Intel gearing up for Internet-based TV service

The revolution may be televised, but it’s still unclear which content providers will have the live feed. Right now, incumbent cable providers are probably the best bet. They’re increasingly facing competition from Internet-based solutions, though, and Intel could soon join those ranks. According to the Wall Street Journal, Intel is working on an IP TV service that could hit the US by the end of the year.

Intel already makes the hardware inside the set-top boxes offered by some cable providers, and it looks like the chip giant intends to do the same for its own service. Media companies have also been asked for "rate cards" that outline pricing for channels and on-demand content. However, it doesn’t look like any content deals have been struck just yet. There’s no word on whether the service would be compatible with Intel-based PCs, either.

Getting content providers to play ball is surely Intel’s greatest challenge. Already, the rumor mill suggests Apple is struggling to convince media companies to sign up for its own TV venture. Content providers probably aren’t keen on supporting any shift that might undermine their businesses, a fact underscored by CBS CEO Leslie Moonves. In a discussion about providing CBS content for an Apple TV service, Moonves cited the need to protect CBS’s existing revenue streams and told Steve Jobs, "You know more than me about 99 percent of things but I know more about the television business."

Here’s the thing, Moonves: everything you know about the television business means little if you don’t understand the Internet. The popularity of Hulu, Netflix, and other online services proves there’s demand for alternatives to the traditional model. Whether it’s Intel, Apple, or a patchwork of different solutions, the days of traditional television are numbered.

Comments closed
    • CuttinHobo
    • 8 years ago

    I’m sure that Intel would like to put its hardware in just about every device in the living room (what a man-slut!) but I just don’t see them getting into TV service of any flavor. They’re one of the most focused large companies I can think of, and this seems a little too far outside of their focus.

    • insulin_junkie72
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]Here's the thing, Moonves: everything you know about the television business means little if you don't understand the Internet. The popularity of Hulu, Netflix, and other online services proves there's demand for alternatives to the traditional model[/quote<] Oh, hey, look... from the very same article linked above with the Jobs conversation quote 😛 [quote<]Despite his skepticism over Apple TV, Moonves was bullish on digital dealmaking. He specifically cited the benefits of CBS content deals with Netflix (which he called a "friend") and Amazon, as well as the value of pacts with Hulu and Netflix for The CW network, co-owned by CBS and Time Warner. "That's what changed the CW from being a losing proposition to being a (money maker)," Moonves said. [/quote<] Man, that Moonves hates the Internet.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 8 years ago

      Sounds more like he just didn’t want to sell content but rather get people to pay a subscription fee for it.

    • tfp
    • 8 years ago

    Intel has been gearing up for years, the netburst architecture was made specifically to accelerate the internet.

      • Palek
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]the netburst architecture was made specifically to [u<]accelerate the internet[/u<].[/quote<] Dude, all this time I was using AMD processors, and I kept wondering why my internets were slow. Thanks to you now I have the answer! *Runs of to buy Pentium 4 machine*

    • Freon
    • 8 years ago

    Exactly how successful is Hulu? I thought Hulu was partially owned by some of the big ‘gloms anyway.

    • CB5000
    • 8 years ago

    Hulu free membership and a netflix streaming only subscription is more than enough for me to statisfy my need to watch TV.

    • not@home
    • 8 years ago

    I never watch TV. I do not even own one. If I want to watch something, I watch it online (Netflix), at my convenience on my PC. All my friends do the same. Moonves is not getting my money, and if he doesn’t change his outlook, he never will. His loss.

    • TheMonkeyKing
    • 8 years ago

    Here’s a different opinion of Moonves: He knows exactly what he’s got. He’s got content. CBS has top rated current shows as well as most of Aaron Spelling Productions’ catalog as well as some of 20th Century’s library. Not to mention CBS Sports. (NCAA basketball anyone?)

    And he’s not going to farm it out to one electronic distributor for a flat fee. No, by controlling the distribution as well as the message, he gets the most benefit. He’s probably in the boardroom in discussions on how to distribute shows through their CBS.com without compromising repeat viewings (HTML5 container/webapp that does not allow copying), or ignores advertising revenue. (How to sell and produce slots within the browser-dedicated content to allow localized advertising as well as national ads?)

    See, you don’t get a flat fee plus percentage of X amount downloads or viewings from another party when you can control what gets seen and how all the while selling ad space.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 8 years ago

      In the meantime, I’ll be torrenting.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        Criminal. You belong in jail.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 8 years ago

          I’m pretty sure you have to commit a crime to be a criminal.

            • sweatshopking
            • 8 years ago

            I’m pretty sure neely was teasing

        • funko
        • 8 years ago

        used to work for me until i started to earn more expendable income, now i can appreciate the hi def, zero-day, availability and quality that OTA-free HD and fiber opt-fios offers, and then i use 3rd party sources to supplement my needs for things such as international shows that dont have distrib deals set for the US, and episodes of shows that i caught late in the game, and want to watch earlier eps and seasons of. so. it’s all good.

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 8 years ago

          i pay for HD satellite (comcast in my area after 5+ visits has channel loss and fios isn’t available) and comcast cable, so the networks are getting their money from me already, sans the advertisements. They come up with a better solution, i’ll bite.

        • TheMonkeyKing
        • 8 years ago

        Which is an excellent point. In many, many ways torrenting is the easiest way to access content. But if watching the shows you wanted, easily and with “good as OTA” viewing (no more blocky, forever caching streaming), then I think torrents would be relegated to the rare or not available content.

      • dashbarron
      • 8 years ago

      ‘Lil surprised he survived Jobs’ hex voodoo….

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    Moonves and other TV people just don’t see how the model they’ve been supporting for years now really is on the way out. They’ve gotten away with highway robbery for decades and its at an end. They need to start shifting their revenues into emerging markets or get left behind. As middle men they are about to become irrelevant. Production companies are going to have to play ball its that simple. I simply don’t need TV enough to play buy their rules if they aren’t convenient and available I just watch movies and play games and listen to music. TV was always this format that capitalized on convenience but as movies have become as available if not more so through the internet TV has struggled. Film series are the new thing, lord of the rings set the stage now we’ve seen harry potter, soon the avengers! TV is just fading into the background.

      • yogibbear
      • 8 years ago

      Game of Thrones?
      Sons of Anarchy?
      Futurama?
      Skins (The UK one, not the stupid US one)?
      How I met your mother?
      True Blood?
      Dexter?
      Breaking Bad?

      Though I totally agree with the first part about them needing to shift. I don’t watch TV as much as watch TV shows through less than legitimate means because it takes a year or more for that show to be available in my country on TV and I prefer to watch these shows when it conveniences me, rather than my TV provider. The only thing I watch on TV is live sport, and then only sometimes.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 8 years ago

      If anything, TV series are getting stronger as movies are becoming more and more expensive to go and see. Most HBO series are absolutely amazing the first 1-3 seasons, only getting “bad” or “obscure” when they’ve been passed to the 3rd string writers. (True Blood is a perfect example of this, that show has become downright silly).

        • indeego
        • 8 years ago

        This has nothing to do with the shows writers, it is the nature of exhaustion of content of any genre. There’s only so many ways you can show a Vampire Soap Opera or Zombie Infestation before you recycle material and have to rely on dialog and a truly ridiculous premise. To maintain their core audience they must create drama out of thin air (hence why ALL series eventually must become Soap Operas.)

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 8 years ago

          I disagree. I think if that was the case, nothing new would every be written because it would all be done by now.

          That said all show end up focusing on characters because that’s what is usually interesting.

          I think what stalls most shows is being unwilling to change the cast up, get rid of and add new characters, but that isn’t a problem with True Blood so I don’t why it’s gotten worse.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This