Why do we need a gatekeeper when the content providers can sell direct to consumers without paying the carriers a fee?
Or, to be more precise, just paying for the bandwidth they consume?
What happens when the content providers figure this out or when new entrants realize they no longer need to pay for access to customers by paying equity to the carriers?
What happens if people realize that they don't need to pay high fees for services they can create themselves or buy in a competitive marketplace?
Word Processing went through this long ago and we now accept email. VoIP is coming to the force. Video is just another format -- not at all special.
The price of IPTV will be the price of producing a video or paying the copyrights for it and the bandwidth condumed to broadcast it.
That is the main difference with the classical TV, but it is not little.
I you do not have to pay a fequencty, all the expensive hardware to broadcast,
The governments are seeking money to pay for old expensive technologies, but it won't be for long (I honestly DO NOT PITY THEM).
The DRM issue is no different whether you send the bits broadcasting them in the air or IP (as it is increasing the norm within the networks). The decoding is still done by a device at the edge be it a Set Top Box or another device.
It looks like a few understood the power of the new way of transmission.
And the few who understood are strangely quiet, as if they didn't want the news spread...
So, broadcasters of the future, this is your present!
Friday, November 9, 2007
The personalisation of TV
Personalisation and interactivity will be the key drivers of IPTV and will have a big impact on the broadcasting and advertising industries.
The introduction and adoption of IPTV will ultimately give way to a more personal and private TV experience than that of traditional broadcast TV, with big implications for users, content providers and advertisers. Users will be able to receive content anytime, anywhere, choose what is most relevant to them, and even create and upload their own television content, while content providers and advertisers will be able to tailor their offerings more specifically to the user.
IPTV will become a multimedia experience with an emphasis on personalisation, interactivity and user-generated content.
The introduction and adoption of IPTV will ultimately give way to a more personal and private TV experience than that of traditional broadcast TV, with big implications for users, content providers and advertisers. Users will be able to receive content anytime, anywhere, choose what is most relevant to them, and even create and upload their own television content, while content providers and advertisers will be able to tailor their offerings more specifically to the user.
IPTV will become a multimedia experience with an emphasis on personalisation, interactivity and user-generated content.
IPTV: a copy of the actual TV
What's all the hoo-hah over hulu.com about?Kate Bevan The Guardian Thursday November 1 2007
Streaming video of top telly shows, free on the interweb: it sounds worth making a hoo-hah about. NBC announced the launch of the site after its agreement with Apple to distribute TV shows via iTunes fell apart back in August.
According to NBC, it accounted for 40% of video downloads on iTunes, so clearly that online content - and revenue - had to go somewhere. The result was hulu.com, a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp.
Hulu.com will offer embedded streaming videos on the website, supported by advertising - which, it says, will be less annoying than adverts on broadcast television: they will be in the form of banners alongside the video, text along the bottom of the picture or clips that are interspersed with the stuff you actually want to see.
What is different from the actual TV?
The result is a copy of it with a huge amount of bandwidth wasted.
Ip at its best use means users' made content.
The Internet was born as an opposite model of the actual media.
Not as something broadcasted from one and downloaded from the others.
It is a Network, where every connected end adds a piece of content.
THIS and only THIS is the real winning model of IPTV.
All the rest is just a good or bad copy...
Streaming video of top telly shows, free on the interweb: it sounds worth making a hoo-hah about. NBC announced the launch of the site after its agreement with Apple to distribute TV shows via iTunes fell apart back in August.
According to NBC, it accounted for 40% of video downloads on iTunes, so clearly that online content - and revenue - had to go somewhere. The result was hulu.com, a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp.
Hulu.com will offer embedded streaming videos on the website, supported by advertising - which, it says, will be less annoying than adverts on broadcast television: they will be in the form of banners alongside the video, text along the bottom of the picture or clips that are interspersed with the stuff you actually want to see.
What is different from the actual TV?
The result is a copy of it with a huge amount of bandwidth wasted.
Ip at its best use means users' made content.
The Internet was born as an opposite model of the actual media.
Not as something broadcasted from one and downloaded from the others.
It is a Network, where every connected end adds a piece of content.
THIS and only THIS is the real winning model of IPTV.
All the rest is just a good or bad copy...
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The future of IPTV is also music videos
A long time ago, in a land far removed from modern times, there existed a truly new idea to put music on TV 24 hours a day. Thus was born the MTV generation. Sadly many members of todays youth do not remember the likes of Nina Blackwood, Mark Goodman, Alan Hunter, J. J. Jackson and Martha Quinn. Those same youths hear the name Adam Curry and they think, “isn’t he that guy who invented podcasting and edited his own wikipedia entry?”
MTV has not been a 24 hour music video station for a long time. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find music video content on MTV because they have become something else. Even their sister station VH1 (where MTV fans over the age of 12 go) as stopped being a music video network.
This is where IPTVcomes in. The online music television network hearkens back to the days when MTV was good and worth watching. Drawing from independent artists, IPTV puts the viewer back in the heyday of music video television.
MTV has not been a 24 hour music video station for a long time. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find music video content on MTV because they have become something else. Even their sister station VH1 (where MTV fans over the age of 12 go) as stopped being a music video network.
This is where IPTVcomes in. The online music television network hearkens back to the days when MTV was good and worth watching. Drawing from independent artists, IPTV puts the viewer back in the heyday of music video television.
Run Internet Explorer on Linux
Most Linux users would be appalled by the idea of attempting to contaminate a Linux installation with any Microsoft product, especially Internet Explorer. However, many Web sites don't render properly using regular Linux browsers, such as Firefox or Konqueror. Other sites either require ActiveX controls or are designed to work only with Internet Explorer. Also, how can you test your new Web design and JavaScript for IE if you're an Apache and Linux maven?
For those who may have the need for Internet Explorer without the need to move to another machine or reboot, there is a solution for you: an extremely useful project aptly named IEs4Linux. In this article, we describe how to install and begin using multiple versions of Internet Explorer using Wine and IEs4Linux.
What's IEs4Linux?
IEs4Linux is a small shell script that can be run via a console on any Linux machine with Wine installed. As the title suggests, it allows you to quickly and easily install that most infamous of Microsoft products: Internet Explorer.
The creator of IEs4Linux is Sérgio Luís Lopes Júnior, a 21 year old Brazilian student and self-proclaimed lover of Linux and OpenSource. Naturally, being open source, IEs4Linux is free. However, as with many people working on open source projects, Sérgio's funding comes from the community; if you found IEs4Linux helpful, you can PayPal him a few dollars to continue development of the project.
IEs4Linux relies on the Wine project to supply an implementation of the Microsoft Windows API. The IEs4Linux script actually downloads the required CAB files directly from the Microsoft site; then, using cabextract, copies the files to a new Wine profile. This way, your existing Wine profiles are not affected, and any other software you have running will be just fine. In addition to installing Internet Explorer versions 5, 5.5, and 6, IEs4Linux also can install Flash 9 for you from Adobe.
IEs4Linux is a GPL product; however, Internet Explorer is a copyrighted product of Microsoft. This means that you will need to be in possession of a valid Windows licence version greater than 95, although it will not be asked for during the installation process.
Author's note
For the purposes of this article, I'll assume you're running the latest version of Ubuntu as your Linux distribution. IEs4Linux will work with almost every distribution, but the installation routine varies. This article assumes that you already have Ubuntu Desktop installed and operational.
Depending on how you like to install your software, I have included two sets of instructions, first the graphical (GUI) method and lastly the console (CLI) method.
Installing the required packages
To install all the applications required to enable IEs4Linux to run properly, ensure that you have the Universe repositories enabled. Open the Software Sources configuration screen, which can be found under Toolbar | System | Administration | Software Sources.
More... Brian Smith, TechRepublic
For those who may have the need for Internet Explorer without the need to move to another machine or reboot, there is a solution for you: an extremely useful project aptly named IEs4Linux. In this article, we describe how to install and begin using multiple versions of Internet Explorer using Wine and IEs4Linux.
What's IEs4Linux?
IEs4Linux is a small shell script that can be run via a console on any Linux machine with Wine installed. As the title suggests, it allows you to quickly and easily install that most infamous of Microsoft products: Internet Explorer.
The creator of IEs4Linux is Sérgio Luís Lopes Júnior, a 21 year old Brazilian student and self-proclaimed lover of Linux and OpenSource. Naturally, being open source, IEs4Linux is free. However, as with many people working on open source projects, Sérgio's funding comes from the community; if you found IEs4Linux helpful, you can PayPal him a few dollars to continue development of the project.
IEs4Linux relies on the Wine project to supply an implementation of the Microsoft Windows API. The IEs4Linux script actually downloads the required CAB files directly from the Microsoft site; then, using cabextract, copies the files to a new Wine profile. This way, your existing Wine profiles are not affected, and any other software you have running will be just fine. In addition to installing Internet Explorer versions 5, 5.5, and 6, IEs4Linux also can install Flash 9 for you from Adobe.
IEs4Linux is a GPL product; however, Internet Explorer is a copyrighted product of Microsoft. This means that you will need to be in possession of a valid Windows licence version greater than 95, although it will not be asked for during the installation process.
Author's note
For the purposes of this article, I'll assume you're running the latest version of Ubuntu as your Linux distribution. IEs4Linux will work with almost every distribution, but the installation routine varies. This article assumes that you already have Ubuntu Desktop installed and operational.
Depending on how you like to install your software, I have included two sets of instructions, first the graphical (GUI) method and lastly the console (CLI) method.
Installing the required packages
To install all the applications required to enable IEs4Linux to run properly, ensure that you have the Universe repositories enabled. Open the Software Sources configuration screen, which can be found under Toolbar | System | Administration | Software Sources.
More... Brian Smith, TechRepublic
Google OpenSocial to launch Thursday
Details emerged today on Google’s broad social networking ambitions, first reported here in late September, with a follow up earlier this week. The new project, called OpenSocial (URL will go live on Thursday), goes well beyond what we’ve previously reported. It is a set of common APIs that application developers can use to create applications that work on any social networks (called “hosts”) that choose to participate.
What they haven’t done is launch yet another social network platform. As more and more of these platforms launch, developers have difficult choices to make. There are costs associated with writing and maintaining applications for these social networks. Most developers will choose one or two platforms and ignore the rest, based on a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Google wants to create an easy way for developers to create an application that works on all social networks. And if they pull it off, they’ll be in the center, controlling the network.
What They’re Launching
OpenSocial is a set of three common APIs, defined by Google with input from partners, that allow developers to access core functions and information at social networks:
Profile Information (user data)
Friends Information (social graph)
Activities (things that happen, News Feed type stuff)
Hosts agree to accept the API calls and return appropriate data. Google won’t try to provide universal API coverage for special use cases, instead focusing on the most common uses. Specialized functions/data can be accessed from the hosts directly via their own APIs.
Unlike Facebook, OpenSocial does not have its own markup language (Facebook requires use of FBML for security reasons, but it also makes code unusable outside of Facebook). Instead, developers use normal javascript and html (and can embed Flash elements). The benefit of the Google approach is that developers can use much of their existing front end code and simply tailor it slightly for OpenSocial, so creating applications is even easier than on Facebook.
Applications can have full functionality on profile and/or canvas pages, subject to the specific rules of each host. Facebook, by contrast, limits most functionality to the canvas page, allowing a widget on the profile page with limited features.
OpenSocial is silent when it comes to specific rules and policies of the hosts, like whether or not advertising is accepted or whether any developer can get in without applying first (the Facebook approach). Hosts set and enforce their own policies. The APIs are created with maximum flexibility.
Launch Partners
Partners are in two categories: hosts and developers. Hosts are the participating social networks, and include Orkut, Salesforce, LinkedIn, Ning, Hi5, Plaxo, Friendster, Viadeo and Oracle.
Developers include Flixster, iLike, RockYou and Slide.
What This Means
The timing of OpenSocial couldn’t be better. Developers have been complaining non stop about the costs of learning yet another markup launguage for every new social network platform, and taking developer time in creating and maintaining the code. Someone had to build a system to streamline this (as we said in the last few sentences in this post). And Facebook-fear has clearly driven good partners to side with Google. Developers will immediately start building on these APIs to get distribution across the impressive list of hosts above.
And they’ll do it soon, too. It’s clear that the developers who arrived early to the Facebook Platform party won easy customers. Those that came later had to fight much harder. Developers found their new gold strike, and they will soon all be there, mining away.
TechCrunch
What they haven’t done is launch yet another social network platform. As more and more of these platforms launch, developers have difficult choices to make. There are costs associated with writing and maintaining applications for these social networks. Most developers will choose one or two platforms and ignore the rest, based on a simple cost/benefit analysis.
Google wants to create an easy way for developers to create an application that works on all social networks. And if they pull it off, they’ll be in the center, controlling the network.
What They’re Launching
OpenSocial is a set of three common APIs, defined by Google with input from partners, that allow developers to access core functions and information at social networks:
Profile Information (user data)
Friends Information (social graph)
Activities (things that happen, News Feed type stuff)
Hosts agree to accept the API calls and return appropriate data. Google won’t try to provide universal API coverage for special use cases, instead focusing on the most common uses. Specialized functions/data can be accessed from the hosts directly via their own APIs.
Unlike Facebook, OpenSocial does not have its own markup language (Facebook requires use of FBML for security reasons, but it also makes code unusable outside of Facebook). Instead, developers use normal javascript and html (and can embed Flash elements). The benefit of the Google approach is that developers can use much of their existing front end code and simply tailor it slightly for OpenSocial, so creating applications is even easier than on Facebook.
Applications can have full functionality on profile and/or canvas pages, subject to the specific rules of each host. Facebook, by contrast, limits most functionality to the canvas page, allowing a widget on the profile page with limited features.
OpenSocial is silent when it comes to specific rules and policies of the hosts, like whether or not advertising is accepted or whether any developer can get in without applying first (the Facebook approach). Hosts set and enforce their own policies. The APIs are created with maximum flexibility.
Launch Partners
Partners are in two categories: hosts and developers. Hosts are the participating social networks, and include Orkut, Salesforce, LinkedIn, Ning, Hi5, Plaxo, Friendster, Viadeo and Oracle.
Developers include Flixster, iLike, RockYou and Slide.
What This Means
The timing of OpenSocial couldn’t be better. Developers have been complaining non stop about the costs of learning yet another markup launguage for every new social network platform, and taking developer time in creating and maintaining the code. Someone had to build a system to streamline this (as we said in the last few sentences in this post). And Facebook-fear has clearly driven good partners to side with Google. Developers will immediately start building on these APIs to get distribution across the impressive list of hosts above.
And they’ll do it soon, too. It’s clear that the developers who arrived early to the Facebook Platform party won easy customers. Those that came later had to fight much harder. Developers found their new gold strike, and they will soon all be there, mining away.
TechCrunch
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Friendfarming
Friendfarming: The act of playing a Social Networking Site (SNS) solely for the purpose of harvesting and selling relationships, accumulating friends and then selling that user account for real money in online marketplaces such as eBay or Craigslist. (See relevant eBay auctions)
On eBay, MySpace accounts with 8500+ friends are being sold for around US$75, 7000+ friends for US$65, 4000+ for US$35, and the list goes on. Given this trend, I wonder if it makes sense to sell Facebook accounts as well.
In a recent study, IT security firm Sophos created a fake Facebook user account under the name ‘Freddi Staur‘, and randomly requested 200 members to be friends with ‘Freddi.’ Out of those 200, 87 accepted the friend request and 82 of those gave ‘Freddi’ access to “personal information” such as e-mail addresses, dates of birth, addresses and phone numbers, and school or work data (Thanks Derek!).
Both cases break the magic circle. Both also involve some form of labor, although it is often partly automated through the use of bot programs.
While this might not be ethical, it remains to be seen if the harvesting of user profiles might still be cheaper than Facebook’s new targeted advertising system. After all, being “cheaper” is what drives email spam till today.
Theory.isthereason.com
On eBay, MySpace accounts with 8500+ friends are being sold for around US$75, 7000+ friends for US$65, 4000+ for US$35, and the list goes on. Given this trend, I wonder if it makes sense to sell Facebook accounts as well.
In a recent study, IT security firm Sophos created a fake Facebook user account under the name ‘Freddi Staur‘, and randomly requested 200 members to be friends with ‘Freddi.’ Out of those 200, 87 accepted the friend request and 82 of those gave ‘Freddi’ access to “personal information” such as e-mail addresses, dates of birth, addresses and phone numbers, and school or work data (Thanks Derek!).
Both cases break the magic circle. Both also involve some form of labor, although it is often partly automated through the use of bot programs.
While this might not be ethical, it remains to be seen if the harvesting of user profiles might still be cheaper than Facebook’s new targeted advertising system. After all, being “cheaper” is what drives email spam till today.
Theory.isthereason.com
Speculation about speculations , speculation about Google's Speculations...
Imagine that Comcast goes to Google and says “We love your stuff, you should really be in the set-top box business, think of what you could do for television!” And Google listens because they’ve got major investments in video through YouTube and Google Video but also in their EchoStar partnership. Comcast wants to beat Dish Network to the punch, especially since Dish has it’s own DVR system and Comcast has been slow to roll out it’s partnership with TiVo (but that’s OK since cable operators have shitty DVRs, like Moxi and such).
So Google figures out how to use their search algorithm and AdWords with cable television. It’d be a lot easier to do over FiOS or some other switched infrastructure like IPTV from AT&T, but let’s say Comcast can pull it off.
The Google box operates both on search (similar to existing on-screen guides) but also on clicks. If most people choose to watch a network in your node (neighborhood, city, state) that channel appears higher in results. Channels and numbers would be fluid, eliminating the jockeying that goes on for higher position (which actually does impact viewership, it’s been shown).
Additionally, your television ties into the internet in a couple of key ways. You can share the data of your shows (name, description, actors, etc) with your friends and Comcast will let you view the shows via a branded portal site, essentially making your set-top box a Slingbox. You’ll also be able to remotely schedule shows, see additional content (behind-the-scenes, deleted scenes, interviews) from the official network sites and fan reactions/mash-ups and the like as it appears on YouTube et al. The whole thing would look like a windowed, squeeze-back video experience you see on the satellite boxes when the guide is on-screen.
Lastly, Google would be helping Comcast sell ads just like they do for EchoStar, only now they’re selling text ads and display ads on the interface in addition to the bidding marketplace for the video ads in programming time.
Sounds like a far-fetched scenario, right? I wouldn’t bet on it. If any player is positioned to take advantage of the internet, television and search as a platform (all three combined) it’s Google.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no idea what plans Google, AT&T, EchoStar or Comcast have. This post is pure speculation. Semi-informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless.
Speculation about speculations sometimes makes a truth (and sometimes it doesn't)
Mostly Muppet.com
Technorati Profile
So Google figures out how to use their search algorithm and AdWords with cable television. It’d be a lot easier to do over FiOS or some other switched infrastructure like IPTV from AT&T, but let’s say Comcast can pull it off.
The Google box operates both on search (similar to existing on-screen guides) but also on clicks. If most people choose to watch a network in your node (neighborhood, city, state) that channel appears higher in results. Channels and numbers would be fluid, eliminating the jockeying that goes on for higher position (which actually does impact viewership, it’s been shown).
Additionally, your television ties into the internet in a couple of key ways. You can share the data of your shows (name, description, actors, etc) with your friends and Comcast will let you view the shows via a branded portal site, essentially making your set-top box a Slingbox. You’ll also be able to remotely schedule shows, see additional content (behind-the-scenes, deleted scenes, interviews) from the official network sites and fan reactions/mash-ups and the like as it appears on YouTube et al. The whole thing would look like a windowed, squeeze-back video experience you see on the satellite boxes when the guide is on-screen.
Lastly, Google would be helping Comcast sell ads just like they do for EchoStar, only now they’re selling text ads and display ads on the interface in addition to the bidding marketplace for the video ads in programming time.
Sounds like a far-fetched scenario, right? I wouldn’t bet on it. If any player is positioned to take advantage of the internet, television and search as a platform (all three combined) it’s Google.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no idea what plans Google, AT&T, EchoStar or Comcast have. This post is pure speculation. Semi-informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless.
Speculation about speculations sometimes makes a truth (and sometimes it doesn't)
Mostly Muppet.com
Technorati Profile
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Future Google's Facebook
Google may have lost the bidding war to invest in Facebook, but it is preparing its own major assault on the social networking scene. It goes by the codename “Maka-Maka” inside the Googleplex (or, perhaps, “Makamaka”).
Maka-Maka encompasses Google’s grand plan to build a social layer across all of its applications. Some details about Maka-Maka have already leaked out, particularly how Google plans to use the feed engine that powers Google Reader (known internally as Reactor) to create “activity streams” for other applications akin to Facebook’s news and mini feeds. But Maka-Maka goes well beyond that.
Maka-Maka will be unveiled in stages. The first peek will come in early November. As we reported previously, Google is planning to “out open” Facebook with a new set of APIs that developers can use to build apps for its social network Orkut, iGoogle, and eventually other applications as well.
more TechCrunch
Maka-Maka encompasses Google’s grand plan to build a social layer across all of its applications. Some details about Maka-Maka have already leaked out, particularly how Google plans to use the feed engine that powers Google Reader (known internally as Reactor) to create “activity streams” for other applications akin to Facebook’s news and mini feeds. But Maka-Maka goes well beyond that.
Maka-Maka will be unveiled in stages. The first peek will come in early November. As we reported previously, Google is planning to “out open” Facebook with a new set of APIs that developers can use to build apps for its social network Orkut, iGoogle, and eventually other applications as well.
more TechCrunch
The "hidden" 800 numbers
Hard to Find 800 Numbers | Hiding from their own customers? No longer.
Follow this link:
http://hardtofind800numbers.com/
Follow this link:
http://hardtofind800numbers.com/
India's IPTV
MUMBAI: India will have one million IPTV subscribers by 2011 but for it to succeed companies need to get their act together in the areas of access, content and technology.
This was a point made at the IBE 2007 Conference in a session that examined IPTV's growth prospects in India. The speakers were IOL wholetime director AS Oberoi, Seachange India MD Vishwajeet Deshmukh and MTNL's Vandana Sethi.
In terms of access, companies need to have fibre optic infrastructure. A strong DRM system is also needed; otherwise, content owners will be wary pf parting with their offerings.
Oberoi says that IPTV offers the most robust DRM system which has made it easier for the company to deal with the Hollywood studios. Its VoD service offers thousands of English and Hindi movies. It has also tied up with companies like Satyam for e-learning. As time goes by, the company will also offer games on demand and music on demand.
HDTV can also be transmitted on the same network, provided it is modified accordingly. She notes that newer compression standards are available for more effective video delivery. The challenge is that customers are demanding and will not compromise on the quality of service. "
INdiatelevision.coms
I fail to understand the advantage to have IPTV.
If it is VoD it will suck so much bandwidth that 2011 is not enough far away and any fiberoptic network will be cheap enough to be a competition to any Video Rental.
Besides: for TV is it worth to use the IP network, when the TV network works well enough and is one millionth times less expensive?
This was a point made at the IBE 2007 Conference in a session that examined IPTV's growth prospects in India. The speakers were IOL wholetime director AS Oberoi, Seachange India MD Vishwajeet Deshmukh and MTNL's Vandana Sethi.
In terms of access, companies need to have fibre optic infrastructure. A strong DRM system is also needed; otherwise, content owners will be wary pf parting with their offerings.
Oberoi says that IPTV offers the most robust DRM system which has made it easier for the company to deal with the Hollywood studios. Its VoD service offers thousands of English and Hindi movies. It has also tied up with companies like Satyam for e-learning. As time goes by, the company will also offer games on demand and music on demand.
HDTV can also be transmitted on the same network, provided it is modified accordingly. She notes that newer compression standards are available for more effective video delivery. The challenge is that customers are demanding and will not compromise on the quality of service. "
INdiatelevision.coms
I fail to understand the advantage to have IPTV.
If it is VoD it will suck so much bandwidth that 2011 is not enough far away and any fiberoptic network will be cheap enough to be a competition to any Video Rental.
Besides: for TV is it worth to use the IP network, when the TV network works well enough and is one millionth times less expensive?
Monday, November 5, 2007
How IPTV will perfectly fit in Social Media
Once there was the old traditional, one way TV.
The one broadcasted on a TV screen low or high resolution, small or big, black and white or colored.
Tomorrow we'll have a new, successful, two way IPTV.
Not any more passively looked at, but actively used to interact and socialize.
The first, really democratic TV.
Why Democratic?
Because everybody will be able to be user and broadcaster, will be able to look and to listen to as well as to talk and to show.
The Internet this fabulous way to exchange ideas and thoughts, opinions and lifestyles, will also be the way to produce videos and broadcast them, music and promote it.
Besides fitting in social media it perfectly fits in my own personal life.
I am a born commenter, a born opinionist, a born complainer, a born broadcaster, what I lacked was the way and the money to.
But it looks like this won't be an issue anymore...
The one broadcasted on a TV screen low or high resolution, small or big, black and white or colored.
Tomorrow we'll have a new, successful, two way IPTV.
Not any more passively looked at, but actively used to interact and socialize.
The first, really democratic TV.
Why Democratic?
Because everybody will be able to be user and broadcaster, will be able to look and to listen to as well as to talk and to show.
The Internet this fabulous way to exchange ideas and thoughts, opinions and lifestyles, will also be the way to produce videos and broadcast them, music and promote it.
Besides fitting in social media it perfectly fits in my own personal life.
I am a born commenter, a born opinionist, a born complainer, a born broadcaster, what I lacked was the way and the money to.
But it looks like this won't be an issue anymore...
What IPTV will be.
The word TV could be misleading, since the IP and the traditional TV will substantially be different, because different IS the transport of content and different IS the substance of content.
IPTV will be similar to the traditional TV in the sense that will be a display of content prepared and sent from a central server to many "clients".
The servers of course can be millions and the "clients" billions.
In this it will be different from any P2P or "search and download".
There will be a schedule and the audience will choose the more suitable time to connect in order to have the wanted content.
Till now not so much different from traditional TV.
But what will IPTV mean as improvement compared to the traditional TV?
1) Footprint. Any Producer theorethically from any part of this world can reach any consumer on any country of this world.
Traditional TV and Satellite TV are restricted to a limited footprint coverage.
This will have a huge imoprtance, because very specialized programs and content will find the reason and meaning to exist.
And specialized content means specialized producers.
While in a restricted area is difficult to find the minimum number of listeners and viewer of certain programs, on a large scale like the one offered by the full world footprint, it will be easy to find the minimum number that allows enough revenue for the broadcasting of a transmission .
2) Low Cost. The Internet as a tranportation way can beat any other for cost and availability. Can beat also any other as possible customers' number.
Internet capacity and traffic are growing rapidly.
3) High quality pictures and music. Also magnetic storage capacity is growing rapidly and that is the right direction of IPTV.
More than a low bandwidth streaming it will be a high quality downloading.
Download when it is broadcasted and store it to see later. Just any TV transmission.
Displays are improving slowly, but improving.
And with them the need of high quality videos and audios.
You cannot display a low quality movie on a high quality display.
And if you are used to enjoy good quality music and videos, you simply cannot enjoy a tiny screen and bad resolution...
4) Interactivity. Internet delivery is likely to facilitate evolution of TV (HDTV).
And the most important feature will be the interactivity. (The real interactive TV, ...)
Also commercials will be different.
More as "movies as commercials" than "commercials in the movies".
The customer wants to be entertained and be an active part of the enertainment.
This is quite clear if we look at the type of entertainment most popular among Internet users: video games, emailing, forums, chat lines.
In a society which kills individualism, where individuals are seen as consumers, where socializing gets everyday more difficult, the Internet is the new mean to regain one own's identity, one own's share in the game, in the communication.
On one side what is called "long tail" and on the other side the possibility to interact give the consumer the voice he has lost with the other entertainments, one way means: traditional TV, Radio, Cinema.
IPTV will win in the short run, because it is the answer to the demand of the individual of today.
It will be many things, but the most valuable and important will be giving space to the single man on the road and in its own way the real democratic dlivery of human production...
Since the rates of change are:
technology: fast
consumer habits: slow
industry dogmas: slowest
The question is:
Will it beat Internet Time?
IPTV will be similar to the traditional TV in the sense that will be a display of content prepared and sent from a central server to many "clients".
The servers of course can be millions and the "clients" billions.
In this it will be different from any P2P or "search and download".
There will be a schedule and the audience will choose the more suitable time to connect in order to have the wanted content.
Till now not so much different from traditional TV.
But what will IPTV mean as improvement compared to the traditional TV?
1) Footprint. Any Producer theorethically from any part of this world can reach any consumer on any country of this world.
Traditional TV and Satellite TV are restricted to a limited footprint coverage.
This will have a huge imoprtance, because very specialized programs and content will find the reason and meaning to exist.
And specialized content means specialized producers.
While in a restricted area is difficult to find the minimum number of listeners and viewer of certain programs, on a large scale like the one offered by the full world footprint, it will be easy to find the minimum number that allows enough revenue for the broadcasting of a transmission .
2) Low Cost. The Internet as a tranportation way can beat any other for cost and availability. Can beat also any other as possible customers' number.
Internet capacity and traffic are growing rapidly.
3) High quality pictures and music. Also magnetic storage capacity is growing rapidly and that is the right direction of IPTV.
More than a low bandwidth streaming it will be a high quality downloading.
Download when it is broadcasted and store it to see later. Just any TV transmission.
Displays are improving slowly, but improving.
And with them the need of high quality videos and audios.
You cannot display a low quality movie on a high quality display.
And if you are used to enjoy good quality music and videos, you simply cannot enjoy a tiny screen and bad resolution...
4) Interactivity. Internet delivery is likely to facilitate evolution of TV (HDTV).
And the most important feature will be the interactivity. (The real interactive TV, ...)
Also commercials will be different.
More as "movies as commercials" than "commercials in the movies".
The customer wants to be entertained and be an active part of the enertainment.
This is quite clear if we look at the type of entertainment most popular among Internet users: video games, emailing, forums, chat lines.
In a society which kills individualism, where individuals are seen as consumers, where socializing gets everyday more difficult, the Internet is the new mean to regain one own's identity, one own's share in the game, in the communication.
On one side what is called "long tail" and on the other side the possibility to interact give the consumer the voice he has lost with the other entertainments, one way means: traditional TV, Radio, Cinema.
IPTV will win in the short run, because it is the answer to the demand of the individual of today.
It will be many things, but the most valuable and important will be giving space to the single man on the road and in its own way the real democratic dlivery of human production...
Since the rates of change are:
technology: fast
consumer habits: slow
industry dogmas: slowest
The question is:
Will it beat Internet Time?
The new challenge
"Indeed, they've paid increasing premiums for the opportunity as audiences have shrunk, because even in a fragmented media world, the largest fragment "network TV " is the most valuable. But now they realize that they are losing not only mass but critical mass.
They see the old model collapsing before them, and they have $67 billion to spend and no idea where to spend it. Because, at least until recently, the Internet has lacked both the riveting content and ad space inventory to absorb it."
What about a "NEW" IPTV?
Somethng Internet looking and TV looking?
What about following the people's tastes and expectations?
What about changing?
May be it doesn't work anymore the way it did...
They see the old model collapsing before them, and they have $67 billion to spend and no idea where to spend it. Because, at least until recently, the Internet has lacked both the riveting content and ad space inventory to absorb it."
What about a "NEW" IPTV?
Somethng Internet looking and TV looking?
What about following the people's tastes and expectations?
What about changing?
May be it doesn't work anymore the way it did...
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The real, objective scenario for IPTV
Local cable TV system has 100,000 paying customers. Their any-time-of-the-day pay-per-view movie department must be able to handle up to 100,000 requests for a single movie at once.
They need a 10,000-transaction-per-second database machine in their garage and an unbelievably wide driveway connecting them to the superhighway just to handle Friday night.
Idea number one is to boost contemporary database machines from 1,000 tps to 10,000 tps. To solve this annoying little problem, we need a tenfold increase in transaction processing. This should keep the database machine vendors busy for at least a decade. Now, suppose each of the 100,000 customers orders the standard 2.4-Mbps service. The 1-gigabit superhighway starts to look like the Ventura Freeway at rush hour. Idea number two is for cable TV companies to buy a telephone company because telephone companies are the only data truckers in business today with sufficient switching capacity.
Scenario 2. The superhighway is so much fun that 100 million people get on it every night to play interactive games.
They not only send/receive 2.4 Mbits of data each second, but they also do some actual computing. For example, they might play against an expert system, or they might exercise a best-selling 500-variable world-economic model while waiting for the microwave to defrost dinner: simple stuff like that.
Suppose each player needs 100 Mflops of raw compute power. That adds up to a potential of 10 billion Mflops of compute power! So let's convert Rhode Island into a massively parallel processor with silicon circuits etched on every square acre.
Alternately, we could use up the idle cycles on all those unused Apple Newtons
connected to each other by wireless networks. RISC or not, future computer architects have job security.
Scenario 3. The renaissance era of super libraries arrives.
We no longer have to lower our blood pressure by biking to the local library because everything we ever wanted to know is just a keyboard and telephone (cable) away.
In fact, 2.4 Mbits of raw data is streaming past our doorway each second. If only we could convert this raw data into information.
Idea number one is to create a whole new industry of knowledge workers who filter raw data and convert it into information. This reduces the flow rate to a few thousand facts per second. Idea number two is to create the twenty-first-century electronic publishing industry. Packaging a few thousand facts per second into meaningful amusement for the Simpson family should keep all of us busy for a few decades. And creating entirely new industries stimulates the economy.
The data superhighway is only the tip of the integrated circuit.
Sure,computers need more I/O capability, but they also need more storage, more processing power, and more connectivity. Instead of solving one problem, the superhighway may well create so many technical challenges that the skills of Computer's readers will remain in great demand until the year 2094!
Liberally taken by Ted Lewis.
They need a 10,000-transaction-per-second database machine in their garage and an unbelievably wide driveway connecting them to the superhighway just to handle Friday night.
Idea number one is to boost contemporary database machines from 1,000 tps to 10,000 tps. To solve this annoying little problem, we need a tenfold increase in transaction processing. This should keep the database machine vendors busy for at least a decade. Now, suppose each of the 100,000 customers orders the standard 2.4-Mbps service. The 1-gigabit superhighway starts to look like the Ventura Freeway at rush hour. Idea number two is for cable TV companies to buy a telephone company because telephone companies are the only data truckers in business today with sufficient switching capacity.
Scenario 2. The superhighway is so much fun that 100 million people get on it every night to play interactive games.
They not only send/receive 2.4 Mbits of data each second, but they also do some actual computing. For example, they might play against an expert system, or they might exercise a best-selling 500-variable world-economic model while waiting for the microwave to defrost dinner: simple stuff like that.
Suppose each player needs 100 Mflops of raw compute power. That adds up to a potential of 10 billion Mflops of compute power! So let's convert Rhode Island into a massively parallel processor with silicon circuits etched on every square acre.
Alternately, we could use up the idle cycles on all those unused Apple Newtons
connected to each other by wireless networks. RISC or not, future computer architects have job security.
Scenario 3. The renaissance era of super libraries arrives.
We no longer have to lower our blood pressure by biking to the local library because everything we ever wanted to know is just a keyboard and telephone (cable) away.
In fact, 2.4 Mbits of raw data is streaming past our doorway each second. If only we could convert this raw data into information.
Idea number one is to create a whole new industry of knowledge workers who filter raw data and convert it into information. This reduces the flow rate to a few thousand facts per second. Idea number two is to create the twenty-first-century electronic publishing industry. Packaging a few thousand facts per second into meaningful amusement for the Simpson family should keep all of us busy for a few decades. And creating entirely new industries stimulates the economy.
The data superhighway is only the tip of the integrated circuit.
Sure,computers need more I/O capability, but they also need more storage, more processing power, and more connectivity. Instead of solving one problem, the superhighway may well create so many technical challenges that the skills of Computer's readers will remain in great demand until the year 2094!
Liberally taken by Ted Lewis.
The outbreak of IPTV's war
IPTV is the concept of using TCP/IP as a transport for digital television, usually so that it can travel on the same physical infrastructure as already existing IP traffic. The next big thing in television could be a technology borrowed from the Internet. IPTV (the ''IP" stands for Internet protocol) will let users choose from a vast variety of video entertainment, available on demand through a simple piece of wire. Telephone wire, to be exact, because phone companies -- not cable TV firms -- are leading the way.
Cable companies could adopt IPTV technology as well. But for telephone companies the technology offers the first chance to sell TV services. It's also an opportunity for Microsoft Corp., which is providing much of the underlying technology, to become as powerful in entertainment technology as it is in software. IPTV could shake up
the cable industry in the same way that voice-over-Internet phone systems have roiled SBC's own voice telephone business.
Already, about a million people use IPTV systems, mostly in Hong Kong and Italy.
In related television news, it looks like the squeeze play is underway against the satellite industry. The telcos, such as AT&T, have generally partnered with a satellite company in order to offer television service. Now that they're getting into the game themselves, these partnerships are dying. Pressure is also coming from the cable companies, which are getting onboard with Cablevision's plan to move the DVR into the headend.
This kind of pressure from the cable companies, combined with the price war which could ensue between cable operators and the telcos, will certainly make it harder for satellite to compete over the next few years. Whether they can carve out a niche and remain a viable proposition remains to be seen, though it should be noted that satellite is not sitting still waiting for the axe to fall. DirecTV, for instance, has been pondering plans to roll out broadband services of its own, and satellite can still claim to offer a higher-quality picture than cable (in most cases). IPTV, though it could spark a price war with both services, won't be coming to most cities for some time, so satellite should have a few years of breathing room before the squeeze is on in earnest.
Cable companies could adopt IPTV technology as well. But for telephone companies the technology offers the first chance to sell TV services. It's also an opportunity for Microsoft Corp., which is providing much of the underlying technology, to become as powerful in entertainment technology as it is in software. IPTV could shake up
the cable industry in the same way that voice-over-Internet phone systems have roiled SBC's own voice telephone business.
Already, about a million people use IPTV systems, mostly in Hong Kong and Italy.
In related television news, it looks like the squeeze play is underway against the satellite industry. The telcos, such as AT&T, have generally partnered with a satellite company in order to offer television service. Now that they're getting into the game themselves, these partnerships are dying. Pressure is also coming from the cable companies, which are getting onboard with Cablevision's plan to move the DVR into the headend.
This kind of pressure from the cable companies, combined with the price war which could ensue between cable operators and the telcos, will certainly make it harder for satellite to compete over the next few years. Whether they can carve out a niche and remain a viable proposition remains to be seen, though it should be noted that satellite is not sitting still waiting for the axe to fall. DirecTV, for instance, has been pondering plans to roll out broadband services of its own, and satellite can still claim to offer a higher-quality picture than cable (in most cases). IPTV, though it could spark a price war with both services, won't be coming to most cities for some time, so satellite should have a few years of breathing room before the squeeze is on in earnest.
IPTV and Bandwidth
If you only wanted carrier IPTV service, your set-top box would get IP access to the carrier's local video servers, not the Internet.
If you only wanted carrier voice access, your ATA would get IP access to the carrier's local voice servers, not the Internet.
Its no different than today if you ordered cable TV service, but not cable modem service. Or order telephone service, but not DSL Internet service.
People would be buying access to different "virtual" networks. You could buy access to the video network, the voice network or the Internet network. Just because you buy access to one of the networks, doesn't mean you get access to all of the bandwidth on the physical circuit.
If you don't buy/use the carrier's voice or video service, the Internet service is effectively the only service on the DSL access link, so QOS just acts as a bandwidth limiter based on the access rate you bought. In that case, there is nothing to "prioritize" beyond a few link management messages.
The carrier could offer "burstable" Internet access up to the link rate, but would people understand what happens when they use more bandwidth than exists on their access line when they are sharing bandwidth among all the services instead of reserving fixed amounts of each service?
Tech savvy people may understand they have a total of X-Mbps of bandwidth. When they turn on 10 HD video streams, will they be surprised if they see macroblocking. Other people probably will call their service provider to complain their TV doesn't work or they aren't getting the full X-Mbps downloads at the same time as watching HD Sports on their TV.
In the near term, under-promising so you can over-deliver seems a safer path.
If you only wanted carrier voice access, your ATA would get IP access to the carrier's local voice servers, not the Internet.
Its no different than today if you ordered cable TV service, but not cable modem service. Or order telephone service, but not DSL Internet service.
People would be buying access to different "virtual" networks. You could buy access to the video network, the voice network or the Internet network. Just because you buy access to one of the networks, doesn't mean you get access to all of the bandwidth on the physical circuit.
If you don't buy/use the carrier's voice or video service, the Internet service is effectively the only service on the DSL access link, so QOS just acts as a bandwidth limiter based on the access rate you bought. In that case, there is nothing to "prioritize" beyond a few link management messages.
The carrier could offer "burstable" Internet access up to the link rate, but would people understand what happens when they use more bandwidth than exists on their access line when they are sharing bandwidth among all the services instead of reserving fixed amounts of each service?
Tech savvy people may understand they have a total of X-Mbps of bandwidth. When they turn on 10 HD video streams, will they be surprised if they see macroblocking. Other people probably will call their service provider to complain their TV doesn't work or they aren't getting the full X-Mbps downloads at the same time as watching HD Sports on their TV.
In the near term, under-promising so you can over-deliver seems a safer path.
Can you charge for IPTV?
"Again, I'm talking about IP transport, not about services like TV. Just the transport by itself.
IP connectivity is one of the purist commodities. You can't differentiate yourself except by selling more, you can't afford any fine grained billing and even then can't assure the packets won't accidentally ride a competitors infrastructure and we need it as a public good."
You are right, you cannot charge Video packets or voice packets, because you cannot differentiate them.
You can differentiate in base of the bandwidth consumed.
But: "If you follow this one step further you come to a very stark conclusion those who don't have their own infrastructure have a major advantage over those that do.
If we do not allow collusion between the content providers and the transport providers then owning the facilities is a major competitive disadvantage.
We've seen this in VoIP but the large capital expenses and cellular income has kept this stark reality from being too obvious."
Bob Frankston
In VoIP the content belongs to the person who uses the service.
In IPTV or VOD it doesn't.
And somebody HAS to pay to see it. Unless they kill copyrights (difficult).
The only way is YouTube.
Customers' owned content.
But that has nothing to do with traditional TV. Or Cable TV or VOD.
YouTube is like VoIP. You use the Internet for transporting your own content.
And you just pay for transporting it. On the base of the bandwidth you consume.
That is why you have a stamp size format and mediocre quality. (for now)
And that is why Cable TV and Satellite TV IS STILL a very good business. (as long as it lasts)
IP connectivity is one of the purist commodities. You can't differentiate yourself except by selling more, you can't afford any fine grained billing and even then can't assure the packets won't accidentally ride a competitors infrastructure and we need it as a public good."
You are right, you cannot charge Video packets or voice packets, because you cannot differentiate them.
You can differentiate in base of the bandwidth consumed.
But: "If you follow this one step further you come to a very stark conclusion those who don't have their own infrastructure have a major advantage over those that do.
If we do not allow collusion between the content providers and the transport providers then owning the facilities is a major competitive disadvantage.
We've seen this in VoIP but the large capital expenses and cellular income has kept this stark reality from being too obvious."
Bob Frankston
In VoIP the content belongs to the person who uses the service.
In IPTV or VOD it doesn't.
And somebody HAS to pay to see it. Unless they kill copyrights (difficult).
The only way is YouTube.
Customers' owned content.
But that has nothing to do with traditional TV. Or Cable TV or VOD.
YouTube is like VoIP. You use the Internet for transporting your own content.
And you just pay for transporting it. On the base of the bandwidth you consume.
That is why you have a stamp size format and mediocre quality. (for now)
And that is why Cable TV and Satellite TV IS STILL a very good business. (as long as it lasts)
Will IPTV kill SatelliteTV?
"What can satellite TV and satellite radio expect next year?
How about more competition ...
More VOD From Cable - And a lot of that on-demand content will still be free to subscribers. Also, more VOD titles will be local in nature, and take aim at niche audiences. With VOD, the satellite TV guys could find it hard to compete
effectively with cable incumbents.
Watch Out for Small Telcos - Some small and medium-sized telcos are delivering video, along with advanced broadband and voice services. These small telcos also are in rural areas, satellite TV's current stronghold."
There are two things on the satellite providers' side: quality and mobility.
Yes you can offer mobility with WIFI, but what about quality?
If you, once, listen to satellite Radio, you will not be able to listen to a normal one...The crystal clear signal compared to the noise of normal radio music...
The same with TV.
But in this case, since TV is mostly consumed on a comfortable couch, the Internet could be a real threat to satellite.
I say could, because right now satellite providers can still sleep.
The stamp format of YouTube cannot compete with the HD images of Satellite.
Yes, YouTube offers something else than the Satellite doesn't: self made content, interactivity.
If I was up there I would begin to watch out...
How about more competition ...
More VOD From Cable - And a lot of that on-demand content will still be free to subscribers. Also, more VOD titles will be local in nature, and take aim at niche audiences. With VOD, the satellite TV guys could find it hard to compete
effectively with cable incumbents.
Watch Out for Small Telcos - Some small and medium-sized telcos are delivering video, along with advanced broadband and voice services. These small telcos also are in rural areas, satellite TV's current stronghold."
There are two things on the satellite providers' side: quality and mobility.
Yes you can offer mobility with WIFI, but what about quality?
If you, once, listen to satellite Radio, you will not be able to listen to a normal one...The crystal clear signal compared to the noise of normal radio music...
The same with TV.
But in this case, since TV is mostly consumed on a comfortable couch, the Internet could be a real threat to satellite.
I say could, because right now satellite providers can still sleep.
The stamp format of YouTube cannot compete with the HD images of Satellite.
Yes, YouTube offers something else than the Satellite doesn't: self made content, interactivity.
If I was up there I would begin to watch out...
Telco's IPTV
The technology may be different, but how the product gets to the customer really isn't that different. And the actual video service delivered to the customer isn't any different.
Unfortunately, for the telco guys, their video service is - at the moment - pretty much like cable service. It's offering linear video channels, video-on-demand and other items such as an IPG and interactive TV. Telco video is even bundled with
broadband and voice, much like cable's triple-play.
Telcos may attempt to compete on price, but is that enough?
This brings us to the second point. How do telcos think they're going to compete with cable - or even satellite TV - when they're delivering a "me-to" offering?
In addition to selling the usual television fare, how about offering more niche and/or ethnic programming than what's currently available from pay-TV incumbents? How about taking a stab at a la carte options? Or expanding family tiers?
Telco video services need to think ahead like satellite TV did more than a decade ago when it launched services. Dish platforms are delivering programming not available via cable (DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket), the latest technology (DVRs
coming from DirecTV and DISH Network), ethnic channels (again, cable and both DBS players and GlobeCast offer these channels), or family-oriented content (again, some cable, the DBS guys and the Sky Angel DBS service).
Telco video cannot compete with a service that looks like - and smells like - cable.
Weblog
Unfortunately, for the telco guys, their video service is - at the moment - pretty much like cable service. It's offering linear video channels, video-on-demand and other items such as an IPG and interactive TV. Telco video is even bundled with
broadband and voice, much like cable's triple-play.
Telcos may attempt to compete on price, but is that enough?
This brings us to the second point. How do telcos think they're going to compete with cable - or even satellite TV - when they're delivering a "me-to" offering?
In addition to selling the usual television fare, how about offering more niche and/or ethnic programming than what's currently available from pay-TV incumbents? How about taking a stab at a la carte options? Or expanding family tiers?
Telco video services need to think ahead like satellite TV did more than a decade ago when it launched services. Dish platforms are delivering programming not available via cable (DirecTV's NFL Sunday Ticket), the latest technology (DVRs
coming from DirecTV and DISH Network), ethnic channels (again, cable and both DBS players and GlobeCast offer these channels), or family-oriented content (again, some cable, the DBS guys and the Sky Angel DBS service).
Telco video cannot compete with a service that looks like - and smells like - cable.
Weblog
IPTV is a service that looks like - and smells like - TV
Net-based technology would allow limitless TV
The very next step is upgrading the speed of copper instead of deploying fiber -- I actually agree with that. It makes more sense. They are getting 25 to 30 mbps (which does demonstrate that DSL can go much faster than what it does now).
The IPTV stream is within this space and competes with the users’ other activities. The providers prioritize voice, then video and the rest of the packets.
This makes perfect sense -- after all, a 25 to 30mbps path isn't all that large if you want to run 10mbps video streams
The story about video priority is not really about video priority – it’s about purchased priority.
The providers are open in that they will take extra money from anyone who pays enough.
There is confusion between IPTV and a more general video over IP. This works to make IPTV seem to be forward looking. We need to make sure we distinguish between the two.
Unfortunately, for the telco guys, their video service is - at the moment - pretty much like cable service. It's offering linear video channels, video-on-demand and other items such as interactive TV.
Telco video is even bundled with broadband and voice, much like cable's triple-play.
Telcos may attempt to compete on price, but is that enough?
How do telcos think they're going to compete with cable - or even satellite TV - when they're delivering a "me-to" offering?
In addition to selling the usual television fare, how about offering more niche and/or ethnic programming than what's currently available from pay-TV incumbents? How about taking a stab at a la carte options? Or expanding family tiers?
Telco video services need to think ahead like satellite TV did more than a decade ago when it launched services.
A new technology is useless when it offers the same for more(or slightly less if you want).
Net-based technology would allow limitless TV, but the content will make the difference.
The very next step is upgrading the speed of copper instead of deploying fiber -- I actually agree with that. It makes more sense. They are getting 25 to 30 mbps (which does demonstrate that DSL can go much faster than what it does now).
The IPTV stream is within this space and competes with the users’ other activities. The providers prioritize voice, then video and the rest of the packets.
This makes perfect sense -- after all, a 25 to 30mbps path isn't all that large if you want to run 10mbps video streams
The story about video priority is not really about video priority – it’s about purchased priority.
The providers are open in that they will take extra money from anyone who pays enough.
There is confusion between IPTV and a more general video over IP. This works to make IPTV seem to be forward looking. We need to make sure we distinguish between the two.
Unfortunately, for the telco guys, their video service is - at the moment - pretty much like cable service. It's offering linear video channels, video-on-demand and other items such as interactive TV.
Telco video is even bundled with broadband and voice, much like cable's triple-play.
Telcos may attempt to compete on price, but is that enough?
How do telcos think they're going to compete with cable - or even satellite TV - when they're delivering a "me-to" offering?
In addition to selling the usual television fare, how about offering more niche and/or ethnic programming than what's currently available from pay-TV incumbents? How about taking a stab at a la carte options? Or expanding family tiers?
Telco video services need to think ahead like satellite TV did more than a decade ago when it launched services.
A new technology is useless when it offers the same for more(or slightly less if you want).
Net-based technology would allow limitless TV, but the content will make the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
