Omniverse Sued Will SiliconDust still have PremiumTV?

[Sammy 735]

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-networking-media-servers-content-streaming/3022710-omniverse-streaming-services-2.html#post57606716

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/studios-sue-omniverse-tv-streaming-025628800.html

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5740024-Omniverse.html

 

https://forum.silicondust.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=70888&p=339359

 

It'll be interesting how this shakes out!

 

 

At present, SiliconDust is not a named Defendent and there's no "John Does" or "et al's"..

 

I'd like to see Omniverse' response in which they would likely present documentation that they have the rights to re-transmit the streams or fold if they don't.

 

Going forward, it would still be nice if SiliconDust could procure a different provider, even at a bit higher cost so we can still record locally.

 

Firing up my Emby DVR now to record away on these "Cable" Channels!

 

 

 

[SHSPVR 119]

Yup that should be fun to watch, My guest is the major studios don't like idea of us recording local.

Edited February 15, 2019 by SHSPVR

[Carlo 4330]

This isn't going to turn out well for Silicon Dust or it's customers.  Unless Omniverse actually has the legal contract they say they do then it's over for them.  The whole "legality" of Omniverse has always been questioned and became more so when SD announced it was expanding PTV to Canada.  That's sort of really out there from a legality standpoint as everyone license content per geo.

[Sammy 735]

This isn't going to turn out well for Silicon Dust or it's customers. Unless Omniverse actually has the legal contract they say they do then it's over for them. The whole "legality" of Omniverse has always been questioned and became more so when SD announced it was expanding PTV to Canada. That's sort of really out there from a legality standpoint as everyone license content per geo.

I'd sure hate to see SiliconDust fold because of this.

 

You'd think they confirmed the legitimacy of Omniverse' right to retransmission of the content before selling the service.

 

Nick and Nate have been completely mum for weeks now on it on their site. Probably on advice of their attorney.

 

Of course the providers would like nothing more than to collapse SiliconDust.

 

They're basically one and the same as the Cable Companies anyhow.. and they hate losing those bogus rebroadcast fees on OTA and STB / DVR rental fees.

 

Killing SiliconDust would not cause any heartache for them whatsoever.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[Luke 37060]

Even if SD loses this feature, hopefully they will still have enough revenue to survive as a business.

[Sammy 735]

The biggest threat would be the content providers sucking all their operating capital away in a huge settlement agreement. SiliconDust seemed to survive all along just selling tuners but if they cannot advance (ATSC 3.0?) because they don't have capital they're done for.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Sammy

[SHSPVR 119]

The biggest threat would be the content providers sucking all their operating capital away in a huge settlement agreement. SiliconDust seemed to survive all along just selling tuners but if they cannot advance (ATSC 3.0?) because they don't have capital they're done for.

 

Hi Sammy there long way off from ATSC 3.0 from going main steam and that includes Hauppauge as well my guest at lease 2/6 year as right now unless you live Phoenix, AZ you can get it but Univision and Sinclair Broadcast Group are also planning a trial in Dallas but no word but now there rumor has it in 26 market this year when that going happing no idea so for now it just voluntary carriage in tell FCC make subject to mandatory.

I should point out supports digital watermarking of the audio signal and video signal and you what that going to mean that same BS like with CableCard that DRM copy once junk will be apply.

Edited February 15, 2019 by SHSPVR

[clarkss12 295]

My teenage grandkids do not watch TV, I'm assuming that is probably the case for most teenagers and young adults.

 

Their time is spent 95% YouTube and 5% Netflix. Of course, that does not count the time they spend on social media.

 

Point being, in a few more years, TV as we know it, will not exist. I personally have been a cord shaver for years, I rely on my antenna on the roof.

[SHSPVR 119]

My teenage grandkids do not watch TV, I'm assuming that is probably the case for most teenagers and young adults.

 

Their time is spent 95% YouTube and 5% Netflix. Of course, that does not count the time they spend on social media.

 

Point being, in a few more years, TV as we know it, will not exist. I personally have been a cord shaver for years, I rely on my antenna on the roof.

 

No but Rumor has it that Sinclair is plans for 26 markets on the air with 3.0 services this years so kind of doubt that

[rouq 23]

This isn't going to turn out well for Silicon Dust or it's customers. Unless Omniverse actually has the legal contract they say they do then it's over for them. The whole "legality" of Omniverse has always been questioned and became more so when SD announced it was expanding PTV to Canada. That's sort of really out there from a legality standpoint as everyone license content per geo.

Here in Canada, they could potentially face not only the content providers but also the CRTC (Canadian FCC). The CRTC rules say they IPTV services must be on a closed network only. That's the reason why we don't have a lot of choices. Cleary silicondust doesn't respect that. There are only a handful of legal IPTV providers here because they also need to be the ISP. Bell Canada has an IPTV service called ALTtv. You can't only subscribe to it if you subscribe also to their internet service. Same goes to Ebox and Vmedia.

[Sammy 735]

If SiliconDust didn't respect that they would already be selling PremiumTV in Canada.

 

That said, I'm glad I'm not in Canada in regards to this anti-consumer method of Distributing TV and internet.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[jachin99 82]

My teenage grandkids do not watch TV, I'm assuming that is probably the case for most teenagers and young adults.

 

Their time is spent 95% YouTube and 5% Netflix. Of course, that does not count the time they spend on social media.

 

Point being, in a few more years, TV as we know it, will not exist. I personally have been a cord shaver for years, I rely on my antenna on the roof.

This!! If you watch how teens and kids consume content then it's easy to see how cable TV is in really big trouble. It's not just a few people either. It's the entire generation.

[Sammy 735]

My young adult children will sit on the couch watching YouTube and Facebook videos on a 5-inch screen when there's a 60-inch plasma right in front of them but even has access to the same content. Christ they could even cast it to the shield but they don't.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

[ebr 14910]

This!! If you watch how teens and kids consume content then it's easy to see how cable TV is in really big trouble. It's not just a few people either. It's the entire generation.

 

And what I really don't get is that now the internet services are trying to turn back into Cable companies by trying to bundle all of the disparate channels into a single "hub" (a la recent announcements from the likes of Amazon, Roku and even Pl...).

 

Isn't that exactly what everyone was/is moving away from...?

[Carlo 4330]

Even if SD loses this feature, hopefully they will still have enough revenue to survive as a business.

From reading the lawsuit filed, I'd bet they will loose the services of Omniverse. I know they were working with other partners to have as a backup as well as to get other channels.  So hopefully they themselves don't get caught up in the lawsuit (right now they appear to not be involved) and suffer $ penalties.  This was only a very small part of their current business as PTV was still just a beta.  I don't see it really hurting their HDHomeRun or commercial equipment sales.  If anything it could help it by getting rid of many of the smaller IPTV providers who could compete with them through deals via Omni.  But if they get involved in punitive damages then that could be a game changer.  Keeping fingers crossed that doesn't happen.

 

Here in Canada, they could potentially face not only the content providers but also the CRTC (Canadian FCC). The CRTC rules say they IPTV services must be on a closed network only. That's the reason why we don't have a lot of choices. Cleary silicondust doesn't respect that. There are only a handful of legal IPTV providers here because they also need to be the ISP. Bell Canada has an IPTV service called ALTtv. You can't only subscribe to it if you subscribe also to their internet service. Same goes to Ebox and Vmedia.

 A lot of people repeat that but if you read the CRTC if has exceptions for IPTV services run over the internet.  The rules there are for closed systems.  My understanding is that Canada has the license deals locked up pretty tight for years to come which would stop anyone from trying to rebroadcast any network stations in Canada since they can't get the licensing rights.  That to me was always the "off" thing about SD saying it was bringing it's PTV service to Canada because I just couldn't see how they could get the licensing rights.  Of course this is just my understanding from reading the CRTC rules and from what I know about licensing from the couple of networks I do work for.

 

My young adult children will sit on the couch watching YouTube and Facebook videos on a 5-inch screen when there's a 60-inch plasma right in front of them but even has access to the same content. Christ they could even cast it to the shield but they don't.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

 Yea, isn't that crazy?  My son (now 21) would do the same thing.  Watch video after video on a 5" screen or 14" computer screen even though all TV has Chromecast or better casting besides having Youtube available on them directly.  Unfortunately he has seen the light and now constantly watching his crap on my 75" Samsung until I banish him to the basement 60".  He also just got an upgrade for Christmas for his bedroom with a nice large 4K TV so that helps as well.

 

But I could never figure out out why you would watch on small screens when there is a much larger screen available.  It would be different if using Bluetooth or other headsets to not bother others but that was never the case.

 

And what I really don't get is that now the internet services are trying to turn back into Cable companies by trying to bundle all of the disparate channels into a single "hub" (a la recent announcements from the likes of Amazon, Roku and even Pl...).

 

Isn't that exactly what everyone was/is moving away from...?

I know right.  Deja Vu

 

They weren't a fan when not a part of the pie but now that they are, they want to milk it just like the big cable providers.

 

Actually the real reason is the way they have to license the channels.  It's nearly impossible to purchase the rights to broadcast one channel as station owners want bundle deals. Take for example Discover Communications which own TLC and Animal Planet as well as it's name sake Discover channel.  It acquired Scripps Network which owned the Food Network, Cooking Channel, DIY and HGTV.  That's 7 of the most sought after family channels people want.  Anyone wanting to get licensing on them likely needs to take them all as a package deal or pay more then half the amount for just a single channel.  Viacom, Hallmark and others due the same thing.

 

How about the Viacom Media Network channels such as MTV, MTV2, MTV Live, MTV Classic, MTVU, VH1, Logo TV, Comedy Central, Spike, Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon Animation Studio, Nick Jr., TeenNick, Nicktoons, NickMusic, TV Land, CMT, CMT Music, BET, BET Hip-Hop, BET Gospel, BET Jams, BET Soul & Centric. I bet it's pretty hard to get just one or two of those stations without having to get a bundle deal.  It's the same with other networks as well.

 

Then getting into sports channels like ESPN, NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL is a whole other can of worms especially when you have to contractually honor black outs and whatnot.  

 

Meanwhile the station owners themselves are now rolling out true a la carte services that the cable and IPTV providers can't match. Can't be a fun game to play in especially for the true cable networks who have spent decades building infrastructure.  None of them want to see any small mom and pop business like OmniVerse be able to enter their territories without the outlay or equipment costs.  They probably dislike companies like Tablo and SD even more as these companies bundle IPTV with OTA service which gets them local network programming which was "their domain" previously.