Free Net TV Threatens Telecoms 116
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net's running an article about the threat free television on the internet poses to traditional telecoms and cable companies." From the article: "No one is expecting Internet television to cannibalize traditional TV models overnight. Despite advancements in streaming technology, video delivered on the Web can still be choppy, with frequent interruptions as data packets buffer and reload on the screen. In fact many viewers who watched the NCAA tournament aired by CBS on the Internet last month complained about the network being overloaded."
Same Old FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
A new technology comes along that threatens their iron grip on said media's distribution.
The archaic dinosaurs do not know what to do so they spread FUD everywhere and turn to the law and lobbying for protection of their source of infinite wealth. They refuse to change to their environment and instead force the environment to change to them--a fatalistic attitude that hinders innovation and growth among other things.
After all the dust settles, the end consumer (99.9% of the populace) is the one that misses out on what might have been.
This story could be applied all the way back to printed text that was held from the commoners and slaves to hinder knowledge and understanding.
It happened with music. It happened with videos. It's happening with television. And it will happen with everything because the people running the industries refuse to lose their power or adapt their production methods. How about we wake up and change the headline from to or We're eating out of the hands of a few select companies and with television over the internet, the fact is that we might not have to.
In every colour there's the light (Score:1)
Let's Tear Down the Boundaries of Connectivity!
There will be no more free TV
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that most of them realize that DRM is the Dark Horse in this situation. With DRM, then can add IP distribution to their cable boxes and DVD players in order to distribute their content in high-quality *before* it is slated to be viewed. That is, they can buffer the content while you sleep and work. It will be ready for you to watch when *they* want you to watch it - all on their terms.
IMHO, DRM is going to be bitter sweet for the OSS community. Nobody seems to want it, yet, without it, there is no incentive for "the little guy" to make any real content. Sure, a few Honest Joes will pony up the cash for their content, but, in my experience, the rest of them will simply steal it.
If OSS would consider DRM, then we could come up with a grass roots effort to displace Big Media (e.g. - pay the Little Guy for good content). The thing is, the sheer size of the viewership would make content *nearly* free (e.g. - 30 million viewers pay you 10 cents per episode and you are rich).
The knife cuts both ways but we need to be pragmatic.
OSS+DRM+cheap hardware & grassroots distribution and support = end of Big Business
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:1)
Seems to me that there are enough "little men" with (almost) all the incentive they need.
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:2)
"...without it, there is no incentive for "the little guy" to make any real content. Sure, a few Honest Joes will pony up the cash for their content, but, in my experience, the rest of them will simply steal it."
One thing, I think, that your comment doesn't take into account is the artificial price of "content". Huge media enterprises have enormous layers of management and staff in addition to tons of equipment and property. On the other hand, "little guys" can make extremely popular and enjoyable prog
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:2)
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:1)
If OSS would consider DRM, then we could come up with a grass roots effort to displace Big Media (e.g. - pay the Little Guy for good content). The thing is, the sheer size of the viewership would make content *near
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:2)
George Bernard Shaw might disagree with you:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
Besides, what on earth are you talking about? Internet TV is shit at the moment compared to traditional broadcast metho
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:2)
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:1)
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
"New technology threatens now-obsolete business models."
This has been happening since the Industrial Revolution. The big difference is that now the old dinosaurs have enough sway in Congress that they can throw a wrench in the machine of the free market in order to sustain their existence without having to adapt to the new realities of the market.
Companies whose existence rely on a 19th century means of distribution, which include all the media companies (books, newspapers, magazines, music, movies, even software), are being made obsolete. This will soon transform the music industry in a hugely positive way by allowing a more democratic method of distribution ("Down with Clear Channel!") which I think will revitalize a stale and non-innovate industry. Other media will follow.
Right now you and your buddies playing music in a garage can, with a small investment of a few hundred dollars or so, record, master and produce music for sale. What happens when the same will be true for video... on-demand video... the blogosphere revolution hits television(?) This is asteroid hurtling towards the prehistoric-Earth of the media dinosaurs and they are scared stiff, because for the first time in decades, they will be forced to compete, innovate and adapt.
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:2)
What has happened to the recording industry? Not much, that I can tell. Almost all popular bands are still owned by Big Music. The industry does seem to be in decline (or just a slump, who can tell?) but it doesn't seem to be due to the proliferation of recording technology.
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:2)
As big music continues to increasingly homogenize itself, independent labels, and even independent artist
Re:Same Old FUD (Score:1)
Why would (Score:3, Funny)
Why would I want to get that for free, when I already pay for it from Comcast?
Re:Why would (Score:1)
Dude, you should switch to Dish Network, they offer that as well as service outages when it rains.
Internet TV will never make it to the living room (Score:1)
As far as the original topic, people will claim that it's not forward thinking enough to say that the natural progression of free TV isn't high quality free TV on the net. The reality is, it isn't. Getting the video to your living room, which will always be the setting of choice for watching TV, will never be something that is easily accessible. Tie that in with the fact that even though people think we're going to magically pull b
ObNitpick (Score:5, Interesting)
If I understand correctly (which has been known to happen occasionally) shows will just be offered as a stream, not readily downloadable. My guess is they'll also use an
Re:ObNitpick (Score:2)
Re:ObNitpick (Score:5, Informative)
stream ripping (Score:3, Insightful)
I always wondered why most sites don't take that basic precaution when they're providing non-downloadable streaming video. It really isn't a problem unless I'm forced to download the thing in real time... that's a bit painful, though not a showstopper.
Re:stream ripping (Score:2)
Re:ObNitpick (Score:1)
What the television providers should be doing (Score:4, Interesting)
In short, he thinks small icon advertisements (eg. "drink coke") should be put in the corner of a TV show, and then the TV show should be freely distributed on bittorrent. Everyone wins.
Re:What the television providers should be doing (Score:2)
Re:What the television providers should be doing (Score:2)
You're serious? Pop-up ads are a good idea? (Score:1)
Re:What the television providers should be doing (Score:1)
Re:What the television providers should be doing (Score:2)
They don't know when to stop, do they ?
Re:What the television providers should be doing (Score:3, Informative)
I'm also a fan of product placement, so long as its done tastefully. Products are a part of our culture, we use them all the time. Its unlikely that a billionaire business tycoon on TV would drive a 1976 Pinto. Why not have Ferarri or some high end/high dollar car manufacturer compete for having this new billionaire busin
Re:What the television providers should be doing (Score:2)
Another thing. The small icon advertisement thing is used all the time during sporting events. Endorsements for clothing, equipment, and other goods and services are displayed via green-screen type overlays, billboards, on-screen overlays, and to boot they still have dedicated commercials.
A success story with marketing thi
Re:What the television providers should be doing (Score:2)
I don't look at adverts on slashdot, why should I look at them on TV? (Ignoring for the moment the minor point that I don't watch TV)
People need to find a better business model than adverts. And they definitely need to find a better model than charging you for the service and STILL having adverts. The BBC has been proving that
Re:Screw that, just use product placement (Score:2)
I care. It forever cheapens the show, as you now know the plot has been comprimised for the sake of product placement.
On top of this. It's inefficient. For example. Moco-Coco pays the makers of say, the OC, to have all the characters drink the vile brew on screen every episode. The writers have to adjust their scripts to accommidate this.
Now lets say Moco-Coco goes out of business, later on down the road. Now who pay
Progress (Score:2, Insightful)
This will not happen for a long time though, not until the connection speeds and data compression/quality manage to provide an equal to what is currently available.
We can see slight shifts of emphasis now [in the U.K.] with legislation going about switching OFF analogue signals [soon-ish]. This leave just the digital environment. And as more and more of our entertainment goods
Re:Progress (Score:2)
The key isn't just dumping analog, it is dumping mega-watt transmission frequency regulation. We don't need mega bandwidth or mega compression when you already have a ton of frequencies barely used. XVID and other compression codecs are just fine (its about 300 meg for 24 minutes, right?), and neighborhood mini-distributors can have torrents ready for near-i
Re:Progress (Score:1)
And that is the reason why the regulations exist to begin with. They don't want just any old subversive to have access to a broadcast medium. The propaganda machine cannot function without these regulations in place. Further subjugation would not be possible if alternative sources of information are available. This why there is such a mad scramble to control the net.
Re:Progress (Score:2)
Re:Progress (Score:1)
Re:Progress (Score:2)
So the grail is a TV that takes ages to turn on, needs drivers/software installing, needs endless configuration, crashes all the time and is crippled when someone is saturating the internet connection?
But then maybe I'm a Luddite, I don't even see the point in digital TV: you get obscure cha
Re:Progress (Score:1)
Internet video (Score:1)
Re:Internet video (Score:1)
Oh, so you're in Australia too?
Seriously over here there's a lot of people still on Dial-up. Satellite has just had a big push but here in WA the funds ran out way too early.
Even things like Windows updates can't be done without planning to leave the computer on overnight.
Re:Internet video (Score:1)
Re:Internet video (Score:2)
It's worked great for 3 years now, both people pay 1/2 and think it's great.
Your neighbor might not want you to saturate the bandwidth with internet video, but some dsl is quite snappy these days.
Re:Internet video (Score:1)
Re:Internet video (Score:2)
Re:Internet video (Score:1)
Leaving your computer on overnight... (Score:1)
Re:Leaving your computer on overnight... (Score:1)
In rural WA, you can't guarantee the power will be on all night, every night. It's always the night before the big meeting that the damn UPS starts going BEEP BEEP at 3am.
No, we don't leave the computer on, we turn everything off at the wall.
Re:Internet video (Score:1)
Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:3, Insightful)
ONE pipe to each home. Pure fiber. Multi gigabit standard.
All data to and from the home, be it voice, audio, video, text, &c &c &c flow through that pipe.
Airwaves free to use for mobile applications.
GUH! Why can't the future just be here?
[/rant]
Re:Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to let things progress is to stop holding to the old norms (regulations). Look at all the bandwidth set aside fo television and radio at 50,000 watts per frequency range. All that lovely bandwidth could be better prioritized with lower transmission power and WiFi or something similar. Even cell phone companies hold way too much bandwidth for the type of transmission used, it is crazy that EDGE/3G/whatever isn't even faster than it is today.
I truly believe we'd see much more technology growth if we didn't hold to standards created 20, 30, 50 years ago. UHF and VHF should be dead, and HDTV along with it. If people want HD broadcasts, they could be better suited to a faster more localized version of the torrent protocol -- maybe set up by a few re-distro companies, maybe by amateurs, let competition bring it about.
As for paying for it, I believe 5 second spots work just as well as 30 and 60 second spots. The rare times I watch public programming, I actually hear "brought to you by the McDonalds corporation" better than I hear a 30 or 60 second McD's spot.
Re:Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:1)
Re:Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:2)
Actually, I'm not against DRM, I am just against laws that protect and require DRM. I think in a more-free market, DRM might have some realistic functions, but I believe competition would make DRM worthless since people would generally prefer the uncluttered media rather than the cluttered ones.
provided some real incentives and subsidies we'd have moved into a far more fuel efficient modus operandi a de
Re:Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:2)
Great karma whoring. You start with the obligatory 'I know I'll be modded down' intro, then immediately pander to the crowd by railing against the evil 'media cartel', at the same time pretending to be a controversial minority. The slashdotters who think the same way and want to feel part of a 'counter-mainstream' movement all agree wi
Re:Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:2)
I'm no karma whore -- I get modded -1 as often as +5, usually for the same opinion. It is more important to me to hear VIABLE replies that properly debate my point, so I can be better prepared to debate myself. The best part of slashdot for me is that I learn where I'm wrong, often. I have my display browsing to -1, so moderation means nothing, and I've often replied to insightful -1 troll posts myself.
I don't want to have to set up an Internet connection, a computer, TV card etc just
Re:Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:2)
Internet TV will
I see no reason why a simple Cisco/Netgear/D-Link "Direct-cast" box wouldn't be released for $49.99 at Circuit City that grabs the WiFi signals and puts them up on your TV or your PC to view.
Or for £0 you could just watch your nor
Re:Us geeks already know the future .. (Score:2)
Fiber rollout is very expensive, but its naturally going to happen over time. Your still going to require atleast one copper pair for 911 service, fiber cannot carry power and 911 services have to just work, even when the power is out.
HDTV is going to be a niche market for many years yet. I'm big into video and mpeg 4 on my regular TV is fine for me.
In the mean while someone needs to roll out a ADSL
This very well could happen (Score:3, Informative)
I've been thinking about all the great actors I personally know (I love SOME local theatre) and how they could record some of their skits as mini-TV-shows to broadcast freely online. I've also thought that we could get a few different groups throughout the country to work on similar vignettes, creating interest not just in my local Chicago area.
The more I look at the quality increases of amateur performers online, the more I realize that the big cartels that controlled distribution for nearly 70 year ARE in trouble. No, we aren't there yet, but we're getting there. I just picked up 3 3-chip DV cams for under US$4000 total, brand new, 16:9. Amazing what competition can do to drive prices down so that amateurs can start competing with the big guys. Even HD cams are dropping in price.
I think the big issue right now is forgoing "protection" of the medium or the data and just letting it go wherever it can go. In the long run, people seem to be willing to pay for a la carte entertainment, so I believe that we can see a return to the old days when artists were sponsored by the masses solely to create. No Copyright Studios has numerous ways for artists to make money without copyright, including charging for fans to watch the band in the studio live (via the web). As more people embrace the idea of letting your digital product become your marketing sysetem, the quality will go up. Competition still exists even when a product is given away.
The question is: what will the cartels do to stop it? The big print media outlets are forming blogs, which are succeeding within reason (Slate?). The big radio outlets are jumping beyond their pre-set formats, bringing some people back to the radio, and some are even podcasting.
Can big media hold on when the prices are quickly dropping to zero and advertising can be bypassed with the press of a button? What is the next step for them?
In every colour there's ze darkness (Score:1)
Try nightmare.
Ze dark side has won. Get over it! We'll rebuild ze boundaries of connectivity.
Evil (Score:1)
Re:This very well could happen (Score:2)
This would work great for improv performers, I think. Since Chicago is so known for improv, I think that it may be a good place for you to start. With improv, you
Re:This very well could happen (Score:2)
Bingo. There are GREAT theatre groups in Chicago (even beyond Improv). There is no reason why their production level can't increase slightly (based solely on donations of people who like to watch th
Because it's the future... duh! (Score:2)
Of course network tv is threatened by this. It's old technology and hasn't changed much to adapt to younger generations. TIVO started the push towards controlling your tv, but thats not enough. People want to watch whatever they want, whenever they want it with little interuption. Some may say this is unrealistic, but if the public demands it long enough, someone will provide it. ABC is already starting to offer some shows.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
Disney's Net Neutrality about-face (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently [governmententerprise.com]: "Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger weighed in on the network neutrality debate Monday with an opinion guaranteed to please his hosts here at the TelecomNext show -- in that he doesn't think any new legislation is needed."
Now, Disney wants to be a content provider, yet is siding with the telecoms in an endeavor that will ultimatly hurt content providers by trying in vain to prioritize selected traffic for selected content providers and consumers. Whoever it was at Disney that understood that trying to guarantee that a class of traffic gets prioritized fairly throughout all routers running the internet was virtually impossible must have left.
It would seem Disney want to feed them selves with one hand, and stab themselves with the other. What a Mickey Mouse operation.
Re:Disney's Net Neutrality about-face (Score:2)
Re:Disney's Net Neutrality about-face (Score:2)
First, they will have to out-spend everyone else in order to do it. They might be able to pull this off at first, but it will get more and more costly in time, and it will cost them more than it does now to move the same amount of content. So, they are in fact guaranteeing that their costs will rise artifically. However, they may b
It really doesn't matter... (Score:2)
We see how the broadcast stations are trying to maintain revenue by just redoubling their efforts to do all the kind of stuff that drives away audiences (longer, more frequent ad break, screen covered with DOGs, truncated credits, entire storylines cut out of programs to force them into ever shorter time slots.)
Treat the audience with some respect.
Re:It really doesn't matter... (Score:1)
I hardly watch any TV news now. The net beats it hands down. I can read dozens of different opinions, and it's often not been run through a dumb filter. I can read weblogs of people who are on the frontline, not journalists trying to make a sensational story.
Satelite radio will die first (Score:4, Insightful)
I can already take my phone/PDA, load a streaming media player and stream virgin atlantic classic radio through my cell companies unlimited data services at 160Kbs. Take the audio mini-jack out of my PDA, add a power adapter so it does not drain the juice and I can plug that directly into my car stereo system. Presto! The collection of radio stations at broadband speeds are available via my car. On top of that, with 768Kb/s upstream from my cable modem I'm able to access via teh web my ENTIRE music collection at home and have it streamed to my car.
I predict within 3 years (probably MUCH sooner) you will be able to buy a head unit for your car with either A) cell phone electronics on it or B) a cradle for your phone so the head unit can receive streaming audio from the internet.
Re:Satelite radio will die first (Score:2)
Why have a DVD navigation system when you can have a network navigation system with real time traffic feedback? Have it find the cheapest hotel or gas near you? Stream audio and maybe video for the back seats?
Re:Satelite radio will die first (Score:2)
Re:Satelite radio will die first (Score:2)
For instance my phone will not work with any cradle at all. You have to use a plug to connect the charger. I think the Razor is the the same way.
Re:Satelite radio will die first (Score:2)
Irony (Score:1)
Internet is going to overtake all froms of media due networking being superior to any distribution(Not in speed right now,but it possible when infrastructure changes) was moderated as funny.
Well, you don't get straming video from 56K,
But i don't need it "streaming/Buffering" I just download the torrents and watch it later.
And you (technically) would be able to download any video torrent with dialup.
It just will take too much time.
56kbit=
7KBs=604 MB day(or about 300 MB day at
Its not really a threat... (Score:3, Insightful)
Did we forget that tiered internet thingy? Yep. as soon as media shifts to all digital, we have a new set of pipers to pay. Instead of the old cable companies and commercials, it will be digital network providers and commercials PLUS the overhead of tiered network costs if you want to watch that with fewer commercials and in real time streaming.
All of this posturing and lobbying is about capturing market, ensuring that investors will be happy in the future.
Digital content is simply a different medium, and the big players, even the new ones, are not going to let it go for free. If they can't get advertising dollars for it, they will try to charge premium costs for access to it.
One thing is for certain, you can bet that Hollywood, television networks, and other media content providers will be vying to pick consumer's pockets for a very long time indeed.
Bittorrent (Score:1)
Why doesn't some savy media house have a few servers with pipes and seed shows with bittorrent. You could place the seeds around the world, like mirrors. Then you produce and release show with a few ads. I know everyone says, well people will delete the ads - but if they are tiny and clever - aka people watch the ads in the superbowl because they are interesting.
But seeing as the time consuming part of bittorrent is en
Re:Bittorrent (Score:2)
This would be solved by gigabit Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at the white paper at:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip
However, we must have net neutrality to do it, which means that bandwidth providers can't also be content/applications/services providers. Under such a gigabit Internet concept, you would separately negotiate for content, applications, and services. That blows away the business models of present cable providers and what the telcos are lobbying to get.
This is where we need to head, and the FCC and Congress need to stop listening to incumbent providers and start thinking about what is best for everyone.
What we need is Democracy... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's still in beta, and it runs slowly on my Mac, but the way you can subscribe to channels or just download individual shows/clips is pretty cool. Could this be the future of TV? It's not really on-demand; it's more like demand-then-wait-for-download, but you get better video quality than most streaming solutions. I'd be curious to know what people think of this idea.
Time delay vs isochronous delivery (Score:4, Interesting)
The telcos that would prioritize their own isochronous/realtime delivery system only get an advantage there. We can still download movies, sports, or whatever for use at our convenience. This means that the NCAA Final Four is probably hot property for QoS throttling, where downloads of Star Wars movies or even Buster Keaton aren't affected by a time domain.
Bottom line: only event-driven, realtime entertainment that isn't available for time delay consumption matters. The on-air broadcasters already know this.... and the telcos are just trying to find a way to shave (or add) a piece from the deals we make. They'll likely win, because they're thoroughly bribed the congress for years into doing it 'their way' vis-a-vis their ability to get the FCC to play along, and for net-neutrality legislation to be handily squashed.
Re:Time delay vs isochronous delivery (Score:2)
Hey! I learned a new word! I was gonna be a wank and ask if you meant asynchronous but some little voice in my head kept me from becoming an insta-jerk and I went here instead:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/I/isochronous.html [webopedia.com]
Whew! that was close
MjM
The link is only partially correct (Score:2)
Asynchronous data means literally without clock. Sender and receiver use timed or externally clocked f
It won't be the legal TV that does it... (Score:2)
Interruptions... (Score:2, Informative)
Some broadcasters seem to get it much better than others:
http://delicast.com/tv/Ministry_of_Sound [delicast.com]
or
http://delicast.com/tv/NASA_TV [delicast.com]
The bitrates are not impressive, but I can't recall a single pause/buffering issue with them (adsl2+, UK).
Time for Math! (Score:1)
My cable internet connection costs around $45.
And my cable company is worried... why? Unless the cost of running their cable internet operation is significantly higher, they're actually making more money off me than they would were I merely a cable subscriber. It seems to me that if they adapt to the times, and focus on become one of the primary providers of high-bandwidth internet connections to people's homes, they'll be in good shape. Much of the infrastructure
Nobody uses internet TV because... (Score:2)
In other news... no-one goes to the beach any more because it's always overcrowded.
Could watch-at-your-leisure hurt TV popularity? (Score:1)
anything but free (Score:1)
Choppy Display (Score:3, Insightful)
Where that tradeoff comes in now is in time and attention. People like watching tv on the internet because it's the only thing they have to do, and the few sites that actually try commercials probably don't get as much viewer attention as a tv. People just minimize it and go do something else until the commercials are over. This is different than walking away from a TV, namely because there is no walking involved. People are lazy, yes, but they aren't lazy enough to not minimize a window.
So in general, I would agree that free internet video will likely bring down the major broadcasters. It will take time of course, and things like poor bandwidth or resolution are definitely a hinderance right now, it's nothing we haven't seen before.
uhh, just how is this I-TV getting to homes, then? (Score:2)
so I-TV kills the carriers? boGUSSSSS. the writer is channeling Ralph Kramden.
Somebody's in denial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring the ground during the fall, eh TV execs?
Something bad can happen (Score:2)
Namely VoIP, free internet TV and the likes.
The real fear is for users (of course) because someday some smart guy could be able to have internet traffic filtered out (or hindered) in order to block those protocols/applications.
Some alre already doing this against VoIP!
Composite Video Channels (Score:4, Interesting)
The Real Point (Score:1)
Bandwidth Doesn't Need to Be a Problem (Score:2)
Multicast streams wouldn't be completely on-demand, but there's ways around that.
-carl
NCAA confusion (Score:2)
Most people don't need/want streaming (Score:2)
They then give an example of a sports program streaming poorly.
The thing is, most TV ain't sports or anything else where viewers have realtime needs. Sure, maybe some fraction of the market cares about streaming. The rest of us are happy -- no, actually prefer -- time-shifting.
Forget your streaming "technology" and just make your st
old methods always get replaced (Score:1)
Hunting was replaced by farming, the stable replaced by the garage, the blacksmith replaced by the machinist, the crossbow replaced by the gun, sails replaced by motors, hemp was replaced by nylon, the royal page replaced by newspapers, the scribe replaced by the printing press, the passenger boat replaced by airplanes, and so
That's not how internet tv is gonna be (Score:1)
We all thought that multicast streaming would be the television of the future, but guess what, it won't. Except perhaps for sports or other "live" happenings.
It turns out internet tv is download lot's of content, watch it when I want. The TiVo proved this type of viewing appeals to users. And protocols such as bittorrent make it possi