dslreports logo
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Verizon Still Planning Over The Top Internet Video Service
by Karl Bode 11:12AM Wednesday Mar 05 2014
Speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference this week, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam again reiterated that Verizon is interested in offering an "over the top" Internet video service outside of the company's traditional FiOS and DSL footprint. According to McAdam, the company continues to be in talks with broadcasters, and the over the top option could be delivered to both fixed-line and mobile customers.

Click for full size
"I have personally had discussions with the CEOs of the large content companies, and we would love to partner with them to see how we can take FiOS contact mobilely across the country." McAdam said.

This isn't the first time Verizon has hinted at such ambitions. I've seen similar reports since 2011 and earlier. The problem is, like so many similar efforts before it, Verizon has struggled to get broadcasters to sign off on such a plan. If the length of negotiations are any indication, Verizon's leverage as a traditional pay TV provider doesn't appear to be helping much.

The deal comes on the heels of Verizon acquiring Intel's failed over the top video service. Some of that tech would presumably be used to fuel any new streaming effort.

Verizon already operates a joint streaming video venture with RedBox that was launched back in 2012. However, the effort doesn't appear to be making much traction and Verizon doesn't talk much about it; seemingly afraid of pushing it too much for fear of cannibalizing existing traditional TV customers. McAdam still however seems to think the company can have its cake and eat it too.

"I think you can actually get a virtuous cycle where broadcast viewing goes up and over-the-top viewing goes up, if you time this properly," McAdam said.

view:
topics flat nest 

xpbx
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08

2 recommendations

oh look

it's lowell mcwireless patting himself on the back again. excuse me while i puke.

nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

Net neutrality

Can't wait for Comcast and AT&T to charge him a premium for dumping all of that video traffic onto their networks.

yup

@verizon.net

Re: Net neutrality

First thing I though of. LOL
serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by nothing00:

Can't wait for Comcast and AT&T to charge him a premium for dumping all of that video traffic onto their networks.

'But that's not fair, Comcast's/ATT's customers requested that data!'

Sound like anyone you know?

Andy from CA
Premium
join:2008-09-05
Anaheim, CA

1 recommendation

said by nothing00:

Can't wait for Comcast and AT&T to charge him a premium for dumping all of that video traffic onto their networks.

Well, they would need the money to pay Verizon to carry their over the top TV services.

Seriously, it's about time these babies stop whining that you're paying for their internet and need to buy THEIR TV service rather than see they can sell their TV anywhere. It's called competition and works well.

kapil
The Kapil

join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

Ivan

Bring back Ivan!
Millenium

join:2013-10-30
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

...

What does over-the-top mean? A regular tv subscription will be required in order to subscribe to the over-the-top streaming service? Not available as a stand alone product? I ask because it would seem great if they started offering simple, inexpensive, stand alone streaming services.

Next question: Who is going to steam over mobile? Once you get past the 3" screen size there is that whole data cap problem.
caps620

join:2009-01-18
Central NJ

Re: ...

That's the whole idea of the plan ...... offer the video and cause everyone to go over their data cap so Verizon can take more of your hard earned money.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
Imagine getting FiOS TV service over say your Comcast internet connection. That's basically what they're talking about. Yes, you would be a TV subscriber, but to FiOS TV. Is there a market for such a thing? I think there is. The big wall that service providers hit (e.g. google, apple, amazon, what have you) is that the content providers don't want to upset the traditional apple-cart. They make alot of money by having these contracts with cable companies. But if you have a cable company that's setting up that type of streaming service... you already have an avenue for getting the content providers to open up their content to streaming. I think that's Verizon's ploy here. Will it work? Guess we'll see.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

2 edits

Re: ...

Potentially, a way to bypass town franchise agreements as well. So fios expansion into new towns is a huge possibility, requiring large pipes to stream to multiple tv's simultaneously in a household.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

Yes, there are clearly hurdles that need to be overcome here. Franchise agreements are part of it. They would have to have markets agree to allow in another provider. But that's not really that big of a hurdle, to be honest. Cable competition has been a reality for, what, 10 years now? Markets have already opened up to competition. If they were to move FiOS TV into a market already served by, say, Comcast and AT&T, why would it be a stretch to have that market be served by a third provider? Yes, they would have to hammer out franchise agreements, but in most markets that already allow multiple service providers (which I have to think, at this point includes most of the country), that's really not that big of a deal. Yeah, there will be areas that will be reluctant. Philly was very slow to allow Verizon to come in, e.g. But the door has been opened on that. Markets that were reluctant to allow in competition were really just engaging in protectionism. Comcast made some ridiculous claims of the evil that would befall the residents of Philly if the city were to allow Verizon to come in. It's the reason that Verizon was kept out from markets like Buffalo and Baltimore and Wilmington. But guess what? Verizon came in... and the world didn't end. In fact it was such a success that the markets that initially spurned Verizon's advances (all three of those that I listed) not only came begging for Verizon to expand into their markets, they all but sued the company to make it happen. The days of cable protectionism are over. Customers like having the additional choices, and what we've seen is exactly what we expect to see - competition driving up services, and quality (anyone think that Comcast just decided to offer 305Mbps service out of the goodness of their hearts?).

As for the multiple TV streaming... that's really not that big of a hurdle, is it? Verizon has been working toward that end for a while now. And besides, who says they have to offer the exact same level of service to those outside their traditional footprint?

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

3 edits

Re: ...

It wont last outside their traditional footprint, some cable companies are capped, and those that arent, will implement them. This is much worse than netflix as far as data consumption. Lets say only 5mbps is required per TV, now multiply those streams for each TV, for many MANY more hours per household, every hour, of every day, of every month.

My point was, it is probably more important to offer this service over their own pipes, not the cable co's even though the potential is there.

Im pretty certain I remember AT&T bypassed town franchises in CT because its IPTV, so that might be a state to state thing. Does DirecTV and Dish have to negotiate with towns? I think not. Why would streaming channels not be considered an internet "information service" , and the towns could go pound sand?
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

I think there is a market to be served with this. Not all ISPs cap. And not all consumers have 5 TVs. An IP delivery would work just swimmingly for us, e.g., and there are 7 of us in our household - there are days when the TV never goes on, and it's actually really rare that we have more than one TV on at a time. That's not to say we don't watch stuff. We do. Most of it... streamed. It's NOT uncommon to have someone watching something on a TV while one kid is streaming Epix on her netbook, while another is watching videos on his ipod, while my wife is watching something different on her ipad. In other words... we probably do most of our viewing via streaming. And if it works in our household... why not in areas around the country with fewer occupants? I think it can work.

As for franchise agreeents - DirecTV and Dish don't negotiate them. There isn't a reason to. They don't use any utilities (e.g. poles) for their services. While some states make DBS consumers pay a 'franchise fee', it's really just a naked attempt at taking more tax dollars. Even with that 'franchise fee', you don't need franchise agreements to put up a satellite dish. As for AT&T... they USED to get away without procuring franchise agreements because of what you said. But I don't believe that's the case anymore. At least not everywhere.

My point is this - cable USED to be seen as a utility. Which means that locales would have one cable company, much like they have one power company, or used to have one phone company. The legal framework centered around that (hence the legal monopoly status cable companies had in those locales). That's not the case anymore. Many (if not most) states have eliminated that protected monopoly status, or have seriously reduced its restrictions. These areas have already changed their legal framework to allow for cable competition. Verizon can move into large swaths of the country where cable competition is a legal reality. That doesn't mean they don't need to procure franchise agreements. I believe they do. But the legal frameworkd is already there, in most markets, to allow it.

I think you're overstating the hurdles, to be honest. The first company that can crack that over-the-top-ip-streaming nut will make out like bandits. The reward is huge. Which is why so many companies have tried. And which is why Verizon is doing this. I just think that their approach is smarter than any that have come down the pike so far.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
One other point with this - ip streaming live tv is such an insurmountable hurdle... that AT&T does it with U-Verse. While many complain of the PQ, the fact remains - U-Verse is extremely popular. It's growing almost as fast as FiOS is. They managed to do full-house IP delivery of video, make a ton of money doing it, but Verizon can't do the same? And AT&T is doing it over twisted pair! Like I said... I think you're overstating the hurdles with this.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: ...

Im not saying or even hinting that streaming is a bad idea, I think its a great idea, but I think its one that wont last long when implemented over cable pipes. I love the idea that it removes QAM capacity limitations and opens the door to an infinite # of HD channels.

Put yourself in Cablevisions shoes for a minute. They provide the last mile pipe, and Verizon will be providing the TV service over it?, eating massive amounts of data?. It will be 5 minutes before they implement a cap. Streaming live broadcasts to TV's like that, often remain on all day will be much, much worse than Netflix as far as data consumption, not to mention the 100% removal of TV revenue from Cablevisions bottom line.

When someone streams Netflix, sports programming, or some channels have websites with streaming, there are no city/town TV franchise agreements to worry about . I fail to see how a company (like AT&T) should be accountable to deal with towns when streaming video essentially the same way.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

1 edit

Re: ...

I guess I don't understand why you think video streaming would happen all day/every day. Who watched TV like that? In most households, you have one, maybe two, TVs on at any one time. And at most, you're probably talking a couple hours at night. How is that different than streaming a movie from Netflix? Second... as I said before... AT&T does it. And they do it over a VERY small pipe.

As for the franchise agreements and why Verizon would probably need them - they would be a full service cable content provider. The courts have ruled that Aereo isn't one (which is why they're allowed to operate as they are without having to pay for OTA feeds), and Netflix isn't either. There are rules that govern 'cable companies' that don't apply to other, even similar, utilities. For example DBS companies aren't required to carry all must-carry locals. A few years ago the FCC tried to roll that on them, but the DBS companies objected saying (rightly) that the cable companies only have to provide locals in markets they serve. Which means, if you follow the same definition, because the entire country is served by DBS... they would have been obligated to carry tons of channels that cable companies wouldn't. The FCC relented and instead issued a 'carry one, carry all' rule - basically saying that if a DBS company provides any locals to a particular market, they have to carry them all.

AT&T, btw, DOES have to get franchise agreements now. And the reason - they need to actually run lines in these neighborhoods. If they could deliver without having to do anything like that, then yeah, they could probably get away without the need for franchise agreements. Those agreements btw are an anachronism - held over from the days of legal cable monopolies (they were designed to ensure that no consumer was denied access to cable within a market). But that doesn't mean the rules no longer apply. It's no different, e.g., than with voice service. With traditional land-line service there are all sorts of fun telecom fees piled onto your bill. That's not the case with VoIP. Not yet, anyway. Eventually I think the rules governing video delivery will provide for a true level playing field. But right now, it's not there. There are rules that affect 'cable' companies that don't affect others. Another such example - seperable security for cable boxes. Cable companies are obligated to provide for it... other similar companies (DBS and IP) are not.

I'm not really sure whether this experiment would require that Verizon get franchise agreements for their service or not. Time (and the courts) will tell on that. It'll be up to the FCC and the courts to decide that one. Point is - FiOS is considered 'cable' which is why they are beholden to certain regulations. AT&T is not considered 'cable' but franchise agreements apply to U-Verse because they have a physical presence (currently) in their markets. They have to string fiber to nodes (VRADs) in all these neighborhoods. The franchise fees are meant, partly, to subsidize that.

This is all uncharted territory (much like Aereo was), and the courts will undoubtedly step in to decide how this over-the-top-ip-delivery fits in the grand scheme of things (just like they did with Aereo).

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: ...

Most households turned on or two at a time? Come on JPL. Ive seen a hundred households where TV's are left on non-stop , all day, serving as nothing but backround noise. Although you may be under the impression that most households run a couple TV's for just a couple hours a day, it doesnt change the fact that plenty of households have 6,7,8,9 even 10 STB's in a house, and any video provider should have the capability to provide it. So, for situations that Verizon steals away a video customer over Cablevision internet, it would be naive to think Cablevision will not implement usage based billing or CAPS. Not to mention Verizon would run into the same congestion issues that Netflix has been experiencing.

I just wouldnt buy stock in such a product since the OTHER MSO's will not take kindly to it, and have full control of whether it succeeds.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

None of the households I've ever been in. I'm sure they exist, but come on. If those types of households are so prevalent, then please explain for me the popularity of U-Verse, as just one example. With that system you're limited to a total of 4 feeds per house. Period. And yet, they still manage to stream video - live TV video - to millions, using ip over a very small pipe. You're using a hypothetical - I'm using an example of a real company delivering just the type of architecture that you seem to think is so impossible.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 edits

Re: ...

You are calling for VZ to deliver over an architecture that isnt theirs, and are at the mercy of those providers. What we're talking about isnt Netflix. Its turning other providers literally into a dumb pipe, and theyre not going to stand for it.
IPTV over FiOS internet, GREAT. Over others, not so much. Its a nice idea, but I dont think it'll be too successful. Putting aside that they are at the mercy of the otherMSO's, the carriage fees that Verizon already pays will still apply, and it wont make any financial sense for people not simply go with their own tradional TV providers. The networks will not give VZ any breaks because its IPTV, ESPN will still cost $5 , Animal Planet will still cost 30 cents , so and and so forth.

Think about this. Verizon themselves offer their triple plays for the same price as voice/internet, or very close to the same price. Would it make any sense to pay Verizon $79.99 for internet, then $50 for Cablevision TV over it, if they chose to follow the same footsteps?? There wont be any savings for people to make such a switch, overall it might cost more. *shrug
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

Guess we'll see. I also think you're seriously underestimating the traffic that is generated by Netflix. It's a substantial piece of the internet traffic that happens every day in the US. Add that to other streaming sources from Amazon Video, to Google, to iTunes, to Redbox, to a host of IP channels... and the amount of video that's current streamed is significant.

As for imposing caps - thinking about this - how can a provider do that withouth killing all other internet traffic for their customers? You don't see these guys actively capping ONLY Netflix traffic. They would have to impose overall caps on their systems. Suppose CableVision imposes some draconian cap... that would be called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.' All of a sudden their customers would be blowing through their caps just to stream YouTube.

Can/will they degrade the feeds coming from Verizon? I don't know. Oh, technically they can. But it's an interesting legal question. If FiOS TV would be considered a cable service, there are all sorts of rules in place dealing with content provided from one cable provider to another. This very much is uncharted legal territory. But I think Verizon is smart doing it this way. Coming in as a traditional cable system is less disruptive.

BTW, if there is no real demand for this - why is everyone bending over backwards trying to provide IP streaming services? Hell, Netflix alone pays a mint just for the ability to stream Epix movies (something like $250Million/year JUST for rights to stream movies owned by Epix). All of these companies are sinking all this cash into such an arrangement because they don't see any real profit in it? Clearly they do. Clearly their business models show that this one mother of a lucrative nut to crack. In markets where consumers have no real choice of cable providers, I can see this being a really attractive alternative. If you lived in a market where your cable company only offered 10 HD channels, e.g., you mean to tell me you wouldn't seriously give this a look?

Besides, there's one thing you're missing with this. It's a system that can be used on their own fiber! This is what Verizon has been shooting for all along. The technical hurdles that they'll overcome with this will allow them to roll out IP delivery of FiOS TV on their own network. Finally - let's not forget wireless. Verizon has a very large number of wireless customers. You mean to tell me the ability to stream all your live TV channels to your wireless device wouldn't just catch on like wild-fire? I know - download caps, right? Nothing saying that Verizon can exclude certain data in counting to that cap. Imagine Verizon rolls out a deal where you can get FiOS TV on your phone. You're already a Vz Wireless customer, so Verizon makes you a deal - your FiOS TV feeds don't count against your cap. I can easily see them doing something like that.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Re: ...

I want them to use it on their own fiber, but carriage fees is what will kill this deal over other pipes, and why it hasn't occured yet by anyone. I really wouldn't hold my breath for this to happen on other last mile networks.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

Carriage fees have nothing to do with it. Existing content providers won't give their content to IP streaming companies. Period. They haven't even gotten to the notion of price yet. That's the whole point of this effort. They believe that they can get the content providers to offer up their content for streaming if they use the leverage of their existing cable footprint. You don't know what the carriage fees will even be! How can you make the statement that it'll kill the deal?

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: ...

The carriage fees will be no different from Verizon's own prices or the cable co that covers that area. If I'm Espn and I get $5 / sub a month from Cablevision, ! Directv, or Verizon's ordinary offering, why the heck would i accept anything less? What do carriage fees add up for an average customer? $40 or so ? Good luck making that work when u have to rely on an uncapped internet, and standalone prices that will absolutely increase. I cannot understand how you can say that carriage fees have nothing to do with this.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

4 edits

Re: ...

Im kind of scratching my head why we're not on the same page. For Verizon to create an IPTV delivery system over their own FiOS pipes, great !! I think that would be incredible. I just dont think it will work on another providers last mile pipes.

I want you to be a start-up streaming tv company "JPL-TV", and make me your customer:

Currently I pay $99 for a Verizon FiOS data/video bundle (50/25) , Prime TV. You propose to become my TV provider. Please tell me how you can convince me to drop my FiOS TV service and go standalone only with Verizon, which costs $79 for standalone internet. Somehow, someway, you have to deliver me a similiar TV package for under $20 to make me consider switching. Forget the cost of installation and equipment, you cant even cover the carriage fees that will be the same, or very close to what all the other incumbents pay.

Then take into consideration that Verizon may meter/cap their service ( comcast is already capped, arent they?) in the future which will cause you major problems. Your product alone is slated to equate to 90% of my data usage !

Then, you also believe that most households generally run 2 TV's at a time, fine. So assuming that you need 5Mbps to stream HD like Netflix, your product cannot even be delivered to the overwhelming majority of DSL customers as u require 10Mbps throughput.

I simply wouldnt buy any stock in JPL-TV, not because it isnt a good idea, I dont think youd be able to roll it out. If alacart ever comes to fruition, you have a chance, i just think thats a long, long time away because the networks dont want it. The way in which MSO's bundle their internet is squashing your dreams and ambitions of becoming a TV provider.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

What you're saying is that this isn't a good arrangement... for you. What I'm saying is that there are lots of folks out there for whom this IS a good arrangement. Clearly these companies see that - it's not just Verizon. They're all falling all over themselves to provide this type of service. And it has to be lucrative or they wouldn't be doing it. Look at that number I gave you for what Netflix is paying JUST for Epix. It comes out to nearly $250million/year... for Epix. Why are they doing that? Because it's profitable! And that's just for the ability to stream Epix. Now... the question - if Netflix is making money after paying that much for the ability to stream a handful of movies... how much do you think these companies would stand to make if they could provide true over the top streaming?

Because it's not JUST live TV we're talking here. How about access to on-demand? To Flex View? And again, it's not just Verizon that's doing it. Lots of companies are. The difference here is in the approach. The issue to date hasn't been in the price for carriage agreements. The issue is that the content providers have been reluctant to upset the apple cart, bypassing their current delivery architecture. Verizon is attempting to do something novel - use their cable footprint as a means to getting the content providers to open up. Clearly they think there's something to this.

If they're wrong, then they're wrong. Companies make investments that don't pan out all the time. But this business model has been one that just about every tech company out there has been salivating over. Now, unless you can show me some analysis that counters their claims (beyond your own personal preferences)... I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
BTW, where are you getting your numbers from? It doesn't take 10mpbs to stream HD. Oh, if you're running mpeg-2 QAM, sure. But even then, most content providers aren't running at even that clip. Roll out mpeg4 and you save a good 50% on the bandwidth needed. And that's for broadcast. Move to streaming and it becomes better yet (you can take advantage of things like buffering). I have a coworker who still has Verizon's 5/2 internet speed with FiOS (he's just never upgraded). He has no issues streaming multiple movies from Netflix at the same time. In our house, I've put our internet service to the test. Even when we were at 25 Mpbs, we were able to have one person watch a movie streamed from Netflix, while one of my other kids was watching videos on line, and while I was streaming something from Epix's website. With plenty of bandwidth to spare.

And yes, it's really rare to find a household where the TV is on 24x7. I'm sure those households exist, and for such households this type of arrangement isn't worthwhile. But guess what? A vast majority of households don't fit into that definition. Which is why services like U-Verse can sell like gang-busters despite the severe limitations on the number of concurrent feeds.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit

Re: ...

Yes, I meant 2 streams at 5Mbps for HD. (Thought I was clear on that) People should still be able to use the net while TVs are on, right? Netflix is saying 15Mbps minimum will be required for their 4K streams. Im not saying that there isnt a market for streamed video. Im saying that carriage fees to stream Live TV will not make it possible. There is no reason in the world why the networks would take less money per sub just because its being delivered IPTV. A sub is a sub, and the Networks couldnt care less who delivers & how it gets delivered to the subscriber.

and again, the reason why it doesnt work is due to the bundle discounts that the MSO's give. The idea of streaming LiveTV does NOT work unless the networks agree to separate their channels and offer alacarte. I was more optimistic when I thought Verizon could bypass city/town franchise agreements resulting in savings for the customer.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

And yet all of these companies are falling all over themselves to provide it. Clearly Verizon disagrees with your assessment of the business climate. We'll see.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
and PS, to make myself more clear regarding the franchise agreements and streaming products. Maybe Im just wording my point of view badly.

Lets say theoretically, all traditional DSL could suddenly push 100Mbps. ( or a new MPEG10 that can provide stunning HD quality over a 768k DSL lol) Suddenly Verizon can now provide this new streaming service over it, and the towns should still have the ability to string Verizon up by the balls? But if it was a startup company called "Aereo", the towns would no longer give a hard time regarding streaming live broadcasts? In reality, I would think Verizon could tell the towns to go pound sand being that the infrastructure is already in place.

What exactly is the legal difference here? Is it LIVE tv? Netflix , hulu amazon get to bypass franchise agreements, and air shows that were once aired live on TV. Fine, if being LIVE breaks the deal,then Verizon could implement a 10 second time delay with no adverse repercussions.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

Re: ...

BTW, Netflix and company DON'T get to bypass these agreements. Call them what you want. Call them franchise agreements or whatever, Netflix still has to pay the content provider for the right to stream their stuff. Look at the Epix deal. Was it a traditional 'franchise agreement'? No. But guess what? They forked over more than a billion dollars over 5 years to get access to that content. Where do you get the idea that Netflix or Amazon or Apple or whoever gets to provide streaming stuff for free? They don't! What's more, since what Netflix is offering is ala carte... they get to pay no matter how many customers the deal brings them. With a franchise agreement the cable provider pays per subscriber who has access to that channel. If Verizon were to cut a deal with a content provider, and they added no new customers as a result, it's not a big deal to Verizon. Why? Because their existing customer base is already paying for that feed. In order for the Netflix deal with Epix to work, Netflix needed to add several thousand new customers a month. Otherwise it would cost Netflix in the end.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

4 edits

Re: ...

JPL, what on Earth are you talking about? In NEW YORK, Verizon has to go to every city and town and negotiate a TV FRANCHISE AGREEMENT in order to legally provide TV SERVICE IN THAT TOWN. Every month, about $5 of my cable bill goes to MY TOWN. Now I dont know about PA, but I know in New Jersey , Verizon got a state-wide video franchise agreement.

Now, please reread all my posts, and tell me if Verizon providing IPTV is still obligated to negotiate LFA's LOCAL FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. Holy Moly.

.... and to further my explaination, in case you are still entirely misunderstanding me: In my town, I can obviously receive FiOS TV. A town adjacent to my very own does not have FiOS TV, but the people there can order FioS phone and Internet ONLY. Now, if Verizon was able to create a streaming , LIVE TV alternative, could Verizon provide it to subscribers, IN THAT TOWN?

quote:
And yet all of these companies are falling all over themselves to provide it. Clearly Verizon disagrees with your assessment of the business climate. We'll see.
are you talking about streaming LIVE TV, as in a traditional QAM replacement? You claim all these companies are falling over each other? Wheres the product JPL? Where is Netflix themselves, who you might think has a little bit of leverage, streaming even a SINGLE CHANNEL?
Why dont they? Due to carriage fee's . The networks are in full control. Netflix gets rights to old outdated content for rock bottom prices.

I am not talking about streaming old shows, I am not talking about making a deal giving rights to Netflix to stream Epix' LIBRARY. I am talking LIVE TV BROADCASTS.

Not only are we not on the same page, I think we're in two different books ! lol

•••••
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

What relevance?

I don't see why Verizon, as a "traditional pay-tv provider" (really?), should expect any leverage with regards to streaming rights, and I question why Karl even makes that point.

The content industry has the right to determine the asking price for their product.
No technological evolution changes that, or confers rights to the distribution networks, virtual or physical, to dictate what they will pay.

•••••

mikesterr

join:2008-04-18
Atco, NJ

This has Always been the goal

Even when Ivan was there the end goal was always to provide Video over Wireless Data plans. They sold all of those territories to Frontier with the thought of coming back into those areas with a wireless video service.
As for the data caps they can easily not charge against the cap for Video from their own system, the Redbox instant doesn't hit your data caps (or isn't supposed to anyway). The real question is Will they do that. Probably at first, get people hooked then tell them they are going to charge extra or that you must move into a higher data tier.

xpbx
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08

Re: This has Always been the goal

got to add that deregulation in there too. they want that more than anything.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·ooma
·Verizon FiOS

evolution..

how about evolving their FIOS service to gigabit first and reverse your outrageous pricing? I don't think $70 a month for 15 megabit tier is doing right by the consumer these days! Verizon always seems to have money for everything else. 130 billion for Vodafone debt. Billions more for wireless LTE, Millions more for Intel's video streaming patents, etc.

ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Re: evolution..

So if you were CEO of an MSO, you would drop internet prices for the good of the people?. Hence why, youre not a CEO.
I strongly suggest you look at the quarterly reports for any wireline company.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·ooma
·Verizon FiOS

Re: evolution..

The NY metro market will not bear $70 for standalone 15mbit internet. There are regulatory remedies at government's disposal which were part of the Ma-Bell breakup (and 96-06 reform legislation), but what's been happening as of late is apathy. This is why telcos and cable companies are STILL treated differently. They can't be trusted to do right by the consumer. It remains to be seen if the decline in a robust marketplace will result in government intervening. The decline of a robust marketplace here means it most likely won't exist elsewhere either, except where there are small pockets of change. Google plunked down it's claim on some of these 'other' geographies already.

Who knows how dysfunctional the NY metro market has to be for a company such as Google to get involved... I'll admit it's not all bad on the PR front (since VZ offered $79.99 triple play as late as Dec, 2013), but take a gander at these headlines.

»stopthecap.com/?s=verizon

BTW, if you ran a company based on quarterly reports & WALL STREET GREED back in 2007 - 2010, you WOULD NOT HAVE A COMPANY TODAY! Lastly, think about geographies in 14 states which will now have a Telco similar to CenturyTel or worse in lousy (for the customer) deals by Fairpoint/Frontier. How about moving to one and see how green the grass is for those customers?