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.

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.

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: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.

[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.