Live Internet Television

“In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay,” Chris Anderson writes, “but eventually the force of economic gravity will win."

Don’t miss the New Yorker article about why the free-to-consumer model for content seems inevitable. In the tradition of the New Yorker, it’s long but a very worthwhile read.

Some excerpts:

The cost of the building blocks of all electronic activity—storage, processing, and bandwidth—has fallen so far that it is now approaching zero. In 1961, Anderson says, a single transistor was ten dollars. In 1963, it was five dollars. By 1968, it was one dollar. Today, Intel will sell you two billion transistors for eleven hundred dollars—meaning that the cost of a single transistor is now about .000055 cents.

…

[An experiment conducted by an M.I.T. behavioral economist] offered a group of subjects a choice between two kinds of chocolate—Hershey’s Kisses, for one cent, and Lindt truffles, for fifteen cents. Three-quarters of the subjects chose the truffles. Then he redid the experiment, reducing the price of both chocolates by one cent. The Kisses were now free. What happened? The order of preference was reversed. Sixty-nine per cent of the subjects chose the Kisses. The price difference between the two chocolates was exactly the same, but that magic word “free” has the power to create a consumer stampede.

Like I said, read the whole article, it’s full of  interesting points.

Here’s a review of the walkman the BBC got from a 13-year-old 30 years after the device’s release:

Wikipedia will be adding a cool video encyclopedia, with editing tools, to its properties in the next months. They’re hoping their large user base and clout will bring a lot more video into the public domain. Meanwhile, however, Erik Moeller (deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation) laments:

It is sad and unfortunate that the public broadcasters are not the ones leading this movement,” he says, adding, “The mission should be to do whatever they can do to maximize distribution, and I’m not seeing that right now.

Details at p2pnet.net and WebWireTV

Call me a curmudgeon, but I naturally distrust reports based on research by interested parties.

According to WebTVWire, Cisco’s in-house report indicates that Web video — including Web TV — will dominate the Internet by 2013, making up 2/3 of all traffic. (note my own bold emphasis!):

Cisco, a company that designs and sells networking and communication technology, today released an updated version of its Visual Networking Index. This study looks at how the Internet is likely to grow between now and 2013, and what sectors will be responsible for driving traffic and bandwidth usage.

The research predicts that total IP traffic is set to hit 56 exabytes of data per month by 2013, up from just 9 exabytes of data per month during 2008. This means that annual global IP traffic will exceed two thirds of a zettabyte (1 trillion gigabytes) by that time. Which is going to put a hell of a strain on the system.

I have no doubt that TV is moving onto the Web from many different angles, and that that is a lot of whatever-bytes. But they don’t need to place a strain on networks…innovation is at hand elsewhere than at Cisco to create new, scalable and sophisticated ways of bringing TV onto your computer, without creating broadband network congestion. A solution like ivi TV makes it possible to keep your web-browsing and TV-on-your-PC watching concurrent and equally smooth.

As we’ve said here on the ivi TV blog before, the Web is just not the best platform for TV delivery. And Internet TV doesn’t need to be Browser-based TV. To recap from Todd’s post last week:

Websites simply aren’t good live TV delivery mechanisms.  They’re great for relevant video clip delivery and archived video, as websites are easily organized thematically and are searchable.

Live TV, and alpha-state TV viewing, requires channel changing, and most importantly continuously-streamed content. ivi delivers the living room TV experience in a downloadable, stand-alone player.  Unlike cumbersome “full-screen only” players (…), the ivi player allows multi-tasking, because it can operate in easily customizable window sizes.  Television is coming to every Internet-connected device.

Image courtesy of Techno News Feed

The transition of TV from analog to digital wraps up this week. Rather than running to the cable company on bended knee, some are discovering that better viewing opportunities have emerged on the TV itself:

From TechFlash’s How I replaced Comcast TV in my life, and why I wouldn’t go back:

A few months ago, I took advantage of the digital-television switch to do the opposite — dropping my Comcast television service and switching to a digital converter box instead. And I haven’t regretted it for an instant.

I cut my monthly expenses significantly, and while I miss some things about cable, I’m happier than ever with my viewing options.

For starters, the over-the-air digital service is sweet. I like to joke that it’s poor man’s cable, but that undersells it. The setup was easy, the picture is clear, the channels are numerous, the programs are identified by on-screen captions, and it’s a one-time purchase with no monthly fees. On top of that, the price of the digital converter box can be reduced or even eliminated with government coupons.

Over-the-air digital TV offers several more channels than analog television does — although basic cable still delivers many more.

Sure, I miss my nightly doses of ESPN and a few other cable channels. The Universal Sports channel offered on over-the-air digital TV doesn’t come close. But I’ve more than made up for that by reaquainting myself with such shows as Oprah and Frontline, and becoming familiar with the addictive Create TV.

I watch programs such as The Daily Show and Lost by accessing full episodes on Hulu.com and abc.com on my computer.

In addition, my household already had Xbox Live and Netflix accounts, so we’re able to supplement our viewing options even further using the Netflix on-demand service through my Xbox 360 console. Of course, that would mean an extra expense for someone who doesn’t already have those services, but even without on-demand Netflix, I’d be more than happy with my viewing options.

In short, over-the-air digital TV is worth a close look — especially when supplemented by free online content. Personally, I’d never go back.

Image courtesy of Main Street Project

Of course, cable companies have a lot of reasons to usher people over to their services, and they’re not just defensive. They see an enormous opportunity to build their audience by downplaying the quality of the new digital feed, and — oddly — broadcasters seem to be complicit.

From TV Newsday’s Stations: Stop Ignoring OTA’s Advantages:

I’ve seen plenty of broadcasting-produced DTV awareness spots that explain how OTA viewers can remain OTA viewers by buying new TV or converter box, but I’ve never seen a compelling ad explaining why I should hassle with new gear and stick with OTA reception instead of just calling up my local cable operator.

Broadcasters’ DTV awareness efforts have been led by the NAB and its modesty in promoting broadcasting during the transition is puzzling.

Maybe the broadcasters on the NAB board now see every loss of an OTA home to cable or satellite as a gain of another $3 per year in retransmission consent fees from cable. That would make sense.

Maybe the NAB simply didn’t want to antagonize policymakers in Washington by turning the transition into a self-serving exercise.

Or, maybe, as some broadcasters believe, the NAB is not really representing the best interests of the TV broadcasting industry these days. The TV board, the critics say, is studded with executives of companies that have significant cable interests — Disney, NBC, Cox, Post-Newsweek, Hearst-Argyle.