Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Internet

2008 - The Year Internet TV Became Mainstream? 104

Posted by Zonk from the every-dog-has-his-day dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2008 - The Year Internet TV Became Mainstream? More

2008 - The Year Internet TV Became Mainstream?

Comments Filter:
  • Only if the revenue stream is there! Once that's in place, the rest will follow.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tacocat ( 527354 )

      It's going to be extremely expensive compared to the current cable broadcasting. For starters you won't be charged a flat fee for unlimited downloads like you are in "broadcast cable" TV. You will charged on a banding of minutes in the show (even if you don't watch it all) and it's popularity. So Greys Anatomy will be at a premium and The Red Green show will not. It will also be banded by time of day, day of week, seasonally, and sports will be insane.

      The social response will be to group together to wa

      • Grey's Anatomy is already free on the internet, sponsored by ads. Internet TV is either going to be ad-supported, or cost $2 on iTunes. It's not going to be very expensive, because otherwise you'll drive people to pirate sites (if they aren't already there).

  • PIME TARADOX (Score:2, Funny)

    by Mikachu ( 972457 )
    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's another issue, for cable modem users... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:37AM (#19188919) Journal
      People who watch a lot of TV over the internet are no doubt going to experience a fairly annoying problem [slashdot.org] 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.
      • I was worried about this. I was worried that when I stopped paying $65/mo. on cable tv and started spending it on season passes on iTMS instead, that I would have issues with comcast squelching my line or cutting me off entirely. Up until now I rarely downloaded much at once. I mainly wanted broadband for the low latency and occasional high throughput it provides.

        Now I find I've downloaded 20 Gigabytes in less than one month, and haven't heard a single complain from my ISP.

        I'm not sure how long this will

        • Now I find I've downloaded 20 Gigabytes in less than one month
          ... n00b :D (j/k)
        • 20Gb is NOTHING. 20Gb is maybe 25 hours worth of video, not at DVD quality. I've pulled down 60 Gb in a week, easily. If people aren't going to cut back dramatically on their viewing, bandwidth caps will have to go.
          • Hmmm, so 20Gb corresponds to 25 hours of video, and you pull down 60 Gb in a week, so that's 75 hours of video in a week.

            Geez, how much TV are you watching? ;-) At 10.7 hours/day are you doing anything else?

            > If people aren't going to cut back dramatically on their
            > viewing, bandwidth caps will have to go.

            Cutting back from 10 hours/day of TV is probably a reasonable restriction on customers. They need to get a job and a life. ;-) ;-)
        • 160-200gigs a month seems to be no problem here. My one friend got cut off when he hit 300 gigs in a couple weeks.

          Either way you're safe. :P

      • Re:There's another issue, for cable modem users... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Doug Neal ( 195160 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:18AM (#19189359)
        Cable companies need to wise up to the fact that as higher general purpose (internet) bandwidth becomes available to homes, the traditional way of distributing TV that their business is based on won't be relevant any more. The thing is, they're the ones with the infrastructure, so they've got the opportunity to make it work for them - their roles are going to shift, from providing TV stations over a dedicated channel to just providing pure bandwidth. There is still plenty of business to be done and money to be made from providing people with TV, just in a different way. The same goes for VoIP and telcos (both cellular and fixed line). The cable companies that try to stop IPTV from happening are going to lose out, just as the telcos that are trying to stop VoIP will. The smart ones should already be accepting the inevitable and making plans to make it work to their advantage.

        • The big telco and cable companies will no doubt try and stop, hinder, or at least stall these smaller content and voip services as long as they can. It's all a revenue thing. They have a lot of money invested in equipment that delivers content the old way, and some little company comes along and uses the net to deliver the same service at a fraction of the cost. This sets a much lower price for the service that is not sustainable by the big telcos. They will fight tooth and nail to keep the old service

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 )

        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.

        If a big % of the users start watching TV it'll raise the mean internet usage numbers as well.

        But aside from

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DarthChris ( 960471 )

          Add random ports and encryption, and P2P means random IP-s... And shaping it is suddenly not very easy.

          Packet-shaping/sniffing - when done correctly - does not depend upon ports. It's true that you can get around it by encryption, but most P2P apps have very high TCP/UDP flows per minute. That in itself can be spotted with a half-decent software firewall. For there, they can probably use some "terms of service violation" argument if they really want you off the network.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
            but most P2P apps have very high TCP/UDP flows per minute.

            I don't really know that, but I suspect Joost will not have that pattern since it has to stream in content sequentially (where normal P2P apps download random bits from many users at once).

            Skype uses P2P techniques as well for voice/camera/file transfer and doesn't follow this pattern (it finds nodes and uses them persistently for the duration of the conversation, unless the connection drops or something like this).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )
        The 1990s called and want their "The intarnets are going to collapse whtn everyone starts trading mp3s" FUD back. ISPs have hated bandwidth hogs since the first guy with a 300 baud modem he could leave it running 24/7 to download ASCII porn. If the general public says "We'd like to downlaod TV over the Internet" then you'll see mass rollouts of VDSL, fiber or whatever else can handle it. Bandwidth hogs are exceptional customers you want to get rid of. If your customers as a whole are bandwidth hogs, you ada
        • The reality is that with the advent of Bit Torrent and swarming technology in general we're all rapidly becoming "bandwidth hogs" whether we're downloading licensed material or not. I know that, for my part, I have personally created a few (usually involving the installation of a good BT client and mentioning a few [torrentspy.com] good [thepiratebay.org] sites [mininova.org].) ISPs are getting away with banning heavy users because they presume it's for illegitimate purposes (and I suppose that, for the most part, they're correct at this point.)

          The major
      • Cable modem users may actually be some of the last to get hit. Universities, corporations, and the military are already moving to control bandwidth hogs. I suspect that's where a lot of today's Internet video has been happening--in places where there is no cable TV handy (work place, dorm rooms).

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by uncreativ ( 793402 )
        As an ISP operator, I'm happy to let people use as much bandwidth as they want to, however I do have bandwidth and network costs to keep in mind. I've got a few thousand users on a 100mbit link and offer a 10mbit service--we are by no means oversubscribing our service since we rarely, if ever max out our link (usually at about 85% capacity during peak times). I suspect my competitors actually have lower ratios of bandwidth per subscriber and do more to play with how people use their service than I do.

        I coul
        • 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
          • thanx for the "mod parent up" props...

            I don't think net neutrality fixes the ATT issue. Simply capping consumption is one way of being net neutral, but effectively making IPTV not useable. Say you charge $1/Gigabyte for excess data over say a 30G limit. The average american watches about 2 1/2 hrs per day of TV. 2.5hrs * 30 days * 3.5G/hr for high def = about 260G of data, or a $230 consumption charge on your internet bill. Standard definition wouldn't be quite so bad at about 1/4 the bandwidth. Point is, s
      • Could a user based $free WiMax internet work? One in which your WiMax router connects to a few neighbors, and participates by passing packets along to its destination. Perhaps based on VPN or TOR for privacy. The denser the city, the more paths would be available. I would imagine that a standard service might be helpful for evolving software updates, channel coordination, unique IDs, and black & white lists. Wi Not?
      • 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 the

  • NO (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:26AM (#19188883)
    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.

  • Bill Shifting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Belacgod ( 1103921 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:31AM (#19188897)
    Goodbye to pricy cable, hello to expensive broadband! They'll get your money regardless.

  • Well (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShooterNeo ( 555040 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:41AM (#19188939)
    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.

    • Drooping grades (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > 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
      • Haha... "reengage society". Yeah, learning that useless symbolic physics crap for your gibberish "prove this" tests is really getting a life. It's really partying it up - I'm sure it'll teach me to get the ladies. They're all over guys who get an A in physics.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by wwmedia ( 950346 )
      first rule of usenet YOU DO NOT Talk about USENET!

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )
        Every time someone brings it up, it's like this is some sort of frigging secret. Usenet has been around longer than the World Wide Web, and has been sued many times with little to no success. And in case there was any doubt, in february last year:

        "Lawsuits were filed Thursday against: BinNews.com, Torrentspy.com, IsoHunt, BTHub.com, TorrentBox.com, NiteShadow.com, Ed2k-It.com, NZB-Zone.com, and DVDRs.net. The suits mark the first time the MPAA has gone after Usenet related services, which have largely been
    • I took a look at giganews.com pricing schedule. It starts at $29.99 a month (first month is $19.99).

      At that price, I would rather sign up for Netflix and rip the DVD at whatever bit rate I want. It also guaranties I am off the radar of the RIAA/MPAA entirely. There is no way to prove I ripped a copy, unless I starting shooting my mouth off at the local bar.
      • Giganews is the most expensive usenet server provider. Does that mean they are the best? possibly.
        I use Usenetserver [usenetserver.com] 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.
        • Yeah, only reason I pay the big bucks is that I have downloaded 700 gigs in the last 3 months, and most of the time my connection is idle. At times, I'll have a sustained (for a few hours) download at 40 megabits.

  • Perhaps in your country (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Racemaniac ( 1099281 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:54AM (#19188981)
    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...)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )
      You don't have to keep Teleslet or Belgasloom in Belgium (the two providers in Belgium that have a monopoly on respectively Cable and DSL). There are other providers that can provide you with DSL with a fair usage policy.
      • i know, but that's more or less a gamble... you have to have the luck for them to be available where you live, hope that they'll provide a good service (not always the case), hope that they'll stick to their policy, and hope that they won't get taken over by either belgacom or telenet... so far i'm still living with my parents, so changing providers won't happen... dunno what i'm gonna do when i'm on my own...

  • probably (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bluegreenone ( 526698 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @03:58AM (#19189003) Homepage
    Having given up cable because it was occupying too much of my time, I was shocked to find out I could still follow ABC's Lost by watching the shows via Flash videos on their website. The idea that a major corporation would do something as progressive as putting every new episode online the day after it airs just went against everything I expected of a big company. I think the leadership at some companies is finally getting that they can make money without requiring a purchase or locking content via DRM. Probably younger executives finally getting into positions where they can influence those decisions.


    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 [nynj.net] 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 watch

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wow, you really need to get laid
      • Seconded. Someone call a waaaahhh-mbulance for him.

        "Oh noes I can't buy things without allowing the companies who make them to promote their products!!! WAAAH!!!"

    • I'll much rather read your replies to this messange, than go out to see the latest Spiderman 3 or Shrek 3.

      Going to movie with girlfriend = possibility of getting laid, which is more interesting than all our replies. Trust me. We are 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. Welcome to the consumerist mid-life crisis. It's not fun, but you get to leave real quick once you realize your other choice is Soviet Russia. You don't have to subscribe to all those networks, eat at those places

      • Should read:

        I'll much rather read your replies to this messange, than go out to see the latest Spiderman 3 or Shrek 3.

        Going to movie with girlfriend = possibility of getting laid, which is more interesting than all our replies. Trust me. We are not your girlfriend.

        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.

        Welcome to the consumerist mid-life crisis. It's not fun, but you get to leave real quick once you realize your other choice is Soviet Russia. You don't have to subscribe to all those networks, eat at those places or watch all those movies while running windows Vista. In fact, in Soviet Russia, the government runs you!

  • Old news... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AC5398 ( 651967 )
      In Canada:

      Landline phone is $20, or $30 for a voip phone
      Broadband Internet: $52.95 Monthly Service Fee (plus $3.00/mth modem rental or $99.95 modem purchase plus taxes) for 6Mbps. This is the super-deluxe, couldn't possibly get any faster speed, and the frakkers choke back the speed if they detect you're using encryption or ssl.
      TV: $50 without HD, $100 for the basic HD package, $120 for the deluxe HD package, add in an extra $20 for the movie network.

      Me, I just want to get HD without having to pay for ever

  • I'm still waiting for Internet TV (Score:4, Informative)

    by tmk ( 712144 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @05:10AM (#19189323)
    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.
  • 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?
    • Wifi, of course. And with the increasing broadband speeds, they'll get them quicker!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ant P. ( 974313 )
      Likewise, how are we supposed to pick up their signals?
      Maybe the whole thing's a waste of time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jpop32 ( 596022 )
        Likewise, how are we supposed to pick up their signals?
        Maybe the whole thing's a waste of time.

        Well, maybe not a waste of time (I donate CPU time to SETI), but surely a slim chance.

        As communication tenchnology advances, and information becomes tightly packed, it becomes increasingly difficult to distingush a transmission from ordninary noise. It might very well be that the sky is buzzing with alien TV shows, but we just don't know how to decode them.

        The Earth is slowly becoming that way also. By 2012 there

  • Will 2008 be the year we can finally drop our expensive cable bills?

    1998 was the year for that, IIRC. And good riddance.

    Will 2008 be the year of going for walks and reading books? Not probably.

    • I'm hoping it will be the year of high resolution, back-reflective displays that work well in sunlight and consume little or no power (see E-Ink stories). Put that together with a handheld pc of some sort and you can be carrying a whole LOC with you for your reading pleasure.
  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jpop32 ( 596022 )
      f 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.

      Funny thing, I just fielded a support call from my dad, regarding Media Player Classic. Subtitle problems, easily solved. And, right now, my mom and dad, as 'normal people' as they come, are watching Prison Break on their TVs.

      Audio and video signal is routed over a A/V Sony receiver connected to a commodity WinXP PC with a low-end GFX c
  • 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)
    • You won't have a new TV season till late fall, and some big name shows don't start till January 08.
  • 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.
    • Next TV season is when the networks are saying they will start streaming more shows. With some big shows like 24 not starting till 2008, I'm thinking 2008 will be the year.
  • 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/ [zattoo.com]

  • Control -- but not obvious control (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @11:29AM (#19190855)
    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

  • Sanctuary! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Saturday May 19, 2007 @12:38PM (#19191259)
    Sanctuary [sanctuaryforall.com] 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 [sanctuaryfans.com] 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.
    • 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 ca

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Dr_Art ( 937436 )
        > ...and some money for bandwidth and other costs...

        Ahh, yes, money... That's the trick, isn't it! :-) Best of luck to you!

  • ITVN (Score:1)

    by mcj ( 21934 )
    Has anyone tried out ITVN, http://www.itvn.com/index.html [itvn.com] ?

    Cool idea (set-top box which streams video over the net) for pretty cheap, but I'm not 100% sold on it yet.
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close