In my view, the somewhat distant but inevitable future of entertainment programming (i.e. TV) is 100% internet-delivered ad-supported free content. Not necessarily web-delivered content, since it may eventually arrive over BitTorrent or some other protocol, but definitely over the internet. Currently, some content owners are being dragged into this kicking and screaming. Old pathetic movies and a couple TV shows are available streaming on Netflix. A smaller but different selection is available free via Hulu (and other similar services). Individual content creators and distributors host dozens or even hundreds of major video delivery services themselves. But don't tell that to cable and satellite operators. They only exist because it was much easier and still is much cheaper to beam the same content to a whole world simultaneously than to each consumer individually. They will use whatever stupid or silly tactics their own market position provides to maintain the profitable status quo (see: low Time Warner Cable internet bandwidth caps). I'm just convinced that Internet delivery can be much more profitable to content owners than what we have right now. Here are the advantages this will provide to content owners: * Their good shows won't have to compete for a good time slot with other good shows from other good providers. I'll never have to choose between 24 and Burn Notice. I'll just watch both, and watch the high-priced ads for both shows. * Similarly, there's no concept of otherwise "missing" an episode. If I go on vacation a few weeks, or just forget to watch my favorite show for whatever reason, I'll be back to watch every missed episodes--again, with all the ads that go along with it. * The same advertisements don't have to be shown to everyone, and targeted ads can be much higher-priced than broadcast blasted ones. Some rabid privacy advocates complain about targeted advertising, but I'd much rather skip all the Snuggie and Extenze commercials in favor of some video game, computer hardware, or mountain bike/snowboard equipment advertisements. Hell, they could just ask me what I'd like to see ads about, I'd tell them--and they could fill in the rest of the ad slots with the usual drivel if I don't give them enough hints. * The advertisements could be actionable. I see this once in a long while on satellite ("Press the Select button now to see more information on the Snuggie!"), but when the content is being delivered to an Internet-enabled device, you could take the viewer straight to an order page with their billing and shipping address already filled in. And their show would just pause as long as it took to finish the order. * News programming (which is incredibly popular) would become an order of magnitude cheaper to produce. Right now, they have to broadcast everything live. And because they don't know when you come and go, they repeat the same story every few minutes 24 hours a day. If they just produced one slick video exposition on one or more current events and put it up for on-demand viewing, they could get their message more clearly to more people, and dramatically cut production costs. Am I missing something here? Is there some reason this isn't happening, other than the objections of entrenched delivery networks (cable/satellite)? I mean, I would pay an extra $50 or more on top of my normal internet bandwidth costs to have this made available to me.

Personally I'm not ready to give up my DVD collection and cable TV.

First off, even though I have high speed Internet at home, it's not fast enough to give me the same quality of picture I get with a Blu-Ray disk or a HD TV channel with a live stream. At least that's the way it seems when I try to do as much as watch a movie trailer on my PC. I also don't want to sit and wait for a show to download so a torrent is out of the question.

Also, contrary to popular belief, there is still a huge group of people who do not have the Internet (or even a computer) at home. These people (my parents are part of this group) will not ever be able to even use a computer. In fact, anything setup for them to watch TV better be as simple as what they do on cable now.

I also like going to the video store with my kids to rent movies. Why? Because it is a fun outing. Sure, I have on demand programming and I could watch the same movie without leaving the house to get it. But I like getting out and making an event of picking up a movie. The kids and I sometimes grab a bite to eat and get a couple DVD's. Chances are, they will remember this their entire lives as one of the fun things I did with them. However, if I just pressed a button at home, the event would be totally lost.

I still buy most of my books at the bookstore as well. I sometimes research them online (and occassionally buy), but I like going into the store, browsing the shelves and making an event out of the purchase.

Modern conveniences sometimes take the fun out of life. I'll hold on to my old ways as long as I can.

John

Quote: Original post by borngamer
I also don't want to sit and wait for a show to download so a torrent is out of the question.

That doesn't make sense. You're willing to wait for the network to start broadcasting your show, but not willing to wait for it to download?

Quote: Original post by borngamer
I also don't want to sit and wait for a show to download so a torrent is out of the question.

You don't "sit and wait" for it to download. You choose which shows you want to watch, and it downloads them in the background. Then, when you're ready, you watch whatever you want.

It'll be like how Tivo works, except instead of being broadcast over the airwaves, it's delivered to you via the internet. I use MythTV at home (which is like a Tivo) and I gotta say that it really does change your viewing habits. I'm usually a couple of days behind "live" TV shows, but I never miss an episode, and I can watch all my favourite shows (as BeanDog says, I don't have to choose between two shows just because they happen to be broadcast at the same time).

There's still issues with things like movies on demand, which could also be quite popular, but I think that a combined "pre-download, high quality" or "stream immediately, low quality" option would suffice for that kind of thing.

Still, I'm still waiting for uncapped internet to be made available in Australia. Maybe once the government implements their FTTH network. Heh.

Ad-supported is not the way of the future, IMHO. I would happily pay a small per-episode fee to watch some shows uninterrupted. Maybe with an ad-supported, lower quality free version too, so you can check out a show before you watch it.

I wonder what the fees would need to be to make it worthwhile to ditch ads? How much do networks charge for ads?

>>Am I missing something here? Is there some reason this isn't happening

cause the majority of ppl will watch any old crap thats put in front of them + the networks know this,

what u want exists now just 'goto the video shop', youre bound to find a disc or 3 worth watching

me I havent watched TV since 1999 (though did see about 4 minutes in a chipshop about a month ago), ok so I missed seeing some stuff like sep11-2001 (though I could of watched vids on the internet I suppose if I felt like I actually was missing something) but comparatively news from a newspaper is far more informative than a tv.
with doco's (dvd/blu-ray's normally are better currently for 99% of the pop)
with entertainment (dvd/blu-ray's normally are better currently for 99% of the pop)
hell even tv shows are better on dvd

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by borngamer
I also don't want to sit and wait for a show to download so a torrent is out of the question.

That doesn't make sense. You're willing to wait for the network to start broadcasting your show, but not willing to wait for it to download?

But I have to go looking for the files in the first place, request the download and wait however long it takes for the file to make it to my PC. Then, depending on my setup, I need to either transfer the file to another device before I can watch it on my TV or watch it on my PC.

Right now, I have all the shows I watch set to record on my cable PVR. I also have TV shows on demand with my cable company so I can pick episodes I want to see when I want to see them. No messing around or hassle. Everything from my TV.

I'm not saying the technology available isn't good or there is no room in the future for massive improvements. What I'm saying is that I like my TV the way it is and I for one am not interested in using my PC to download TV shows so I can watch them on my TV. I just want to pick up my remote and watch a show. Simple as that.

And when it comes to movies, I like having a disk I can watch over multiple days. I have a PS3 which is great because I can eject a DVD part way through a movie, watch a few other DVD's and put the original back in and it will remember where I last was.

John

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
In my view, the somewhat distant but inevitable future of entertainment programming (i.e. TV) is 100% internet-delivered ad-supported free content. Not necessarily web-delivered content, since it may eventually arrive over BitTorrent or some other protocol, but definitely over the internet.

Is the advertising supported business model working out for content driven internet sites in general? If the model works for the most popular sites, is that sufficient for the less popular sites?

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Currently, some content owners are being dragged into this kicking and screaming. Old pathetic movies and a couple TV shows are available streaming on Netflix. A smaller but different selection is available free via Hulu (and other similar services). Individual content creators and distributors host dozens or even hundreds of major video delivery services themselves.

It seems to me newspapers are kicking and screaming the loudest. For example, How to Save Your Newspaper. This article explores the questions I raised above. It makes some good points, but I don't agree with it's conclusions.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
But don't tell that to cable and satellite operators. They only exist because it was much easier and still is much cheaper to beam the same content to a whole world simultaneously than to each consumer individually. They will use whatever stupid or silly tactics their own market position provides to maintain the profitable status quo (see: low Time Warner Cable internet bandwidth caps).

I don't think cheaper and easier delivery is their only motivation. They have a strong desire to establish a brand name and it's easier to brand a single package than a plethora of products listed in a catalog.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
I'm just convinced that Internet delivery can be much more profitable to content owners than what we have right now.

Here are the advantages this will provide to content owners:

* Their good shows won't have to compete for a good time slot with other good shows from other good providers. I'll never have to choose between 24 and Burn Notice. I'll just watch both, and watch the high-priced ads for both shows.

I didn't know 24 and Burn Notice competed against each other in the same time slot. They don't out here. I get the point, however. So far, I get around that using the "On Demand" feature from Comcast and or the repeated airing on the cable only channels. For example, Wednesday at 10 pm, I can watch new episodes of Law & Order at airtime, South Parth & Reno 9-11 when they repeat at midnight or the next day, and CSI:NY through ON Demand the next day. At some point, however, that's just too much television watching.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* Similarly, there's no concept of otherwise "missing" an episode. If I go on vacation a few weeks, or just forget to watch my favorite show for whatever reason, I'll be back to watch every missed episodes--again, with all the ads that go along with it.

That's only if they decide to keep their back catalog available. It's theoretical possible, but it seems to me that is a feature they would want to charge extra for.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* The same advertisements don't have to be shown to everyone, and targeted ads can be much higher-priced than broadcast blasted ones. Some rabid privacy advocates complain about targeted advertising, but I'd much rather skip all the Snuggie and Extenze commercials in favor of some video game, computer hardware, or mountain bike/snowboard equipment advertisements. Hell, they could just ask me what I'd like to see ads about, I'd tell them--and they could fill in the rest of the ad slots with the usual drivel if I don't give them enough hints.

I'd like to see cable companies offer channels "ala carte". I never watch the shopping channels but I'm forced to take them. I don't mind the Spanish channels because sometimes I watch the soccer games they broadcast, but I can understand why other people wouldn't want to take those channels. It seems to me that a case can be made for obliging customers to take local channels and news channels (eg. public affairs, emergency system), but that's about it. I would rather drop three or four of the channels I'm forced to take and get HBO instead, but Comcast doesn't offer that kind of arrangement.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* The advertisements could be actionable. I see this once in a long while on satellite ("Press the Select button now to see more information on the Snuggie!"), but when the content is being delivered to an Internet-enabled device, you could take the viewer straight to an order page with their billing and shipping address already filled in. And their show would just pause as long as it took to finish the order.

That seems Orwellian to me. Big Brother says Buy Now! because we know where you live...

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* News programming (which is incredibly popular) would become an order of magnitude cheaper to produce. Right now, they have to broadcast everything live. And because they don't know when you come and go, they repeat the same story every few minutes 24 hours a day. If they just produced one slick video exposition on one or more current events and put it up for on-demand viewing, they could get their message more clearly to more people, and dramatically cut production costs.

News programming has already become cheaper to produce (and it shows). Cheap news consists of talking heads in a studio. You'll get more news in 10 minutes of Amy Goodman reading the headlines than you'll get in three hours of Wolf Blitzer selling detergent. That said, CNN seems to be the only US cable news outlet with the wherewithal to send reporters overseas to cover stories anymore. And although the BBC might be in decline, the 30 minutes of BBC World News covers stories in more detail than the US cable news outfits.

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
Am I missing something here? Is there some reason this isn't happening, other than the objections of entrenched delivery networks (cable/satellite)? I mean, I would pay an extra $50 or more on top of my normal internet bandwidth costs to have this made available to me.

One point in the Time magazine article I linked to above is worth repeating, even though it pertained specifically to journalism, the point resonates beyond that:

Quote:
Henry Luce, a co-founder of TIME, disdained the notion of giveaway publications that relied solely on ad revenue. He called that formula "morally abhorrent" and also "economically self-defeating." That was because he believed that good journalism required that a publication's primary duty be to its readers, not to its advertisers. In an advertising-only revenue model, the incentive is perverse. It is also self-defeating, because eventually you will weaken your bond with your readers if you do not feel directly dependent on them for your revenue.

Luce is not above criticism, but the point here is worth raising, even if only in question form. What is the primary duty of television? Who should television be for, viewers or advertisers? What are the incentives?

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
In my view, the somewhat distant but inevitable future of entertainment programming (i.e. TV) is 100% internet-delivered ad-supported free content. Not necessarily web-delivered content, since it may eventually arrive over BitTorrent or some other protocol, but definitely over the internet.

Is the advertising supported business model working out for content driven internet sites in general? If the model works for the most popular sites, is that sufficient for the less popular sites?

I recently read that YouTube is bleeding a few million bucks a day, so maybe not. But then, maybe they just have a very poorly-conceived advertising program. What about a forced 2-minute commercial break with your standard crowd of regular commercials (there, no Orwellian crap for you), but you get to click a button saying "I hate this commercial or product, please move on to the next." That would save me from watching the 45-second ad for Girls Gone Wild with my wife, while simultaneously giving me an opportunity to view another, hopefully more relevant, commercial.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
But don't tell that to cable and satellite operators. They only exist because it was much easier and still is much cheaper to beam the same content to a whole world simultaneously than to each consumer individually. They will use whatever stupid or silly tactics their own market position provides to maintain the profitable status quo (see: low Time Warner Cable internet bandwidth caps).

I don't think cheaper and easier delivery is their only motivation. They have a strong desire to establish a brand name and it's easier to brand a single package than a plethora of products listed in a catalog.

That's fair. But I think Hulu is doing a fair job of building up a brand. They're a very early, very rough, very unprofitable version of what I think the future of TV is.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* Similarly, there's no concept of otherwise "missing" an episode. If I go on vacation a few weeks, or just forget to watch my favorite show for whatever reason, I'll be back to watch every missed episodes--again, with all the ads that go along with it.

That's only if they decide to keep their back catalog available. It's theoretical possible, but it seems to me that is a feature they would want to charge extra for.

And it's something I'm willing to pay for--as evidenced by my current Netflix subscription, which I've been using lately to watch the back catalog of 30 Rock.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I'd like to see cable companies offer channels "ala carte". I never watch the shopping channels but I'm forced to take them. I don't mind the Spanish channels because sometimes I watch the soccer games they broadcast, but I can understand why other people wouldn't want to take those channels. It seems to me that a case can be made for obliging customers to take local channels and news channels (eg. public affairs, emergency system), but that's about it. I would rather drop three or four of the channels I'm forced to take and get HBO instead, but Comcast doesn't offer that kind of arrangement.

I was under the impression that there was some kind of little-known regulation that said cable operators do have to offer ala carte programming, at least in some state or other. Off to Google... Nope, looks like I was mistaken.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by BeanDog
* The advertisements could be actionable. I see this once in a long while on satellite ("Press the Select button now to see more information on the Snuggie!"), but when the content is being delivered to an Internet-enabled device, you could take the viewer straight to an order page with their billing and shipping address already filled in. And their show would just pause as long as it took to finish the order.

That seems Orwellian to me. Big Brother says Buy Now! because we know where you live...

You're thinking way too much about this. It's no different than Amazon.com keeping your billing and shipping addresses from your earlier purchase so you don't have to enter it again. And no worse than any banner ad on the web today in telling you to click through and Buy Now!

Quote: Original post by LessBread
One point in the Time magazine article I linked to above is worth repeating, even though it pertained specifically to journalism, the point resonates beyond that:

Quote:
Henry Luce, a co-founder of TIME, disdained the notion of giveaway publications that relied solely on ad revenue. He called that formula "morally abhorrent" and also "economically self-defeating." That was because he believed that good journalism required that a publication's primary duty be to its readers, not to its advertisers. In an advertising-only revenue model, the incentive is perverse. It is also self-defeating, because eventually you will weaken your bond with your readers if you do not feel directly dependent on them for your revenue.

Luce is not above criticism, but the point here is worth raising, even if only in question form. What is the primary duty of television? Who should television be for, viewers or advertisers? What are the incentives?

This is why I like having you in a conversation. You ask interesting questions.

I think television has a few major roles. One is entertainment. Entertainment is beholden to advertisers, period, unless it's good enough to maintain a directly paying audience. Entertainment is the part of TV I was really referencing in my original post.

Another role is news dissemination. This should not be beholden to advertisers. Most reputable publications have a commendable record of keeping their editorial and advertising departments very separate. Assuming in some alternate-reality future my dream does happen, news should be a paid service.

Another role is broadcasting to a specific audience. The recent LDS General Conference is a prime example of this--the public at large probably didn't care about the conference, but enough millions of Americans did that it made it onto many network TV stations, especially in Utah. In my future, this would be paid for by the sponsoring organization (in this case the LDS church) and provided as a free service to viewers.

Quote: Original post by borngamer
Right now, I have all the shows I watch set to record on my cable PVR. I also have TV shows on demand with my cable company so I can pick episodes I want to see when I want to see them. No messing around or hassle. Everything from my TV.

Of course, that's how it works now, but if IP television were to really take off, it would have to work more like a Tivo, as I said. In that case, you already understand the basic experience: it's like how your PVR works right now, except that instead of choosing which shows to record and waiting for the network to broadcast them, you choose which shows to record and the device downloads them in the background.

Personally, with the way I use MythTV to watch television, there's really not all that much difference for me. If the network updated their shows once a week with new episodes, then it's almost exactly the same as broadcast television, except I'm getting it over my internet connection, rather than over the airwaves.