11 Comments

Summary:

Want to watch live TV on your Roku without subscribing to cable? Then you should take a look at Skitter, which is rolling out a low-cost live TV service for connected devices. Simliar efforts have failed in court in the past, but Skitter is completely licensed.

skitter roku main mainu

New York’s Aereo is getting some competition in its quest to bring live TV online: Atlanta-based Skitter is launching a new service that streams TV stations like NBC, ABC and CBS straight to a Roku or WD Live set-top box. But unlike Aereo, which is currently duking it out with broadcasters in court, Skitter is launching its service with all necessary licenses.

Skitter quietly launched in Portland, Oregon in March, and has plans to expand its service to five additional markets by the end of this quarter. The company’s VP of Engineering Alex Emmermann told me during a phone conversation today that Skitter eventually wants to offer live TV access on the Roku and other connected devices across the U.S., and charge customers $12 to $15 for the service. The company is also working on DVR functionality for WD TV devices.

What Skitter offers

Skitter's EPG on the WD TV Live. Image courtesy of Skitter.

Customers in Portland can access the service through a private Roku channel or an app for the WD platform. Roku users are presented with a simple channel grid as well as an option to search for individual shows, while the WD TV app offers a more comprehensive programming guide.

I had a chance to take a look at some test feeds on both devices, and was impressed: Channels launch with relatively little buffering, and additional program information is easily accessible. I could even pause the live feed at any given time and restart it a few minutes later without missing a thing. The video quality was more like SD than HD, but acceptable, and Emmermann said that adaptive bitrate streaming should improve the quality even further.

Skitter users in Portland currently have access to 10 live channels, including CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox as well as the local PBS affiliate. The company plans to add an additional 10 channels next week, including more PBS subchannels and other local offerings. This summer, it also wants to launch ten channels that aren’t available with an antenna. This will likely be niche content, but Emmermann said that the tier will also be available to users in markets that aren’t served by Skitter’s local offerings yet.

How Skitter operates

The Skitter channel grid on the Roku. Image courtesy of Skitter.

Skitter started out by offering its technology to second- and third-tier telco operators that are looking to offer TV services to their subscribers but don’t want to settle for just reselling satellite TV subscriptions. The company has been offering its over-the-top solution to a few of these providers, which required it to get retransmission licenses from the affected broadcasters. Skitter is now using these retrans licenses to kickstart its own consumer business. That means that the company can only offer its subscriptions in markets where it is partnering with a telco provider – but it’s also a pretty ingenious business move that could help Skitter to avoid the legal pressure Aereo and others have been facing.

A number of companies have tried in the past to stream live TV online, in part to provide access to live programming for TV viewers who have canceled their traditional pay TV subscription. However, the broadcasters have cracked down on most of these offerings in an effort to protect their increasingly lucrative retransmission business. Ivi.tv had to shut down following an injuction a year ago, and FilmOn had to significantly alter its service after broadcasters obtained a restraining order in late 2010.

The latest company raising the ire of broadcasters is the Barry Diller-backed TV startup Aereo, which currently offers New Yorkers an Internet-based live TV subscription for $12 per month. Aereo rents individual TV tuners complete with dime-sized antennas capable of receiving over-the-air programming to each of its customers, which the company says is legal. Broadcasters aren’t sharing that point of view and have fired off two separate lawsuits against the company in March.

Skitter believes it can steer clear of these kinds of conflicts because it actually has the retrans rights and pays the required retrans fees for the content it offers. “We are a local cable provider,” Emmermann told me. “We have a wireline presence.”

Why this matters

There’s been a lot of chatter within the online video industry about the possibility of a so-called virtual operator – a company that offers you a TV subscription that is entirely delivered over the Internet, and at a much smaller price than your typical cable package. It’s an interesting proposition to cord cutters who don’t want to bother with an antenna to receive over-the-air programming, or can’t get any signal with an antenna.

But this is about more than just convenience: A virtual operator that has access to basic broadcast channels also has a huge potential for disruption, because it could become a launchpad for new live television networks that aren’t exclusively tied to cable.

Skitter’s roll-out will likely be slow, as the company has to advance market by market. But having access to those top-tier broadcasters could prove to be a recipe for success.

  1. If they could only bring this to the South Florida Market.

  2. Watch out Aereo , watch out Comcast. Roku’s bundle of free stuff plus Skitter plus Netflix might just be attractive enough to get us close to the critical mass driving cord cutting beyond the fringe!
    http://cordcutterguide.com/

  3. As a cable guy, I wish our customers would pay $15 for local tv stations…

  4. That’s pretty expensive for what is already supposed to be free. I understand that some people don’t get a decent signal with an antenna, but I get a great signal. $10-15/month for a handful of network channels…? Once they have audio/video quality at the level Netflix has (with closed captions) and have a DVR in the cloud, I might be willing to pay that price. I think I’d choose Hulu Plus over their current offering.

    1. Maybe. But I see this as a kind of an ironic back to the future moment.When Cable TV got it’s start all it really offered was a big shared antenna for those that didn’t have the ability to erect a huge antenna of their own. It was called Community Antenna service. That’s kind of the Skitter model right now except that it’s over the top instead of over a coax cable.
      http://cordcutterguide.com/

  5. I believe this is called “re-inventing the wheel”. There must be too much VC funding available for companies like this get started.

  6. This has some possibilities. However, is the quality BETTER than ustvnow’s? They are missing a few nets… ION, METV, AntennaTV, RTV, CW+, CoolTV, etc. On one site they list $6, on here they list $12-$15. What’s the truth? Can I get a good UNSTRETCHED picture, decent quality? USTVNOW you can’t get that… maybe a too tall 640i resolution on the locals.

  7. Adam Yamada-Hanff Saturday, April 28, 2012

    Who would use that over just buying a friggin Antenna?

  8. Adam Yamada-Hanff Saturday, April 28, 2012

    Why do you need this service? Just buy an ANTENNA!

  9. What zip codes is this service available in?

  10. Joshua Cash Monday, May 28, 2012

    As Long as Hulu doesn’t follow through with selling out their Internet users, this could increase the value of the Roku exponentially. As for the idea of “just buy an antenna”, I’m on the outskirts of Austin, Tx and have to mess with my amped antenna to get 95% good reception. If the online retransmitter service addressed this issue, I’d pay $5-$20 for that, especially if it allowed for cloud DVR and high quality service like phrend mentioned.

Comments have been disabled for this post