Internet TV: The Future is Coming!

I began writing this post 2 years ago. A lot has changed since then, but I still think we are progressing towards my original view of tv future…

This is the first in a series of posts about the future of television. In the future, instead of watching tv through cable or satellite or over-the-air, all programming will arrive through the internet. The advantage – viewers can watch what they want, whenever they want. It will be impossible to “miss” an episode of Grey’s Anatomy 2, or whatever it is people will watch in the future.

Right now, watching programs through the internet is kind of possible, but it is nowhere close to ideal. The selection of content is crap, unless you like silver spoons reruns [update: this has been one area of improvement]. The quality of the video is crap (compressed and pixilated). Another drawback is that you have to watch programs on a computer while sitting in an office chair. Or worse, in bed with a laptop slowly sterilizing your genitals. Right now, you can’t sit on your couch and watch these programs on your TV with a remote control (with a few exceptions).

The benefits of internet tv over cable should be obvious. All programs will be on demand. If you want to watch this week’s Lost at 3am on a Wednesday, you will be able to do that. If you want to watch all of last week’s Young and the Restlesses in one sitting, you will be able to do that. Plus, if you want to record a video and put it on the internet, your family across the country can watch it on their tv, just like it was an episode of Monk. Finally, don’t you think it is stupid how if you live in Cleveland and move to Nebraska, you can no longer watch the Cleveland Browns unless you pay direct tv $150 per month? Programming through the internet can solve that too.

Current technology makes all this internet tv stuff possible today. The problem is that money grubbing content providers have to work with money grubbing hardware manufacturers who have to work with money grubbing internet service providers. Everyone’s extreme effort to protect their own business models and maximize their gouging efficiencies has brought progress to a slow crawl.

Eventually there will be an ideal device (box) that you plug into the wall, hook up to your television, and add to your wireless internet connection. It will be great. Presently, there are some devices that can sort of do this, but they all fail in one way or another. This series of posts will present current options and criticize them.

I’ve developed 6 questions to assess the awesomeness of these boxs. In this first post, I will demonstrate how all of these questions should be answered.

1. What is the quantity and quality of on-demand streaming content that the box can play?

This is tricky, because playing a large quantity (variety) of streaming content relies on having a relationship with content providers. Ideally, the box will have a deal with content providers where every tv show, movie, etc. is available. Presently, this is not close to any type of reality [update: improving]. For example, the box can’t play episodes of Nash Bridges if the owners of Nash Bridges don’t agree to make their episodes of Nash Bridges available. Currently, the owners of television shows and movies are very hesitant to allow their precious content to be seen by people on-demand on televisions. When boxee tried to make hulu content watchable on a television, some networks through a fit. “We don’t mind if you watch 30 Rock on a computer screen, but we don’t want you watching 30 Rock on a television or you might stop watching 30 Rock when it comes on Thursdays at 8pm and we charge higher ad dollars.” What a reasonable thought! I think once some production companies try out offering shows online and see the advertising dollars online streaming can generate, those production companies will push forward and all other companies will get on board. Anything you want to see will be available. Of course, the revenue will come from ads. The streaming content will have commercials.

As a side note, one of my bold predictions is that eventually you will get to pick and choose what type of commercials you see. In the market for a new car… all the latest car commercials. Do you want to see what fast food specials are currently being offered? Arby’s time. Why wouldn’t content providers and advertisers be happy with this model? With streaming content you won’t be able to fast forward through the commercials. Also, if you want to skip the commercials, you can just pay the cost of what the advertisers would have paid and buy the episode.

As for quality… this is a problem. The crappy internet speeds in the united states prevent this whole streaming thing from working. The quality is going to be pixilated and jumpy. This is the battlefield. Will DSL and cable providers be able and willing to take on the task of providing the necessary speeds and bandwidth to all their customers without gouging them for everything they got? I’m doubtful. Look for crap like… DSL = $50, DSL with superspeed IPTV=$150.

2. Can the box play video files stored on a hard disk/computer on your network?

Of course. And the ideal box can play any format of video file. xvid, divx, .h264, mp4, whatever. For what it’s worth, I think there will eventually be a video format victor similar to how mp3 is king of audio formats. Plus, as storage space gets cheaper, I think there will be a shift from compressed video to – not-so compressed video.

You may be thinking, “I don’t have any videos on my home network.” Or “I don’t have a home network”. You will. The hard drive and internet access will probably eventually be built into the tv. And what type of videos will you have stored? Movies, TV shows. You will buy them through the internet and store them on a hard drive. Home movies can go on these hard drives as well. Small videos, shows, and movies made for niche groups without a wide audience will also be on there. Although DVDs and Blu-ray discs are probably going to be phased out in favor of downloads, you will be able to copy your old dvd and blu-ray movies/tv shows onto your hard drive for quick access.


3. Can the box play video podcasts?

I’m defining a video podcast as a series of video files that can be subscribed to. Each new episode automatically downloads to a hard drive in your home when it is available. I’ll agree, this is very similar to the process of streaming movies and tv shows mentioned in the answer to question 1. The difference is you download and keep them. Video podcasts can be free or paid for. Video podcasts can contain commercials or not contain commercials. Video podcasts can be made by big production companies, or your doofy friends.

Of course, the ideal box will be able to download, store, and play back these podcasts as well as having a good menu system for managing subscriptions.

4. Can the box be hooked up to a television?

Of course. That’s the whole point of this ideal box. This may seem like an obvious answer, but the only reason this question is in the mix is due to the fact that a lot of the iptv options that are currently available are only available through a browser running on a computer and not on the tv. In addition to the lack of hardware currently available that can be hooked up to a tv, content providers are hesitant to allow their normal tv content…. To be seen on a tv. Eh, I already went over how I think this is stupid and temporary (see answer to question #1. The ideal box will be a mini computer. The ideal box will be a box that has a plug, audio and video out, and a built in wireless internet connection. A remote control controls all its functions).

5. Is the box easy to use?

Of course the ideal box will be easy to use. Another obvious answer, but with the stupid current options available, this question needs to be asked. As previously stated, the ideal box will have a nice menu system, where the user can easily browse for content. Maybe a sideways remote with a qwerty keyboard. Also, the ideal box will not use much power and be quiet.

6. Is this ideal box affordable?

The ideal box will cost $99.

ABC 33 40 punts... who else?

Last week or so, congress pushed the "deadline" for over-the-air stations to cut their analog broadcast from February to June.

As i almost predicted... abc will benefit from pushing back their cutoff as long as possible and quickly announced they will not cut their analog signal until june. In fact, february 17th came and went and NOBODY in birmingham cut their signal. I think the benefit stations would gain from tearing down the analog tower and money they would gain from not broadcasting the analog signal is far outweighed by the advertising dollars made from having people actually being able to watch the tv station. when it comes right down to it, viewers are kind of what makes tv work.

Lost? see this previous blog entry. Notice in the update that James Spann responded to a tweet inquiring about abc 33/40s signal, which i insist will be lost in most of birmingham when the cut off occurs.

i wonder if other cities are in the same boat... i guess i should check on that.

DSL - No Land Line.

Click on image for full letter.

I got this letter in the mail last month and it was the first time I have ever seen DSL available in the absence of a phone line. Not only is it available, they're promoting it. Notice at the top it says "no home phone service required". Of course, you have to have a wireless plan with att to qualify, but i have one of those.

I've specifically looked for this deal in the past - hard - and never found it. I had heard that it was possible to get DSL without having a land line, but whenever I asked about it, I was told (by the internet carrier - earthlink) that it was not possible. About 3 years ago I looked into it when i was in an apartment without grounded outlets and the cable company refused to install a modem. I had to get DSL, and I had to get a land line that I never used (obviously, I use a cell phone as my home phone).

This is a big deal to me, because it throws a new possibility into achieving one of my tech goals...

Poor Dumb Geek Goal: Get Internet, TV and Cell Phone for $100 per month.

The thing about DSL is that it is cheaper than cable internet, which is typically 45 bucks by itself.

Not to be too boring, but I used to pay $45 for internet, $45 for cellphone, no TV (other than free over-the-air). at that time cable + internet would have been $80 or $90 bucks - too much.

Bright house began advertising cable + internet for $66. I added the cable tv. it was supposed to be a 12-month introductory price, but it's been 12+ months and I am still paying $66. i think it is worth it as i couldn't get free OTA digital ABC from tuscaloosa, and the cable comes with ESPN HD, free on-demand movies, news, etc. my cell phone is still... no... now it is $50 - i added text messaging because you bastards kept texting me at $.20 a pop. a-holes!

DSL was never in the mix since it required a $20-for-nothing land line. But now... $35 for dsl, $30 for dish tv, $50 for cell phone... we're getting close. And ATT can bundle all that shit, although they usually try to force a land line down your throat. Are they learning... I think I got a bundle letter including tv in the mail the other day. I'll have to check it out.

DTV - Distaster TV

A lot of people are talking about the switch to digital television, but nobody is talking about the disaster it is going to cause. and i'm not talking about the $50 conversion box.

Every tv station has their "get ready for february 2009, it will be awesome!" commercials. it will be awesome... an awesome disaster (applause). i'm baffled why no one is warning people of the real reason it will be a disaster. here it is...

In february, even after people pay for a "conversion box", many people will lose the ability to watch many channels.

here's the deal. I won't go into a full blown discussion of the background, so i'll do a lousy job of summing it up. First of all, the switch to digital television in february does NOT affect cable or satellite tv users, which seems to cover many people. The disastrous switch will only affect you if you have rabbit ears on your tv or an antenna on your roof. And let me emphasize... MANY people still use rabbit ears and antennas. and usually these are people who are less inclined to like technology and change. and usually these people have guns and get pissed off easily.

more background... in february, tv stations will change the way they transmit the tv signal from their station to antennas at home. Right now, they are broadcasting both "old" and "new" signals. The new signal uses different frequencies. In february, they will stop broadcasting the "old" signals so they can sell the old frequencies to verizon or jared or some bullshit like that... not important. When a tv with an antenna receives a signal, it has the guts to change the signal into a picture. "Old" tvs are set up to change the "old" signal to a picture. "old" tvs cannot change the "new" signal to a picture. In february, stations will stop broadcasting the "old" signal, so "old" tvs won't work.

Now, the technology of converting a "new" signal into a picture for an "old" tv doesn't seem to be a big deal, and it isn't. You can just buy a converter box for your old tv (or just buy a "new" tv). People will piss and moan about having to buy this $50 (or so) converter box (for each tv), and this will cause some trouble, but won't be the major problem. here is the major problem...

even with a converter box or new tv, people won't be able to get as many channels as with their old tv. HOLY SHIT!

here is what no one is telling the public (as far as i can tell)...

With the OLD SIGNAL, if you can't pick up a channel really well, the channel is a little fuzzy, but WATCHABLE. Right? We've all fooled with rabbit ears and eventually say, "good enough". This fuzziness allows most people to watch all the free channels. for example, right now, i live in birmingham, AL and with my old tv and rabbit ears, i can watch ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW, MYTV, PBS. all are out of brimingham, except ABC, which is out of tuscaloosa, about 60 miles away.

With the NEW SIGNAL, if you can't pick up a channel really well, the signal is pixelated and choppy and UNWATCHABLE. No one is mentioning this. Again, without too much technical detail, the new signal is digital as opposed to analog, which leads to this difference when dealing with a weak signal. people are going to lose channels and be pissed. for example, right now, i live in birmingham, AL and with my "new" tv and rabbit ears, i can watch FOX and PBS most of the time. I'VE LOST 5 CHANNELS.

This is going to happen all over the place and people will be mad. i predict it will be big news.

Can you imagine living in Montana and the government tells you you have to pay $50 if you want to continue watching tv? And they promise you better picture and sound quality. You're pissed, right? but you go and buy one damn converter box, because you sure as hell aren't buying two. I guess you'll just throw away that second television. Now you get it home and find out you only get one channel. You figure something is wrong, so you return it, get another one, and it still doesn't work. You are getting pretty pissed off, and are told that the "new" signals require an antenna bigger than rabbit ears. You punch the clerk and buy a $50 antenna and mount it to your roof. now you get 4 channels, but not all 7 you used to get. And you are out $100 bucks! Just so the government can sell tv frequencies to cell phone companies for some money they'll end up wasting on poor people!? where's my gun? (even worse, imagine if he buys a nice new $500 tv!)

Notice i tacked on some extra info about antennas. I bought a $100 antennae for my roof. I can now get 6 of the 7 channels in birmingham, but sometimes even those 6 aren't great and i have to hop on the roof to fiddle with it. ABC from tuscaloosa... no chance. If the super bowl was on abc, i'd be screwed.

as a final follow-up, birmingham is hilly, but cripes, i live 5 miles from the tv stations. i should be able to get them with rabbit ears. maybe this problem won't be as much of a problem in flat areas, but all the states ain't flat.

i suppose there may be some way to "boost" the signal, but i've never heard anyone discuss that.

in closing, has anyone heard anyone talking about this (regular people losing channels)? as i hint at above, it's extra salt on the wound that the ads keep talking about how great the new tv signals will be.

also, i must admit that i really like my antenna and when you can pick up a channel with a HDTV, it is damn beautiful. much better than the pixelated compressed crap that cable and satellite give you. i'll save that for another post. right now i do have cable, and hate myself for it.

Updates: #1. I have emailed ABC to find out if they admit they will be losing Birmingham. And I twittered James Spann, somewhat feigning concern about my weather coverage. Spann Responds! "If you can't receive the digital signal now, the antennas will be raised to the top of the towers later this year. That should help" #2. Get your converter box discount coupons NOW. They are all out and running a waiting list. I signed up around Jab 8th. We'll see if i make the cut. https://www.dtv2009.gov/ #3. I’m cutting my cable and will probably write a follow-up entry about it. #4. Dateline 2010. I was completely wrong. for my lame excuse, see upcoming post about tuners.

email tech questions to jglinville@gmail.com
i am not qualified to answer them.

Netflix Magic Box

Future TV Rule #1 eventually there will be a magic box hooked up to your tv that can: 1. retrieve any videos (any type) you have on your network 2. access on-demand streaming content (or download and play quickly) 3. download and store videos for later use (video podcasts)

there are a lot of products heading in this direction (they all stink). eventually, i'll tell you why they all stink. i'll start with the new netflix box.

well, it doesn't retrieve networked videos or manage podcasts, but that's not what it is made for, so it gets a pass there. The netflix box seems good on the cost front. $100 one time purchase for the box. A 8.99 monthly subscription to netflix will get you all the streaming movies you can watch, (plus 2 DVDs at a time). but wait...

first, there is moaning by some about a limited selection, but this is bullshit because netflix will eventually get there (everything available).

the real problem is quality. if you look at the details, many movies are streamed at full screen, not letter box, and the quality is determined by your connection. it looks like you'll be getting near DVD quality, but not quite. and no surround sound. this is it's major flaw. one that won't be corrected soon.

Newsflash... the connection speeds in the US suck, and they are not improving. The telcos and cable companies claim they can't deliver high speeds to everyone at the current cost. I'm no expert, so maybe they're right, but how can you trust them to deliver the best speeds at the best cost? They'll only deliver when they figure out how to make everyone pay through the nose.

anyhow... i've become a snob and think movies in full screen (not letterbox) are unwatchable. Even if video is letterboxed, the quality can be poor, and poor quality is becoming more and more a pet peeve of mine. I don't mind shitty music quality (mp3), because i have lousy ears and can't really tell the difference. But i notice shitty video quality and it is annoying. Especially when cable and satellite companies are forcing shitty video down our throats. more on that later.

for the record, i'm fine with DVD quality - i don't need HD-blu-ray quality - but i think overly compressed video stinks.

the user interface looks like it will be nice. that's a plus.

some other pluses... not just movies, but remember, TV show DVDs are available through netflix. also, i heard some hopeful chatter that the netflix access will eventually work it's way into other hardware so netflix won't have to sell it's own boxes (similar to how many radios are "XM ready"). so that's a step closer to the magic box.

so netflix... i'd have to try it to see how annoying the shitty quality is. if anyone tries it, let me know what you think.

Half Double Cheeseburger

here we go.

i was at mcdonalds buying hotcakes.

i noticed that double cheeseburger = 1.29! regular cheeseburger now on dollar menu.

gas prices up. food prices up. i've been saying this for weeks... how long will these dollar value menus last?

The New Electric Car

Gas is expensive.

On this week's episode of TWiT (this week in tech), jason calacanis talked briefly about driving his new electric car, the Tesla. I agree with him in that if "we" put our minds to it, we could have everyone driving electric cars sooner rather than later. I started telling people that the gasoline engine was dead when gas hit 3.00. I noticed once it hit 3.50, the media has started pushing alternative cars as well. I've become a jackass and have been telling people they'll never buy a gas powered car again.

here's the calacanis clip...



I wonder if his numbers are right 250 miles on 4 bucks of electricity? i thought electric cars would be a lot more expensive. this makes the transition even an easier decision. I thought plug-in electric cars might lose out to some other stupid thing like hydrogen or biodiesel or something due to cost. but maybe electric cars are cheap. remember, the maintenance costs are a lot less than gas engines.

In several years, look for stories questioning whether the power grids can handle the increased demand from cars. power companies should start planning ahead, but they probably won't.

Also look for some whining about how the coal factories providing the electricity powering the cars will still cause pollution, but these stories will die quick. maybe because of solar panels that also seem to be an improving technology - as jason mentions.

twit is a great podcast. calacanis is interesting to follow and his mahalo.com search site is interesting. check them out.