WASHINGTON — As Intel tries something audacious — the creation of a virtual cable service that would sell a bundle of television channels to subscribers over the Internet — it is running up against a multibillion-dollar barricade.

That barricade is guarded by Time Warner Cable and other cable and satellite distributors, which are trying to make it difficult — if not impossible — for Intel to go through with its plan. The distributors are using a variety of methods to pressure the owners of cable channels, with whom they have lucrative long-term contracts, not to sign contracts with upstarts like Intel, that way preserving the status quo.

Intel, however, is undeterred, and its executives intend to begin its TV service by the end of the year. They are ready and willing to pay more than existing distributors do for channels. But to date the company has not announced any deals with channel owners.

To Intel, and to some analysts, the behavior by the existing distributors — in some cases giving financial incentives to friendly channel owners, in other cases including punitive measures in contracts — has an anticompetitive whiff. The antitrust division of the Justice Department is looking into the issue as part of a broad investigation into cable and satellite company practices, according to people contacted by the department, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. A department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Public attention about the issue, which gained new life this week during the cable industry’s annual conference here, might also spur the Federal Communications Commission to afford would-be Internet distributors like Intel the same legal protections as those that already exist. The commission has been considering such a change for more than a year.

“The government has to step up and protect these companies, or the incumbents are going to kill them in their cradles,” said Gigi B. Sohn, the president of the public interest group Public Knowledge.

Prospective products like Intel TV, delivered through the broadband Internet infrastructure of Comcast, Time Warner Cable or another provider and sometimes called “over the top TV,” have the potential to radically alter the media marketplace in the United States.

Unlike Netflix, which sells a library of TV episodes and mainly supplements cable, a service like Intel’s — with dozens of channels, big and small, streaming through a modern interface — could cause more consumers to cancel their cable subscriptions. (They would have to keep a broadband subscription, however, unless or until wireless capacity improves.)

It could also stir further innovation within the industry. If Intel’s service ever goes on sale, industry executives predict that others will quickly follow — either because they want to, or they feel they have no choice.

Apple, Microsoft and Sony are often mentioned as possibilities, but the more immediate competition might come from Comcast, Time Warner Cable and other major distributors, which could suddenly compete directly in markets all across the country. Comcast has quietly been working on an “over the top” service for well over a year.

“Suddenly there’d be a whole new world of competition,” said one of the executives, who declined to express support for the “over the top” option for fear of angering the existing distributors.

Most of those companies declined to comment on the record, but some representatives said privately that they are taking common-sense steps to protect their businesses. Each confidential contract between a distributor and a channel owner is different, they said.

Some contracts include clauses that expressly prohibit the channels to be sold to an Internet distributor like Intel, while other contracts merely discourage such competition by including financial incentives or penalties. So-called most favored nation clauses, which are common, exist to ensure that if another distributor receives a cheaper rate for a channel later, that rate applies across the board. Some of these provisions have been in place for years.

But critics said that the contractual language makes it much harder for new companies to enter the marketplace. A Justice Department official said in a presentation last year that “contracts that reference rivals” have the potential to harm competition.

Within the cable industry, the practice of discouraging new Internet distributors has been suspected but not widely documented. The issue attracted new attention on Tuesday during the cable industry’s conference when Richard Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG Research, wrote in a blog post that at least one unnamed distributor had prevented a channel owner from selling to a service like Intel. Whether illegal or not, “it most certainly is bad for consumers, as it limits competition and prevents the emergence of distributors who can provide revolutionary new ways of experiencing” TV, he wrote.

Mr. Greenfield did not name any names, but several channel owners and smaller distributors said Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second-largest cable company after Comcast, had been by far the most aggressive in its dealings with channels. When Comcast acquired NBCUniversal in 2011, it signed a consent decree with the government that prohibited it from trying to block budding Internet distributors. Time Warner Cable declined to elaborate on its practices on Wednesday, but said in a statement that “it is absurd to suggest that, in today’s highly competitive video marketplace, obtaining some level of exclusivity is anticompetitive. Exclusivities and windows are extremely common in the entertainment industry; that’s exactly how entertainment companies compete.” It cited the N.F.L. deal with DirecTV and the Netflix distribution of the former cable show “Arrested Development,” among other examples.

Mr. Greenfield rejected that explanation. “They are not paying for exclusivity,” he said. “They are saying you can sell to X, to Y and Z, but you are forbidden from selling to this new class, called A.”

A spokesman for Intel declined to comment. But this week the company had a suite at a hotel, one block from the cable conference site, and held demonstrations of its service for potential partners. What Intel needs, according to people briefed on their plans, is the support of a critical mass of channels — not the entire universe that Comcast or DirecTV has, but enough to have a viable service. Intel will not introduce the service without that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23387113)

This time, apple won't be able to save them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23387743)

Pirating is already plenty easy, I think even if pirating dropped by 70% it would still be very easy. No issue for me there.

As for wanting the industry to be destroyed, that's an interesting thought. I don't want them to stop making good movies and stuff, although they of course make a lot of crap too and even the good movies could be better. In any case I wouldn't mind seeing those fuckers get knocked down a peg or three. Fuck hollywood.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23387794)

Palm Pilots are not going to work, they need something simpler like IPhones.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388032)

As for content creation, this just cuts out the middle man.

There will be more reality type entertainment available on the internet.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388368)

Kim Dotcom's MEGA (admittedly not decentralized) is already looking into anonymous streaming.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388399)

What happened to typewriter manufacturers?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388470)

http://xbmc.org/wp-content/gallery/aeon/aeon_movieshowcase.jpg

http://xbmc.org/wp-content/gallery/aeon/aeon_lowermenu.jpg

http://xbmc.org/wp-content/gallery/aeon/aeon_vis.jpg

Instead of this:

http://boomertechtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/TV-Play-60-Minutes.jpg

It's a billion times better in a billion ways OTHER than being free. Fuck, I actually PAY for cable, god knows why, I never use it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388472)

people who troll for this shit have zero understanding of human psyche

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388490)

Btw, subsequent episodes of the same TV show can come automatically just like your DVR.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388618)

i can use my phone as a remote on verizon fios and it's annoying as shit. though i did use it to set the us open golf to record while I was at work today. you know, the live sports event that is playing on ESPN that I am able to watch without going through sketchy sites because I have cable.

you don't account at all for the required hours spent being an internet neckbeard to even know enough about all this crap to get it to work properly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388636)

As I said above, it's "after the initial setup" which is a few hours at most to learn how it works. But as I have also already mentioned, it is and will always be outside the mainstream because of these few hours. Just the fact that you have to set it up. Although there are super neckbeards out there trying to make businesses out of setting everything up for you so that might work too...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388944)

I recently went to pregame at my cable cutter bros place while a nba playoff game was on and there were like 10 of us who wanted to beat the fuck out of him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23389112)

"Demystifying Technology and Social Media"

http://boomertechtalk.com/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23389032)

Free content for everyone does not just "cut out the middle man." It cuts everyone out and will kill content creation. Those billion dollar films won't get made unless they get paid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388400)

And again, even if you could do this it would just kill content so not a good thing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388456)

Anyway even if not, it's not really "brutal" at all, it's just that big budget movies with lots of effects and so on slowly disappear and become a thing of the past.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388545)

The only things i stream are Homeland and NFL games and it's almost always a pain in the ass.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388007)

as opposed to paying under $100 a month and just being able to click a button.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388021)

those sites are well known to like .05% of the population.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388048)

http://xbmc.org/skins/aeon/

http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.xbmc.android.remote&hl=en

The PC itself is smaller than an xbox, dvd player etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388391)

Like this, I spent 20 min researching my dishwasher on the internet and then bought a 30 dollar part and installed it in 10 min. Would have cost 300 or something to have some guy do it. Not for everyone but if you have a brain and a few minutes, go for it.

HTPC and XBMC is like that EXCEPT imagine it's a much better dishwasher and you don't have the option of paying a repair man because there is none. Your only other option is to downgrade to a shitty dishwasher.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388443)

Here's another good one:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-comcast-wins-appeal-tennis-channel-dispute-20130528,0,5264530.story

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23387169)

and lol at whatever intel comes up with being any different than current cable

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23387896)

Consumers do not benefit from this monopolistic bundling shit. You should be able to cop espn without having to pay for bravo. I should be able to get amc and not have to pay for espn.

And this doesn't even broach the awful situation where the only thing you want to see is GoT, but you end up having to pay for every piece of shit channel under the sun AND pay for HBO on top of it. You literally have to pay hundreds of dollars just to get access to one season of one show. It's fucking ridiculous.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23387918)

also people who say "duuur the only thing I watch is breaking bad so I should just have to pay for that and nothing else" are annoying and dumb

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23387926)

fyi you are wrong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388361)

1) The speaker does not address the potential benefits derived from increased competition from unbundling. He said this is a different conversation and handwaved this issue off completely, but it's one of the major potential benefits to consumers, so any honest discussion of this issue should address the benefits of competition.

2) The speaker's initial hypo includes two consumers, one who values word more, and one who values excel more. It does not address the more common cable scenario, where a consumer values one channel exclusively, and derives *no* value from all the other content. Clearly, the economic value that this consumer derives from bundle is substantially smaller than the economic value he would derive from paying for the content a la carte, even if the a la carte price was substantially greater than the bundled price. The speaker is right that a la carte pricing would drive up the cost of the a la carte content, but plenty of consumers would rather pay, for example, $30 for ESPN only than pay $60 for the whole package, even if ESPN makes up only 1/100 of the entire cable package, because they only use ESPN, and derive no value from the remainder of the bundle.

3) The speaker's entire argument is undermined by his own example. ITunes is objectively more successful than spotify, or any other bundled competitor. Consumers prefer to pay more for individual songs they like, rather than pay less for the same song, but be roped into huge bundles, which force them to buy content that they don't care about for a lower price.

EDIT: And a fourth issue - this does not have to be a black and white question: Content providers can provide a bundle, where consumers have access to wholesale bundled prices if they want the whole package; and in addition, they can provide more expensive a la carte content that satisfies consumers who are not interested in the bundle.

The Microsoft Office example is instructive: MS makes a ton of money off the Office bundle. But for those people who do not want powerpoint, access, etc., they provide more expensive a la carte pricing for Word. Word-only consumers are willing to pay more for less. So it's a win for MS and a win for consumers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388602)

2) nah, they are pretty much the same.

3) no. spotify is actually a great example of consumers benefiting from bundling. most spotify users are getting a ton more value out of their $10/month spotify than shit itunes. itunes may be more "successful" at the moment in actually making money, but that has nothing to do with consumer welfare.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23389949)

If this isn't the case, the regulatory regime and/or market will have failed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388093)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2280747&forum_id=2#23388504)