Is There Any Need For The Concept Of A TV Channel Any More?
from the might-be-time-to-rethink dept
More than two years ago, we wondered if the concept of a TV channel was going away. After all, with things like TiVo as well as the ability to watch TV streamed or downloaded online, was anyone still paying attention to which channel a particular show was on? While that may have been a little early, it seems that this type of thinking is picking up steam -- especially in the UK, where some are wondering why they should wait many months for American TV shows to show up on UK TV when they can (or will soon be able to) simply watch the shows online at the same time everyone else can. Of course, this could also have a pretty big impact on the push for a la carte cable offerings. If people are no longer thinking in terms of channels, but in shows, does a la carte pricing make that much sense? If anything, a la carte channels may push people to move even more of their TV watching to the web, since they'll only have a small number of channels on their TV, but they'll catch other shows online.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: tv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Internet Killed the TV Star
Very interesting point... But, as you well know, right now the people's average of time watching tv is going down while surfing the internet is going up...
As the internet develops new ways to transmit info (blogs, video blogs, internet television, internet radios...) the switch will be when the screen we have in the living room change the image input (from the antenna to the modem/hub).
Things like Joost are showing it is already possible to create a better viewer experience in terms of choice and interaction (as users can rate the content, for example).
Let's see how turn things but, if I were Tivo, for example, I would start talking with those "internet guys doing I don't know what"...
Regards from Spain,
Paquito.
http://paquito4ever.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV channel.
You tune to a station that is playing normal programming like today, however, you can load a past series up anytime. You'll still be watching commercials in this content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But on the gripping hand,
There is a very serious technical consideration here. Allow for this technical view:
TV broadcast (and cable-cast) is, in network terms, a true multicast protocol. One transmitter, many receivers. When you go the on-demand, the protocol converts to unicast, or what you normally have with web servers and browsers. Each server has two-way handshake dedicated connections. 20,000 people watching a U-tube video takes 20,000 times the bandwidth of people watching Steven Colbert live.
This bandwidth multiplication is the real issue. HD takes even more bandwidth per connection.
Don't forget the Dilbert factor either: The cable guys are the ones that didn't qualify for a job at the phone company. I've had to work at a technical level with some of the industry, and most are clueless. I was amazed that a set-top box software upgrade at Suddenlink in my hometown recently took down all digital channels for an entire day. I also suspect that Time-Warner has yet to fully integrate all the smaller cable companies that they bought up. Last I knew, some where still running duplicate RFC-1918 IP address space.
So, the main hindrance to these ideas is that the traditional outlets for the factories of the media that we call TV shows are still stuck in old, multicast methods, and the media companies that distribute those don't have the infrastructure to distribute that media in less efficient methods.
I just want to be able to plug in a 500Gb USB drive to my set-top box so I can record more...over the multicast delivery I have today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But on the gripping hand,
"TV broadcast (and cable-cast) is, in network terms, a true multicast protocol. One transmitter, many receivers. When you go the on-demand, the protocol converts to unicast, or what you normally have with web servers and browsers. Each server has two-way handshake dedicated connections. 20,000 people watching a U-tube video takes 20,000 times the bandwidth of people watching Steven Colbert live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re2: But on the gripping hand,
Does anyone remember analogue cable, when the carrier put the filters on your connection to remove HBO, Showtime and Cinimax? Where the feed for your house connected to the splitter at the pole, you could actually tell who had what services by what filters were missing. Any system that still has any premium content that is on channels below 100 still uses this technology, if you can still hook a TV to the cable w/o a digital box.
Now, with digital service, they can maintain this from the DAC (Motorola for Digital Access Controller), and set your box to allow through what channels you are paying for.
It is interesting that the digital signals that are multicast are still IP protocols.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But on the gripping hand,
Cableguys are the ones who didn't pass phone install school.
"Hello, I am a telephone hygienist"
/* apologies to Douglas Adams */
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But on the gripping hand, - followup
This is an example of the impact of switching from multicast to unicast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But on the gripping hand, - followup
"Analysts believe that ISPs will be forced to place stringent caps on consumers' internet use and raise prices to curb usage."
Forced? What a crock...why don't they get with the times and upgrade equipment! Raise prices to pay for the upgrades, not to curb usage! WTF is wrong with this picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But on the gripping hand, - followup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But on the gripping hand,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couch Potatoes
I argue that there is a place for channel based TV though, the serendipitous discovery of other shows because they were on straight after the one we like for example. There are very different goals to lounging in front of a TV and in specifically downloading/watching the Tivo of your favorite show. I think broadcast TV is very different to online TV (I'd argue that online TV doesn't exist. Offline is a browse model. Online is a direct video fulfillment model based on experience and peer recommendation) and I would arge that the channel concept in Joost et al. is not worth pursuing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's more to channels than scheduling...
"If people are no longer thinking in terms of channels, but in shows, does a la carte pricing make that much sense? If anything, a la carte channels may push people to move even more of their TV watching to the web..."
Great. So what's wrong with this picture (other than further gov't intervention in media)?
The options still aren't *great* for watching internet video on your HD set, but they'll get there (if we ever fix the broadband competition problem).
Oh -- and there's more to the channel concept than scheduling, or branding for that matter. After all, I got here via feed reader. That techdirt.com RSS feed? It's a channel too. There are all kinds of great video RSS feeds -- so even if you move your eyeballs to the web, given enough time, you'll find eventually yourself channeling into a channel...
Channels are but one way of many ways to sort and filter content -- when you find one you like, it saves thought cycles to find something after every EOF. Plus, they're what we're used to, so they ain't going anywhere anytime soon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes we do
Much like many computer related technologies. Of course we don't really need them, but the average user wants them. Most couldn't tell you why it's just a matter of percieved comfort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We aren't rethinking enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Channels will never leave us
On-demand TV though would have a huge market, especially for the shows that have very linear plots (24, Heroes, etc.) and if you miss one episode you no longer have any interest because you can't catch up (which I got around by downloading entire seasons of different shows and justified to myself by saying I'll start watching on air once I'm caught up)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For my part, they could go now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV Channels are very critical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TV Channels are very critical
This is too funny. It sounds much like the historical statement "I don't think anyone will ever need more than 640k of ram." Ofcourse it will. In fact the PC is better suited for uses liek this than your TV which is just a dumb terminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TV Channels are very critical
------
This is too funny. It sounds much like the historical statement "I don't think anyone will ever need more than 640k of ram." Ofcourse it will. In fact the PC is better suited for uses liek this than your TV which is just a dumb terminal.
------
It's a myth that anybody (including the person I know you're attributing it to) ever seriously said "640k ought to be enough for everybody" or any derivative of that. I originally heard that quote in 1994, and believed it then (back when e-mail taglines were popular), but since then have done my homework and it was never spoken or written.
What does the fact that you _have_ to upgrade computers to make them work have to do with the fact that TVs are better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re3: TV Channels are very critical
Then there is the layered approach. Your provider upgrades, but what if your content is somewhere else? What if you have to cross a third, fourth, or fifth in between? What about the trunk aggregation lines and capacity?
As you get faster at any given point in time, the equipment is more expensive.
One recent example of this is ESPN360 that had video available for only one ISP. It is dying because the rest of the world+dog can't access it. But, that ISP could provide the bandwidth.
Only when the infrastructure corrodes and collapses of overload, and customers start leaving in droves, (i.e. AOL), will change occur.
One related issue with this is the current push to get ISPs to publish expected bandwidth available, not just the maximum. Sort of like drive times within LA, and how much longer it takes when it rains.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadband penetration...
Quote whatever reason you want for highspeed internet not getting out to rural areas. If networks just jumped ship and started goin online-only they would lose a lot of viewers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broadband penetration...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Broadband penetration...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you geeks are the exception not the norm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you geeks are the exception not the no
I sit at a pc and phone all day long. The last thing I want to do is sit in front of my pc to watch shows. Mind you my pc is not really up to par to watch shows from it but I can safely say that even if it were I wouldn't I do not want to be in front of a pc 24/7 no matter how much I like pcs. And besides if staring at a pc 24/7 became the norm think of the bad vision that would cripple the nation in about 20-30 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you geeks are the exception not th
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you geeks are the exception not the no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two types of channels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Channels as type...
The issue with dealing directly with "shows", obviously, is that I have to know I want to watch one. But how does one find new content?
That said, I'm seriously considering ditching my cable bill and using iTune's Season Pass feature in it's place. For $30 a month or so I can get a season pass to a series I want to see, with no commercials, and get to keep the show afterwards. After twelve months I'd be getting more than enough content to keep me busy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a realtime stream, not a channel.
If it turns out that my method of TV watching is hurting the current business model, then I think they need to figure out how to coerce me (or someone) into paying them for the content. I'd happily watch an un-cut show for a buck or two per episode, or watch one with commercials for free.
Mind you, I only watch TV this way because all of the TVs in my house have computers with remotes hooked up to them. I'm sure I'm in a very small minority when it comes to that.
I wouldn't watch much at all via computer if I had to watch it on a monitor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everyone gets high-speed internet
It irks me how quick "techies" are to assume that everyone has (or even wants to have) everything delivered over the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not everyone gets high-speed internet
It really does anger me when "tech savy" people claim to be in the know but then are too simple to realize that high speed does not exist everywhere yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My reply is always the same: It's on the DVR, when its on the DVR.
I don't the channel, time, or day of the week for any of my favorite shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take it from me
Take it from me, there will always be a place for a channel. If only to not have to choose what to watch every 20-45min.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about watching European shows in the US
Some PBS stations show it, but I don't know if they're considered "network TV".
The new series, which started in 2005, is shown by the Sci-Fi Channel here in the US... about 6 months to a year after it aired in England.
Using you-know-what services, I'm able to download the newest episode by midnight (about 5-6 hours after it aired) and watch it the next day. This certainly beats waiting six months for the episode to show up on the Sci-Fi Channel... or for it to never show up on network TV because it doesn't fit the Friends/ Lost/ American Idol/ (name a reality show) mold that so many network viewers watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Channels and the Long Tail
In the middle of the tail you have content that has been "blessed" by a brand or major network in the hopes that consumers will become aware of it. The channel is then of some importance, like a name-brand VC firm whose endorsement carries some weight in the public markets... but like a VC, a channel still has 1 in 10 odds that this type of content will be a home run. So they diversify their portfolio to manage risk and let the markets sort the rest out. Only 4M viewers on a major network on a Thursday night? Bad ROI, yank it. We need home runs here.
At the long end of the tail, the content won't find you. The channel is irrelevant because it doesn't exist. The YouTubes, Googles, and anyone else that can facilitate the easiest discovery of content (and draw a critical mass of content producers) will be the new channels. Still, that doesn't these bottom-feeders are going to move upstream!
These dynamics will persist just as they persist in the financial markets. You need the seed investors looking for a person with a good idea, VC's looking for a company with promising upside potential, and public markets looking for solid earnings. Content will always have a similar hierarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watching TV channels online for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV shows and radio on Youweb.TV website for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
programvb.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]