Tag: Broadband

The Future of TV

In today’s ShopTalk, a daily newletter for broadcast journalists (and those who sit in the same room with them), Alan Mendelson of KCAL wrote an interesting letter:

From: Alan Mendelson

MoneyLA@aol.com

We are only a few years away to find the reach and penetration of high-speed Internet access to be on par with Cable TV. And when that happens, perhaps in only five years, broadcast and Cable TV news will also be on par with Internet-TV News.

In that time, families will have a “video wall” with a handheld remote with which to choose TV, Cable, Satellite TV or Internet video.

And when that happens, companies will not pay hundreds of millions of dollars to buy a TV broadcast station (and along with it the limitations of government regulation) but they will be able to start up an Internet-TV station for the cost of a server — about $2,000. And unlike broadcast TV and Cable TV, Internet TV will have no geographical boundaries.

Alan Mendelson

KCAL-TV Money Reporter and www.moredeals.com

This is a subject I’ve thought about a lot. So, I responded:

I read, with great interest, Alan Mendelson’s letter concerning the future of Internet video. If it were only that simple.

Alan mentions the startup cost of $2,000 for a server. That’s a server without bandwidth. Unlike broadcasting, where one single transmission reaches out to anyone, current Internet technology requires a discreet, individual signal to each user.

That’s also a server without any viewers. Broadcast stations provide something an Internet start-up can’t (and here’s their real value) – a well known address. Don’t underestimate the value of prime real estate. It’s no surprise that when the same program is seen on both broadcast and cable channels, broadcast gets the higher audience share.

Even when Internet television finds an audience, it takes a lot of bandwidth to serve an audience. As far as I can tell, it’s a lot more expensive to transmit that many bits than with our current system of broadcasting.

I’m not saying that what Alan predicts won’t happen. It just won’t happen in the way he anticipates.

Internet television will be watched as the Internet is watched – very close to the screen. It will be watched as we browse and check email and do all those other things we do with computers… and will do with computers.

For the most part, Internet video programming will not be watched full screen. Certainly not for news and information programming. There is no need for it. Watching news, or even sports, in a small window on a computer desktop is perfectly satisfying and reduces the bandwidth cost greatly.

Already, here in Connecticut, University of Connecticut women’s basketball is streamed on a subscription basis by our local Public Television station. Major League Baseball does it too. In neither case is the service designed to be full screen viewing. In neither case would this be economically possible without a significant subscription fee, for what is a small amount of programming.

The good news for most of us is, Internet or broadcast, our skills will still be needed. The bad news is, increased dilution of the audience will lower margins and probably lower salaries.

My small town, a suburb in a medium sized market, might be served by a one man TV station, where a single person does every function from reporting to shooting to editing to anchoring to sales.

Will the cable companies, who provide a huge chunk of the broadband Internet access now available, try to control this use of bandwidth? They have a vested interest in seeing that they are the source of subscription programming, not a flat rate pipeline by which others profit… at their peril.

Whether change will be good or bad remains to be seen. What is unavoidable is, there will be change.

Look Ma – I’m on Slashdot

I love Slashdot. How could I stay away from a site whose slogan is “News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.”

I am there at least 4-5 times a day, following their links to see the latest in high tech. It is Linux biased in much the way The Catholic Church is Christian biased. But, it’s geek and nerd populated and I share a certain sensibility with many of its habitues (though, unfortunately I no longer share the same generation with them)

Its readers, rapidly responding to the story postings, add insight, insult and everything in between.

What makes Slashdot so effective is its self moderating system which starts limiting what you easily read (you can always get to everything, but probably don’t want to) as users come on and rate the postings. Judging by what I see, there are a lot of people moderating at any given time, though Slashdot only gives you the opportunity to moderate every once in a while. Then, later, the moderations get moderated!

In many ways it is analogous to Google, where your association with others decides your relative importance and where your links appear.

Anyway, I’m writing all this because I finally got a posting of mine on to start a thread. It started this morning, early, when I saw an article in the New York Times about speeding up media (listening at double speed, for instance) and how that is a burgeoning field.

I have used that same technique in my studies at Mississippi State, watching DVD’s at double speed. For me, it’s been very effective. Now, it’s shared with others.

Continue reading “Look Ma – I’m on Slashdot”

Broadband – How Broad?

I read an article on c/net earlier today. It’s about broband ISP’s, like Comcast which I use, limiting bandwidth.

The article was interesting in that some customers had been kicked off line, unsubscribed to the service, for violating an unpublished limit which Comcast will not divulge. Just don’t go over it!

What seems to be missing from this article, and what worries me about broadband, is the people selling the service are selling it at their own peril.

Comcast and other cable companies make good money on pay-per-view and premium services. But, with a good broadband connection, there’s a case to be made for getting your premium entertainment directly off the net and eliiminating the middleman (Comcast). Comcast’s profit on PPV and premium channels comes from being the gatekeeper. If they’re bypassed, that’s gone.

A perfect example already exists in sports. Both MLB and the NFL sell Internet packages. Those packages compete with other premium channels available on some cable systems. Comcast gets nothing extra for providing the pipe that brings basbeball to my house. And, I don’t buy games on PPV.

Are the cable companies and/or phone companies the right companies to be our broadband gatekeeprs (After all, even phone companies are now seeing competition from VOIP carriers like Vonage)? Certainly, they have an advantage with much of the infrastructure already in place because of ther more mature businesses.

It’s going to be interesting to see this play out over time. At this point the FCC is not exactly pro-consumer, so I don’t expect outside pressure, yet.

(As part of my retirement portfolio, I own a little Comcast stock)