HDTV Magazine
Welcome, Anonymous  •  Sign In  •  Register  •  Help
Receive instant notification of new columns: Register Now to receive notification of new HDTV Magazine Columns via email as soon as they are published.
HDTV Almanac - Roku Adds Live Channel
by Alfred Poor on January 24, 2011 Categories: HTPCs & Laptops, Internet HD Video, Programming

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. Instead of on-demand programming of existing episodes and movies, the WealthTV channel will stream its regularly scheduled content, just as you would receive it on a cable or satellite subscription system.

And this deal adds impetus to the move for a la carte pricing (where you only pay for the channels you want). WealthTV on Roku will require a $2.99 a month subscription fee. The programming will be available in high definition (provided that you have a sufficiently-fast broadband connection), so you’ll be able to watch shows about luxury cars and world travel in drool-inducing detail.

The success of Roku and other devices that bring Internet content into your living room shows that the American consumer is catching on to the advantages. As the installed base grows, these outlets will become more appealing to content producers, especially the niche channels that may be lost in the noise of the average cable system.

Posted by Alfred Poor, January 24, 2011 5:00 AM

Reader Commentary

Reply
tnsprin • Jan 31, 11:25am
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
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....
Reply
alfredpoor • Jan 31, 12:18pm
>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...
Reply
rml • Feb 1, 4:01am
>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....
Reply
alfredpoor • Feb 1, 5:31am
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...
Reply
rml • Feb 1, 7:06am
>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 co...

More from Alfred Poor

» - Currently Reading

More in Category: Internet HD Video

About Alfred Poor

Alfred Poor is a well-known display industry expert, who writes the daily HDTV Almanac. He wrote for PC Magazine for more than 20 years, and now is focusing on the home entertainment and home networking markets.

Local Guides