Intel is apparently making some progress on bringing content for its forthcoming pay-TV service that’s expected to launch before the end of the year.

The company is nearing deals with a handful of major media companies –  including Time Warner, NBCUniversal, and Viacom –  to provide access to current and old TV show libraries on the new streaming service, according to a Bloomberg report released today that cites unnamed sources familiar with the negotiations.

Information about Intel’s new TV service first started popping up about a year ago. But besides claims by the company that it’ll revolutionize the TV watching experience, we still don’t know exactly what it will look like. We do know that the service will only be available to those that purchase a Intel-branded streaming set-top box that will offer access to third-party applications (like Netflix) and feature motion-sensitive controls similar to Xbox Kinect or what the Roku offers via motion-control remote. We also know that Intel’s TV service won’t come cheap, and will cost you roughly as much as you’re paying for traditional cable or satellite TV.

Back in December, Intel wasn’t haven’t any luck getting the media companies interested in a deal, delaying progress on the entire project. (Apple, which may or may not be launching its own TV service/device,  is also rumored to have found negotiations with media companies difficult.) My guess is that Intel switched its strategy from wanting customers to buy only the channels/content they wanted to a more bundled package like cable TV service providers already offer, which is something vice president of Intel media Erik Huggers indicated at the Dive Into Media conference last month.

But if Intel’s Pay TV service is going to go a bundled channel route, it’ll need to get content from all the major cable and broadcast networks. Intel is  beginning discussions with News Corp. about getting Fox TV shows available on the new service as well as preliminary discussions with CBS and Disney’s ABC network, according to Bloomberg’s sources.

Christopher Kaminski is the founder and CEO of Deluxis.

Cablevision is suing Viacom because Viacom is allegedly forcing Cablevision to buy channels it doesn’t want. But that doesn’t mean the company is working hard to lower your monthly bill, or even help lessen the number of unwanted channels you have access to.

In fact, Cablevision probably wants to continue forcing their customers to buy channels they don’t want. Allow me to explain why.

Here’s a little inside baseball on the television industry. Both cable companies and big media companies enjoy selling bundles because it provides a stable revenue stream. Content bundles can serve as a hedge against the dip in ratings of one channel, and help defray the risk of launching new channels. It’s the same basic theory that governs why investors have portfolios of investments, and why your mother told you not to put all your eggs in one basket.

If Cablevision were to prevail in this case, it is very likely that nothing positive would happen for the cable customer. Cablevision is not going to stop carrying Nickelodeon or MTV. They are only concerned about “niche” channels like Nicktoons and MTV Tr3s. A ruling in favor of Cablevision means people who actually watch these smaller channels would lose access to them, while the people who don’t tune in would probably not see a smaller monthly bill.

These smaller channels cost about $0.02 each per subscriber every month. Even a dozen of these little channels would add up to about one shiny quarter. That kind of savings would probably go unnoticed on a cable bill that now averages $86 per month. Of course that assumes that Cablevision would even pass the cost reduction to their customer. And any kind of cost reduction assumes that Viacom wouldn’t raise the price of Nickelodeon to offset the loss of Nicktoons.

Cablevision, like any cable or satellite company, is very unlikely to ever offer their customers the ability to pick and choose individual channels. Doing so would require millions of dollars in capital expenditure to upgrade the software on set-top boxes, re-engineering their billing system, and other associated infrastructure improvements.

And what would be their reward for all that hard work? Customers could pay them less money every month. A la carte could result in a lower and more unstable revenue stream for these companies. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone at Cablevision (who wants to keep their job) would champion such a cause.

Original TV image art via Shutterstock

Christopher is the co-founder and CEO of Deluxis, a new online television service featuring individual channel subscriptions. He is also a producer whose works include award-winning video games such as Valkyria Chronicles and MadWorld. He contributed to games published by Sega, Activision, Disney, Konami, and Turner/Cartoon Network. He is an active member of the Producers Guild of America, and held a board member position in the Northwest Chapter. Christopher previously maintained transcontinental fiber optic networks and gathered technology intelligence for the phone company.

Satellite television provider DirecTV said its subscription prices would rise in the following year, according to a message it released today via a customer support page.

The increased pricing is necessary to compensate for the substantially higher fees on DirecTV’s lineup of channels. DirecTV explained to customers that its paying media companies 8 percent more in 2013 for the same channels, but it promises to only increase the average customer’s monthly bill by about 4.5 percent.

“Almost all programmers who provide channels to the DIRECTV platform are increasing their rates at a level we’ve never seen before,” DirecTV said in the message. “On occasion, some negotiations of new and existing channel contracts have become public recently so you can see we are doing all we can to make sure you do not suffer unfair price increases as a result of unreasonable demands in these disputes.”

If you’re looking for a recent example of the public channel contract negotiations, look no further than the giant spat DirecTV had with Viacom earlier this year. Viacom — which own channels like MTV, Comedy Central, BET, Spike, and several others — demanded a much higher fee when its previous contract with DirecTV expired. Eventually, the two forged a new deal to the tune of DirecTV paying $600 million (over several years) more than its previous contract, but not before Viacom yanked its lineup of channels from the service.

Most media companies refuse to sign contracts for each individual channel they produce, forcing TV providers like DirecTV to buy an entire package. When rates go up, it means either those providers will pay more or their customers will.

Via WSJ

IAC-backed television service Aereo recently announced that it’s reached a deal to bring the Bloomberg TV cable network to its lineup of available channels, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Aereo lets New York City residents watch free, locally broadcast HDTV channels (from local affiliate stations for ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CW, and others) on smartphones, tablets, and desktop computers. Aereo uses a tiny HD antenna the size of a dime to pick up the broadcast signal for each of its users, which makes it legal in the eyes of the law — much to the outrage of major entertainment companies. There’s also a DVR in the mix that lets users record up to 40 hours of content that can be streamed later.

Aereo’s deal with Bloomberg is significant because it’s the first cable channel to come to the service. Also, if more cable channels — such as those owned by Viacom like Comedy Central, MTV, and Spike –  sign deals to appear on Aereo, it could represent a new pay TV business model that costs consumers less money than cable and satellite TV while offering nearly all the same perks.

The average cable or satellite television subscriber pays over $100 per month, an amount that’s estimated to double by 2020. The bulk of those subscription fees are due to the forced inclusion of live sports programming that some people don’t even watch.

By contrast, Aereo has a flexible pricing structure that includes a $1 daily pass, $8 and $12 monthly passes, and an $80 annual plan. Those prices may rise as Aereo adds more cable channels to its lineup, but it’ll still be far less money than what most people are paying to their TV service provider right now. If Aereo did begin offering more live sports channels like the cable TV providers (something it hasn’t yet discussed), it could easily do so by offering a separate programming package for more money.

And although I doubt Aereo will ever offer channels in an à la carte pricing model (where you pick only the individual channels you want to pay for), the company does have plenty of potential to offer better programming packages than what’s offered by the likes of Comcast, DirecTV, Time Warner Cable, and AT&T Uverse.

Aereo’s Bloomberg TV deal may be a huge win for the service, but it still has some important legal hurdles to jump before it can truly become successful. Media company’s like News Corp./Fox, CBS, Walt Disney/ABC, and Comcast/NBCUniversal are currently suing Aereo, saying its use of  local HDTV broadcast signals (which provide free access to many TV channels if you have an HD antenna on your television set) is unfair and illegal. So far, both federal courts and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation aren’t buying that argument, but a final ruling is expected in 2013.

The company filed for a video franchise license in the city last week, the New York Post reports, a move that could give Google permission to broadcast content to televisions.

A Google pay-TV solution would give the company yet another source for advertising revenue. And unlike the current iteration of Google TV, which works in conjunction with your existing TV service, Google would have complete control of TV content (assuming it can bring aboard content partners).

We first caught wind of Google’s pay-TV ambitions in November, when the Wall Street Journal reported that the company was in talks with media executives from companies such as Time Warner, Disney, and Discovery. The service would run on Google’s high-speed fiber Internet service that’s now being tested in Kansas City, MO, and Kansas City, KS.

The pay-TV service could launch within the next few months, a media executive involved in negotiations told the Wall Street Journal. When asked for comment, a Google spokesperson told the WSJ, “We’re still exploring what product offerings will be available when we launch Google Fiber.”

If Google does move forward with a pay-TV service, don’t expect it to look anything like existing cable or satellite offerings. With its fiber network, Google has the potential to offer an a la carte service that lets consumers choose the channels they want. Expect on-demand services to be heavily integrated as well, just like Verizon’s FiOS TV service. And you can bet that Google will make it dead simple to watch TV on your computers, smartphones, and tablets.