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.
I'll get blasted for this and called a troll, but my real opinion is that the distribution cartels (phone companies, cable companies and TV companies) don't want it to happen. They've controlled the system for too long, and they're fearful (rightfully so) of losing out to the smaller direct-caster. Broadcast (ie, not a la carte) is dying.
The best way to let things progress is to stop holding to the old norms (regulations). Look at all the bandwidth set aside fo television and radio at 50,000 watts per frequency range. All that lovely bandwidth could be better prioritized with lower transmission power and WiFi or something similar. Even cell phone companies hold way too much bandwidth for the type of transmission used, it is crazy that EDGE/3G/whatever isn't even faster than it is today.
I truly believe we'd see much more technology growth if we didn't hold to standards created 20, 30, 50 years ago. UHF and VHF should be dead, and HDTV along with it. If people want HD broadcasts, they could be better suited to a faster more localized version of the torrent protocol -- maybe set up by a few re-distro companies, maybe by amateurs, let competition bring it about.
As for paying for it, I believe 5 second spots work just as well as 30 and 60 second spots. The rare times I watch public programming, I actually hear "brought to you by the McDonalds corporation" better than I hear a 30 or 60 second McD's spot.
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.
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 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.
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/