
Maybe. It’s the plan, anyway, as Intel — the company we usually associate with microprocessors — is planning to unleash a set-top box that will allow anyone with an Internet connection to subscribe to individual channels and, perhaps even, individual programs. For beta testers, it’s coming as soon as March.
From Forbes:
This set-top box, said by industry insiders to be available to a limited beta of customers in March, will offer cable channels delivered “over the top” to televisions anywhere there is an Internet connection regardless of provider … For the first time, consumers will be able to subscribe to content per channel, unlike bundled cable services, and you may also be able to subscribe per show as well. Intel’s set-top box will also have access to Intel’s already existing app marketplace for apps, casual games, and video on demand. Leveraging the speed of current broadband, and the vast shared resources of the cloud, Intel plans to give customers the ability to use “Cloud DVR”, a feature intended to allow users to watch any past TV show at any time, without the need to record it ahead of time, pause live tv, and rewind shows in progress
If Intel manages to pull it off, it could change the television industry. BUT, don’t get your hopes up too high because there’s a lot of obstacles in Intel’s way, most notably THE TELEVISION INDUSTRY. Cable networks like the way things are going now because it allows them to bundle all of their channels together, and force them down cable providers throats. This would completely screw with their system and cost them a lot of money. Cable networks are not big fans of losing money.
Moreover, even if we got unbundled programming, we may soon realize that we don’t want it, after all, as many of the channels we do watch are, in effect, subsidized by subscriber fees to other channels. In other words, cable providers pay about $.42 per subscriber per month for the FX Network, but if it were made available a la carte, we may end up paying $10-$12 or more per month (or what we pay for HBO and Showtime). If you watch more than seven or eight channels, that could quickly equal the cost of the average cable bill, PLUS you’d still be paying for the Intel service. Then again, among basic cable channels, I could probably survive on FX, AMC, ESPN, and Comedy Central.
So, yes: It’s an awesome idea in theory, and what we’ve all said we’ve wanted for years. In practice, it may only be beneficial to those who truly do watch only a few channels. Ultimately, however, it may just be one more option among the growing options for cord cutters.

(Source: Business Insider via Forbes. Hat Tip: Ryan Hudson)



Of course the Wall Street Journal had a new article up today that says this project has already been delayed over contracts and money. This is total vaporware.
I have a feeling we’ll never see the ideal solution so many of us want: paying for five or six essential channels, including ESPN and our RSN, and having the cost being less what it takes going through a cable or satellite provider.
Until then you can legally get a lot of what you want, it’s just a bit of a hassle. With a VPN service and router you can watch your local teams provided you’re a subscriber to that sport’s package. An HD antenna takes care of the Network’s programming. You can buy cable episodes after they air on iTunes or Amazon. If you’re like me and you only watch maybe twelve cable shows a year, the cost is less than paying for cable/satellite. The downside is no live ESPN, and no live Walking Dead, Archer, etc. and no HBO.
But it’s not a bad way to go.
The work-around for live sports would be subscribing to MLB.tv. For football you could just go to the local watering hole which would cost you however much you want to spend on alcohol.
I don’t watch sports, so I dumped cable entirely and went this route two years ago now. Haven’t missed cable at all.
Yea. If I wasn’t located in my teams’ market this wouldn’t be an issue and I would have cut the cord years ago. But it’s being blacked out that poses the question of just how much am I willing to pay to watch the shitty Milwaukee Bucks or Brewers. Since sports are basically the only thing I care to watch live, it made finding that VPN solution vital.
This is what I do, but solve the sports problem by walking to the local bar and drinking enough that I’m glad I can walk home. Or mooching off friends. It’s actually a more enjoyable way to watch sports
The problem with MLB.tv is the fact that in your market, local games are blacked out because of networks like Fox Sports- Angels and Dodgers games aren’t on MLB.tv because they’re available on TV. Unless I’m mucking this up, but this is the situation my friend ran into when he had MLB.tv
What is the current subscription price for ESPN1993, consisting only of Sportscenter with the anchors from that year with today’s sports covered exactly like they were then? Because I would pay an offensive amount of money for that. An offensive amount + 70% if you throw in the brutal extermination of anyone currently involved with ESPN First Take.
it’s called TSN Canada
But I can already subscribe on a per-show basis via Amazon Instant Video.
Except there’s no premium solution. Other than use my parent’s HBO go account (They’re 70…)
I think that getting a more viable option that the networks will be cool with is paying ala carte per show, which would be a rip-off if you watch more than five or six shows. Still this is an appealing pipe dream, best of luck Intel.
I dunno. I’m happy to buy shows that are on broadcast networks as they air because really, they’re $2 a pop, it sends a direct message to networks and producers that that, why yes I would like more Bob’s Burgers or Parks and Rec and am willing to pay for it, and it’s quantifiable, unlike the goddamn Nielsens.
I’ve thought about going this way but the math never worked for me. Between my wife and myself we have about 20 shows we watch on a regular basis. Even at 30 dollars a season we would end up paying way more than we do for the cheapest package on Dish network.
Jeez, is that common? My wife and I watch about 1-2 current shows per month, with the rest of our TV viewing time filled in by Netflix or OTA shows. I’m quite happy with the a la carte option, but I don’t watch as much TV as others I suppose.
20 shows seemed like a lot to me too, until I broke it down by day. You figure there’s 6 nights of real programing so 20 shows is only 3-4 per day. That’s still a lot of TV but we have a toddler at home. We’re not going anywhere. Plus we couldn’t even get local news. I live in a weird little valley so OTA isn’t an option.
Relevant:
Suddenlink is currently squabbling with Fox over some Cable channel rates, threatening to take away some of my channels any day now. There will be some Justified level violence if they take FX away from me.
Love that they misspelled “television” in the graphic.
This happening is maybe only slightly more likely than Alison Brie becoming all our girlfriends.
The gif of Jeannie and the “exploding tv” is actually a microwave.