Question about
peter

What would it take to build an online TV service that regular people would use instead of cable or satellite?

A few weeks ago I wrote that one of the things Apple might do if it wanted to sell an HDTV would be to offer some sort of online television service that could lure regular people away from cable and satellite. I didn't get too specific at the time, but I have some ideas about what a competitive online TV service might look like and figured I'd ask the gdgt community to share its thoughts as well.

Microsoft's new Xbox Live IPTV services are about as close as anyone seems to have gotten so far, but it still feels like a complement rather than a replacement. What I'm describing here is more ambitious than that -- which is why it's not going to happen anytime soon -- but I think it's also useful to think through. Doing so helps us understand the big challenges any provider would face if they tried to build something, and it also gives us a better sense of what needs to happen before there will be any large scale shift in consumer behavior. The obstacles really aren't technological at this point; broadband penetration is high enough. We're just dealing with the legacy business model of a television industry that's having trouble making the transition to a new distribution platform.

Anyway, here are a few elements I think any online TV service will need if it wants people to be a replacement for cable or satellite:

1. Live TV

Whether it's sports, awards shows, or political stuff like the State of the Union, this is the number one reason people cite when they tell me they can't or won't cut the cord. So any service which wants to sign up regular people will have to have some kind of live TV component.

2. Have the shows people want to watch

The other big reason people don't cut the cord: they can't watch the shows they like. (Hulu does an admirable job here, but they're at the mercy of what the networks will give them.) I don't know how you solve this without paying through the nose, but regular people aren't going to give up their cable or satellite otherwise unless they feel like they can get enough programming they care about. The scary thing for the cable and satellite companies is that the high price of service is leading to a generation of young people who are never signing up in the first place and who won't have all that many shows they care about.

3. Have a great back catalog of content

Think about how many thousands and thousands of television series have been created over the years and how only a fraction of those are available online. An online service with serious breadth and depth would be another factor in convincing people to sign up.

4. Price it right

This might surprise you, but I don't think the price for this service needs to cost the same as Netflix or Hulu. A true substitute cable or satellite only needs to be significantly cheaper than the average cable or satellite bill, which is usually in the range of $60 to $70. The right mix of live programming and on-demand programming could come in around $25 or $30 and still be very successful.

5. Somehow don't piss off the cable companies

Most people -- at least in the US -- get their internet over cable, so anyone offering an online TV service is going to draw the ire of the Comcasts and Time Warner Cables of the world. They're already raising the prospect of tighter bandwidth caps and expensive overages in response to the rise of Netflix, how do you think they'd react if twenty million households canceled their cable service and signed up for an online TV service? It's not that they're opposed to people watching stuff online -- they just want to get paid for it no matter what. The cable and satellite companies love TV Everywhere (which lets you watch programming on your PC, mobile device, or Xbox) because you need to be a paid cable or satellite subscriber to access the content. Sort of defeats the purpose as far as I'm concerned, but the cable and satellite companies are going to do everything possible to keep people on the hook. I honestly don't know how you solve this problem. You may end up treating them like the mob, where you have to pay them off every month to get what you really want.

Would love to get your thoughts, what else do you think is needed?
top answers
peter's pick
bjdraw

You have done a great job of laying this out Pete and I couldn't agree more. The problem of course is that number 5 is nearly impossible since any competing service would "piss off" the cable companies.

I think we are at the point where we need to talk about reforming the Telecom Act of '96, with the main item on the agenda being to make it illegal to tie connectivity with content services. If cable companies are not permitted to use their monopoly on the wires into our homes to sell content, I think the landscape would look completely different.

Bits are bits and we need to stop wasting the 5.6Gbps of throughput into our homes on reruns.
mark as good answer

13 people like this answer

Clicking the mark as good answer button helps us highlight the best answers.

peter's pick
internalogic

responses tend to focus on content, e.g., live programming and sports - but this content is widely available and there are many ways to integrate it today.

the real issue is how to deploy a system that does this effectively. presumably, that's what Jobs meant when he told Isaacson that "cracked the code" for TV or whatever.

this implies a system that can effectively pull metadata from disparate sources, scrub and unify that data for consistent presentation (not trivial), and deliver the content via a simple yet compelling UI.

sadly, MSOs remain committed to IR remotes with the old "up, down, right, left" paradigm - which cripples the UI with a slow and tedious method to search and/or browse for content that is downright primitive in comparison to what many of us have become accustomed to on our phones and tablets.

some of the "smart TV" systems (internet connected TVs) from Sony, Samsung, and LG show promise, but in each case it's often necessary to switch video sources in order to use a STB, a game console, a media player such as BR/DVD/DVR, an OTT box such as Sling, Boxee, Roku, etc., or OTA sources. there is no consistency in UI (in terms of physical remote or on screen control) from source to source, and there is a lot of latency in every system as sources are switched.

mainstream consumers are waiting for a system that unifies the experience, improves the UI, eliminates latency, and kills the multi-remote table clutter once and for all.

there will be those here who *like* the control provided by dedicated systems - but that doesn't respond to Peter's question re: "regular people"

whatever Apple is planning will probably have that appeal. the problem with Apple TV today is that it's saddled with the up/down/right/left remote (albeit one of the better implementations) , the iTunes pay wall, and it's just a source - not a hub.

the "real" solution will integrate paid and free content (including local/live, sports, etc.) from multiple sources in one seamless experience.

worth checking out www.hillcrestlabs.com...
mark as good answer

9 people like this answer

peter's pick
roz

Of course the type of offering you are describing should happen. IPTV just needs a simple box at the end, I think it could be something like AppleTV or Roku style box. Basically an IP to HDMI converter, with some processing power.

Any one of the current cable or satellite company players could offer this sort of service, if they could get content providers to make the deals (which it does not seem like they can.)

For example, why does a company like DirectTV need satellites in this day and age? Why not just offer a similar service over IP? Or why doesn't someone compete with them for that market?

#5 is the reason. It is also the reason why net neutrality matters and the fact that we all know that not pissing off the cable companies matters, suggests that we don't really have net neutrality.

It is a sad truth but politically at this time, cable companies are too powerful to allow direct competition with their cable TV franchises. The FCC could be imposing the sort of competition that would create this type of service but they are not going to do it. Too much influence from the current players who have been ready and blocking this sort of thing from happening.

It also seems to be the case that content providers are colluding with cable companies, some are now owned by cable companies, not to make deals that would allow the cable box to be bypassed for certain current programming. That is why your iPad can't stream certain stuff to a TV over Airplay. The content is locked up to prevent that very thing from happening.

We need an Open TV coalition to expose the way cable, content and policy are being tied together to limit competition for TV delivery over IP. Then we might actually get to a point where TV is untethered from your ISP and we might actually have competition and choice between many IPTV providers.
mark as good answer

3 people like this answer

community pick
idlehands

My wife and I have a Mac Mini attached to the TV and use it for almost everything. The one thing that keeps us still paying $17/mo. for a BASIC cable package is that we need access to information in the case of an emergency and we can't get the necessary reception in our concrete, steel and glass condo building.

I know that this falls into your first requirement, but it is a variation worth mentioning. In an ideal world, an IPTV service would not just have live coverage of emergency situations, but it would also have the ability to alert you somehow, no matter what you're watching.

And... we don't watch sports.
mark as good answer

5 people like this answer

sort by

29 more answers
beau

Getting live sports is the biggest problem to me. To be viable service you'd have to get the NFL, NBA, MLB, major college sports, the Olympics and World Cup at a minimum to be viable. The TV networks (one of whom is owned by Comcast now) pay a combined $2 billion a year for the rights to just the NFL. Any online TV service would have to offer a considerable revenue bump per subscriber just to get the leagues to consider upsetting their relationships with the networks, which go back 40 years in some cases. I don't think you can do that without putting subscriber costs at an untenable level.

If you can't negotiate with the leagues then you'd have to convince the networks to cut out the cable companies from equation and stream their sports content on the Internet. Again this goes to relationships. You'd have to convince the networks to annoy the cable providers which would require way too much money per subscriber.

The thing with sports on the Internet is that there isn't the same P2P threat that movies and music faced in the last 15 years that will force them to lower their prices for the Internet. Illegal streaming of live events is still too hard and unreliable to be used at similar levels that Napster had.
mark as good answer

4 people like this answer

groovechicken

Let's not forget this is Apple we are talking about, and it was apparently one of Steve's pet projects, so it would still be ingrained with his attitude throughout the project. So, what if they spend cash on unused spectrum and just offer a tv that has its own network? Not sure if this is feasible, but I can only see Apple having the pride and arrogance to try this... and possibly succeeding. Maybe iTunes would be their "channel", and you get access to everything in iTunes On Demand for a monthly fee. And the TV has a Wifi AP in it so that you can share that new Apple internet service to the computers in the house. I could see Steve deciding to just roll their own and assuming that content providers would come flocking once it became popular enough... much the same as the app situation happened with the iPhone. Maybe part of their push on this would be to mock current mainstream media offerings as "all reality TV" and offer people new exclusive stuff that can't be found on traditional services. Eventually, you'd get some big content providers on board. Heck, Netflix is even managing to pull this off to some extent. Speaking of Netflix, I could easily see them being a launch partner.

Not trying to prophesy here, but just making the point that Steve never believed in doing what everyone else was doing only a little better. If he threw his heart and soul into it, he went for the gold and tried to take what everyone else was doing and fix it... which means change it drastically. Based on his comments around this project, it seems like he may have invested himself in it enough for that.

In regards to the networks, they are finally getting a clue. I just watched the Sunday night Saints vs. Lions NFL game streaming live on nbc.com Sunday night and it was amazing... way better than watching it on television. The little picture-in-picture view of the above-field camera is awesome. Convincing these networks to treat Apple like another service provider may not be so far-fetched.
mark as good answer

4 people like this answer

Grungivitus

I think you need what I call "babysitter" mode. My wife doesn't want to be bothered with choosing each individual show to watch. She just wants to tune to a "channel" and let it run in the background. It could be hosted or not, but it should be 24/7. She would like a "home" channel or a "wedding" channel, or maybe a "science and nature" channel.
mark as good answer

3 people like this answer

sully99

Think about how many people actually watch your favorite channel. Let's say one million people do. You do the math on how "cheap" your favorite channel is. Assuming it's not ESPN, it may only charge Comcast or Time Warner Cable 10 cents per subscriber.

Then remember that Comcast has around 22 million subscribers and TWC has another 12 million. 34 million x $0.10 is not chump change.

Now ask yourself how much they have to charge to get $3.4 million from only one million subs, instead of 34 million. And this is assuming the one million viewers all cut the cord and use an OTT option for viewing.

The price tag on your "a la carte" shopping cart is going to fill up pretty quickly if you don't have millions of other viewers subsidizing your choices. That is, assuming these smaller TV networks even survive without the regular paycheck from the cable MSOs.
mark as good answer

2 people like this answer

magoon

so, basically, the way to build a great TV service is exactly what the cable companies have done?

for all this talk about disrupting television there is an awful lot of desire to make the online alternatives exactly like cable. what's most interesting is that the cable companies and studios want it this way -- what they're doing is working. they're sabotaging the disruption by appearing to give us what we want, almost, but never quite letting anything match the enjoyment and simplicity of cable.
mark as good answer

2 people like this answer

lemketron

Sorry this doesn't actually answer the question, but reading the comments here brings up an alternate question (for the cable folks who might be reading): What would keep me from cutting my cable, seeing as how I actually prefer watching TV on my Hi-Def TiVo?

How about letting me choose which channels I want to get? There's probably less than a dozen channels my family actually cares about, so turn off the rest and lower my bill if you want me to stick around. I don't channel surf, and I don't watch sports, so don't make me pay for all that other stuff. i'd still keep a "basic HD" set of channels, but I want to choose the channels.

Broadcast cable (e.g. multicasting) is still a great (and efficient) way to download TV shows into a lot of people's DVRs without having to send individual "on demand" Internet streams to all those cable-cutters (which also slows down everyone's cable Internet speed).
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

roberto

I think we can't overlook having DVR capability, especially since Live TV is part of your proposal. As awesome as the back catalog may be in this hypothetical device, the ability to record and time shift any live content can help fill in the gaps as we transition from the scheduled way of watching TV to the world of everything on demand. To me one of the key components missing from a Roku or Apple TV is the DVR capability. If this is ever integrated they would completely destroy TiVo, especially if they can do so without the need for a monthly fee or an exorbitant upfront cost for a lifetime subscription.
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

frankspin

I think the biggest thing holding back a lot of devices is a consistent fluid UX. I think XBox & Roku have a done a very good job at solving this issue. For the greater majority of the public having something as complex as Boxee is not going to work, even with their new LiveTV integration. The place where I think the most consistent UI lies is with WMC and their integration of the TV guide is really really nice. I kind of wish Microsoft kept pushing with this software and worked at better integrating online services into the software but I think they saw just how difficult it is to get into that segment.

The single big thing that will never get anyone to jump is mentioned by beau above and that's sports. Microsoft attempted to bring this to the Xbox with their Summer Olympics plug-in a while back but it wasn't that great. A. it wasn't updating with the most recent stuff, B. none of it was live C. it required someone have another PC running in their place with WMC on top of it. The Xbox integration of ESPN360 is nice but again there are problems mostly with the overall quality of the feed and the #1 biggest problem with online sports is Blackout rules. Until blackout rules go away a proper online service providing sports is never going to take off.

Edit: I think one factor some are overlooking too is bandwidth, but I think that deviates a bit from what you're asking.
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

Lotz

For me and my TV watching habits I'd want to pay for only the shows I actually watch. I don't want to pay 100+ every month (plus money for internet) to get EVERYTHING that's offered in some stupid package the cable to satellite company has put together.

also want to watch when I'm ready. DVR's suck and are old tech which the cable and satellite companies don't have an interested in upgrading to something better. I can only record two things at once and when doing so I have to either watch one of those two programs or something I've already recorded. I'd much rather sit down to watch TV when I am ready and download exactly what I'm in the mood for. Also, DVR interfaces are awful and slow and the remotes (like many other television remotes) need updating.

I'm not a huge sports fan so I don't really care about live TV and at this time I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason why I would need live TV except for an emergency news broadcast. Maybe I'm not a typical television viewer. I can accept that.

As far as not pissing off the cable companies I'm not sure how that is possible at this time. They want to keep collecting the vast amounts of cash they have been for far too long. They have tons of money to use to make their product better and they don't. They couldn't care less about customer satisfaction.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

dcdjason

One way to get around the cable companies is to make deals directly with the content producers. Netflix is trying this with shows like Arrested Development and House of Cards.

Matching the money content producers get from the networks is going to be a challenge - especially given that ties between cable providers and content producers are growing tighter (Comcast/NBC Universal).
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

waleedanbar

TV is long overdue for a technology upgrade, and I think there are three big reasons why it hasn't happened yet:

1 - The first includes #5 - but not just cable companies wanting to preserve their profits, the studios and media companies have profit margins to maintain too (for good or bad). Many of the less popular channels are owned and subsidized by revenues from higher-profit ones. You're still paying for all the channels you don't watch in your cable plan, and that does enable valuable and meaningful, even if niche, variety in programming to mass audiences. If we are able to pay less for our TV content, we would need to ensure that the production of new content isn't starved of funding, otherwise i think we'd suffer from the same kind of saturation of "pop" content that's happening to music. Only that with mass appeal would thrive, and the fringes would be littered with low-budget and low-reach media. It's not intractable, but it needs innovation in technology to drive a new wave to helping content reach audiences if we disempower the cable companies from doing it for us.

2 - Cable companies are not technology companies. That's why we still have cable boxes that are stone-age technology. They don't get it - and it's not their priority to innovate the user experience. There are many companies trying to do the innovation around the edges that have been mentioned by other commenter, but none have the control over the content and pricing like the cable hegemony does, and so the offerings really aren't compelling yet for consumers. It's either too cumbersome or clunky to stack these boxes on top of your cable box (because the cable box is still necessary), and so as glamorous as the UI might be the overall user experience still suffers because it's not reducing the complexity of it all. Or, added monthly fees (Xbox live) make it even more expensive, which is definitely not what people want.

3 - Studios licensing rules for their content are often ridiculously ridiculous. Valuable content in back catalogs sits unused for all the wrong reasons when it could be generating revenue and pleasing consumers. For example, either it's tied up in blackouts, or there isn't enough air time, or they're afraid of diluting its value by licensing it for digital distribution. It's short-sighted, and this needs to change from inside the studios or they risk the fate of the labels.

Apple, as much as I hate to say it, may be the only company with the clout to push change. They have the gravitas and proven revenue-driving potential to cajole big cable and big media to try new things. They also have the consumer devotion and UI prowess to make it easy, sexy and an instant hit. Unfortunately, with this Apple secretly moves into a choice position as your best-friend-slash-worst-enemy.

As another commenter suggested, an open tv initiative is sorely needed. Whatever special dispensation Apple receives to control access to back-catalog content should be available to any business wanting to help revolutionize TV in a way that protects everyone's interests and allows change to happen - at whatever pace everyone's comfortable with. Just let it happen already!
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

kniedenker

Some good points all around. I would add that to me content discovery is broken and needs to be fixed.

Growing up as a kid I would get the German equivalent of TV Guide every two weeks and would actually read it front to back and mark everything I want to watch on the major channels (about 12). I know it sounds weird. The other way of discovering TV content was channel surfing. Anyway - today I don't have time to channel surf (you may be able to discover music through radio in the background but that does not work for tv).

I can't think of a good source that allows you to discover all kinds of TV from serialized, to documentaries to live events. To me this is essential for the live after cutting the cord.

The price of cable is not the problem, the problem is that for the price you only get a giant tub of all kinds of food thrown in together instead of just the tasty stuff, neatly presented.
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

marqueemark

I've learned while developing Marquee (a media center, www.MarqueeHD.TV) that the only current solution is utilizing a combination of services. There is no single service available for all of your needs, now or in the foreseeable future.
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

pafro99

I think Apple TV will be a game changer in a totally different way. I don't think it will be a way to get away from the cable companies. It will instead be a set-top box killer. Why do we need a HDD in a set top box anyway? I'm guessing I will pay comcast or charter and hook the wire up to my new AppleTV. By doing this I have all the offerings available from my subscription package, but I can just stream instead of record to dvr. I think this solves a lot of the problems listed here. You still allow the cable companies and content owners to get paid. Apple will start storing and streaming all the shows available based on your subscription. Then, once apple proves that this will work. They will just go around all the cable companies and start getting content exclusively for the apple tv. I really just came up with all this as I was typing, but it seems to make total sense to me. Apple will control the interface, let you stream to all your apple devices, continue to let you watch live shows and eliminate a set-top box. Seems like something I would be interested in. We will have to wait and see though.
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

jtmoel

I also think if you offered a a la cart option, pick 10 favorites, football, movies, etc at a great price. If you sold a true online TV, with movies, sports packs at a very low or discounted price, 2.00 to 5.00, in high quality you would have a gold-mine. How to deal with Cable companies, well it seems to me cable pissed off networks from the beginning. Why can't the internet do it to cable. Contact certain networks and any cable channels would be part of package, 30 dollars a month, you get 150 channels, for 5 dollars more you can add up to 10 special channels, 1 hbo, 1 football team, 1 baseball team, (network) other channels that don't come, and for 10 dollars more you get 20 options and so on. I think people are begging for an online option, it opens the door to people buying "google" TV's, and larger monitors for their computers. As well an increase in tablets!!! Win Win Win.
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

mathewballard

While most of the above issues apply to me, especially being able to watch sports (love NFL Sunday Ticket), there is one other issue that no one seems to think about.

When I'm streaming Netflix my network gets clogged with the stream and anything else I may want to do online becomes a diminished experience. Even with a connection that gets me up to 2.5 - 3 MB/s this is still a problem. I can't imagine what it is like for people who don't even have half of that.
mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

tehgeek

Though not a perfect solution, Boxee Live TV ( www.boxee.tv­/live ) looks like it might get me to drop my basic cable. Already love my Boxee for all the things I can watch on it, add in basic TV channels and I see no reason for cable at all (plus it looks like a sexy interface).
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

markuslaff

I don't understand why an IP TV service can't work a deal for live streaming local TV channels that use over-the-air broadcast. They're already outside the cable companies grasp. That would make an IP TV service very interesting. Granted there are a lot of markets but they could start with the big 3 and build out from there.

This would give people access to most news, sports, and popular programming. I'm actually surprised to see that MS hasn't done this yet on Xbox and I expect Google or Apple to step up here.

Local channels plus on-demand content (Netflix or Hulu) would make an IP TV service very appealing.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

quagga

I think it is a bit premature to label MS's Xbox upgrade as "best to date" when it suffers the same problem as most IPTV services : Where's the content? I could sign up for Netflix which is missing a great deal of content, or Hulu which is missing a great deal of content and has commercials. Both of those cost money to use. The other services such as SciFi (for those of us who can still spell) or Epix really just have sampler content. They're just marketing services for paying Cable or Fios for TV service. I know a great many of the services have yet to roll into action yet, but I don't think there's anything earth shattering in any of those proposals.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

petermay

If the people who promote the idea that the "free market" will solve all problems actually believed what they say, they would eliminate the grip cable and satellite providers have on providing programming. If an online solution is developed to compete with them, let them sink or swim. Free market does not include giving selected corporations monopoly status.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

RAS1

Compared to a coaxial cable attached to a cable box/DVR, the only real difference of our expectations for an IPTV service is that we want a greater array of choices at a reasonable price? What if Apple were to develop a platform, and forge content and distribution deals that aren't designed to replace the current paradigm? What if they did something like what Logitech and Google were trying to accomplish by making content easier to access and more seamless? That would be a solution which could have a chance of succeeding in the near term.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

wickedpheonix

If the cablecos are preventing Apple from revolutionizing TV, why doesn't Apple just takeover a cableco?

Apple has what, $80 billion in the bank? Comcast's market cap is about $60 billion, and they're not competitors, so an acquisition should pass nicely. Once Apple owns Comcast, it can take over Comcast's contracts with the networks to allow Apple consumers access to the networks through a Comcast business model while keeping the rest of Comcast's business intact on the side.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

apsoto

As another commenter stated, bandwidth is being over looked. Current solutions work for single folks, but can you imagine the bandwidth used by a 3-4 person family/roomate household with two to four simultaneous HD feeds? That much bandwidth over the course of a month can be pretty large. I don't think our current broadband infrastructure (other than FIOS) can handle it.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

tygruuuuusa

Closed captioning!. Netflix's online closed captioned offerings are few and far between ( and generally worthless crapola movies to boot). Hulu is real iffy. The ONLY reason I continue to subsribe to my overpriced land line cable is closed captioning. For some reason, web based services ( which were overlooked when the ADA as written) couldn;t care less about the hearing impaired and deaf community.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

coffeeshark

People are talking about 'alternative' packages, which doesn't solve anything, or 'a la carte', which solves the package problem but isn't really profitable for the producers. Plus, as soon as an a la carte deal works through someone like Apple, the cable companies can easily switch over to it, likely at a cheaper price.

I think a more likely scenario is the Zune Pass style for TV online, where you pay a set monthly fee and you can pick-and-choose any content you like, without restriction, for a certain number of viewing hours or programs. Go over, you pay more, just like cell phone data. This protects the ISP as well from massive bandwidth costs, but also allows the user to select any show they want to see without a new package or channel subscription.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

stuartjmoore

Simply: Consistency. There's nothing worse than watching Always Sunny on Hulu only to have it removed half-way though. I need to be sure of what I'm paying for.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

bcmoney

I'll try to take up an alternative view to your somewhat rhetorical question, using five similar yet divergent points:

1. P2P streaming
Broadcatch instead of Broadcast... the sooner they use the wisdom and power of the crowds to share content (and somehow measure this, along with reasonable fees) the better. The days of pushing all the content down one big pipe should be behind us.

2. Let people build their own content experiences
For the first time ever, actually give people what they really want to watch, when they want to watch it. It may be a combination of streaming to a desktop or laptop to catch the latest episode you just missed, downloading and archiving of your favorite old shows and clips on your own system, streaming a mashup of your favorite clips with your commentary over to a friend, staying up to date on live news, sports and event coverage even while on the go via mobile streaming, catching new movie releases via the home theater system; this is an example of the most common uses I can think up right now, but the possibilities are endless. For some though, it might only be the mobile streaming of latest content and they may have little interest in old archives from the 50s-70s, for others it might only be occasional streaming an old childhood favorite from the 80s, for some it might be just premium sports content with betting odds and statistics, and lastly some might want to be able to click on a section of a newscast and get more relevant information (a-la Starship Troopers' "do you want to know more"). This level of interactivity is what it will take for internet-based systems to finally displace traditional broadcasts.

3. Every episode of every show ever recorded, right NOW!
It's time for the studios, cable providers and other content gatekeepers to as they say "shit or get off the pot" they are wasting valuable resources which can be monetized. People in their 50s-70s might want to watch shows from the "vaults" (archives), but if they wait 5-10 years will anyone still around be much interested in or able to afford access to re-runs of "I Love Lucy" or the orginal "Gunsmoke"?

4. Flexible business models
* Free/Advertising-supported
* Monthly Subscription (for packages of channels, similar to cable but a little more flexibility)
* Yearly Membership (for groups of content types, not channels; non-linear viewing)
* PPV/A-La-Carte for Live and Premium content
All can be priced in a way that it sustains the creation of new content

5. Start a citizen mass-movement on the scale of Occupy Wall Street, to push for legislation making the cable companies irrelevant
Its about time people stood up and said to the telcos, studios and broadcasters that they're sick of getting screwed, gauged and pinched for every penny they have, just to enjoy the privilege of watching an increasingly deteriorating level of quality of content.

With these things in place, and it may sound like a pipe-dream but I fully believe it is inevitable (the digital switchover is the first step in this) and probably coming sooner rather than later, Internet based Television will finally replace TV in a natural and organic way, and most people won't even notice the change in technology, except those who might protest or lobby for political and legal changes to enable the final stages.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

loustech

Most of what I thought of you have already put up, but i think about how i want to see TV content and one thing always come to mind and that is accessibility. Although it nice to have a TV in your living room that has a integrated service like xbox, cable and so forth most people like to access their content on the move nowadays hence the success of such devices like tablets and the smartphones. anyone that can come up with a software solution that can give you this accessibility (without pissing off) the cable giants will bring back TV.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

martinsoler

In France there is such a system since several years. The company called Free offers TV over the internet line and it has all the channels, plus one can get the satellite channels as well over the same box, and rent movies etc. But this is from the internet provider. It's only 30 EUR a month incl internet access, DVR, integrated wifi, BluRay reader and free calls to landlines in EU and US. Their menu system, remote etc, needs an Apple re-looking but the service is there.
It's amazing that the US doesn't have this already since you're always way ahead of us in terms of technology. For Apple to take over the space in France I guess they would need to become an Internet provider which I'm not sure they're going to do. But the channels and services are there. Add iTunes and Netflix (which we don't have) to that and it could be a perfect system.
mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

share:

43 users following this question, including:

  • wickedpheonix
  • bjdraw
  • beau
  • briansanderson
  • jeremy
  • magoon
  • peter
  • groovechicken
  • curiousstranger
  • coffeeshark

This question has been viewed 3828 times.
Last activity .