Slashdot Mirror
Online TV May Be IPTV's First Step
An anonymous reader writes "According to the San Diego Union Tribune Time Warner Cable is letting its customers in San Diego watch live television over their hi-speed internet PCs via 'Online TV'. Time Warner's Broadband TV service (no cost above the min system requirement of cable and hi-speed modem) offers the identical '80 channels that are available with its standard cable TV service.' According to Judy Walsh, Time Warner's San Diego division president, 'It's basically like having another outlet for watching TV. It's TV on your PC. It's that simple.' Is this really the first step towards full-fledged IPTV or is this a service for dad's who can't wrestle the remote control from their kids?"
if it goes national- instant, precise ratings.
always mosh clockwise
s this really the first step towards full-fledged IPTV?
No - the first step will be the licensure of the thousands of obvious patents that have already been filed.
More
What is the point or purpose of IPTV?
A practical purpose of IPTV is to allow content from anywhere and anyone - not just Big Business. Now, Time Warner is doing this only to prevent such a thing from happening.
Take, Strong Bad, for example. I would easily pay like $5/year to watch this creativity a couple times per month. What happens if 30 million others feel the same way? Instant negation of Big Business, that is what.
Time Warner, Comcast, NBC, CBS, Fox and all those others need to be first here or they will be gone in short time.
More
As with many other "advances", this technology isn't targeted towards you, dear parent poster. It's targeted to the user that still has their ISP's home page set as their default, who uses their ISP's email as their only email address, and who cheerfully clicks on the "to unsubscribe, click here" links.
This is meant for those without the technical savvy to install a video card in their computer, or to bother with something as "advanced" as a PVR. It's meant for someone who will just exert themselves enough to sign up for another service and have it handed to them on their existing equipment. If you can sort it all out your way, more power to you. But there's still a ton of computer users out there who can't (or won't), who are happy to let someone else do it for them, and that's why this matters.
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
While I do agree with you that realplayer is less than desireable, this situation could be much worse. Real does at least have a linux native player, which means that this deal potentially isn't as OS locked to windows as it could have been. Time Warner could have chosen some sort of Microsoft solution, which means there would never be a hope of getting a service on an alternative OS.
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
IPTV forever frees the broadcasters from the shackles of fair use: with Microsoft's help, they can dictate whatever terms they like for viewing.
IPTV also frees the system manfacturers from the shackles of competing with an installed base: at any time, they can declare your particular display, computer, hard drive, etc. to be noncompliant and the system will stop working until you upgrade.
Between these two, it's a Brave New World for two business sectors which were facing market saturation and declining revenues.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The same is true of books and everything else. Television is subject to Sturgeon's Law no more and no less than everything else. The "smash your television!" mentality is dangerous close to the book-burner's mentality.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
RealPlayer
What's your point? How's it supposed to be delivered to you? What magical piece of software will allow them to deal with security, advertising, etc.?
I don't respond to AC's.
I like the idea of IPTV, but not in the way that it is being used in this article. I'd really like the concepts of networks and channels to pretty much go away, leaving only studios and ISPs.
As it stands now, studios have to beg and plead networks to carry their programming, and a lot of times, they have to compromise their artistic creativity to pander to the networks' need to sell advertising to sponsors and meet stupid FCC anti-obscenity standards. Consumers have to pick through hundreds of hours of worthless drivel to find a very few priceless gems.
With IPTV, we could completely cut out the middlemen. We watch and pay for exactly what we want to watch and pay for, tv studios get to make exactly what they want to make, and everyone's happy. Well, everyone except the former network executives, who are used to telling us what we're supposed to like to watch and screwing creative people for the sake of petty power.
Take, Strong Bad, for example. I would easily pay like $5/year to watch this creativity a couple times per month. What happens if 30 million others feel the same way? Instant negation of Big Business, that is what.
Millions of people can make their own CDs, but we haven't seen the major record labels "negated" yet. With TV, the major studios are the ones who can supply the cash and resources for sets, special effects, big name actors, etc etc. Although I can imagine there will be a lot more cult followings of low-budget TV shows and the big TV networks will have less control, they'll not have to worry about instant negation. Strong Bad will be bought and whored out like nobody's business long before any one goes out of business.
Personally, I like the idea of no longer being bound to the company that owns the coax wire-network in your geographic area. For instance, I live in a Charter area, I have one choice for cable, charter. Now, if there were one or more providers willing to provide their distribution via IP, without requiring me to get my broadband from them (for instance, if I could sign up for Comcast to watch their channels over an existing broadband connection, even though they cant offer physical hookup in my area, that would be great.)
Its all about choice.