Best Efforts. That is what you get when you try to send internet video. Its absolutely impossible to assure anyone , anywhere that a video you or any Content Delivery Network hosts will be able to be delivered at the equivalent quality of any TV show being broadcast today.
There is a reason why Content Delivery Networks exist. They exist because the internet is a best efforts medium. The internet will always be a best efforts medium, if only because of Net Neutrality. If all bits are created and delivered on an equal basis, then there is no way to be sure that the bits carrying your TV show will be delivered with any Quality of Service assurances.
For some reason, every Internet bigot out there seems to think that there is some magic bullet that will cure this problem. There is a reason why Cable companies spend so much money on equipment and engineers to make sure that your favorite TV show shows up when you change the channel. Those same engineers do everything they possibly can to make sure that you get that show at the highest possible picture quality. Delivery is not just about bandwidth allocation, there is an incredible amount of engineering that goes into getting TV signals to your screen. It works because those engineers control the signal end to end. Its deterministic, not best efforts.
Its for this reason I have turned away from the internet as the future of entertainment and am focused on Digital TV, whether its delivered by a satellite, telco or cable company. While its true that the companies offering TV often step all over themselves and make things far more difficult than they should be, all of the real innovation is happening on the Digital TV side of the ledger. Why ? Because its a stable, deterministic platform.
With digital video, particularly for cable and telcos, there are specifications and tolerances that developers can use to design interactive applications. Satellite has different advantages in terms of broadcast solutions.
in addition, those set top boxes that continue to be upgraded and swapped out more often than you swap out your computers ? They are application specific platforms. They are being built at the software and hardware level to drive digital video and interactivity. Contrast that with the Windows /Vista platforms that most users have.
Cable has Tru2WAY, Dish Network and DIRECTV have their development platforms. They are not perfect, but the feature sets are expanding and the application base and number of developers are expanding as well.
Call me crazy, but when given the choice of developing new applications for a deterministic platform connected to a specialty application box connected to a high definition TV with a remote control or a best efforts internet platform connected to who knows how fast a connection to a PC running who knows what operating system connected to a monitor and a keyboard, I will take the first option.
But thats just me.
Internet Video vs Digital TV
Recent Posts
- Where did all the good tech discussions go ? (8/28/2008)
- My Olympics 2016 Business and Technology Predictions (8/25/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. This post is only correct if you are owner/investor/employee of a cable company. The set-top box is a key advantage for cable/satellite - it provides a market, a stable platform, access to the living room, and a delivery channel for new services.
However, for me as a consumer, none of that, or anything in your post, makes a difference. Moreover, I think tying into the set-top box will soon be a signficant disadvantage me - I don't want my viewing limited to one piece of non-mobile hardware. I want a slingbox, youtube on the IPhone, and digital media players designed for video.
But cable/satellite will continue to see the set-top box as an advantage, because it gives them market and customer tie-in. So they will fail to meet the desires of the customer by allowing such streaming off the box, or directly streaming to other devices that they don't have control over - not only is it harder to do technically, but it's not good business because they lose their tie over the customer.
Meanwhile, considering that CDN's are only a few years old, I would not count them out of the ability to increase reliability. It does make sense that it will be harder to do over the internet - but people and companies solving the hard problems are what new technologies are made of, and there are alot of people and companies out there right now working on this exact problem.
Posted at 12:52AM on Mar 29th 2008 by Andy
3. Basically, the Internet is Dead. Maybe the future of the net is one where it is a mobile communications channel. It cannot support good quality/HD programming the way it is meant to be delivered.
Mark can you talk a little bit more about Tru2Way. I understand some Televisions will come with it built in, removing the need to buy/rent a cable box. Will this be delivered via a Virtual Machine that is remotely hosted or Software builted into the set that will be remotely updated?
Also, If Tru2way is a virtual machine that is remotely hosted..then theoretically, wouldn`t this take away the need to buy other electronic devices? DVD Player? Video Game Console?
Does anyone out there believe that someday we will all be able to buy a 50" flat screen for $500 and not have to buy an xbox or PlayStation because these systems will be delivered as virtual machines allowing to buy games and store them remotely?
Posted at 1:27AM on Mar 29th 2008 by Gregory Rueda
4. We have our YouTube for crappy video, Veoh for less crappy video, AppleTV for purchased content, and our cable / satellite for subscription content.
Last time I checked, only one of these models is working. It's probably wise to ride that train instead of trying to pound a square peg into a circle. I'm calling semi-shenanigans on this post. We'll see HDNet over the internet some day, but some one else will be absorbing the delivery cost.
The internet isn't dead. It may be as an entertainment platform in the hollywood sense of the word, but was it ever alive?
5. I see traditional television as necessary for really just one thing: live events. News and sports. These are the things where being able to ensure timely quality delivery of the video is important. Anything else that I can currently get from TV I can have from the internet, just have to trade download time against quality.
Immediate access of the show isn't even really an issue. Cheap storage means that I can store all kinds of content before getting around to watching them. I even have a few DVDs I haven't gotten around to watching yet.
The only other argument for traditional television's superiority over internet is the "water cooler effect". Everyone talks about the latest episode of "Friends" on Friday morning. A sharing of the experience. I'm gonna point to the inbox filled with youtube clips as evidence of "sharing the experience".
Posted at 10:11AM on Mar 29th 2008 by Matt Nelsen
6. If you want to sit there and be told what to watch digital TV is for you. If you want to get a limited amount of content digital TV is for you. If you want to get content when someone wants to give it to you then digital TV is for you. If you believe digital TV is ONE source for finding new content and the internet is the delivery system to getting what YOU want WHEN you want it then digital TV is actually a starting point and not a be all end all. A person can watch a TV show and then download past episodes or episodes each week and watch them without commercials. What you want, when you want it.
Posted at 10:19AM on Mar 29th 2008 by Bill Ross
8. So would it be beneficial to find a way to broadcast the internet on DTV? Or to develop DTV content that could be "browsed" via a set top box at a resolution equal to or greater than "normal" web content? I know that for the most part television has lagged behind computers in resolution, but that is now changing. Just like the "mobile web" revolution in which websites were created to target smart phones...why not create web content that targets the home user on their HDTV?
Posted at 11:24AM on Mar 29th 2008 by Kenyon
9. Mark
We don't disagree that full quality programming over the net faces challenges, but I believe the technology has improved enough you're underestimating what's possible.
Any reader of the blog in the U.S. with a decent 3 meg or more connection can test this for themselves. Go to ABC.com, and watch Lost or Desparate Housewives. After downloading the Move player, the program should come over at 1.9 megabit quality quite close to typical digital cable. It starts in a few seconds, builds a buffer quickly, and adjusts well to any temporary line problems. I've watched 5 hours or so, with no pauses, on a good 3 meg Verizon line. Move has a few tricks, buffers are working well, etc.
The main reason this is possible is that the actual DSL and cablle networks are better than most people realize. Verizon FIOS is built to be nearly rocksolid. DSL in some areas is just as good. Good cable network performance is just as good, except when the "shared" local loop is congested. With DOCSIS 3.0, coming soon, the local loop is a minimum of 4 times as fast, and will have fewer problems.
I'm convinced this will work just as well for HD, which typically requires three times the SD bandwidth. Verizon is now offering 20 meg FIOS to about 10 million homes (although not mine). I have tested 6 megabit HD over a similar setup with CacheLogic and Microsoft at 6 megabits, and got a fine 720p picture.
This is true because the "best efforts" of a carrier can be pretty darn good. 99+% reliability is often delivered, and VP of the number 1, number 2, and #3 U.S. carrier tell me they can do so and "will not degrade" the quality of an incoming signal. Not a guarantee, but in practice it should be darn good a surprising amount of the time.
Which doesn't mean that HDNet can reach most of the potential customers over the net today or even in 2010. So you probably are right in your business strategy for a high end HD network that hopes for large volume. But I didn't want your post to discourage others. If SD digital quality works, your audeince in the U.S. alone is 40M households. You'll be able to deliver HD quality to many as well. Both numbers will increase rapidly, especially with DOCSIS 3.0 likely to explode 2009-2011.
So I expect many other folks will find good business and millions of customers over the web. Some very smart people at ABC, NBC, BBC and others are investing $100's of millions. On my expertise, the network side, I know most networks are being designed to handle it.
We may disagree about whether over the top should be part of the strategy for HD Net. But I think we can agree it can be a major part of the strategy for others.
Dave Burstein
Editor DSL Prime
Posted at 4:18PM on Mar 29th 2008 by Dave Burstein
10. two comments:
1) undeniably only closed (operator-managed) IP networks can guarantee QoS, which is a pre-requisite for TV-like services. However Progressive Downloading or simply Downloading over the public/open Internet allow the provision of video-rental-like services.
2) there might be a parallelism between voice-over-IP and video-over-IP. Basically the same kind of arguments are being used, e.g. QoS vs. Best Effort, hobby/free service vs. professional service, etc. Remember: residential Internet access became fatter (DSL) and more widespread, and all of a sudden SKYPE came out...
My feeling: over-the-top IP video will establish itself more and more as a complement to traditional cable/telco/broadcast TV.
Posted at 5:20PM on Mar 29th 2008 by Paolo F
11. I think most major tv stations will avoid 'internet' thing because 'internet' is considered as if 'all free' zone, when advertisers send your way tones of ads on tv/radio it's ok/interesting, when they do the same on the Internet, it's considered annoying.
Posted at 12:01PM on Mar 30th 2008 by bet
12. I think you are right Mark. I don't see the internet being the end all be all for video especially when everyone pays for traffic including video eveb if the content wasn't coming from their product or service. I attended an event on internet traffic and they were talking about backbone companies doing hot potato routing where they drop off your packet if they cross another carrier because when they transmit your bits it costs them money. Example you order a online video from company A, and it hits company b's network, why would they want to pay for the other guy's traffic. It is like fedx paying for UPS's gas to deliver their own product. Not fair if you ask me.
13. Mark, as with most of your other entries, I feel you are right on. Its great seeing someone 'in the know' challenge current beliefs that technology can, and will do everything.
Posted at 1:48PM on Mar 30th 2008 by Vlad D
14. Mark,
Thanks for creating the conversation. While I mostly agree with your take, I do know that Internet video has it's place. I just paid $70 for 12 months of tennis via atpmastersseries.com. How many people pay that much for Maverick's media?
Scary to realize McNall was right about more than Wayne.
WKL
Posted at 1:37AM on Mar 31st 2008 by Korye Logan
15.
Network TV vs Internet Network? Huh? Someone is claiming there is still a difference? What? Knock Knock, hello; is this thing on? TV still exists? How quaint.
What is Internet based network and what is a TV network is going to be utterly, completely, and unconditionally MEANINGLESS.
Tivo is already blurring the lines between net and TV. AppleTV and OnDemand further erode away the concept of what "is tv".
I was watching 60 minutes (off dvr of course) and about half way through a story, my wife looks at me and asks, "hey, isn't Anderson Cooper a CNN reporter?". Wow, it is reporter 2.0! There are even newspaper guys with blogs these days - go figure!
Think about it this way:
- We blur the lines between tv and net: tivo downloads of VodCasts and amazon based content. Or AppleTv dls.
- We also blur the lines with the huge outpouring of OnDemand stuff (why would I waste money on a obsolete blueray dvd?)
- Then we have TV people popping up on every which channel like chess pieces to move around. Network brand loyalty is fading fast.
- Lastly, voip has already blown down the doors of audio convergence. Video is next. Just a matter of time.
And you want me to care if I watch 4x3 format NBA on the NBA network package, or via the Net?
Convergence is an unstoppable force. We are about half done with it. It's 2008. Join us if you can.
bt
Posted at 11:03AM on Mar 31st 2008 by Brett Tabke
16. QoS doesn't matter if you're not worried about live. I almost never watch live TV, that is why I have a DVR. If my shows get to my DVR over the Internet, cable, or Sat, they're still there hours before I'm ready to watch them.
Posted at 11:41AM on Mar 31st 2008 by Jason Tracy
17. The post brings up several good points, to which I'd like to add :
- Hard to find a good number, but let's say 70% of the US uses the internet.
- Of that, the latest number I could find is that 57% of US households have broadband access.
- Only a subset of these households have a fast enough broadband connection to support quality video.
- Only a subset of this subset cares, or is even aware, of internet video.
In other words, it is going to take a long time for a) the internet to become as ubiquitous as telephones or cable/sat, b) longer for sufficiently fast broadband to be ubiquitous, and c) even longer for the masses to care.
Nevermind that this country is, in general, aging. Just try explaining internet video to your parents or grandparents without them looking at you like you have three heads.
By being aware of this blog, we're already more savvy than most, and it's easy to think that most people are just like us. They are not.
Posted at 7:20PM on Mar 31st 2008 by CT Mike
18. i don't think that the "content" you are talking about cares if it's HD quality or camcorder quality. internet video is good like that
Posted at 2:22AM on Apr 1st 2008 by abraham
19. Seems to me this is more of a realization that you dont want to take on the challenge of the next generation delivery mechanism. It will happen. Someone will do it. Broadcast does have its advantages but it has major drawbacks that the next generation wont tolerate. I think in the interests of protecting your investments you are right to focus on DTV innovation as that will likely reap you near term profits. As for the assumption that high quality video and interactive experiences wont be delivered over the internet, you are either baiting us all or not paying attention.
Posted at 9:33AM on Apr 1st 2008 by Jesse Chenard
20. I think you are going to see HD Internet video thrive in longtail niches. Aggregator applications that cater to that model like Miro(http://www.getmiro.com) will do very well in this area. There are no hang gliding shows on mainstream media. There will be on Internet TV.
Posted at 4:04PM on Apr 1st 2008 by Tom Galvin
1. That's just you? :)
Posted at 12:33AM on Mar 29th 2008 by matthew