Roku is one of the network media players that lets you turn your HDTV into a “Smart TV” by adding an Internet connection. In general, this means that you can access streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu Plus. The company has announced that it will start carrying its first “linear” channel of programming: WealthTV. [...]
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2011/01/hdtv-almanac-roku-adds-live-channel.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Almanac - Roku Adds Live Channel
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
-
tnsprin
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:37 pm
Re: HDTV Almanac - Roku Adds Live Channel
Wealth TV is hardly the channel to start with. I've watched it a couple time on FIOS, but can't believe anyone would pay 2.99 for it.alfredpoor wrote:Roku is one of the network media players that lets you turn your HDTV into a “Smart TV” by adding an Internet connection. In general, this means that you can access streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu Plus. The company has announced that it will start carrying its first “linear” channel of programming: WealthTV. [...]
Read Column
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
There's more to life than Wealth
>Wealth TV is hardly the channel to start with.
I can't argue that, but the content is not the point. The point is that Roku has stepped over the boundary from streaming on demand, and is providing "broadcast" linear programming. And while I wouldn't pay $2.99 a month for WealthTV, I suspect that there are plenty of people who would. And I know that there are definitely content niches that I would happily pay $2.99 a month for rather than have to pay $50 or $100 a month to get all the other cable or satellite channels with it. (And some of my interest areas -- such as sailing -- will never have a mainstream channel on cable anyway.)
Don't look at the content in this development; look at the implications for how content producers can effectively reach a small but enthusiastic audience, and make enough money to fund a production operation. I think it's pretty significant news.
Alfred
I can't argue that, but the content is not the point. The point is that Roku has stepped over the boundary from streaming on demand, and is providing "broadcast" linear programming. And while I wouldn't pay $2.99 a month for WealthTV, I suspect that there are plenty of people who would. And I know that there are definitely content niches that I would happily pay $2.99 a month for rather than have to pay $50 or $100 a month to get all the other cable or satellite channels with it. (And some of my interest areas -- such as sailing -- will never have a mainstream channel on cable anyway.)
Don't look at the content in this development; look at the implications for how content producers can effectively reach a small but enthusiastic audience, and make enough money to fund a production operation. I think it's pretty significant news.
Alfred
-
rml
- Member
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:28 pm
A la carte restart
>Wealth TV is hardly the channel to start with.
Maybe, but at least it's a start and a promising indication of a potential return to competition in programming choice. (Anyone remember C & Ku band a la cart programming choice?) Forced block programming is basically a type of quasi-monopoly profit maximization. Of course, without some strong form of Net Neutrality, the Roku experiment is doomed to fail.
Maybe, but at least it's a start and a promising indication of a potential return to competition in programming choice. (Anyone remember C & Ku band a la cart programming choice?) Forced block programming is basically a type of quasi-monopoly profit maximization. Of course, without some strong form of Net Neutrality, the Roku experiment is doomed to fail.
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
Net Neutrality cuts both ways
If net neutrality fails, it does not spell the doom of Roku (or Netflix). It just means that they will have to scramble to form alliances with the owners of the pipelines. The problem is that the consumer often does not have a meaningful choice in broadband services, so cable companies will be able to hold their subscribers hostage in negotiating the best deal they can. Comcast might treat Netflix traffic favorably, which Charter might strike a deal with Roku.
I still believe that an open and equal opportunity Internet is best for the consumer, where all the services pay the same amount for the carriage of their data, and the broadband services (cable companies) earn a fair return on their investment in infrastructure and its maintenance. I suspect that we need federal regulations to make that happen -- sort of like the Interstate Commerce Commission -- but I'm not sure that this is what we'll get. The situation definitely warrants paying close attention.
Alfred
I still believe that an open and equal opportunity Internet is best for the consumer, where all the services pay the same amount for the carriage of their data, and the broadband services (cable companies) earn a fair return on their investment in infrastructure and its maintenance. I suspect that we need federal regulations to make that happen -- sort of like the Interstate Commerce Commission -- but I'm not sure that this is what we'll get. The situation definitely warrants paying close attention.
Alfred
-
rml
- Member
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:28 pm
Where's the cut?
>I suspect that we need federal regulations to make that happen -- sort of like the Interstate Commerce Commission
Transmission (the receipt and delivery of content) is one market; and content is a separate and distinct market. The only reason a transmission provider that is also a content provider reduces quality or forecloses delivery of a competitor's content is to give itself a non-competitive advantage over that competitor in the content market.
First there was the ICC for railroads (and later trucking) and then there was the FCC for telephone, telegraph and wireless. Notice these are all transport technologies, principally point-to-point. It wasn't until radio, a broad cast (point-to-multipoint) technology, that electronic content (principally program material) became a market. For many years, the FCC has had all the statutory authority it needs to enforce net neutrality regarding content. Unfortunately, it keeps futzing around and basing its internet rules on shaky conceptual grounds, unfounded interpretations of vague statutory provisions, and muddled economic theories.
Transmission (the receipt and delivery of content) is one market; and content is a separate and distinct market. The only reason a transmission provider that is also a content provider reduces quality or forecloses delivery of a competitor's content is to give itself a non-competitive advantage over that competitor in the content market.
First there was the ICC for railroads (and later trucking) and then there was the FCC for telephone, telegraph and wireless. Notice these are all transport technologies, principally point-to-point. It wasn't until radio, a broad cast (point-to-multipoint) technology, that electronic content (principally program material) became a market. For many years, the FCC has had all the statutory authority it needs to enforce net neutrality regarding content. Unfortunately, it keeps futzing around and basing its internet rules on shaky conceptual grounds, unfounded interpretations of vague statutory provisions, and muddled economic theories.