Content providers want to bring Live TV to internet via Intel because....
Intel owns 80% of PC market and is about to break thru into mobile space too.
It's that simple, content providers want to bring Live TV to every device in order to generate more revenue thru ads. Don't worry about data cap issue being brought up by this sanddollars586 fellow; if content providers are willing to work with Intel, they will go all the way with Intel; they will fight the comcast, dish etc on Intel's behalf. And can you imagine the backlash that would be created if comcast or another internet providers start putting a cap on data? That's like go back to last decade; no, there is no question that Live TV will be made available to internet audience sooner or later.
If one wants to stream IP based video 24x7 to multiple TV's all one has to do is get the streaming service from their broadband service provider. The cable companies own services are treated separately and do not count against one's monthly Internet data allocation.
No they don't. They don't need Intel for anything. All Intel has is a motherboard with some media accelerators on it. Anyone can build those in their garage these days. This will be one of Intel's biggest failures yet.
While I'll assume some smart people at Intel know what they're doing, I personally don't see where Intel brings anything unique to the table on TV. The phone/mobile internet sector has three inter-related, interdependent components - service providers/system capacity and speed, hardware (the devices), and software (use interface). TV adds a fourth component - content, and content providers (mostly, but not solely, "Hollywood") are not fools - they gave away the store to Apple with music, and they won't let that happen again - they will drive a hard bargain to get the most return on their product....
A lot is at stake as the larger "TV" system (content, transmission, hardware, software) evolves. Consumer attitudes will also play a big part - older consumers will be less willing to change, with younger consumers ready to jump onto any new platform/paradigm.
It's interesting (intriguing) that Intel thinks it has a potentially important role to play. I hope they do, but I have to confess I'm skeptical. But, we'll see how this evolves.
"While I'll assume some smart people at Intel know what they're doing, I personally don't see where Intel brings anything unique to the table on TV. "
[This is simply not true. Live streaming over the internet is not currently available. Being able to go back and watch shows you've missed is not currently available. Being able to get any channel package other than what the cable companies decide to do is not available. Being able to spread connectivity to a number of different devices in the home is not currently available. And Intel's networking/data center resources are something that no one else can bring to the table.
No one has been able to line up the content providers and put any kind of deal like this together before and Intel appears to be well on its way. I'm seeing way too many people with way too little understanding of the service doing everything they can to be critical. I guess I don't understand it. It could bring Intel a revenue stream of $19 billion a year. I applaud their efforts and wish them success because a move towards a la carte IP TV is something that consumers really want and need. If Intel is able to break the logjam that has existed for years and years, then they will be wildly successful and reap the rewards...]
Without question Intel has very good technology to bring to the table for streaming video and even streaming live TV. The combination of security technologies Intel is embedding into its mobile products can potentially solve a key issue of content protection while sharing video with other devices in the home.
The question that deserves to be asked is what is the most effective role Intel should have in realizing the concept? As a provider of core technology and perhaps even a reference design Intel can make a very strong case. They may even have a good argument for building the box. However, as the provider of the service - instead of the cable companies themselves - Intel would function as a cable bypass and competing directly against the cable's own video services. This is where the concept becomes very complicated given the many advantages cable companies enjoy over any bypass operator delivering this service.
I suspect Intel initially wanted to partner with the cable companies but the cable operators weren't interested and by the time the cable operators passed on the opportunity Intel was so wedded to the idea that they justified doing it solely on their own. There is nothing technically stopping anyone with a large ego and cash from launching an Over-The-Top live streaming service. However, making a viable business competing directly against the cable operator's core business is another matter.