Slashdot Mirror
2008 - The Year Internet TV Became Mainstream?
revilo78 writes "Will 2008 be the year we can finally drop our expensive cable bills? It's sure looking like it with Joost constantly adding content, ABC announcing it will stream shows in HD, and media boxes such as the Apple TV becoming popular. Television networks finally seem willing and ready to distribute their shows on the web, and hardware manufactures are finally making easy-to-use media boxes that will bring the web to the living room. Do you think we're finally there, the internet-based TV-on-demand we've all been wanting?"
no!
nt
Only if the revenue stream is there! Once that's in place, the rest will follow.
OH GOD IT'S A TIME PARADOX
2008 - The Year Internet TV Became Mainstream?
Yes because the bandwidth can (finally) allow for it.
No because all the kinks need to be worked out (ways of displaying ads, ActiveX, etc. etc.), and still a lot of people don't have very nice monitors in their homes.
So, maybe -- and depending on the demographic.
there are not enough people with fast enough internet and HD displays capable of taking advantage of it to make the advertising revenue work for it. most likely you'll see it as an expensive premium service a select few will adopt. so no, you won't be rid of those cable bills.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Goodbye to pricy cable, hello to expensive broadband! They'll get your money regardless.
What about the cable companies who are banning users for months at a time for going over some hidden limit? Watching HDTV through your internet connection would make your monthly usage go through the roof.
People who watch a lot of TV over the internet are no doubt going to experience a fairly annoying problem fairly quickly.
TV over the internet will push anyone far over the so-called standard deviation from mean internet usage; HD over the internet, especially high quality HD, will bring the utter wrath of cable modem ISPs... especially if you decide to forego cable TV service as a result.
Also watch out for a huge upsurge in packet prioritizing - as in all but blocking TV-over-internet sources outside your ISP's network.
This is where secret ISP "bandwidth hog" limits and non network neutrality are guaranteed to hobble the next big thing.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The internet had a last chance but failed...
It's already pretty trivial. Welcome to my living room. I use giganews, a pay usenet service that gives phenomenal throughput. I'm able to download at a sustained, average speed of 10-15mbps to my university internet connection, for any file on usenet. Giganews has 120 day retention, so just about any episode of a popular tv show in the last year can usually be found. Almost any popular movie can be found as well, and you can download it in minutes.
Since it is a pay service, with an SSL protected link to my HTPC that downloads this stuff, I am unlikely to be sued. Only giganews knows what I download, and they claim to not keep records. No third parties (such as RIAA/MPAA sniffers) can tell what I am downloading. This is vastly superior to bittorrent and other P2P services. As much as I download, there's a significant chance I could have been sued by now had I used the "free" P2P services.
Yes, I am technically a pirate. Usually, however, I download TV shows that I *could* have seen on my fuzzy analog cable. Instead, I get an HDTV rip made from someone's computer who lives in an area where this show is broadcast in HD.
I get things that I CAN'T pay for : for instance, the last 10 episodes of Battlestar Galactica were shown in High Definition on a Canadian TV station. I was able to download these.
Stargate Atlantis is also available in High Def (the sci-fi channel is NOT, even on satellite or premium cable packages) including 10 episodes that are unaired in the United States.
While you may find fault in my taste in TV, the quality is incredible - the PC is connected to a large 1080p HDTV via a digital HDMI cable.
IPTV isn't about Media Center computers. It's about the ability to connect and stream a broadcast. The reality is that Comcast could be doing it today for all you know with their On-Demand. It's an early implementation of a packet driven TV system.
If IPTV is to take off, setup boxes will come with a pre-configured (and probably remotely managed) list of channels. By changing channels, you close the connection to the previous channel and open a new one. New channels will be added by your IPTV provider, or in an ideal world, you can add them yourself. But, lets be honest. The media industry does not want us to have control over anything.
To reduce costs, channels will be multicast from some decentralized multicast. One server would multicast, and each lower network point would cache and multicast out. By doing this, they can reduce lag and delay, and ultimately cost of sending 2,000,000 unique streams vs 1 unique stream from the server, with the cost center being the last mile, where most of the cost is today anyhow.
Custom streaming IPTV will be further off. But, as bandwidth becomes cheaper, look for it.
but here in Belgium we're still paying 50$ per month for a ridiculously fast (download speed at least) connection with 10Gb/month bandwith limit (you can get up to 50Gb per month, going to about 80$/month i think and that's about it). with that kind of limits, i doubt we'll be streaming a lot of tv, we've got enough problems planning how to use the little bandwith we get, imagine if we started streaming tv... (the penalty for exceeding the limit is smallband internet, modem speeds and zero reliability of the connection, even trying to receive your e-mail hardly works when you're on smallband...)
As far as replacing cable, believe it or not more people I know are starting to use it like a DVR, since they can watch the show at a time of their choice and there are no fees. And don't underestimate the number of bored office workers out there, now able to see their favorite show at work rather than just read news articles.
The good news for the cable companies is that since they've expanded to providing internet connectivity, they get a cut of the profit regardless of whether what goes over their wires is analog or digital.
...
PATH train schedule online
If they would distribute it via a legit torrent, I'd download it, watch it, seed it, and promote it to other people. Even if it had advertisements. I'd even watch the ads and consider consuming the advertised products. All of these things represent value to HBO.
But I will not subscribe to HBO, because I don't have cable. I don't even have a color TV. I don't plan to buy one either.
If there isn't a legit way to get it, I'll just download it for free. If that becomes too risky, I'll be fine watching the interesting clips that wind up on youtube or any of a hundred video blogs. Worst case, I don't get to watch it at all. I'll live.
But for every one like me, there are 1000 who will watch whatever garbage shows up on their idiot box that day, who will buy whatever products and ideas are advertised therein.
What pisses me off is that I can't buy brand-name soap or oatmeal or cars or computing devices without helping to pay the advertising bill for Procter & Gamble and Quaker and Toyota and Dell. I suppose I can grow my own tomatoes and buy generic soap, but if I buy a Honda or a Gateway PC, some of what I pay goes to the advertising industry and some even goes to the RIAA (those pop songs in the commercials aren't free).
It's almost impossible to escape being a good consumer (tm), no matter how hard you try.
Which is why we should all just go read a book. Or write one yourself. It doesn't cost anything to publish your own work anymore. Putting down what you have to say on paper, or electrons, is of more value to our culture than consuming the latest corporate cultural spam. I'll much rather read your replies to this messange, than go out to see the latest Spiderman 3 or Shrek 3.
Think about that. Shrek 3. Spiderman 3. Star Wars 6. Windows Vista. Budweiser. Paris Hilton. Pizza Hut. MacDonalds. Ford. Comcast. Verizon. Wal*Mart.
Fuck all that shit.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
In many countries, it's already the case.
Even in France, you get unlimited 24Mb broadband connexion, with phone service free of charge even for international calls in many countries, and free HD TV, for about 30 bucks a month (crappy 1Mb upload though). And it seems that in northern countries (Sweden, Norway), connectivity is even better and cheaper.
So instead of having 57 channels and nothing on, we'll have 57000 channels and nothing on.
> my university internet connection... [I watch TV all day]... Battlestar Gallactica... Stargate Atlantis... [All I do is watch TV]...
ShooterNeo, this is your Physics professor. Haven't seen you in class in a while. And your lab partner is worried. For your own sake, please, turn off the TV and re-engage society.
Regards,
Professor Harrington
then surely 2007 is the yard of the Linux desktop
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I live in Europe, but I like The Colbert Report. With Internet-TV this seems to be no problem at all, because the Internet has no barriers. Perhaps I could watch the show on my cellular phone? Think again.
You can watch the Colbert report for example via iTunes. This means: You can watch the show only if you live in the United states. In Europe there is no Colbert Report in the Itunes Store. They don't want my money.
OK, but there is this fabulous new service 'Joost'. They have a deal with Viacom, the owner of Comedy Central. But the Comedy Central shows are not available for European Joost costumers.
But there is MotherLoad, the streaming platform of comedy central. For now I can watch the Colbert Report via Motherload. Quite a TV experience. They cut the show in 5 peaces. I can put several parts of the show on the playlist, but after the first party it won't start the second part until I choose it manually. The advertising is working. While you can't understand Steven Colbert without pumping up the volume - the advertisement is really loud. You can't skip this part and it is always the same.
It will create heavy traffic on internet and will cause to block commercial services.
I haven't had cable tv since like 1986. Haven't had sat since 2003. And I MUST be mainstream, since NBC sends me all those questionnaires...
If we stop broadcasting and start distributing everything via the web, how will another planet's SETI equivalent pic up our stray radio signals?
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
1998 was the year for that, IIRC. And good riddance.
Will 2008 be the year of going for walks and reading books? Not probably.
Mainstream Media is dead because they regularly practice censorship. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for the internet). The internet will rule until the gov't comes after it.
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
The Internet has some great stuff on it. you can watch your favorite web shows as many times as you want, whenever you want. If you see something you like during a commercial you can just say "go there," and you'll immediately be whisked away to a virtual store (just have your credit card handy haha). And if you ever want to discuss your favorite brand of clothes or which rock star you like best you can do it in the voice chat for whatever web page you're watching.
Even though the Internet is very safe now it wasn't always like this. The Internet used to be a dangerous place. People would lose their homes and life savings to Internet scammers. Thieves would trade stolen movies and music with each other. Child molesters and rapists would even use the Internet to find their next victims.
Finally the American people said "enough is enough". Now all users are required to use their national ID number to chat, and the only websites allowed are ones that are FCC regulated. Websites that are really popular have to get a special mass media permit, not to mention the extra bandwidth fees from the Warner-Bell backbone.
I applied for an FCC small website permit last year. I thought it would be so cool if my friends could watch my very own website. I got turned down because the small website permits ran out early in the year, but really who would want to watch a low budget website anyways.
If companies think they can have an audience for a browser-only viewer, they're in for a big surprise. Normal people don't want to watch television on their computer monitors. Hardware such as the AppleTV is a step in the right direction, along with the iTunes Store to get your movies and TV shows.
What about 2007? It's not even half over yet and you're already dismissing it as a possibility. I'm not saying 2007 will be the year, but isn't it too early to tell if it isn't? (Note: I don't use internet TV myself yet)
That we're currently in the beginning of 2007 year.
Talking in past tense for an year that hasn't come yet though, tops my list of silly speculations on Slashdot.
Internet TV is where net neutrality is really important. If the cable companies get their way, they'll start charging for the larger bandwidth HD video requires. The increased prices will stop innovation since people probably won't shift their money from something that works (like cable) to something more complicated (like Internet TV). People will just keep on paying their expensive cable bills, and not get any of the benefits that Internet TV offers.
Zattoo is cool and it works quite well : http://zattoo.com/
I would argue that a show distributed on the internet could be as valuable as a show broadcast. What does "valuable" mean? Sure, we all think about eventual DVD compilations and piracy. But it's the advertising that the broadcaster is concerned with, right? They shouldn't worry about limiting internet broadcast. They should be concerned about eliminating the fast-forward button.
Let's be honest. Most of us are lazy asses. If you knew you could go to any broadcaster's site and conveniently access anything to download for free even if it meant the commercials had to play, wouldn't you? I bet comfortably over 90% of the population would. And, no doubt, MSN and AOL would make it "extra convenient" to enable the user to do that. The current distribution of edited downloads would be marginalized. And with VCRs why did anybody ever buy a DVD compilation in the first place? In other words, if they could just distribute everything with commercials burned in, why wouldn't the same people still buy as many deluxe DVD compilation sets as before?
I think the problem is the laziness, greed, fear and lack of vision of the broadcasters and advertisers. Broadcasters have to convince advertisers that internet distribution makes sense. How hard can that be? They already rely on polls to set their advertising rates. Just do it. And advertisers have to admit and accept that even if the broadcaster has given up one stage of control, they are still delivering the eyes and ears promised in a slightly different way.
That's something that always annoyed me about the first international wave of stream some years ago. There was technical enthusiasm but it seemed like management treated it as an expensive toy in the basement. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't have to understand every word of a Paris stream to make out the words, "Coca Cola". It's a global company, I'm a potential customer, and it doesn't matter whether I'm sitting in Minnesota. I've just been served. I got the feeling broadcaster marketing was seldom aggressive enough in pushing that paradigm shift. Broadcasters, advertisers -- take stream and downloads seriously. Not as a threat. As an opportunity. And try to talk some sense into the content creators.
Not until one can access this "Internet TV" with standard off-the-shelf hardware, using *ANY* software, including software one writes oneself, to access it without closed encryption or DRM.
Eg, like VoIP already works. (and I dont count Skype) The protocols and formats are open and fully documented. One can use encryption, but no proprietary software is required. There is even an extensive server application that can do most of what anyone would want to do with VoIP that is completely Free Software (GPL).
If there is any "Internet TV" that comes even close, feel free to point it out. But I have seen none. Basically, if there is anything that works without requiring either an MS web browser, an MS "Operating System", or proprietary binary-only software, then it might come close to qualifying.
Sanctuary is trying the Internet-only approach to TV distribution. It stars Amanda Tapping (Samantha Carter from Stargate SG-1) and some other familiar faces. You can buy DRM-free 480p and 720p downloads or watch the Youtube video for free (Sanctuary Fans has a link to that).
It's a very cool show and could easily be picked up by broadcast TV if they wanted to deal with the nuisance involved. I'm hoping they're successful.
When you find yourself wishing we could find another planet with cleaner air and friendlier people, then something is terribly wrong. Please get out of the basement, be friendly, be smart, pick up trash, pass it on.
- Thank You
I want to legally buy content from a C band provider like the national programming service. This is what the cable companies do. Then I want to encode it into mpeg-4 w/ h.264 and multicast it with no drm over the net as an rtsp stream. I don't want to use drm but if I have to I think there is an open source drm implementation out there. I will have to come up with some sort of acl. I want to offer a free basic service which is just a few channels as a teaser, but come up with some new pricing model (a la carte maybe?). I just need some c band dishes, some servers to do the encoding, and streaming (vlc can do dvb to mpeg4 on the fly I think), some developers to write glue code, and some money for bandwidth and other costs. Anyone game?
Giganews is the most expensive usenet server provider. Does that mean they are the best? possibly.
I use Usenetserver which is only $13 a month if you buy in 3 month increments. They still have 100 day+ 99%+ retention and very high uptime. Oh and a good search engine, which you will need.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
After years of trying to figure out what to use the internet for, we have decided. "Let us use it for TV"
Sense when did wifi start using tachyon's? That must be why 802.11n has taken so long to get to spec...
Pure astroturf on Slash.
The submitter couldn't be any more brownnosing.
Probably one of the jooster workers.
They submitted tons of crap over to Slash on Skype too.
To amend your post...
1) the only way we're going to see the infrastructure expand is by
a) Government funding; or
b) Corporate funding (which leads to them holding the net hostage to whatever suits their current business model)
I like a) because it's far more democratic. Sorry, laissez-faire utopianists, we've had too much horrible experience with post-ARPA corporate dominance to go with b)
2) enforcing network neutrality will deal with the ATT problem.
3) IPTV will bring about the threat of per-gig consumption charges no matter what happens. Bend over and grab them ankles, users...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Has anyone tried out ITVN, http://www.itvn.com/index.html ?
Cool idea (set-top box which streams video over the net) for pretty cheap, but I'm not 100% sold on it yet.
http://www.newrad.com/software/tubesucker/
You know, I've been able to stream ABC,CBS,Fox,NBC etc in HD for years now for free! It doesn't even tie up my internet connection. Its called an antenna. I connected it to my computer and I can even save the stream to watch whenever I want.
It is not when it's now.http://tv-links.co.uk/index.do/1 is already doing it with a lot of our favorite shows. it might be pirated but it has the content.
I just want a box that i plug one end into the TV and the other to my router and, instead of buying channels and programming just tell it the names of the TV shows and sporting events i want to see. And that's it. When a show is (mostly) downloaded to the box then the on-screen guide would pop it up as available to watch. select->play.
Obviously there would need to be the infrastructure in place so that at 9pm EST on tuesday the people who really want to can watch a new show or sporting event "live", but when it comes down to it I time-shift most of my TV (via ye ole faithful VHS) so i'd be more than happy if the box downloaded shows to it's internal HD at "off peak" times, such as 3am.
Search Wikipedia for "Top Up TV Anytime". They're doing something along these lines over the UK's freeview system (Digital TV over UHF, rather than the net) - using spare night time bandwidth to "cache" shows for up to 7 days, totalling ~90 hours a week, but it still uses the channel model the parent suggests. The programming they serve and the amount they charge means i don't bother with it myself but as a proof-of-concept i think it's mostly bang-on.
Ultimatley though I like the idea of being able to set the box to scan the net for "MLB : SF Giants or Chicago Cubs games", as i live in the uk and only get 1 or 2 random games a week at stupid-o-clock in the morning. Whilst mlb.com already does (DRM'ed) downloads of games but at last check it was quite hard to download them from the site without the title of the file being touted including the final score (D'oh!). I'd still be happy to to pay for the games i download this way, provided it was simple and i only had to set up one pay account on my box and it'd handle the UK->US exchange rate/transaction transparently too.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
In my opinion, if Comcast starts cutting off users who "use too much bandwidth" because they're watching competitor's TV channels they will be in violation of antitrust laws. In fact, I'd say they're ALREADY in violation of said laws by giving themselves the exclusive right to the majority of bandwidth available on your Internet connection.
When DOCSIS 3.0 is rolled out Comcast plans to allot something like 85% of the bandwidth to their own IPTV services. Unless they open up that channel to competitors they're definitely using their monopoly in an anti-competitive, abusive manner. In fact, by making all these plans right now with other companies in the cable industry they're COLLUDING and RACKETEERING to ensure they maintain their monopoly in the future.
Something must be done about this and I hope public awareness increases as a result of increased Internet TV viewership.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"