Jeff Pulver Is Betting on Internet Video 75
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Jeff Pulver, the self-described futurist and entrepreneur who started the company that was Vonage's predecessor, is shifting his sights to Internet video, according to the Wall Street Journal: 'Mr. Pulver is creating his own Internet TV show, which he is modeling on Rocketboom, a popular Internet video-blog that broadcasts a three-minute news show daily. He is considering launching a broader Internet TV subsidiary and is weighing whether to invest in several emerging Internet video companies, though he won't name them. Someday he wants to start an Internet reality TV show.' Pulver says, 'The same DNA that disrupted the telecom industry is well on its way to totally revolutionizing the way the TV, film, and broadcast industry is going to be,' adding that he's now looking for 'the Vonage of Internet video.' And by the way, he regrets leaving the Vonage of Internet calling before it got hot: 'I blew it. I had the juice. I could have done something.'"
The Vonage of Internet Video? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Vonage of Internet Video? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:hi (Score:4, Informative)
Look beyond Skype, look at SIP and Asterisk. You'll start seeing his name everywhere.
Re:hi (Score:1)
i remember way back in 94/95 i was on this mailing list that was moderated by pulver and some guy in indonesia eddy i think said he had managed to create a board that will allow ppl to make a local call to indonesia from anywhere in the world.
and i went like
talk about reading the future eh?
Bandwidth (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:5, Informative)
Multicast isn't implemented currently in the IPv4 internet (it's in the spec but not implemented for the most part), so he's going to have to wait for IPv6 before any streaming TV show becomes possible. Currently, all we can guarantee is unicast, and the numbers are dismal for that.
As an example, from this page [sorenson-usa.com], if you have a 2 frame per second video at 320x240, you're probably going to use 35kbps. From the master bandwidth chart [wikipedia.org], a T1 line has 1.544Mbps. Divide through, and you'll see your T1 can service about 44 customers. A T3 can service 1278.
Now look up the prices on how much a T3 will cost you. And realize that with that you're serving about 1300 customers. Scale it and you'll see why video isn't a winning game yet, money-wise.
IPv6 multicast is going to happen first before streaming video becomes financially feasable.
Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I know it's part of the spec but IIRC most of the routers on the net aren't configured to pass on multicast packets. That's why the BBC says that you have to be in the UK, and have a net connection from their list of approved partner ISPs. If you're on a different ISP, the packets will be dropped.
Still it's cool that someone out there is trying to do this - multicast rocks. I can't wait for it to become more widespread.
Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:2)
Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:2)
That's so 1980's! =)
Get yourself an SVGA cable and a recent graphics card. Run the second port of the card to your TV. Use a y-splitter to get your soundcard output there, or install a second sound card.
Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:2)
I've had that very thought. If everyone watching contributes some of their uplink bandwidth, then that should do it. Only problem would be latency. Not everybody in the group has a cablemodem, not everybody in the group is "nearby", and if you miss video frame "x" it could be a while before it shows up from another peer. That would make the broadcast lag.
But yeah, in lieu of multicast or explicit multicast being implemented at the routers, this is a good idea.
Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there (Score:2)
Multicast isn't implemented currently in the IPv4 internet..
Well, that is one interpretation. You can do multicast with IPv4 many ways. Anyway, IPv6 is being rolled out by companies that will be doing that sort of thing, not because IPv4 can't do multicast, but because big companies like Comcast are running out of IPv4 addresses to assign to cable modems. In fact, I think they are just finishing their rollout.
Currently, all we can guarantee is unicast, and the numbers are dismal for that.
Most video
Re:And the technology is not there (Score:3)
Well if even you weren't going to use the IPv6 technology you'd either have to have either:
A.) Hope that everyone will get FiOS [wikipedia.org] installed in their homes soon. (or equivalant 15-30mbps down)
or
B.) Dedicated hardware for video compression and decompression. Like something a way better than H.264 [wikipedia.org] (Mpeg-4)
Sadly, neither of these two things are going to happen any time soon, but when 25% of the people start getting fiber to the curb and video hardware comp
Re:And the technology is not there (Score:1)
Re:And the technology is not there (Score:1)
Well... Yes
Bandwidth easier to work with now (Score:1)
This year we presented a 720-pixel wide video of our online university's virtual graduation ceremony at http://graduation.jonesinternational.edu/2006gradu ation/ceremony.html [jonesinternational.edu]. In addition to the broadband version you are probably looking at, there is a stream for 56k connections and one for 36K, all are displayed at 720 pixels wide. We were originally going to provide streams higher than 512K, but there wasn't enough visible
Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:3, Insightful)
Never mind the fact that tiered internet is going to slaughter any kind of competitive content delivery marketplace.
So, Mr. Pulver, go ahead and start your Videonage. Good luck getting mass media and the governments in their pockets to let go of their stranglehold. Good luck paying for all your high-speed bandwidth and priority handling, and good luck finding a revenue source.
/Sorry, had a big cynicism sandwich for lunch -- but I really don't think an 'internet' version of another utility-type product is going to work out until the entire structure of the entertainment industry changes (which means, not in our lifetimes).
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
Is Multicast one of the many things that's supposed to actually work when using IPv6? If so, that's a nice reason to switch over sooner rather than later...
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:1)
> it's more efficient when you're 'reaching out' to a hundred million or more households, and that's
> where the big ad money is.
No, it's limited by transmitters and local regulations, and you're broadcasting the same thing to everyone. Internet based delivery means ads/promotions etc can be targetted at smaller groups, or perhaps even individuals, depending on your religion, job, social class, whethe
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
It also means that people won't watch the ads. The entire ad industry would contract (to our benefit, IMO) unless law forces us to watch the provided ads along with the content (you know, like the DMCA can do, in effect) -- and we'd end up with more pervasive marketing and less blata
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
no they are not making billions every minute but that is not the definition of success.
I suggest you learn about what makes a sucessful business and study the current thriving internetTV content companies and see what really is working.
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
Absolutely. Success is having a better ROI than the opportunity cost -- and if we're talking about a change in delivery mechanism for video media in general, then you've got to make more money than traditional broadcast would. As I said, there's a role for niche players, which download.tv is -- but there's a more profitable role for broadcast.
Whether or not some internetTV companies are thriving, traditional boradc
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
Well its also extremely badly targeted as in most people don't want to see most of the ads they are bombarded with. Google's ad model is better because it targets the interests of the person looking at them. Internet video could likewise target their audience much better than broadcast can. I for example never buy prescription drugs unless a doctor makes me. I have ZERO desire to be bombarded with drug company ads and in fact find it offensive to sell serious pres
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
Interesting point about semi-locally hosted video servers. But for a pay-per-download type service, this would mean each provider would need a local server, or we'
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
Not really, you would just have to have a payment mechanism from whomever is running the caches to the original content provider, with the cache provider getting a small percentage of the take. Its not a model very different from iTunes, except that its very distributed.
Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver (Score:2)
Community style video content site (Score:1)
iTMS (Score:2)
Re:iTMS (Score:1)
Re:Community style video content site (Score:1)
Reality TV? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reality TV? (Score:2)
Amen, brother.
Problems with internet video (Score:2)
Podcasting worked because everyone used mp3. Internet TV would work if everyone used say mpeg4, but they dont, some use Quicktime, some mpeg, some Flash movies, some REal, etc.....
makes it impossible for the general non guru to have internet TV at home today. The only way to get it today is to be an expert with a MythTV box or a linux/windows box collecting all those different filetypes and using mencoder to transcode
Bit torrent = internet video service?!? (Score:1)
Who let the bandwidth out... (Score:2)
Re:Who let the bandwidth out... (Score:2)
Re:Who let the bandwidth out... (Score:1)
Re:Who let the bandwidth out... (Score:2)
I did, well in a way. I disconnected cable TV but I took it a step further and actually took 30 seconds to find a set top box that will play video content (mpeg1,mpeg2,mp4,xvid) called the DSM-320 and it is not only dirt cheap but let's me use the TV in the living room.
I now get a large amount of TV content from online after fixing all of it
Re:Who let the bandwidth out... (Score:2)
how about multicast?
and before someone else replies, yeah, I know... bwahahahahaha!
Internet Reality TV (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but watching someone browse pr0n is not what I envision to be good television. Not unless they give me URLs, too.
interesting race coming up (Score:1)
And yet... (Score:1, Troll)
2. Media to represent message
3. Ability to gather audience
4. ??? == Something to say
5. Audience [and/or profit!]
Same problem with Blogs you'll have with this [on top of the bw problem]. I'm sorry but just because you have a webcam and a net connection doesn't mean I want to waste part of my lifetime listening to retarded 12 yr olds emo about how life is so cruel and what not. Or how the latest iGizmo from Apple is all the craze and Vista will crush Linux or whatever...
I
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:1)
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
You don't HAVE to be sitting on your ass staring at an electron gun to be content.
Tom
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
You don't HAVE to be sitting on your ass staring at an electron gun to be content.
Yeah! You can lay on it and watch an LCD instead!
It's much more fun that way.
Safe bet (Score:1)
futurist? (Score:2, Funny)
Roadblocks (Score:2)
Before I invested in such a scheme the business plan would need to solve the following problems:
Re:Roadblocks (Score:1)
You obviously are risk adverse, so am I, and that's ok. But, it's thinking like this that keeps folks like me and you on the sidelines watching as the world changes.
I wish I was more visionary and dedicated. It's seeing the future and being able to knock down the barriers (like you've described) that makes great entrepreneurs. It's not like video on the internet i
Re:Roadblocks (Score:2)
Once all those issues are solved, you would have missed the boat. The game will already be over. The real money would have already been made.
Real money is being made now, by the entrenched companies in the video space. The problem is, if you have a half-assed business plan that makes no sense and hope to solve fundamental problems with it later, you know problems like going against a monopoly who has already sold your customers their product, then you will not be profitable at any point. It's not that I'
anyone know of research on live video over IP (Score:1)
Betting (Score:1, Troll)
Oh yeah? And I'm betting on red.
WHO CARES?!
I'm pretty sure I'm about as well-known as this Jeff dude...
What's the matter, Slashdot? No stories submitted today about spy products you can actually buy [slashdot.org]?
Not until the living room (Score:2)
While it's great to watch short clips, people don't want to crowd around a PC or sit in a desk chair and watch their shows for the night. They want to plop on their couch, or sit in the easy chair, with their families, and watch content. Internet content needs to seemlessly blend into the living room. When you have instantly available,
Re:Not until the living room (Score:2)
We have this today for audio with a combination of iTunes and the Airport Express, which allows you to stream Internet radio as just another channel on your stereo. Once 802.11n [wikipedia.org] is finalized, I wouldn't be su
Democracy Now! (Score:2, Informative)
High buzzword density (Score:3, Insightful)
The same DNA that disrupted the telecom industry is well on its way to totally revolutionizing the way the TV, film, and broadcast industry is going to be,' adding that he's now looking for 'the Vonage of Internet video.'
The buzzword density of this statement is off the charts. Any '90's dotcom CEO would be pround. Mark Cuban once had the Vonage of internet Video in broadcast.com. It became the Dallas Mavericks and his private jets.
Lack of Editorial Discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
"Self-described" futurist and entrepreneur who uses "DNA" unscientifically and totally out of context (maybe self referential?) and the phrase, "I had the juice." Please, people, editorial discretion! Shame on both WSJ and Slashdot for picking up this claptrap.
Call me a troll, but it wastes our (as in readers) time to run stories about people's groundless opinions or plans and this sort of thing just rewards the self-aggrandizers who spread false information, often by opinion stated as fact, seek attention for themselves, and cause many social ills.
Pulver's still a serious player (Score:2)
Free World Dialup didn't explode the way Skype did, but it had some good ideas, and not everybody's startup succeeds.
Internet TV already done (Score:1)
http://www.mariposahd.tv/ [mariposahd.tv]
As far as the platform goes, Instant Media is the best one I've tried, despite the fact that it's only for Windoze:
http://www.im.com/ [im.com]
Vonage IPO (Score:1)
Unhappy investors in Vonage Holdings Corp., the Internet phone company that had a disappointing initial public offering last month, might feel like picking up pitchforks and torches and marching on the castles of the people who brought it to life.
But chances are, Jeff Pulver, the self-described futurist and entrepreneur who started the company that was Vonage's predecessor, wouldn't be on that list. That is because Mr. Pulver -- well known in the telecom world for his evangelism on behalf of Internet call