how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
531 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | IP for TV makes no sense This whole idea of using a point-to-point protocol to replace a broadcast protocol is inefficient and stupid IMHO.
What is the actual benefit of this? | |
|  JSM88
join:2000-12-20
Falls Church, VA | Re: IP for TV makes no sense the benefit? wow......
I'll say this slowly - Every piece of programming every provider wants to make available, available at any time, in whatever format, the user wishes. There will no longer be channels, just umbrella "sites" for the programming produced by that "network". Barriers to entry for content providers will be reduced to the cost of server space. Pretty much anything you could ever think to want to see will be available at your fingertips. No wonder google is wading into the whole area of video search so assertively. | |
| |  imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: IP for TV makes no sense Again, so what's the benefit? VOD has been doing that for years. | |
| | | JSM88
join:2000-12-20
Falls Church, VA | Re: IP for TV makes no sense really, becuase I used vod all the time, and the selection seems quite limited. Try to understand the meaning of the phrase "All programming". Everything: any, bar non, complete, entire, every, every single, sum, total, totality, whole. The only limit to what is available at your beck and call is the storage capacity of the video servers, for that please reference the size of the entire google dataset, as the economic use of this store (which could, in the end, be managed by google) is much greater then the current cache. FOX is no longer broadcasting "House" or "Idol" out to you, they are posting it one their server. Some "networks" may put a whole series up at once. Some may dribble them out as do sites that offer serialized content right now, but there will be little economic incentive to withdraw content once it's out there.
Of course, the other great change is that you are likely to start paying for each piece of content as it is accessed once IPTV is fully implemented, but in exchange for having access to an infinately more diverse set of entertainment/information options it is a change that will make sense. | |
| | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: IP for TV makes no sense said by JSM88: Try to understand the meaning of the phrase "All programming". Everything: any, bar non, complete, entire, every, every single, sum, total, totality, whole. The problem is that you are living on your own planet. The broadcasters are not going to stop doing what they are currently are doing because IPTV has just come to life. It's not going to happen | |
| | | | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: IP for TV makes no sense Actually you're on your own planet. The telco's have made deal after deal for this. Broadcasters can actually see how popular their programming is based on viewership vs that neilsen crap. They already to VOD so why would they not allow it to be expanded to all programing. Not everyone lives in the prime time world. Hence popularity of Tivo's.
Telco's are clamoring to get rid of outdated telecom laws but it seems we also have outdated customers. | |
| | | | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: IP for TV makes no sense said by NOCMan:Actually you're on your own planet. The telco's have made deal after deal for this. Broadcasters can actually see how popular their programming is based on viewership vs that neilsen crap. They already to VOD so why would they not allow it to be expanded to all programing. Not everyone lives in the prime time world. Hence popularity of Tivo's. Telco's are clamoring to get rid of outdated telecom laws but it seems we also have outdated customers. What is the point of your post? The broadcasters know their popularity, but they are not going to stop their delivery process just because a select amount of people can not make the show times. The number of people who watch tv live far outweigh people who record. I guess there are two people who live on Planet JSM88.  | |
| | | | | | | JSM88
join:2000-12-20
Falls Church, VA | Re: IP for TV makes no sense well, we have plenty of buggy whip folks; not suprising, there always are.
What is particularly amusing is the number of folks who think that the networks will control this transition. They already account for a steadily decreasing supply of the viewership of video, with no sign of it letting up.
True IPTV is a good deal for all other content providers, essentially cutting out the networks as a middleman in the distribution process. Of course this doesn't mean that the networks will disappear, but that they will slowly reconstitute as a brand that markets the programming made available under their banner - much like the studios are now. This isn't a question of if, but when, and many entertainment industry folks already see this coming. But what do I know, I only deal with telecomm policy for a living. | |
| | | | | | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
2 edits | Re: IP for TV makes no sense said by JSM88:True IPTV is a good deal for all other content providers, essentially cutting out the networks as a middleman in the distribution process. You can't but out the networks as a middleman because they are the ones who distribute the shows. They are the ones who make the shows. IPTV is not going to revolutionize the way we watch tv. The broadcasters are not going to spend the billions of dollars to convert their entire operations over to an IPTV compatible system for whatever reason you think they will. It's not going to happen any time soon.
But what do I know, I only deal with telecomm policy for a living. What does policy have to do with building networks and what broadcasters are going to do with their infrastructure? It doesn't matter if you claim to to deal with telecom policy or not because what you think is going to happen is not going to happen in the near future. Maybe 25 years from now, but not within a couple years because SBC, Bell South or Verizon are just now starting to get into IPTV. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: IP for TV makes no sense
There is only one problem with all this pie in the sky delivery/pay on demand stuff: Cost to the consumer.
Consumers are used to FREE broadcast TV. Why do you think TV stations are going to the expense of putting in entire new, from the ground up digital TV stations? The FCC "must carry" rules apply to digital TV stations also. The difference with digital TV stations is that they can broadcast either 1 HD program, or, up to 4 Standard definition services at one time. This will, eventually, apply also to and be a boon for cable only services.
The more likely scenario is that the station will broadcast various pay to use, or information services throughout the day in standard definition, and network, or, special programming in HD during "prime time". The cable company will simply carry the digital signal, just as it does analog now.
I could, however, see the cable company originating it's own services in this manner, such as "Tech TV" on comcast.
As far as having regular programming hosted on servers and served up on a pay basis, I think it is highly unlikely, except, perhaps on a limited basis such as the PPV we have now. Consumers may be dumb as a box of rocks, but they simply will not go for pay for every show TV, especially if it is also filled with ads. | |
|
| | | | Mr Dip
join:2005-02-28
Lisle, IL | said by imrf:said by JSM88: Try to understand the meaning of the phrase "All programming". Everything: any, bar non, complete, entire, every, every single, sum, total, totality, whole. The problem is that you are living on your own planet. The broadcasters are not going to stop doing what they are currently are doing because IPTV has just come to life. It's not going to happen Agreed. If the infrastructure switched over to IPTV for EVERYBODY all at one swift moment, then it makes sense. But for this sort of transition to take place, you are looking at decades. IPTV on demand is the exception, not the rule. Until then, there is nothing wrong with traditional networks and programming schedules. Networks, cable providers, and the billion dollar satellite industry will fight tooth and nail IP on demand for 100% of content. I enjoy channel surfing - I for one would not want to micro-purchase every single content that I wish to watch - and the 100% on demand model would probably go down that road. | |
|
| | |  dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency?
join:2004-01-22
united state
kudos:1
 ·Charter
| That is assuming that the networks would allow this. I dont think that they would or if they do, they will ask for to much money for it to happen to make it affordable. Also, why would a provider want to offer every single channel that is avaiable? Not every channel would get watched enough to justify the cost of it. I feel that if HD wasnt coming around, IPTV would probably work pretty good but because of the bandwidth requirements of HD, this is just a waste of time. Once again, phone companies (except maybe Verizon with FIOS) demonstrate that they are about ten years behind the curve when it comes to making products that consumers want. | |
| | | | | | | Re: IP for TV makes no sense
Bandwidth requirements? I think 4 standard definition channels inside one 6 Mhz standard channel is pretty good efficiency, myself. HD doesn't require any more bandwidth than a regular analog channel. | |
|
| jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | That's wonderful.
Let me go to a web site, click on a link and view the program.
At this point, I don't really need a cable TV company - just a fast internet connection and a user friendly box that contains a web browser and a media player. | |
| | | | | Re: IP for TV makes no sense
Which gives them total control in the end. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| said by jjoshua:This whole idea of using a point-to-point protocol to replace a broadcast protocol is inefficient and stupid IMHO. What is the actual benefit of this? I agree, everyones house has RG-5 or better, and i am not cutting up my walls, for the sake of IPTV. Plus i can get cable on all my sets, without boxes. Maybe if they were smart they could use your existing cable to work, which i am sure is possible. | |
|
| |
|
