Slashdot Mirror
Free Net TV Threatens Telecoms
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."
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.
My work here is dung.
Why would I want to get that for free, when I already pay for it from Comcast?
Walt Disney's bold move to let people download TV shows for free could spell trouble for cable and satellite providers
.swf wrapper like youtube/Google video/etc. to guard against easy ripping.
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
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
The guy presenting this lecture has the right idea.
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.
As telecoms develops, any and all 'archaeic technologies' will eventually be replaced. This includes T.V. in its current form.
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 goes to digital, we will find that the distinction between 'Telly' and 'computer' and 'phone' and 'dvd player'will dissolve till we have the grail of home medai management.
>>>Scanning for I.D.I.O.T.S. >>>
>>>I.D.I.O.T.S. FOUND! >>>
so why can't it get here already??
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]
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
I've been looking for advice and opinions on a "dream" of mine on the verge of coming true -- an idea I call No Copyright Studios. Basically the idea was initially to sponsor bands who dropped all their music into the public domain in exchange for all the free marketing that could drive more fans to their shows. Now we're looking at enticing another group of artists to work to build a digital library of free programming in exchange for driving people to see them live: the theatre group.
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?
It would seem Disney is confused about what it want, or who its friends are. Back in November of 2002, Disney sent a letter to the FCC asking "transmission network operators do not encumber relationships between their customers and destinations on the network."
Recently: "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.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Watch what happens to satelite radio...it will be a pre-cursor to what happens with video.
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.
Unless they limit the stream rate server side, it's trivial to rip any stream out of it's wrapper and download it at full speed.
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Its not really a threat, well unless you consider watching the profits go from big name studios to triple and quadruple play carriers a threat.
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.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
The US is headed toward being a third-world telecommunications country because the American public is being dumbed down about what is really high speed Internet. Megabit speeds are legacy technology, regardless of what the cable and DSL providers say. Other countries are going to gigabit technology -- to the home and at reasonably low cost (say $50 per month for Internet, telephone, and cable TV combined).
/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf
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.
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.
Electric Monkey Pants
It all boils down to isochronous delivery: broadcasters have us trained to think that entertainment is event driven, like "Survivor" or another scheduled event. In fact, few shows need be delivered this way.
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.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Web can still be choppy, with frequent interruptions as data packets buffer and reload on the screen
Some broadcasters seem to get it much better than others:
http://delicast.com/tv/Ministry_of_Sound
or
http://delicast.com/tv/NASA_TV
The bitrates are not impressive, but I can't recall a single pause/buffering issue with them (adsl2+, UK).
It's not like having a choppy picture is anything new. Back before cable was very popular, and 95% of consumers used only antennaes, static was everywhere. Reception was horrible at times, and yet still people used the technology. One of the major issues was that watching national stations was free while cable was very expensive. It's a trade off that people make between quality and cost, and they know that.
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.
Sounds kinda like, "These 'video disks' will never overtake our VHS format. Look at how big and expensive they are!"
Ignoring the ground during the fall, eh TV execs?
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
The evening news should not go unquestioned. Think of all the mischievous, world-changing possibilities that open when TV and the net converge even closer. Video streams from two (or multiple) sources could be synchronized and composited together according to instructions on a control channel. The video sources could be DVD's, or video streams from the net. The compositing logic could be on an HDTV, or set-top box. You could watch TV with friends anywhere in cyberspace. You could syndicate and rebroadcast your own channel, intended to be merged and watched with "mainstream media". Think MST3K, Third Voice, or Wayne's World. Real-time critiques of old-style TV. Just you wait till Howard Stern starts ripping on the evening news. In low-bandwidth conditions, TV becomes like "pop-up video", as you IM with friends who are watching the same TV show, at the same time, on your TV set. Imagine special DVD players into which two DVD's are loaded simultaneously. One DVD can make a live mash-up of the other DVD. So you pop in "The Phantom Menace", and a "remixer" DVD that carries control data, and additional audio-video data to show you a special edit of George Lucas' film.
-- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/