It was Conan and old crap for years. Then they built it up and got into sports where all the real $$$ is.
Not to be silly, but RSN off the gate are ripe for monetization...
IMHO sports as the big guys open windows and relax will be ripe for this.
And for say a big game, no reason that verizon couldn't take a few cell channels and BROADCAST them, and now that net neutrality is bunk, they can fire up the paywalls and have content providers pay for access to cell and the like.
I mean the options are limitless, we are going to enter a renaissance in TV here. Of course the average user is going to pay $$$, however the content delivered may be more relevant and hence of more value.
At least they are trying to think outside the box. Even though big red is a socialist on their phones and their network, they know how to make a buck and execute their plan.
I'm not sure why there are so many Johnny downers on this board.
It's like whatever these guys do, it's wrong.
I count my blessings EVERY day I have FiOS--which is rock solid reliable-- and my cells from Verizon work where ever I go. While Verizon has never been the lowest cost (it is for 3-play tho), they have always been fair and try to resolve problems when they pop up (mostly in billing).
I pulled up a cell bill from 1992 from CellOne that was $94 which would be $158 in today's $$$ for 300 minutes, no text, no internet. Today I can go MVNO for $30 and get unlimited text.voice and 500MB.
People complain and many sign up for foolish plans, but in 2014 phones/internet are the best it has EVER been and continues to get better in terms of value.
Wow, some of the postings on here are...um, interesting. Licensing agreements? You mean the ones that Verizon ALREADY has in place? Those licensing agreements? Why would Verizon want to get rid of them? They worked to hammer them out. The big thing that Intel and Apple and the rest seem to miss is the fact that without content these systems are just pretty toys. The reason the content providers aren't giddy about giving over streaming rights to the Netfix's of the world is because they make a lot of money off the existing cable architecture. They get paid per subscriber that has access to their feeds. Verizon, as a cable company, already has those agreements in place. Yeah, they need additional agreements to do streaming - but has it been lost on everyone that they've been aggressively adding streaming content? They have, what, 90+ live channels already available.
They don't want to get rid of the licensing agreements... they very much want them in place, because it gives them the ability to offer what other streaming services lack - content.
As for this being the end of your ability to get TV without renting a box... ugh. Look, the FCC has MANDATED that all providers put out an over the top IP gateway. Along with that, they have required that the cable providers open up the specs on their in home streaming service. Allowing third parties to come in and develop streaming STBs for the home. Rather than forcing you to rent a box, it's going to open up the ability to get live TV without the need for one. Look at their streaming apps. You can already watch live TV via a Samsung BD player, without the need for a STB.
Finally, I'll point out that this TV anywhere concept is one that Verizon really seems committed too. They're going beyond that, though. The fact that they want to provide FiOS TV as a service that's separate from fiber (with the ultimate goal of having TV service outside their fiber footprint) is such a nefarious secret... that they showcased it at the CES a couple years ago, and it's been a stated goal for at least 2 years now. Is it still a conspiracy theory if they admit to it as a business strategy? I think folks can put away the tinfoil hats.
Besides, why exactly is this a bad thing? If they move FiOS out as a streaming service, beyond their traditional footprint, what will that mean? In a word - competition. People keep going on about the 'cable monopoly' or 'cable duopoly'. I would think they would cheer the notion of a disruptive type of service to shake things up - to act as a competitive pressure against traditional cable companies. I know I do. Besides, why in the world (speaking of competition) want to piss of their current subscriber base? It's not like people don't have options. That's especially true in the markets that Verizon serves.
The future of TV will be completely "over the top".
You'll be able to sign up for Cable service with a company that doesn't serve your local area. I figure Apple will take a cut for making the companies compete on a single platform on a nationwide basis.
What's in it for the Cable companies? They can poach customers from other service areas.
Phones are unlocked so people have a choice of carrier. I think the "box" will be unlocked so people can choose what cable package they want, regardless of who provides their actual Internet service. Even if it's from another provider. -- "We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it." Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army
The thing is... they already have streaming agreements to get service outside the home. My point is - the notion that they're looking to kill licensing agreements is silly on its face. They're banking on using those agreements to provide what other services can't - content. It's the notion that they're looking to kill these agreements that makes no sense at all.
I just don't understand how the notion of additional services being available to customers is supposed to be a bad thing. If I live in an area where my cable provider sucks, and I have no other option... well this would give me another option.
One last point - on the notion that this just proves that they're going to go IP, and you can kiss away the cable card... um, big secret, but they could do that without this endeavor. If fact that was supposed to be the destination for FiOS initially - full up IP in the areas where they serve fiber. And yet, mysteriously, they scrapped that idea. Curious, eh? Not really - they hit some technical snafus that they decided it wasn't worth to try to get around, so the set that plan aside. Why would the resurrect it just for this? For those who would get FiOS the streaming app, then yea... by it's very nature it'll be IP. But for those who currently have FiOS TV service, it baffles me to think that this move would make them abandon QAM.
Verizon CFO: Intel Media Buy Speeds Up FiOS's Next-Gen IPTV Plan
"Financial terms weren't disclosed; Intel originally wanted $500 million for the project, while Verizon was rumored to be unwilling to pay more than $200 million."
In this article it states:
quote:Separately, a source confirmed reports that Verizon is buying Intel Media and its OnCue platform for about $200 million, well below the $500 million Intel reportedly had been seeking when rumors of a coming deal heated up last fall.
Verizon CFO: Intel Media Buy Speeds Up FiOSs Next-Gen IPTV Plan Downplays Idea Of Marketing and Selling A Full-Fledged Subscription Video Service Outside Of FiOSs Footprint By Jeff Baumgartner, Multichannel News - January 21, 2014 »www.multichannel.com/distributio···n/147787
Re: Verizon CFO: Intel Media Buy Speeds Up FiOS's Next-Gen IPTV Plan
Also this article on the MCN site today about how Verizon's acquisition of Intel Media's assets aims to cut costs and help FiOS TV catch up to Comcasts X1 platform:
With Intel Media, Verizon Paves Path To Set-Top Independence Acquisition Of OnCue Assets Aims To Cut Costs, Help FiOS TV Catch Up To Comcasts X1 Platform By Jeff Baumgartner, Multichannel News - January 25, 2014 »www.multichannel.com/distributio···e/147900