IPTV Revolution Put on Hold

prostoalex writes "Business Week says the IPTV revolution might be postponed. As telecoms are launching the new service, they are facing the problem of lack of content: "But improvements like these can happen only if content providers - media companies and movie studios like Disney - play along. So far, it seems, they're not. Disney didn't return calls from BusinessWeek Online seeking comment, and it hasn't signed with any outside distributor to provide its movies for video-on-demand. Most studios have agreed to only limited video-on-demand distribution, fearing it could cut into revenues from rentals and DVD sales - now generating bigger income streams than the box office itself." The solution just might be buying out content companies, like Mark Cuban does. In the retrospect the Comcast bid for Disney and AOL buying Time Warner start making sense."

Comments

Then start with niche content

[Joe U]

Start offering things like Anime or SciFi, they can use the expanded market. Once companies realise this is for real, more content will show up.

Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why TV over IP is needed. The infrastructure to deliver TV via cable already exists. For people who have broadband via cable, they would just be getting what they already could. Seems like reinventing the wheel. And besides that, if it's streaming from a server, unlike standard cable all channels will not be sent at once in order to save bandwidth. And since it's a web server dynamically serving one channel at a time to you, it would be extremely easy for the IPTV provider to record what one watches. That's valuable information to advertisers, and could be much more accurate than Nelsien ratings. I really think at some point this will happen if this tachnonlgy becomes popular. I, for one, do not welcome our new IPTV voyeur overlords.

Re:Interesting

[DarkMantle]

You do seem to be missing a major part of this. It's Video on demand. So I can watch Simpsons whenever I want. I don't have to wait for it to air on TV. This would be very handy since I often don't get home from work till 10 or 11 o'clock and I've already missed the good stuff on TV. I usually download it and watch it the next day. If I could stream it when I got home that would be much better.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Think "what I want to see, when I want to see it". Want to see last week's episode of Seinfeld (or whatever is on TV these days)? It is there. Want to watch a movie, any movie? It is there. Channel surfing, wanting to watch the show you just found from the beginning? It is there. Want to pause the game so you can go to the bathroom. You can do that.

Broadcast is dying, individualized content is the future. Why would you want some old men at NBC deciding what you are supposed to watch on a Tuesday night? Then again, if you ask me, why would you want to watch TV on any night?

Re:Interesting

[quarkscat]

TV over IP is needed, if only by the telcos. Cable
already provides content, and broadband internet.
Cable companies are, as a rule, more responsive to
local/regional governments in providing service to
the broadest portion of the population -- for which
they are amply rewarded by being granted monopoly
status. The telcos are regulated by the states and
the Federal government. Ever since the breakup of
AT&T (aka Ma Bell), the regional telcos have been
more tightly regulated. The cable companies don't
seem to have much problem in adjusting their service
agreements, or of raising their rates. The only
way that the telcos can get into the same "profit"
pattern is by what they are doing now -- consolidating
the regional telcos, merging with wireless and
cell phone companies, and getting a "sweetheart"
deal from the FCC for bundling services. Only by
limiting competition (like the current spate of
state legislation regarding muni WiFi) can the telcos
approach the level of monopoly status that the
cable companies already have. The telcos cannot/
will not compete on the basis of best service at
the best price -- future FTTP is a pure BS "carrot"
they offer to their regulators as an inducement
for monopoly status. The telcos (generally) own
the infrastructure (POTS), and they will not
guarantee anything better than 24kbps (voice)
quality, regardless of distance from their COs
(Central Offices). The public (and the regulators)
are supposed to "buy" the notion that but for their
lack of monopoly status, they would be running
FTTP (Fiber To The Premises) everywhere. Be
skeptical; be very skeptical. Neither DSL nor
ADSL are much good beyond 18K feet from their
COs, but they still market the heck out of their
"broadband service" based upon crappy POTS
infrastructure. The regulators would do well to
hold the telco's proverbial feet to the fire for
providing acceptable up/down bandwidth over POTS
before granting the telcos any further monopoly
status (eg. "bundling" vs "bare" access). And
without decent broadband bandwidth based upon
the POTS they own, the telcos are putting the
cart before the horse when it comes to sinking
vast sums of money into "content" instead of
infrastructure. The telcos have a very long way
to go before IPTV becomes a realistic option.

too useful to go to waste

[Peter La Casse]

The technology behind Video on Demand is useful enough that even if the "on Demand" part isn't exposed to the customer, eventually it will become the backbone of the cable infrastructure. The idea of streaming shows off of a hard drive sitting at the head end and digitally inserting local commercials, etc. is a good one, and interactive commercials ("click here to purchase!" or "here let me run this ActiveX control on your TV") are the wave of the future, for better or for worse.

religeous content is HUGE!!!

[cheekyboy]

I know its in the 'wierdo' catagory and not 'sex drugs rocknroll' content.

But christian tv etc... are BIG money, or at lest BIG audiences.

Right away you have 1.1 billion customers

Im sure Mel would pony up a consortium

you've got to be kidding

[bitspotter]

I must know all kinds of people who would love a platform to put all kinds of original video content out there. There's plenty of Creative Commons stuff - Why don't they just let people put up their own stuff?

Can't have the little people thinking they can be a TV station, I guess.

Cartels strike again

[GrouchoMarx]

But improvements like these can happen only if content providers - media companies and movie studios like Disney - play along.

Once again, we see the problem of media consolidation. We don't even consider the possibility that *gasp* someone other than Disney could provide content worth watching. There are only 4 media conglomerates left, and they're all in bed with each other. None of them is going to try and get a jump on the new IPTV (or other) market, because they've all agreed that they don't feel like it. That's what being a cartel means.

They, because they have been allowed vertical monopolies (AOL/Time Warner) and government-supported monopolies on content (copyright) are able to SINGLE HANDEDLY HOLD BACK TECHNOLOGY.

This is not Promoting the Progress of Science or the Useful Arts.

I didn't used to be opposed to copyright, but the more I see, the more I wonder if it causes more problems than it's worth.

Re:Cartels strike again

[stephenbooth]

The first mass market for lithography was porn. The first mass market for photography was porn. The first mass market for movie films was porn. The first mass market for VCRs was porn. The highest selling genre in writing (both electronic and traditional printed media) is porn. I think I'm seeing a pattern here.

Stephen

Re:But is it...

[ImaLamer]

Let me add this:

We've got a lot of television content online as it is. Not only does Real have a premium service, but AOL for broadband does the same. I tried AOL for free (thanks a lot Gratis Networks!) a while ago and was really amazed at the videos you get. All kinds of stand-up, nature, music and so forth.

When I canceled AOL the guy asked me how I liked it. He claimed that he was a Linux user so he couldn't use AOL - I told him I was suprised with all of the stuff they offered for free (you know, with the monthly service). It is almost worth it just for that.

Oh, and don't forget that under Winamp you can watch all types of "Internet TV". Family Guy, Sealab, pr0n, Seinfeld, all kinds of stuff. Look for the Salt Water Chimp stations.

Belgium

[KiroDude]

I'm currently working at Belgacom, Belgium's biggest telco, they'll be soon launching their IPTV system and offered everybody a demo of the system.

Well, I must say I really do not see how they'll ever make it happen if they keep it like it was shown.

Quality wise it is just as good as any other digital signal you can think of, satellite or terrestrial DVB, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But as the article (or the summary, this is slashdot) says, the big problem is in content.
They provide exactly the same channels as you get on cable here, and belgium has a 99,99% coverage of cable (and the other 0,01% don't even get ADSL).

When I asked about the price their answer was "about the same as cable". The only 'real' advantage is the possibility of paying to watch recent movies, you pay 2,5 per movie and have the right to watch it during a 24hs period. This is exactly the same as if you rent the film on your video store, just that you do not have to move from home.

Also, you can only watch IPTV on -one- television at the time, as the signal takes approximately 3Mb/s of bandwith, which also means that unless you get a really high speed ADSL, you cannot use your ADSL for anything than watching TV while the TV is on.

[Sarcasm]

[Tom]

Oh, really? Whowoulddhavethought?[/sarcasm]

I work for a company that launched an IPTV service about 4 years ago. Aside form lots of porn (come on, what is the #1 advantage of not having to go to a rental and face live clerks?) content was mostly B movies and stuff.

Funny thing is, it wasn't security or piracy the content providers were concerned about. They simply didn't think it would be a market large enough to "waste" their blockbusters on.

Remember, that was four years ago. Thinks have changed a little, and we're about to re-launch the service. Let's see how it goes this time around.