Jeff Pulver Is Betting on Internet Video

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Jeff Pulver, the self-described futurist and entrepreneur who started the company that was Vonage's predecessor, is shifting his sights to Internet video, according to the Wall Street Journal: 'Mr. Pulver is creating his own Internet TV show, which he is modeling on Rocketboom, a popular Internet video-blog that broadcasts a three-minute news show daily. He is considering launching a broader Internet TV subsidiary and is weighing whether to invest in several emerging Internet video companies, though he won't name them. Someday he wants to start an Internet reality TV show.' Pulver says, 'The same DNA that disrupted the telecom industry is well on its way to totally revolutionizing the way the TV, film, and broadcast industry is going to be,' adding that he's now looking for 'the Vonage of Internet video.' And by the way, he regrets leaving the Vonage of Internet calling before it got hot: 'I blew it. I had the juice. I could have done something.'"

Comments

The Vonage of Internet Video?

[Silverlancer]

Considering the performance of the recent IPO, I would think that would be a bad thing...

Re:The Vonage of Internet Video?

[tddoog]

True, it's like counting the chickens after someone dropped all the eggs.

Bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a great thing to see the Internet taking over all types of media. We are beginning to see less need for standard brick and mortar establishments, and the ease of finding informaiton has never been so great. However, I don't know what type of acceptance he will find with this new technology. I've seen several programs that air online, but only a select few seem to keep up with the programming...not to mention the bandwidth requirements for the hundreds of millions of people that could possibly try to connect at the same time...that's kinda scary.

Internet Video

[unheard02]

While video on the internets may be fun when it comes to YouTube and Google Video, I don't really see it as a money making move. I for one would much rather use my DVR and Comcast's On Demand feature for select video viewing rather than getting on the internet and having to download anything I wanted to watch.

Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[Red Flayer]

Sure there's a market for internet-distributed video content. But the major players (major media conglomerates) will make sure that broadcast (whether via cable or air) remains in the lead for video content delivery. Why? Because it's more efficient when you're 'reaching out' to a hundred million or more households, and that's where the big ad money is.

Never mind the fact that tiered internet is going to slaughter any kind of competitive content delivery marketplace.

So, Mr. Pulver, go ahead and start your Videonage. Good luck getting mass media and the governments in their pockets to let go of their stranglehold. Good luck paying for all your high-speed bandwidth and priority handling, and good luck finding a revenue source.

/Sorry, had a big cynicism sandwich for lunch -- but I really don't think an 'internet' version of another utility-type product is going to work out until the entire structure of the entertainment industry changes (which means, not in our lifetimes).

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[drinkypoo]

Why? Because it's more efficient when you're 'reaching out' to a hundred million or more households, and that's where the big ad money is.

Is Multicast one of the many things that's supposed to actually work when using IPv6? If so, that's a nice reason to switch over sooner rather than later...

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[Threni]

> broadcast (whether via cable or air) remains in the lead for video content delivery. Why? Because
> it's more efficient when you're 'reaching out' to a hundred million or more households, and that's
> where the big ad money is.

No, it's limited by transmitters and local regulations, and you're broadcasting the same thing to everyone. Internet based delivery means ads/promotions etc can be targetted at smaller groups, or perhaps even individuals, depending on your religion, job, social class, whether you drive, read books, listen to music, cook, etc etc.

> I really don't think an 'internet' version of another utility-type product is going to work out
> until the entire structure of the entertainment industry changes (which means, not in our
> lifetimes).

The people who own the copyright on music/movies/games/tv shows etc have the capability to either handle distribution themselves, or have it done for them by ISPs, initially at least. Eventually, they'll become ISPs, which will mean they'll know *exactly* who is downloading what. And so will governments. (This is assuming that governments don't already own/control some ISPs).

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[Red Flayer]

"Internet based delivery means ads/promotions etc can be targetted at smaller groups, or perhaps even individuals, depending on your religion, job, social class, whether you drive, read books, listen to music, cook, etc etc."

It also means that people won't watch the ads. The entire ad industry would contract (to our benefit, IMO) unless law forces us to watch the provided ads along with the content (you know, like the DMCA can do, in effect) -- and we'd end up with more pervasive marketing and less blatant advertising. The broadcast industry is not going to allow their major source of revenue to shrink if they can help it, and mass-market advertisers aren't going to willingly give up their best way to reach people (yes, I understand that niche marketing definitely has it's place in internet content delivery).

"The people who own the copyright on music/movies/games/tv shows etc have the capability to either handle distribution themselves, or have it done for them by ISPs, initially at least."

Broadcast content creators don't get their revenues from subcriptions or download fees (with the notable exception of HBO, to a certain extent). They get their revenues from advertising placement, and that revenue comes from bundling. Only a major content distributor can offer the kind of ad distribution that a Nike or a Unilever needs -- we'll still see branded 'channels' if the content delivery goes primarily internet.

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[Lumpy]

download.tv is making money.

no they are not making billions every minute but that is not the definition of success.

I suggest you learn about what makes a sucessful business and study the current thriving internetTV content companies and see what really is working.

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[Red Flayer]

"no they are not making billions every minute but that is not the definition of success."

Absolutely. Success is having a better ROI than the opportunity cost -- and if we're talking about a change in delivery mechanism for video media in general, then you've got to make more money than traditional broadcast would. As I said, there's a role for niche players, which download.tv is -- but there's a more profitable role for broadcast.

Whether or not some internetTV companies are thriving, traditional boradcast is thriving more -- and the scaling issues for internetTV are nightmarish.

I suggest you think about what would have to happen if internetTV were to be the main, or even a serious competitor to broadcast media, delivery channel. After all, it's not the little internetTV companies that are buying lawmakers, it's the megacorps.

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[demachina]

" and that's where the big ad money is"

Well its also extremely badly targeted as in most people don't want to see most of the ads they are bombarded with. Google's ad model is better because it targets the interests of the person looking at them. Internet video could likewise target their audience much better than broadcast can. I for example never buy prescription drugs unless a doctor makes me. I have ZERO desire to be bombarded with drug company ads and in fact find it offensive to sell serious prescription drugs with serious side effect potential like soap, to create demand for them where there is often not need.

Not sure ads are really the only revenue model for Internet video. Google and others are charging a dollar or two to get video on demand, in many cases without ads. I've switched over to watching the Charlie Rose show exclusively through Google video, though granted when its free the day following its first airing on PBS. Charlie Rose is the best show around for intelligent talk. RocketBoom is also doing pretty well though I haven't watched it long enough to be sure its any good. Its kind of an exercise in an attractive blond talking head offering an alternative to conventional news broadcasts.

Relatively affluent people will in fact probably pay small amounts to get shows they like, easily, that they can watch when they want, where they want(on handhelds on a subway or in a carpool) and free of the curse of ads, or at least get targeted ads.

If you can reach a point where a large number of viewers can pay a small amount of money to support content that is interesting to them you could break down the horrors of network programming and TV being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. TechTV is the best example I can think of programming most geeks loved but wasn't commercially viable in the broadcast model. It might be viable if a half million geeks were willing to pay a buck or two a week to support some of its better shows like Leo Laporte's.

"Good luck paying for all your high-speed bandwidth and priority handling"

Cringely had kind of interesting take on some of this last Friday. He was giving a talk to all the PBS affiliates and he proposed they each put a video server in their local telephone and cable office and target their local markets with video on demand that is cached closer to the viewer. His contention is there is a lot more bandwidth available between the phone and cable company office and homes, than there is between the phone and cable office and the Internet. In this caching model you would only go out over the Internet once to cache the video someone wants. Subsequent viewers would get it faster and without creating the bandwidth crunch on the wider Internet. Its kind of an Akamai caching scheme but geared towards video and much more local.

The biggest flaw in Cringely's pitch was his naivete that the PBS affiliates could just go talk to some guy in the local phone or cable office and drop a non profit video server there. Needless to say the big telephone and cable companies aren't going to just adopt non profit PBS video server, they are going to want their cut, but the idea is still a good one if you could work out a business model the broadband providers would like. It would be a lot better solution than tiering the internet, since the video bandwidth crunch is the rationale companies like BellSouth are proposing for destroying net neutrality.

I recall another Cringely article a while back about a guy who was making a business out of video servers for big apartment complexes I think where he would for example cache every copy of Star Trek on a local server so it was always available to the tenants. I think there is some way to do this which is or at least was legal. At the rate disk capacity is growing you really can cache a lot of video in a local server, maybe we will reach a point you cache more and faster than quality new content is being created that is worth caching.

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[Red Flayer]

I agree that blanket advertising is annoying, but the biggest advertisers aren't looking to narrowly target tgeir ads -- they are looking for broad brand awareness as much as immediate ad-generated sales. Target, for example, wants EVERYONE to see their ads as much as possible. These are the ads that really set up braodcast with an advantage.

Interesting point about semi-locally hosted video servers. But for a pay-per-download type service, this would mean each provider would need a local server, or we'd end up with middlemen again (like the broadcast networks). The only way to get rid of advertising is to have direct sales from the content producers... the middlemen will always find a way to insert advertising (remember the promises of ad-free cable? Internet-distributed content will be little different).

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[demachina]

"But for a pay-per-download type service, this would mean each provider would need a local server"

Not really, you would just have to have a payment mechanism from whomever is running the caches to the original content provider, with the cache provider getting a small percentage of the take. Its not a model very different from iTunes, except that its very distributed.

Re:Go ahead, Mr. Pulver

[Red Flayer]

And whoever is running the caches will soon be distributing ads along with the content. You know, to 'offset cost increases' while 'maintaining current pricing structures'. Cynical, I know, but the economies of scale would result in a few major companies holding most of the 'local' cache servers. At that point advertisers would get their foot in the door, since they'd only have to approach a few companies to reach their market(s).

Re:hi

[aonaran]

Have you never heard of Pulver Communications? Free World Dialup (free VOIP service)? VON (Voice on the Net) conferences? VON Magazine? You haven't been paying much attention to VoIP have you?

Look beyond Skype, look at SIP and Asterisk. You'll start seeing his name everywhere.

Disruption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since the FCC gutted the previously agreed-upon rules that created the internet (neutrality) and Congress refuses to pass any laws to restore neutrality (i.e., stop the FCC from invalidating these prior agreements), only content providers that already are established with big pockets are going to be able to play the internet game. The only disruption here is that the internet is going to become a one-way street.

Re:Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeff who? I've never heard of him. Why should I take him or news about him seriously?

I guess you IBM execs are still trying to recover from the "Bill who?" era.

Community style video content site

[AlzaF]

I would love to see an imdb type site where you look up a movie or TV programme, read the reviews sent in by fellow surfers and if you like it then download the movie. This way you get a chance to see what you really like rather than what the corporate big-wigs want you to see.

Re:Community style video content site

[AlzaF]

I find these rating systems crazy, all they go for popularity where they don't realise that you are going to buy more from a variety rather than a limited selection of the most 'popular items'.

Reality TV?

[Rob T Firefly]

Someday he wants to start an Internet reality TV show.

Because when JenniCam shut down, it left an void in the web.

Re:Reality TV?

[Rick Genter]

Because when JenniCam shut down, it left an [sic] void in the web.

Amen, brother.

Problems with internet video

[Lumpy]

is that everyone and their brother picks their own whacked out codec and uses that one.

Podcasting worked because everyone used mp3. Internet TV would work if everyone used say mpeg4, but they dont, some use Quicktime, some mpeg, some Flash movies, some REal, etc.....

makes it impossible for the general non guru to have internet TV at home today. The only way to get it today is to be an expert with a MythTV box or a linux/windows box collecting all those different filetypes and using mencoder to transcode to one standard you can play and store easily.

Then we have the rampant "mine,mine,mine" attitude that the networks have that lesves them out of the game. DL.TV let's me download and view at my convienence their episodes, NBC makes me watch on their crappy web player.

Guess what, my NBC content comes from bittorrents or a mythtv box sitting at a friends house instead because of that.

Until internetTV picks a standard that everyone can align to it will stay a floundering mess. Democracy player is a great direction to try and fix the mess but it's still a pc app and not a nice Set top box that I can put on the tiny 32 inch tv and watch the shows there.

Bit torrent = internet video service?!?

[milamber3]

Any article that characterizes bit torrent as just a popular "internet video service" loses quality points IMO. The rest of the article seems pretty straight forward but if the author can't be bothered to find out what bit torrent really is when he's talking about Bram Cohen that raises a red flag.

iTMS

[aftk2]

With their iMixes and ratings, and the (albeit ginger) foot forward they've taken with certain television shows, the iTunes Music Store has a chance to be this site - perhaps all that's necessary is to put forward a more community-centric design - using the same content - rather than a multimedia-centric design.

Re:iTMS

[OSS_ilation]

I'd also suggest a site called Gather.com. Right now it is just images and articles that are submitted by the members, but eventually the site's designers (one, a former Lotus exec) plan to introduce video content. It uses a ratings/comment system that is entirely driven by the users and best yet, a points system that translates into cash or deals at participating businesses. /plug

Who let the bandwidth out...

[packetmon]

well on its way to totally revolutionizing the way the TV, film, and broadcast industry is going to be,' adding that he's now looking for 'the Vonage of Internet video.' Not so fast... While Internet broadcasting sounds like a good idea but there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before companies start dumping millions that route. While there may be a cluster of people that would be willing to watch content, how many people would honestly swap their televisions for glaring at a computer monitor. I for one know I might do so maybe once a month, but its bad enough I work 10 hours a day in front of a monitor and a couple of extra hours afterwards.

Bandwidth constraints: I hope those diving into this idea are aware that unlike VoIP whose packet sizes have small footprints, video is a whole different monster. Unless these companies are willing to dish out for OC12's and better, once they have a market, the network will be saturated if they don't plan accordingly. Now let's take say an OC12 at 622mbs and divide that at a low stream of say video using 64kb, they'd only be able to serve 9952 viewers. That's paltry for say an event like a LiveAid concert... What will happen to a service like this when Net Neutrality sides with providers... (ouch)

Re:Who let the bandwidth out...

[Anonymous Coward]

how many people would honestly swap their televisions for glaring at a computer monitor. I for one know I might do so maybe once a month, but its bad enough I work 10 hours a day in front of a monitor and a couple of extra hours afterwards.

Computer monitors and televisions are the exact same technology. A CRT monitor is just like a CRT television, but with typically higher resolution. An LCD monitor is just like a flat panel TV. If you have a problem with watching video on a computer monitor as opposed to a TV, it's because of some bizarre mental block rather than any tangible difference.

Re:Who let the bandwidth out...

[Lumpy]

While there may be a cluster of people that would be willing to watch content, how many people would honestly swap their televisions for glaring at a computer monitor.

I did, well in a way. I disconnected cable TV but I took it a step further and actually took 30 seconds to find a set top box that will play video content (mpeg1,mpeg2,mp4,xvid) called the DSM-320 and it is not only dirt cheap but let's me use the TV in the living room.

I now get a large amount of TV content from online after fixing all of it because everyone wants their own filetype. (mplayer/mencoder is a godsend)

It's fully automated, I even pull video content off of a friends ReplayTV at 2am via a simple VPN connection from his home to mine (I used DSL, yes I got it without a regular phone install)

It would be far simpler if the different rss feeds of video content picked a single format for the video files or someone makes a set top box that will play absolutely anything (I know mythTV+mplayer will do it...)

it is really easy and those of us clever enough to use google dont stare at a computer monitor to watch the content.

Is InternetTV ready for Prine Time joe sixpack? not a chance. and I really dont think it will be until someone sells a universal playback box.

Re:Who let the bandwidth out...

[packetmon]

Hello... I have an LCD and my laptops... You're missing the point. I would not sit at my computer desk, nor have my laptop on my legs replacing my Aquaos

Re:Who let the bandwidth out...

[jjeffries]

video is a whole different monster...

how about multicast?

and before someone else replies, yeah, I know... bwahahahahaha!

Re:Who let the bandwidth out...

[Yaotzin]

The reason is probably that you usually sit and watch a tv from a couple of meters away while you usually sit less than half a meter away from your monitor.

Internet Reality TV

[fobbman]

"Someday he wants to start an Internet reality TV show."

I'm sorry, but watching someone browse pr0n is not what I envision to be good television. Not unless they give me URLs, too.

Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[Weaselmancer]

Multicast isn't implemented currently in the IPv4 internet (it's in the spec but not implemented for the most part), so he's going to have to wait for IPv6 before any streaming TV show becomes possible. Currently, all we can guarantee is unicast, and the numbers are dismal for that.

As an example, from this page, if you have a 2 frame per second video at 320x240, you're probably going to use 35kbps. From the master bandwidth chart, a T1 line has 1.544Mbps. Divide through, and you'll see your T1 can service about 44 customers. A T3 can service 1278.

Now look up the prices on how much a T3 will cost you. And realize that with that you're serving about 1300 customers. Scale it and you'll see why video isn't a winning game yet, money-wise.

IPv6 multicast is going to happen first before streaming video becomes financially feasable.

interesting race coming up

[WinEveryGame]

It would be an interesting race between video-on-demand from incumbents like comcast, and internet video from upstarts like youtube, ifilm etc.

And yet...

[tomstdenis]

1. Massive amounts of bandwidth
2. Media to represent message
3. Ability to gather audience
4. ??? == Something to say
5. Audience [and/or profit!]

Same problem with Blogs you'll have with this [on top of the bw problem]. I'm sorry but just because you have a webcam and a net connection doesn't mean I want to waste part of my lifetime listening to retarded 12 yr olds emo about how life is so cruel and what not. Or how the latest iGizmo from Apple is all the craze and Vista will crush Linux or whatever...

If people just spent half the time they spend on chatting and blogging and actually DID something [write a book, play, read a book, write a program or improve one, play music, WHATEVER] then there would actually be blogs worth reading...

Tom

Safe bet

[llZENll]

What a safe bet considering every major internet portal now has their own dedicated video services (google, yahoo, msn, youtube). Popularity is not the problem, its hard to actually make any money off this crap since its stolen from other sources and teenagers are too busy spending $5 to send a 100 byte text message. It sounds like hes making his own content though, which should be very hard to profit from as the current video sources are all profiting by simply being a gateway to stolen properties. I'm not saying its good or bad, its just a lot more expensive.

futurist?

[toastmaster]

sort of off topic, but what schooling is required to being a futurist? is that a four-year program?

Roadblocks

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Before I invested in such a scheme the business plan would need to solve the following problems:

• Tiered internet - how will you deal with the cable companies quadruple charging you to reach their customers since you're competing directly with them?
• Last Mile - The last mile connection to 90% of the US is either the phone company or a cable company. The cable companies are owned by the content producers. The phone companies are half owned by content producers. Both can bundle their video service with the connection. For example, my cable modem connection + my cable TV service is $10 cheaper than just the cable modem connection alone. If I'm already getting TV for -$10, why should I consider a second supplier I have to pay on top of that?
• sufficient content - assuming I don't want multiple services, how can you get enough unique content without partnering with the existing providers, who have no motivation to do business with you.
• DRM - if you use DRM, your video is less useful than a pirated version or an existing analogue connection. If you don't providers will hesitate to do business with you and if it is a pay service casual piracy will eat into your profits.
• Bandwidth/QOS - Most people do not have sufficient bandwidth/latency to watch real time video as high of quality as low-def TV.
• local programming - how can you get all the locals signed up?

Re:Roadblocks

[bobsledbob]

Once all those issues are solved, you would have missed the boat. The game will already be over. The real money would have already been made.

You obviously are risk adverse, so am I, and that's ok. But, it's thinking like this that keeps folks like me and you on the sidelines watching as the world changes.

I wish I was more visionary and dedicated. It's seeing the future and being able to knock down the barriers (like you've described) that makes great entrepreneurs. It's not like video on the internet is a big secret or anything. It doesn't take a mystical "futurist" to predict internet video "disrupting" traditional media. It's having the tenacity to see the vision and knock down the barriers.

Of course having money up front helps (but is not strictly a requirement).

Re:Roadblocks

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Once all those issues are solved, you would have missed the boat. The game will already be over. The real money would have already been made.

Real money is being made now, by the entrenched companies in the video space. The problem is, if you have a half-assed business plan that makes no sense and hope to solve fundamental problems with it later, you know problems like going against a monopoly who has already sold your customers their product, then you will not be profitable at any point. It's not that I'm risk averse, but the likelihood is these companies will never solve these problems. Other companies have already tried. Barring something new, why do they think they can succeed? I'm happy to gamble on a long shot that is innovative, but this brings nothing new to the table.

Will only work to your satisfaction

[Anonymous Coward]

if the shitbags who put bollocks like The Shawshank Redemption and LotR in the top 10 get their voting privileges revoked.

anyone know of research on live video over IP

[Schematic114]

Does anyone know of current research on increasing performance live video over IP? I don't know whether the designers of IP factored in high-density media, but with the universal adoption of TCP/IP it seems that we're "stuck"--not saying that IP isn't the best solution. Obviously we have a lot of practical applications of transferring recorded video--all the file sharing services, both web-based and client-based; BitTorrent. Are there any interesting technologies that currently exist or are on the horizon for streaming live video, that involves something really innovative, not just tweaking packet sizes and local app-layer state machines? I'm especially curious about mass media broadcasting--this goes against the net's "I only want to see what I ask for" pull behavior, but sometimes consumers are lazy and they actually want to be pushed. Maybe for pre-recorded TV programs live broadcasting isn't as important, but programs that are inherently live such as sports or news it will still be important. How is big media going to deliver relavent, live content? Will we still continue with cable, or do people see live broadcasts transitioning toward IP? If it is going the IP route, how? I know that multicast can be used on LANs...does anyone see media companies sectioning off networks, adding the infrastructure, and doing multicast on regional WANs?

Betting

[mattwarden]

Oh yeah? And I'm betting on red.

WHO CARES?!

I'm pretty sure I'm about as well-known as this Jeff dude...

What's the matter, Slashdot? No stories submitted today about spy products you can actually buy ?

I don't know...

[butterwise]

This guy must be projecting...

Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[Nuskrad]

Multicasting can be done in IPv4. The BBC are running a test streaming their TV stations via the internet using multicast. http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/

Not until the living room

[edmicman]

It's good and all, but I don't think we'll see much progress on the "internet video" stuff until the Internet is completely tied to the living room consumer electronics.

While it's great to watch short clips, people don't want to crowd around a PC or sit in a desk chair and watch their shows for the night. They want to plop on their couch, or sit in the easy chair, with their families, and watch content. Internet content needs to seemlessly blend into the living room. When you have instantly available, fully searchable, metadata filled Internet TV content in the living room, then we'll talk. I want to watch whatever I want to watch (WHATEVER, which includes EVERYTHING, from full historical archives of every media to current media), WHENEVER I want. Cable companies, are you listening? Sure, I can try to amass my own collection with an array of PVRs/DVRs, but if it was part of the existing cable subscription (or whatever media subscription), why bother, if EVERYTHING was available?

On a somewhat related note, Cringely had an interesting article about PBS leading the internet TV charge.

Re:Not until the living room

[Rick Genter]

While it's great to watch short clips, people don't want to crowd around a PC or sit in a desk chair and watch their shows for the night. They want to plop on their couch, or sit in the easy chair, with their families, and watch content. Internet content needs to seemlessly blend into the living room.

We have this today for audio with a combination of iTunes and the Airport Express, which allows you to stream Internet radio as just another channel on your stereo. Once 802.11n is finalized, I wouldn't be surprised to see something similiar for video.

Re:hi

[marafa]

heh
i remember way back in 94/95 i was on this mailing list that was moderated by pulver and some guy in indonesia eddy i think said he had managed to create a board that will allow ppl to make a local call to indonesia from anywhere in the world.

and i went like .. omigod .. his fone bill is gonna be so sky high!

talk about reading the future eh? :/

Democracy Now!

[mqduck]

Democracy Now!, one of the finest news programs in the world (radical and non-corporate), has been broadcasting daily audio and audio/video for download/stream - in many formats and bitrates, including FLAC and uncompressed MPEG - for years (as well as radio and even TV if you're lucky).

MOD PARENT UP!

[bizzynut]

My thoughts exactly. The entertainment industry is unable to come up with anything worthwhile for me, So why sould I care about the latest ways they will deliver it to me or control what they deliver?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[tomstdenis]

Usually when I get bored and need entertainment I either play videa games, write code/text/etc or just go for a walk.

You don't HAVE to be sitting on your ass staring at an electron gun to be content.

Tom

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[MBCook]

You don't HAVE to be sitting on your ass staring at an electron gun to be content.

Yeah! You can lay on it and watch an LCD instead!

It's much more fun that way.

High buzzword density

[amightywind]

The same DNA that disrupted the telecom industry is well on its way to totally revolutionizing the way the TV, film, and broadcast industry is going to be,' adding that he's now looking for 'the Vonage of Internet video.'

The buzzword density of this statement is off the charts. Any '90's dotcom CEO would be pround. Mark Cuban once had the Vonage of internet Video in broadcast.com. It became the Dallas Mavericks and his private jets.

Lack of Editorial Discussion

[aldheorte]

"Jeff Pulver, the self-described futurist and entrepreneur... says, 'The same DNA that disrupted the telecom industry is well on its way to totally revolutionizing the way the TV, film, and broadcast industry is going to be,' adding that he's now looking for 'the Vonage of Internet video.' And by the way, he regrets leaving the Vonage of Internet calling before it got hot: 'I blew it. I had the juice. I could have done something.'"

"Self-described" futurist and entrepreneur who uses "DNA" unscientifically and totally out of context (maybe self referential?) and the phrase, "I had the juice." Please, people, editorial discretion! Shame on both WSJ and Slashdot for picking up this claptrap.

Call me a troll, but it wastes our (as in readers) time to run stories about people's groundless opinions or plans and this sort of thing just rewards the self-aggrandizers who spread false information, often by opinion stated as fact, seek attention for themselves, and cause many social ills.

Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[Weaselmancer]

Yeah, I know it's part of the spec but IIRC most of the routers on the net aren't configured to pass on multicast packets. That's why the BBC says that you have to be in the UK, and have a net connection from their list of approved partner ISPs. If you're on a different ISP, the packets will be dropped.

Still it's cool that someone out there is trying to do this - multicast rocks. I can't wait for it to become more widespread.

Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[xeoron]

To get around the current issues without waiting for everyone to shift to IP6, what would be needed is system for video steaming that made use of a p2p network.

Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[Weaselmancer]

I've had that very thought. If everyone watching contributes some of their uplink bandwidth, then that should do it. Only problem would be latency. Not everybody in the group has a cablemodem, not everybody in the group is "nearby", and if you miss video frame "x" it could be a while before it shows up from another peer. That would make the broadcast lag.

But yeah, in lieu of multicast or explicit multicast being implemented at the routers, this is a good idea.

Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Multicast isn't implemented currently in the IPv4 internet..

Well, that is one interpretation. You can do multicast with IPv4 many ways. Anyway, IPv6 is being rolled out by companies that will be doing that sort of thing, not because IPv4 can't do multicast, but because big companies like Comcast are running out of IPv4 addresses to assign to cable modems. In fact, I think they are just finishing their rollout.

Currently, all we can guarantee is unicast, and the numbers are dismal for that.

Most video is not live and has no need to be, thus P2P solves the problem. The rest can be multicast, or managed other ways.

Now look up the prices on how much a T3 will cost you. And realize that with that you're serving about 1300 customers. Scale it and you'll see why video isn't a winning game yet, money-wise.

Video is a great game, if you're one of the existing companies with last mile connections. Otherwise, it isn't a winning game because more than half your potential customers are forced to buy bundled cable TV or satellite TV, just to get their internet connection. Its hard to compete with a monopoly on the last mile connections. They can run lines in the public right of ways and you can't. Unless you can bypass this with wireless or something, you're screwed.

OMG Horsies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell names their horse "Internet Video"??

Re:And the technology is not there

[vertinox]

Multicast isn't implemented currently in the IPv4 internet

Well if even you weren't going to use the IPv6 technology you'd either have to have either:

A.) Hope that everyone will get FiOS installed in their homes soon. (or equivalant 15-30mbps down)

or

B.) Dedicated hardware for video compression and decompression. Like something a way better than H.264 (Mpeg-4)

Sadly, neither of these two things are going to happen any time soon, but when 25% of the people start getting fiber to the curb and video hardware companies find better ways to compress video from the studio to the home without it being too lossy.

Personally, if I had a few million to kick around with a VC I'd do a startup with either some type of mp3 downloads or IPTV hardware development.

Basically an IPTV would be something like vonage in which you plug it into your existing TV and hook to your broad band. You could program the box through a web interface and have the standard pay channels you'd get in your cable companies (and HBO etc) just like your other system.

It would be easier to verify than cable because you have accounts like xbox live etc (know anyone who steals free xbox live access?)

Buuut... The key feature of this is that you could stream any IP from anywhere in the world. Want Korean streams... Just save the Korean news channel IP address... Want to watch some blogger in Canada? Just plug in his compatiable h.898 protocol streaming server.

How would this make money? Well I think mostly like how original cable was going to be subscription only... My hope is that this box would be open anyone will to subscribe could go to best buy and pull one off the shelf and could subcribe to any of these independant server like one pays a "premimum website" for content or perhaps just views ads.

How would the startup company make money... Well hopefully from the boxes themselves rather than the content, but there would be a "out of the box" service subscription cheaper than say... oh.. comcast... but the infrastructure isn't here so anyone with VC money feel free to steal this idea.

Jeff 'captain obvious' who?

[v3xt0r]

Some futurist he is. "YouTube is great, I bet the future is IPTV!!" wow, cool. *smack*

I predict USB-powered binary2matter decoder keyrings, so we can download food, etc.

or a few years before that... brainwave transforming projection systems, so you can project your thoughts, in full visual color, on a wall or something, with sound!!

That is the future! =p

I imagine the TV, film, and broadcast industry is

[Nybble's Byte]

worried about being pulverized.

Re:And the technology is not there

[luder]

like one pays a "premimum website" for content or perhaps just views ads.

You mean, like porn?

Bandwidth easier to work with now

[mharrisonline]

It recently became much easier to deliver large screen video at moderate bandwidths.

This year we presented a 720-pixel wide video of our online university's virtual graduation ceremony at http://graduation.jonesinternational.edu/2006gradu ation/ceremony.html. In addition to the broadband version you are probably looking at, there is a stream for 56k connections and one for 36K, all are displayed at 720 pixels wide. We were originally going to provide streams higher than 512K, but there wasn't enough visible improvement in quality to make it worthwhile.

We used streaming Flash video using the new On2 codec, which was an amazing combination (Maya and Swift3D were used to generate the virtual auditorium and audience).

It was unbelievable how much bigger we could get for our bandwidth than we could last year, and how much better it looked. I think that the wide screen aspect ratio also helped, because we didn't waste bandwidth on the top and bottom of the video area.

Michael Harris
Manager of Instructional Multimedia
Jones International University

Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[mgblst]

Yes, all the benefits of a TV, with the added advantage of sitting in an uncomfortable chair, resting on a wooden desk... bring it on!

Re:Agreed! The bandwidth is not there

[Weaselmancer]

That's so 1980's! =)

Get yourself an SVGA cable and a recent graphics card. Run the second port of the card to your TV. Use a y-splitter to get your soundcard output there, or install a second sound card.

Re:And the technology is not there

[vertinox]

You mean, like porn?

Well... Yes ;)

Internet TV already done

[Conchero]

With BitTorrent, HDTV, Creative Commons license (and plenty of hot South American supermodels), I'd say these guys are already on track to viable Internet TV:

http://www.mariposahd.tv/

As far as the platform goes, Instant Media is the best one I've tried, despite the fact that it's only for Windoze:

http://www.im.com/

Pulver's still a serious player

[billstewart]

Pulver runs the Voice On The Net (VON), which is a major focus for the VOIP industry. It's not the type of show that's heavily consumer-oriented - it's mostly developers, infrastructure vendors, equipment vendors, VOIP phone vendors who are trying to sell their products to carriers, etc. Lots of Open Source - the Digium folks do a booth, and a number of Asterisk-using groups are there.

Free World Dialup didn't explode the way Skype did, but it had some good ideas, and not everybody's startup succeeds.

Vonage IPO

[JoeyBreal]

Unhappy investors in Vonage Holdings Corp., the Internet phone company that had a disappointing initial public offering last month, might feel like picking up pitchforks and torches and marching on the castles of the people who brought it to life.

But chances are, Jeff Pulver, the self-described futurist and entrepreneur who started the company that was Vonage's predecessor, wouldn't be on that list. That is because Mr. Pulver -- well known in the telecom world for his evangelism on behalf of Internet calling, but somewhat anonymous outside of it -- left Vonage before the company started to sizzle.


"I blew it," Mr. Pulver says bluntly. "I had the juice. I could have done something."

Now, he is on to the next big thing: Internet video. And he is trying to ensure he doesn't get left out again.

Mr. Pulver is creating his own Internet TV show, which he is modeling on Rocketboom, a popular Internet video-blog that broadcasts a three-minute news show daily. He is considering launching a broader Internet TV subsidiary and is weighing whether to invest in several emerging Internet video companies, though he won't name them. Someday he wants to start an Internet reality TV show.

"The same DNA that disrupted the telecom industry is well on its way to totally revolutionizing the way the TV, film, and broadcast industry is going to be," Mr. Pulver says, adding that he's now looking for "the Vonage of Internet video."

They May even want to look into online sports betting as a way to make money putting the online sportsbook out of business.