Sony in Talks for PS3 TV Service Though Industry Will Likely Block Effort According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Sony is in talks with numerous rights holders concerning the potential for bringing live TV services to the Playstation 3. Citing "people familiar with the situation," the Journal claims Sony is interested in an "alternative to cable-TV service" that involves delivering content to PlayStation gaming consoles, television sets and Blu-ray players. Except as is usually the case, the fact that cable and broadcast industry doesn't want any alternatives to traditional TV will pose a problem on the licensing front: One potential stumbling block could be Sony's desire to license a smaller bundle of channels than existing cable operators offer so that it can undercut the incumbents on price and flexibility, according to people familiar with the matter. Those terms could be nonstarters for media companies, which don't want to undercut their biggest customers, those people added. Like Apple before them, Microsoft had also considered offering a subscription-based Internet TV service, but ran face first into the cable and broadcast industry's protectionist licensing wall. As a result, Microsoft's new video offerings on the 360 is far less interesting than it could have been, with most content locked behind paywalls if users don't subscribe to traditional TV. While Sony may have a leg up here due to ownership of some content rights, that doesn't help them bypass obstacles that will be erected by other rights holders terrified of the video (r)evolution.
|
  TomekPremium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY | Apps Sony wants to control too much. I never liked any of their offering from Playstation Network.
Once they open platform a bit for companies like ESPN, and other networks to provide content directly (and give Sony a cut) then networks will be more positive about it.
So far I refuse to pay something that I get free OTA.
--
Semper Fi | |
| | | The difference here is... that Sony owns a lot of content in movies and TV already. So they have available content to begin with. This also gives them a bargaining chip as well.
That's not to say this will pan out, but Sony in a better position than others, to at least attempt this. | |
| Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| Interesting dilemma for Sony I read this story and I can't help but wondering, if unlike other stalled efforts, this one might succeed to a larger degree because Sony owns so much content itself and could, if they chose to, play hardball themselves with the content delivery services (cable/satellite) Sony wouldn't even be proposing this if they didn't think they had a reasonable chance iof seeing this get off the ground in the form they want. Not after the whole data breach debacle.
The only question to my mind would be the regulatory framework within each country and how that might affect what Sony is proposing to do.
In Canada for example, I could see the CRTC wading in to things unless Sony plays it smart and offers sufficient French language programming that is bundled with the English language offerings as the BDU's are required to here.
NefCanuck | |
|  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:21
 ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| Let's put 1 and 1 together. I know it might be tough for Sony to actually get into the Television market by offering an IPTV service, but here's something to consider from other, already posted comments. Sony already owns a fair share of media of which is aired on many, and I mean many networks. Sony can technically toss their weight around and tell companies that they will pull all licenses for content on their networks/systems if they attempt to stop competition. Granted, there's some legal means that need to be kept in mind with this, but that is one thing in itself to consider.
1: Sony is a content provider who already caters to the TV service.
The second point is how Sony tends to be protective about their content. While it seems a lot of their older content is starting to show up on sites such as Crackle, licensed of course, we do need to keep in mind that Sony is the company that seemed to really make for a nice hatred of DRM back with their CD Audio fiasco in the early 2000s. Sony right now has a closed source game console, the PS3, that relies a lot on DRM itself. Blu-Ray support, game support, and perhaps if you want to include this into the mix of DRM, the way the Cell chip was designed in the PS3 to have built-in DRM. If you look at their Televisions, they deal in DRM with those, too. A good portion of the DRM'd services such as Netflix and music streaming services on the Televisions require the TV to be registered with Sony before they can even be used. The TVs also have to conform to HDCP standards to receive 1080p content from devices that do not output 1080p over Component.
I'm not saying Sony should DRM the crap out of their service, but here's the second part:
1: Sony is already a content provider, and works a lot with the entertainment industry. They're trusted by companies already to provide to them a positive service towards their businesses.
So our Number 2 is essentially the fact that Sony's in a rather positive position with the Media Companies from which the Television Industry feeds out of. Sony is more likely to get a service off the ground due to their position over media, as compared to say Microsoft and Nintendo who specialize in Computer Software and Video Game Hardware (Consoles). | |
| | | This Could be Competition If Sony would offer a lower choise service that allowed me to pick and choose what programming I wanted then I might be interested. I wonder if the FCC will get in the middle of this as they would be the likely judge if this is viable, legal or not. | |
| | | What?! Why, you make the cable and broadcast industry sound like [OMG!] a bunch of racketeers!!! (Ah, well... if the [cement] shoe fits.) | |
| Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Now they want to protect cable? The really ironic thing is that if today's patent & copyright obsessed culture had been around when cable TV was first created, it would never have been allowed to exist. TV stations would have accused the cable companies of "stealing" their signals and sued them. Or they would have demanded outrageous fees for re-broadcasting their signals. Either way, cable would be a dim shadow of what it is today. | |
| | | Doesn't matter either way Last time I checked a single SD rental of a movie was $3.99, and the HD rental was around $6.99. That's hardly competitive with any other type of streaming service. Chances are even if they do get TV service it really won't matter because their prices are way out of proportion with other content providers. | |
|
| |
|
|
