Slashdot Mirror
ZillionTV Offers On-Demand Streaming TV Box, But Only Via ISPs
MojoKid writes "Similar to Roku and Vudu, ZillionTV relies on a set-top box that attaches to your TV. The
ZillionTV Device connects to your home router via a wired Ethernet or Wi-Fi connection. It requires a broadband connection that is at least 2.7Mbps or faster. ZillionTV claims that it will have 15,000 titles available by the end of this year from content providers, including 'Disney, 20th Century Fox Television, NBC Universal, Sony Pictures and Warner Bros. Digital Distribution.' While Roku and Vudu are essentially available to anyone who has a broadband Internet connection and who is willing to purchase a device, ZillionTV will not be quite as easy to get. Instead of making the device and service directly available to consumers, ZillionTV will only be available (at least initially) through Internet service providers."
not having any customers!
Please God, tell me it's not too late for me to invest in your company!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's a box, and you connect it to the internet via a router, and you can watch movies and stuff on it.
I never even dreamed such a thing could exist!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
AT&T and Verizon are already pushing their own variety of IPTV.
The cable companies would rather you watch tv using their existing services (timewarner cable / comcast / etc)
Are there any big ISPs left that would even try to use this "ZillionTV" box as a way to get new customers or to get more money from their existing customers?
If you like to tinker, you can have all of the content on one box and the way you want it with no strings. TV, cable, satellite, internet, everything.
Only 15,000 titles?
Rebrand the box before it's too late!
I suggest DuDu.
Sent from your iPad.
I remember the good old days when those of us who lived inside farady cages couldn't get TV
Then the breakthrough of coaxial cabled allowed me and my alien cellmates to watch Three's Company.
I currently have a broadband connection but have a cap on the total bandwidth for the month. How do they propose getting around this problem which it appears just about everyone has. What happens when I get cut off in the middle of the month for excessive use?
Stay tuned for new sig...
Instead of selling only to ISPs wouldn't it make more sense to offer this service to anyone who had the bandwidth? A larger potential customer base = larger customer base. (in a perfect world)
Why exactly will Comcast help this company sell this device? Don't think so. DOA with the ISP only model.
It requires a broadband connection that is at least 2.7Mbps or faster
My broadband connection is at least 2.7 or slower. Can I still has streaming TV?
My Name Is Earl is on tonight.
Free Martian Whores!
How many is a zillion?
...ISPs are the new cable companies? Great. Just Great. :-(
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Good point. I don't even own a TV. But I do like watching some shows from time to time, when I choose to and not just during a broadcaster's arbitrarily chosen time slot. My "prime time" is most people's sleepy time.
I just wish the major networks would get it together with internet broadcasting. Out of the big four websites (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX), so far I have found that only CBS webcasts are even playable on my linux computers. The rest just sit there, trying to load some DRM-encumbered IE plugin or something. Why can't they be more like Youtube, simple, works well at low bandwidth? I'll put up with commercials in return for the convenience of watching shows whenever I like. There are a few good shows on the air.
As it is, I generally will check out a full season from the library or Netflix, watch'em all over a few days, and return it. Done. But web casting would obviously be simpler and more convenient.
An enterprising, forward thinking network should have long since thought of putting all their shows on the web, paid for with commercials and online ads, and they would just dominate. Youtube and its ilk might not even exist if it weren't for the near absence of the traditional entertainment networks from the internet. My siblings, friends, and I used to just sit in front of the TV for hours and hours, watching one syndicated show after another. Today they could be doing the same thing, but they're not... why?
A box on top of my (nonexistent) television? I don't think so. It's just not the 'net lifestyle that I (and probably quite a few others) would prefer.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I knew I shouldn't have dropped my ISP, and hooked up my computer directly to the Internet Backbone!
Just look at what I can't watch now, without an "Internet Service Provider".
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
1) Housing the content locally doesn't involve sending jitter sensitive material across the net.
2) It doesn't tax their OC3 or whatever to the net, all the bandwidth is consumed locally across their switch or router, which can probably handle it.
3) QOS becomes really easy
4) They know exactly how much bandwidth you have and for the non-super geeks out there they don't have to explain this.
5) It becomes an added benefit to subscribing to so and so's ISP
6) It increases revenue to the ISP and helps them utilize the transport equipment they already have in place.
7) Content owners are much more comfortable with it.
IPTV pays my bills, and I can tell you that there are many smaller telcos who would be interested in this. There IS an industry, and it's coming along just fine.
Gee, it's not like many of us have been doing that for *decades* now. (With VCRs, then many of us with DVRs of some sort.)
Erm, can't we all just use Hulu for most of the relevant programs?