More on the Internet vs TV and beyond

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:24 AM
To: David Farber; 'Lauren Weinstein'
Subject: More on the Internet vs TV and beyond

I’m reminded of a recent conversation with a technologist who assumed that watching TV on your PC was something only 
for geeks – it’s just the opposite. The geeks seem be focused on arcane protocols and problems while normal people are 
increasingly just watching something they think of as TV but on their PC. The revolution has happened and it’s been 
televised but somehow people seem blissfully unaware. Of course the Internet isn’t about TV – it’s just that TV seemed 
the hardest problem and a reason to keep the carriers and CableCos around.

http://alwayson.goingon.com/permalink/post/26562

Move Networks<http://www.movenetworks.com/> is the outfit behind the ABC streaming examples that I’ve cited. Microsoft 
is now integrating the capability into their Silverlight platform. I find this very interesting given Microsoft’s 
commitment to the carrier-side approach with IPTV. I don’t know any details beyond this story but I’ve long been 
puzzled/frustrated lack of a “bypass” strategy given their stake in both the production of content and the platform.

To get a better understanding of their technology you can watch http://www.beet.tv/2007/05/abccom_has_gone.html (which, 
of course, you view over the Internet). What’s interesting is that the approach adapts dynamically to the capabilities 
of the connection rather than being locked with fixed channels – compare that with Comcast’s problems trying to fit in 
more HD channels.

It’s increasingly difficult to see a model in which a dedicated broadband distribution system with set top boxes as 
anchors continues to be a viable business model. If indeed, as suggested in the story, you can subscribe directly to 
view the Summer Olympics things become very problematic for traditional distribution. Even more so if they take full 
advantage of the medium to let the viewer decide what to watch.

Taking this up a level what I find remarkable is the degree to which we are caught up in debates over details when it’s 
increasingly clear that carrier model is expiring. This isn’t to say that carrier-controlled distribution isn’t still a 
problem as we see with ESPN but I expect that it will accelerate a shift towards relationships with the end-users 
rather than with transport-providers.

I was reminded of this in trying to reconnect my mail handling to my latest phone by adding a entry to forward messages 
to my new SMS number via an email gateway as another special hack. Of course you can’t reply to such messages because 
SMS is such a hack in its own right. The current phone is an ATT/HTC/8925 (AKA Tilt or Kaiser). It’s full of attempts 
by ATT to monetize the platform as if Excite@Home were still the model. Why would I subscribe, for example, to their 
subset of XM when I could the full repertoire over IP for less money? The built-in XM subscription pages warns me that 
I should get unlimited service if I do subscribe. Hmm – yes, I’m paying for unlimited but SMS bits are outside that -- 
they represent an infinitesimal number of bits by comparison but why the high charges. Yet once you start thinking 
about telephony things become stranger – why can’t I program my own call management features like I can with email and 
why can’t or must I or  … the list gets very long very quickly.

Of course today’s email isn’t a very good example either thanks to an addressing scheme that’s rooted in the notion 
that your “identity” is given to you by a provider and is not really yours.






-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com