DirecTV finally offering video-on-demand - Top Stocks Blog - MSN Money
 
Search Top Stocks:

DirecTV finally offering video-on-demand

Posted Mar 13 2008, 03:18 PM by Kim Peterson
Rating:
Filed under: , ,

DirecTV is finally going to offer a video-on-demand service. About time, too. Comcast and other companies are light-years ahead in this area, and on-demand is becoming a required feature for some consumers these days.

It's taken DirecTV this long because, as a satellite provider, it broadcasts a one-way signal. The technology doesn't allow for the two-way conversation that an interactive service like on-demand uses. DirecTV is going to work around this using broadband connections and digital video recorder (DVR) technology, according to the WSJ.

DirecTV shares are up nearly 1% on the news today to $25.21. The project is expected to launch in the second quarter.

The way it's going to work is that DirecTV will automatially send some movies to customers' DVRs for ordering. Television programs and other movies will be streamed over the Internet to the customers' set-top boxes. So it's not exactly "true" on-demand, but it'll do.

What if you don't want the movies DirecTV chooses taking up space on your DVR? DirecTV says that most of its 3,000 on-demand titles will be streamed online, and the videos that do get to your DVR will sit in space that isn't available to customers anyway. (Then what is that space there for, I wonder?)

Here's what people are saying about today's news:

Broadband Reports: "As we've stated repeatedly, this particular launch will be one to watch -- given you've got a satellite provider suddenly using a competitor's bandwidth to deliver high-definition content -- something that speaks strongly to the debate over a neutral 'Net."

Paid Content: "Think back to Cablevision’s maligned effort to allow viewers to use remote servers as a DVR, still being fought over in court. The main difference: it’s all stored on the user’s DVR, not a remote server. Still, some of it is copied onto the DVRs by the provider without user choice, one of the issues used to rule against Cablevision in U.S. District Court last year."

Silicon Alley Insider: "Will it dramatically boost revenues? Unlikely. Cable companies have hoped for years that on-demand programming would juice sales, but it's not happening. " 

Shelly Palmer: "It remains to be seen if DirecTV’s system can stream high-quality films without buffering delays, stuttering video and dropped connections. Stay tuned - this is a high-profile experiment in content delivery."

Blogging Stocks: "Three well-funded competitors trying to get market share usually leads to a price war. Getting "on demand" TV services is probably about to get much cheaper." 

Disclosures: I don't own shares of any companies mentioned in this post. And while Microsoft owns this blog, Microsoft does not control, censor or otherwise have any editorial influence over what I write. 

Comments

 

I'd like to see an article on how the NFL and nearly MLB (almost, last year) have been able to sell their game broadcasts exclusively to Directv, meaning cable subscribers cannot get the NFL Sunday Ticket package.  Why is Directv allowed to be handed a monopoly by the NFL on this?  I believe its a violation of antitrust laws and should not be part of the NFLs or MLB's antitrust exemption.  Makes me angry!  I just want to be able to DVR a damn out of market football game!  But that's currently impossible!

I don't really care that much about On Demand movies, but I would like to have access to high speed internet without paying over $100 extra a month that HughesNet offers. For those that would like to the movies is great for them, but I need High Speed Internet more. I feel that if they can offer the satelite TV services in my rural area, and I mean rural!!!, then the high speed internet shouldn't be a problem, and at a reasonable price. See what you can do about that DirecTV people and then I'll give you some more money but not for movies.

I agree with most of you all statements. I live in South Mississippi and most of the state has a contract with their local channels with direct tv, but the local channels are not offered in South Mississippi . The local channels here  has been asking Direct tv for at least 9 to 10 years to offer local channels on the customers here tv channel selection. All of the south mississippi 's Direct-tv customers are still using "rabbit ears' to pick up local channels, even after paying up $80 a month for their direct tv packages. Maybe cable is not so bad,huh?

One possible hitch - Comcast is already limiting volume of bandwidth used and cutting off those customers it deems to use t"oo much", although it doesn't specify how much is too much.  How to stop the competition? Deny them access at the user end by claiming bandwidth usage that violates the user agreement and "suspend" their internet usage for a year for Direct TV customers.  Of course if the customer drops Direct TV and subscribes to Comcast Cable, all is forgiven.

"While Direct TV boasts that they have much more content what they refuse to admit to is that the HD programming that they are offering isn't true HD it is upconverted to appear as though it's HD.  What most consumers fail to realize is that they can only offer HD on channels that are offering HD and at this point tehy aren't, they're converting these other channels into HD"

That is the biggest load of garbage EVER. Simply not true. All of the channels that have launched HD channels may not be showing HD content 24 hours a day, but that is hardly DirecTV's fault. And oh by the way, I have a 61 inch TV, all that "upconverting" that is done when a show is not actually being broadcast in HD makes a WORLD of difference.

three words.

nfl sunday ticket.

All that matters to me is HD content and channels and DirecTV is far and above everyone right now with content of HD.  Almost every channel that I regularly watch is now HD thanks to DirecTV...Cable can't touch DirecTV yet in that regard and I would die without NFL Ticket + SuperFan.  Verizon Fios would be my only other choice.  Does anyone really even use OnDemand?  I never really bothered with it when I had cable.  Might be more interested when more of the OnDemand content is HD....

Reading the first few entries made my head hurt.

Theresa: "I wonder if DirecTV will ever catch on." "A monopoly at best." --Really, what are the other stages above being a monopoly?

Chris Riley: "Direct TV's efforts to deliver near Video on Demand is far too little, far too late."  --Is this technology ending next week?  Was Microsoft far too little, far too late coming out with Zune?

Lee: "I don't care what they do until they offer local television stations in my town. " --With a name like Lee, you probably live in a town that doesn't have local television.  I get WGN, My50, and all the other goodies just fine in Chicago.

Pete: "Just had direct TV taken out.  Poor setup.  DVD and VSH players on 3 tv's would not work.  Difficult to use and poor picture quality on local stations.  Going back to cable TV.  Much more dependable and many stations you received are cut off 4-5 inches from the sides of the screen.  Poor channel selection.  How many need a Chinese TV station. Don't install Direct TV. --Where do I begin?  I'll let the VSH slide.  How is it "difficult to use" are you trying to cook with it?  Two words sum up this post--OPERATOR ERROR.  Chinese TV Station?  What package did you order?  That's not standard.  Are you sure you just weren't watching an episode of CNBC's Asian Squakbox? or MXC?  Finally, "don't install direct tv", you are correct here--you should hire a professional.

Jon Nichols: "Most of the country is rural and a significant portion of the population can't get decent cable or high speed internet."  --60% of the U.S. population is within 300 miles of Philadelphia.  It's 2008, not 1908.  "I think that will cause a problem in adoption for them." --Direct TV is moving into adoption services?  Great!  TV's and kids--a winning combination.

Rob Gibbons: "What about the customer who wants On Demand programing but doesn't have the DVR to accept the movies?" --You can't have your cake and eat it too, and with a name like Rob I bet you do eat everyone's share of cake...but I digress.  People like you don't matter.  The majority of people getting this service have DVRs, people like you who don't put out the extra $5 dollars for the DVR deserve nothing more than you are already getting. "I have my reservations about this one." --I have my reservations about you as a consumer.

That's all for now...thank you Darwin!

DIRECT TV!!!!!... GOOD, cable bad, always has been, always will be....commiecast VERY bad....Qwest worse...getting the picture ?????

My freind has Comcast On-Demand and he has access to all the movies currently playing on the pay-channels. He just uses the "Free" movie schedule and does not buy the pay-per movies. I have seen several of these movies with him and they are excellent DVD quality. If Directv could get that type of quality to their customers it maybe a service worth having. But I have been a Directv customer since it was offered in my community and I have steadily watched as Comcast Cable has outmatched Directv at every turn. The Cable signal used to be so bad in my area that when Directv came along the difference was like Day and Night--not anymore.

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):