# Mark My Words 2008 Will be know as the Height OF TV



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

IMHO when we all look back years from now I predict 2008 will be know as the time when the quantity of TV stations, the programming content and the source selection was at it's all time high.

IMO Folks it's all downhill from here, we may get more on Demand channels that will regurgitate older shows but we will see many fringe channels die in 2009 as advertising dollars dry up and the new show production keep's shrinking. 

My source for all of this is just common sense. IMO we have expanded the TV and Movie bubble to its max and now in this economy it will contract.

First Station Victims: The specialty channels.

First Provider Victim: Small cable companies and CBand for sure, and even possibly Dishnetwork or Directv, I am not sure if both can survive.

Yeah yeah I know, profit of doom


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

Unlikely. A shrinking global economy means less money in the hands of consumers. They'll leave amusement parks and movie theaters and put their money in pay-TV services, Netflix, etc.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> First Provider Victim: Small cable companies and CBand for sure, and even possibly Dishnetwork or Directv, I am not sure if both can survive.


DirecTV is still signing up a large number of new customers. They're not going anywhere.


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

CorpITGuy said:


> Unlikely. A shrinking global economy means less money in the hands of consumers. They'll leave amusement parks and movie theaters and put their money in pay-TV services, Netflix, etc.


Try the Internet with fees for how much you use a month "terabytes " will become the new standard I do believe Look at some of the sites in use now. Have you tried http://www.hulu.com/. This has excellent video quality.


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Except for the expansion of HD, I would say the last 5 to 10 has been the worst for television after the comparative high of the 90s. There are no specialty channels anymore. Almost every one consists of recent network reruns and reality shows. NBC, itself, is now closer to a second rate cable network.

If anything, with the merging of the internet and TV, more content from more sources (both corporate and individual) will be available in the future than now.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

This thread reminds me of what my mother always says. She said ever since you was a little girl she had heard that the end of the world was coming. My mother is now 80 years old and the world is still very much here  Sure things have changed a lot since she was a little girl and they are going to continue to change. Because the only thing that doesn't change is change itself. But no one that I know can see into the future and know exactly what is going to happen and when it is going to happen. Personally I miss the TV shows from the 50's. And I watch them whenever and wherever I can find them being shown again. Those were the "good old days" :sunsmile:


----------



## QuickDrop (Jul 21, 2007)

Dolly said:


> Personally I miss the TV shows from the 50's.


Search Hulu.com, there are a much better selection there of older shows than you can find on "real" television.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

I agree with part of what you're saying... but I don't think 2008 was the height. There are still alot of cable channels out there that have yet to go HD... there will be more coming - channels that no one really has thought of yet. It's funny, when ESPN first lit up I kept thinking 'how the hell are they going to fill that channel with sports? If I want to watch baseball or football, I just flip on my local network.' Today, my thinking way back then seems beyond silly. Granted, back then they were filling air time with Australian Rules Football, and all, but today such a thought is just ridiculous. They add a new ESPN every other day - or at least it seams that way.

The number of niche channels that have come on line in recent years is just astounding. When History first came along, I never thought there would ever be a need for History International, or Military History. And the number of premium channels still continues to floor me - I now get more premium channels (and I don't get HBO or Cinemax) than all the cable channels we got (including locals) when we first got cable.

It's clear that the web will continue to play a role - you'll see alot more stuff on demand... you'll see (I believe) a continuing toward more and more specialized programming (e.g. first we had Animal Planet... now FiOS - my provider - is adding an HD channel dedicated just to pets).

I do agree that DBS's peak has passed, or soon will. I think you're going to see Dish/DirecTV FINALLY merge - and I believe DirecTV is far and away better positioned to win that battle.

I've often believed that all of these providers have been moving to 'point B' - some point in the future when much of this recent innovation will stabilize. Before the big HD wars, in terms of content, there was really little difference between providers. Then you saw the advent of other innovations (DVRs, on demand, more sophisticated guide s/w, MRV, gaming, etc.), and each of these providers have been picking a path to implement each of these. DirecTV started with content, adding live HD feeds. Comcast started with VOD, becoming the king of on-demand. Those leads won't last - all providers will continue to expand live TV feeds and on-demand offerings, and I think at some point, when we hit 'point B' all of these providers will largely look the same again. They'll all have x number of HD channels... they'll have y number of VOD offerings... they'll all have MRV services, and gaming. I, for one, am really looking forward to that day. I'm very glad for all the expansion and innovation, but at some point you start adding features that aren't marketable, and the innovations will level off... and prices will (finally) stabilize.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Yeah yeah I know, profit of doom


Too funny to even comment on. <check the double pun on the spelling error>


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Quite the opposite, I believe. With the growth of IPTV, all that is required to become a 'network' is a decent server. As JPL says, the DBS providers are going to be squeezed out as they simply won't be able to compete in that marketplace, but IPTV is the future and is only just starting.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

And also squeezed will be the local channels with advertising dollars drying up. They're cutting back but also having to put dollars into HD and the conversion equipment.

While they use to have some local programming, now, unless it's Network or local news, the only thing they have is infomercials. Car ads are getting fewer and far between (which might be a good thing!)


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

It would not surprise me if we had a major shakeup of the media market and some channel consolidation. How many times have we complained that the stations all "sound the same" and "play too many commercials"? People are fed up with the games that the networks play, and the writers strike did not help.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Mark Holtz said:


> It would not surprise me if we had a major shakeup of the media market and some channel consolidation. How many times have we complained that the stations all "sound the same" and "play too many commercials"? People are fed up with the games that the networks play, and the writers strike did not help.


I don't agree with this - the cost of running one of these channels continues to drop. When you have a full IP, on-demand service, how much will it cost to keep that channel going? I look at on-demand only channels that I currently get - stuff like Fear net - how much does it cost to operate something like that? You're not paying for studios or a whole lot of personell. All you really need is a room full of servers, and a barebones staff. Transmission costs have gone way down over the years too. I think you're going to see more channels come on line... not fewer. Some of these channels cost so little to maintain that it would take a lot for them to go belly up.

I do think you're going to see a serious merging of media, though. Even now the lines continue to blur - I find it funny that we still call a company like, e.g., Comcast a 'cable company' and a company like Verizon a 'telco'. It's funny because Comcast has been adding voice customers at a pretty good clip, and Verizon has been adding video customers at an even brisker clip. I think you're going to see a much bigger push to full network integration. You're starting to see it now. All that being said, I believe there will always be a market for linear TV feeds. They won't go away fully. They may look different in the future, in terms of how you get them, but I don't see the number of such channels going down - I see them going up... way up. Like I said before, I believe you're going to see channels offering REALLY niche programming.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

CorpITGuy said:


> Unlikely. A shrinking global economy means less money in the hands of consumers. They'll leave amusement parks and movie theaters and put their money in pay-TV services, Netflix, etc.


I agree with you....

TV should have a great year this year. Why? Because more people are staying home, and they will be watching more TV than ever.

I bet that networks are scrambling for new content as I am typing this.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I also expect some marginal channels to disappear, especially if a la carte becomes a reality.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

barryb said:


> I agree with you....
> 
> TV should have a great year this year. Why? Because more people are staying home, and they will be watching more TV than ever.
> 
> I bet that networks are scrambling for new content as I am typing this.


Absolutely agree. I just think the content delivery paradigm will shift over the coming years. Just as it moved from roof antennas to cables and dishes, it will soon move to IP over copper and fiber. /steve


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

...true but I think for the majority, the television watching experience will change more slowly that most of us realize. DVR penetration is still under 20% or something like that. Eight out of ten people sit down to watch what's on. These same people aren't using on demand or IP-based services.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> ...true but I think for the majority, the television watching experience will change more slowly that most of us realize. DVR penetration is still under 20% or something like that. Eight out of ten people sit down to watch what's on. These same people aren't using on demand or IP-based services.


You really think its under 20% Stuart? I would have expected much more than that by now.

-Barry "I only watch Caveman commercials" B.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> ...true but I think for the majority, the television watching experience will change more slowly that most of us realize. DVR penetration is still under 20% or something like that. Eight out of ten people sit down to watch what's on. These same people aren't using on demand or IP-based services.


I think that's where the IPTV GUIDE comes into play, and it's probably why Yahoo and others are interested in being the widget provider for some of these new IP-enabled displays. If those 80% turn on their IP-enabled TV on Thursday night and tune to CBS at 9PM and _CSI_ starts playing, will they care that it's really being delivered on demand?

And take it one step further. When they tune in late and see they haven't missed the start, how quickly do you think they'll start to figure out the new paradigm? /steve


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

My worry is that carriers will bow to demands from content providers and cripple DVRs worse than they already are. There's no doubt that DVRs result in less face time between advertisers and consumers. I'm worried that the content providers will get scared and rather than innovating will slow innovation. The music industry did this for years. They still don't understand that Apple iTunes/Amazon/Napster, etc. are the future of music sales (heck, they aren't even the future, they're NOW)!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I just got the order confirmation from Amazon.com for my new Tin Foil cap...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

CorpITGuy said:


> My worry is that carriers will bow to demands from content providers and cripple DVRs worse than they already are.


Ya. The recent announcement that TiVo would begin selling ads that play when FF is engaged is pretty scary, if you ask me. I sincerely hope that this capability will not be a "feature" of the next-gen DirecTiVo.

The web-delivered network broadcast may represent an interesting compromise that broadcasters, advertisers and consumers could all benefit from:

Broadcasters might like the model because with their shows optionally available "on demand", there's less chance of other shows in the same time slot competing with them for eyeballs.
Advertisers might like the model because streaming allows them to insure that commercials are watched, and because it's the web, there's an opportunity for a viewer to "dig deeper" into an advertiser's offering if it is of interest... one-to-one marketing, which is not available in the broadcast medium. 
Live TV viewers might like this model because web commercial breaks (at least so far) tend to be shorter, and those sponsors are paying for the content. And for DVR users, on-demand web episodes aren't a bad alternative. Shows are still available to watch when the viewer is ready to watch them, though with commercials.
It just seems to me that all the above could somehow allow a return to the original "free tv", advertising supported model for some segment of viewers.

/steve


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Steve said:


> Absolutely agree. I just think the content delivery paradigm will shift over the coming years. Just as it moved from roof antennas to cables and dishes, it will soon move to IP over copper and fiber. /steve


I tend to agree however I don't see the ISP's making this easy. After all they are also in the Content delivery business and I'm sure they wont be happy providing the bandwidth for someone else to profit on the content.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Sirshagg said:


> I tend to agree however I don't see the ISP's making this easy. After all they are also in the Content delivery business and I'm sure they wont be happy providing the bandwidth for someone else to profit on the content.


Depends on who else profits. If it's another cableco delivering their service over the ISP's copper, I agree. E.g., is it really fair for DirecTV to deliver On Demand movies using the ISP's bandwidth? As a consumer, I say "yes", because I'm paying both companies. But you could make a reasonable argument in favor of the ISP, if you wanted to.

But if it's broadcaster communicating directly with the viewer via their website, I'm not sure how that model is any different than the current web provider/ISP relationship. E.g., Google isn't kicking back YouTube revenues to the ISP's, nor is Hulu or any other network website offering on-demand episodes for viewing.

That said, it's probably inevitable that the ISP's will start metering bandwidth at some point in the future. The hope for us as consumers will be that there are enough providers to choose from that competition will keep prices low.

/steve


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

The Obama transition team announced that their pick to head up the FCC is pro-neutrality. That won't keep us from getting metered bandwidth, but it might keep Comcast or AT&T from filtering out Hulu or Netflix unless they pay a "fee" to the broadband provider.

I'm a huge fan of Hulu. Because they aren't greedy with the commercials (they're short) I sit and watch them. We have the ability to FF through commercials on our DVRs mainly because it was NEEDED. They got so damned greedy that we either FF or get up, leave the room and go to the bathroom or get a snack. I agree with those who say Hulu and Netflix might represent the new guard of entertainment distribution. Hulu even might represent a return to free TV, as has been mentioned here on numerous occasions.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dreadlk said:


> Yeah yeah I know, profit of doom


You may profit from forecasting doom, but I'm not convinced you're a prophet.

I see some consolidation happening but as the world gets smaller, TV will probably get bigger with an influx of programming from around the planet.

Many who currently travel may have to start living vicariously so there will be increased demand for escapist pleasures that don't involve spending hundreds of dollars at a whack.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

CorpITGuy said:


> The Obama transition team announced that their pick to head up the FCC is pro-neutrality. .


That just means they are willing to take campaign money from both sides equally...


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

I tend to agree with the OP. I think we could be in for some consolidation. With diminishing ad revenue for a whole host of reasons (including the economy), I don't see why NBC/Universal for example needs multiple channels to show reruns of their flagship shows (past and present), especially while the supposed "theme" of half these channels has become so watered down that they are meaningless. How much MUSIC is actually on MTV, or "arts" programs on A&E. Even ESPN shows MOVIES now!! I could see some of these channels combimed, or perhaps even sold off. I can see some of the cable providers, who's bottom lines are in trouble due to infrastructure changes and increased competition, selling off their own networks. I think what might eventually happen is those "niche" channels we used to see on our cable/sat subscriptions will be moved online eventually.

Speaking of "online" TV, while it's come a long way, it STILL is "not ready for prime time". I'm sorry, but I would rather watch even an SD show on my 42" HDTV than on my 24" monitor. In my case, my PCs don't have HD video/ 5.1 soundcards etc. (how many really do). I agree, the model for "online" TV will change to where you can download your content through your TV provider, but it's not there yet for the average person. I think it's 5-10 years away before it's even as pervasive as a DVR is now. And once it hits the big time, you can say goodbye to the short commercial breaks as mentioned.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

LOL, did not catch that:lol:, but as you said its funny in another way 


hasan said:


> Too funny to even comment on. <check the double pun on the spelling error>


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Exactly right! I also see the NBC consolidation along with Discovery Channel getting rid of a few. I suspect Discovery Health, Animal Planet and the military channel to get the Axe. On the other side I suspect Biography channel and History International to also go. Lots more Fat in the lineup including Oxygen ch, MTV, VH1 and many many others are going to have a hard time finding advertising $$



Steveknj said:


> I tend to agree with the OP. I think we could be in for some consolidation. With diminishing ad revenue for a whole host of reasons (including the economy), I don't see why NBC/Universal for example needs multiple channels to show reruns of their flagship shows (past and present), especially while the supposed "theme" of half these channels has become so watered down that they are meaningless. How much MUSIC is actually on MTV, or "arts" programs on A&E. Even ESPN shows MOVIES now!! I could see some of these channels combimed, or perhaps even sold off. I can see some of the cable providers, who's bottom lines are in trouble due to infrastructure changes and increased competition, selling off their own networks. I think what might eventually happen is those "niche" channels we used to see on our cable/sat subscriptions will be moved online eventually.
> 
> Speaking of "online" TV, while it's come a long way, it STILL is "not ready for prime time". I'm sorry, but I would rather watch even an SD show on my 42" HDTV than on my 24" monitor. In my case, my PCs don't have HD video/ 5.1 soundcards etc. (how many really do). I agree, the model for "online" TV will change to where you can download your content through your TV provider, but it's not there yet for the average person. I think it's 5-10 years away before it's even as pervasive as a DVR is now. And once it hits the big time, you can say goodbye to the short commercial breaks as mentioned.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Im sooo looking forward to the Bollywood Channel :eek2:



harsh said:


> You may profit from forecasting doom, but I'm not convinced you're a prophet.
> 
> I see some consolidation happening but as the world gets smaller, TV will probably get bigger with an influx of programming from around the planet.
> 
> Many who currently travel may have to start living vicariously so there will be increased demand for escapist pleasures that don't involve spending hundreds of dollars at a whack.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> Speaking of "online" TV, while it's come a long way, it STILL is "not ready for prime time". I'm sorry, but I would rather watch even an SD show on my 42" HDTV than on my 24" monitor.


At this year's CES, some of the major players (Sony, Samsung, Panasonic) were showing ip-enabled 50" displays, and not just proof of concept. Ready to ship in '09.

We'll probably see a scramble in the next 12-18 months for who will be the pre-eminent on-line programming guide provider for these displays, with folks like Google, Yahoo and AOL competing for the honor. Just my .02. /steve


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> At this year's CES, some of the major players (Sony, Samsung, Panasonic) were showing ip-enabled 50" displays, and not just proof of concept. Ready to ship in '09.
> 
> We'll probably see a scramble in the next 12-18 months for who will be the pre-eminent on-line programming guide provider for these displays, with folks like Google, Yahoo and AOL competing for the honor. Just my .02. /steve


The much bigger emphasis on display in the major manufacturer booths at the CES this year was actually on wireless connectivity between HDTVs/displays and other devices, with IP-enablement being a much smaller emphasis, in terms of # of presentations and actual display demos there.

Both seem interesting though...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:



> The much bigger emphasis on display in the major manufacturer booths at the CES this year was actually on wireless connectivity between HDTVs/displays and other devices, with IP-enablement being a much smaller emphasis, in terms of # of presentations and actual display demos there.
> 
> Both seem interesting though...


Probably not a big deal at the show because right now it looks like IP TV's are a solution looking for a problem. That said, according to press releases, Google announced a partnership with Panasonic, and Yahoo with Samsung. Panny's got 58" and a 65" 'internet' TV's coming out in the spring, Samsung's got them in all sizes, already shipping, as does Sony (over 24 models currently available on Sony Style). With Sony, you connect an optional "DMex™" extender module, which come in several different flavors... for internet, wireless connectivity, BluRay, etc. /steve


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> Probably not a big deal at the show because right now it looks like IP TV's are a solution looking for a problem.


Agree...and also agree with you that despite that...it is coming...just a matter of when.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> ...true but I think for the majority, the television watching experience will change more slowly that most of us realize. DVR penetration is still under 20% or something like that. Eight out of ten people sit down to watch what's on. These same people aren't using on demand or IP-based services.


I've been doing quite a number of 'get ready for digital tv' seminars the last couple of years, at community centers, retirement centers, you name it.

The penetration of personal computer technology is fairly high, but you would be dismayed at the percentage of those machines that are barely capable of booting up consistently into the operating system, much less a resource hungry app like IPTV. When I say XP machines with <1G/ram and 250G drive space, I'm not kidding.

Most people, well over 90%, I talk to at these seminars tell me they WILL NOT EVER have a computer in their home. No matter how cheap it is, no matter how good the access to high/very high speed internet connections. 
They consistently tell me they deal with PC's at work all day, and wouldn't subject their worst enemy to it at home.

Yes, it is age dependent to an extent; but I meet a fair number of 'senior' citizens that would LOVE to have a PC, but it's not in their budget. A few years ago I bought a nice, fairly fast, machine for my mom; it sits gathering dust most of the time, but she does boot it up a couple times a week to check email, that's really about it for now. Still dial-up of course.

Those of us with satTV are on the leading/bleeding edge, compared to the vast majority stuck with (mostly) large, antiquated, analog centric cable systems (re: Comcast and others). The DVR penetration in that market is in the low single digits, it's only those at the 'top tier' of digital cable that even have much access to it. The percentage of sat folks, DirecTV or DISH, that have DVR's, blows away other multichannel vendors numbers.


----------



## Steveknj (Nov 14, 2006)

Steve said:


> At this year's CES, some of the major players (Sony, Samsung, Panasonic) were showing ip-enabled 50" displays, and not just proof of concept. Ready to ship in '09.
> 
> We'll probably see a scramble in the next 12-18 months for who will be the pre-eminent on-line programming guide provider for these displays, with folks like Google, Yahoo and AOL competing for the honor. Just my .02. /steve


The thing is, those TVs will be bought by early adopters only. These TVs will be less than .5 percent of total households, if that. I still say, at LEAST 5 yrs before online broadcasts are mainstream.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I just got the order confirmation from Amazon.com for my new Tin Foil cap...


They make those in the new self-adjusting version. I never have to worry if it's going to fit. :grin:

Mike


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I would rather have high quality shows than high quantity of shows. I don't just don't see IP TV from the internet being the future of TV.... the infrastructure isn't there for multiple SD streams, much less HD for the nation.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> IMHO when we all look back years from now I predict 2008 will be know as the time when the quantity of TV stations, the programming content and the source selection was at it's all time high.
> 
> IMO Folks it's all downhill from here, we may get more on Demand channels that will regurgitate older shows but we will see many fringe channels die in 2009 as advertising dollars dry up and the new show production keep's shrinking.
> 
> ...


I just plain disagree...

I think you will see a lot of channels come and go.. but in the end, We are many many years away from any wholesale changes to TV...

There are a lot of things that will be changing over time, but the first is Movie theater distribution. Its going to be all digital in the next 5 years or so.. That has to happen and holloywood will reap lots of money in savings from that, and gain more confidence in digital distribution platforms because of it..

The reality is, Hollywood will never allow TV to go through an overnight overall.. To many contracts involved.... They will make adjustments, and they are finding new revenue sources.. They aren't going to give up one like TV anytime soon.. I think they will try and master new technology to prop up TV.... Hollywood goes up and down in production.. we are in a down right now... and it will shrink a little more in the next 2 to 5 years.. but then it will go up again...


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

I agree, but with different reasoning. 
TV has long been paid for by advertisements.
DVR is one of many things driving ad revenue down intensely. When commercials are so easily skipped, commercial breaks are increasingly irrelevant.



SO where from here?

back to ads-in-program. Look forward to more blatant placements like the truck in "terminator the sarah conner chronicles"

Also, higher pay-TV costs (except for already commercial-free channels), and the possible DEATH of any decent "free" programming at all!


----------



## Ext 721 (Feb 26, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Im sooo looking forward to the Bollywood Channel :eek2:


I'm fairly sure D* has that already, "filmy" or soemthing.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

kevinwmsn said:


> I would rather have high quality shows than high quantity of shows. I don't just don't see IP TV from the internet being the future of TV.... the infrastructure isn't there for multiple SD streams, much less HD for the nation.


?. AT&T is offering 2HD/2SD streams (3HD/1SD in select ares) at this time.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, this conversation continues to be about TV in general, and TV content, so I'm moving it to the TV Show Talk forum. I'm sure our friends on the Dish side will have some things to say as well.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

kevinwmsn said:


> I would rather have high quality shows than high quantity of shows. I don't just don't see IP TV from the internet being the future of TV.... the infrastructure isn't there for multiple SD streams, much less HD for the nation.





BattleScott said:


> ?. AT&T is offering 2HD/2SD streams (3HD/1SD in select ares) at this time.


One of my sisters is a Verizon FiOS TV customer with 4 HD DVR's, so she has the theoretical capability of simultaneously recording 8 HD streams and watching 4 HD VOD's, all IP-delivered. I may have to try that experiment, next time I'm at her house. 

Granted, it will be many years before this kind of capability will be available nation-wide, but I'm guessing major markets will see it sooner than we would think. /steve


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Steve said:


> One of my sisters is a Verizon FiOS TV customer with 4 HD DVR's, so she has the theoretical capability of simultaneously recording 8 HD streams and watching 4 HD VOD's, all IP-delivered. I may have to try that experiment, next time I'm at her house.
> 
> Granted, it will be many years before this kind of capability will be available nation-wide, but I'm guessing major markets will see it sooner than we would think. /steve


My in-laws had U-Verse installed this week. They only install 1 DVR but the other receivers act as satellites or it. You can record and view from the STBs. The system is limited to a total of 2 HD / 2 SD streams at 1 time. But in their case (1 HD tv, 1 SD) this provides them with more than they need, + a 3Mbps DSL link. This is done via FTTN and copper to the house so once they begin to change to full FTTP in the coming years, that capacity will be greatly increased. 
I'm guessing that in less than 10 years the bulk of TV content delivery will be IP. Cable cos serving rural areas will maintain a legacy coax distribution for areas unserved buy Fiber. The DBS providers will eventually lose too much market to remain viable.
First, I would see DirecTV aquiring Dish, then eventually that entity will be aquired by a larger distribution outfit like AT&T or Comcast and converted to IP distribution. DirecTV via Fiber intstead of DBS...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> This is done via FTTN and copper to the house so once they begin to change to full FTTP in the coming years, that capacity will be greatly increased.


They may not even need to get fiber to the premises (FTTP) in all cases. Cat 6e and Cat 7 copper are spec'd to deliver 10gbps ethernet at 100 meters.

Current FTTP is about 2.5 gbps, and you will probably be able to achieve that over 300 meters of Cat 6e or Cat 7 copper to the home. /steve


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> One of my sisters is a Verizon FiOS TV customer with 4 HD DVR's, so she has the theoretical capability of simultaneously recording 8 HD streams and watching 4 HD VOD's, all IP-delivered.


FiOS only uses IP delivery for VOD. All of their linear channels are standard QAM, like cable companies use. They're all "on the wire" simultaneously.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

The Pie is already sliced too thin, look at it as a pure business equation. The advertising dollars are probably about half of what they where this time in 2008

Viewers are scaling back on expenses so you can expect 10% or more of the people to downgrade their packages or leave altogether.

The simple math of it all is that very soon smaller stations will be dropping like flies, there's no wiggling room for them becuase if the providers like DIRECTV raise prices to help them, the providers will lose a ton of customers and without increased cable/Sat prices the TV stations have no other source of revenue except for shrinking advertising dollars.

Ergo something must give!



inkahauts said:


> I just plain disagree...
> 
> I think you will see a lot of channels come and go.. but in the end, We are many many years away from any wholesale changes to TV...
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> FiOS only uses IP delivery for VOD. All of their linear channels are standard QAM, like cable companies use. They're all "on the wire" simultaneously.


Those FiOS TV boxes are Motorola QIP's (QAM over IP), so does that mean in aggregate that they consume more or less bandwidth (per tuner) than the sum of separate streams of pure IP? I assumed it was comparable, but I admit I'm out of my league here.  /steve


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> Those FiOS TV boxes are Motorola QIP's (QAM over IP), so does that mean in aggregate that they consume more or less bandwidth (per tuner) than the sum of separate streams of pure IP? I assumed it was comparable, but I admit I'm out of my league here.  /steve


Motorola's QIP line is not QAM over IP, it supports a hybrid QAM/IP system. Linear channels are broadcast via QAM on the fiber using an RF overlay system. What that means is that, as far as the linear channels go, the fiber is treated just like a standard coax cable. All of the channels are there, all of the time, the box just tunes them like any other digital cable box would. Only VOD content uses IP transmission, and therefore uses bandwidth.

Up until very recently, they actually had analog channels on FiOS. You could just plug any old TV in, without any external converter box.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Motorola's QIP line is not QAM over IP, it supports a hybrid QAM/IP system. Linear channels are broadcast via QAM on the fiber using an RF overlay system. What that means is that, as far as the linear channels go, the fiber is treated just like a standard coax cable. All of the channels are there, all of the time, the box just tunes them like any other digital cable box would. Only VOD content uses IP transmission, and therefore uses bandwidth.
> 
> Up until very recently, they actually had analog channels on FiOS. You could just plug any old TV in, without any external converter box.


Gotcha. Thx for the explanation.

RE: the point I was trying to make earlier about more internet distribution of programs in the future, in answer to a question about the future of Cablecards, here's a telling quote from a Verizon 2007 "*policy blog*":

_"Verizon views IP TV as the next stage in the evolution of entertainment video. The industry, comprised of equipment manufacturers, service and content providers, are currently evaluating the solution for digital rights managements for video delivery using a unicast and multicast approach and it would be premature to speculate what the impact might be on CabeCard devices."_

/steve


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

The height of TV was the day before DirecTV and Dish started adding additional compression.

People who view SD and HD on both of them and never have seen what they used to look like before additional compression would be astounded at how much better they used to be.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Artwood said:


> The height of TV was the day before DirecTV and Dish started adding additional compression.


That would be the day they launched. They have always compressed their signals, they have to. Do we really need to get into this stupid discussion again?


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

They haven't always compressed them at the same amount--why does the sales force try to perpetuate that lie continually around here?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Artwood said:


> They haven't always compressed them at the same amount--why does the sales force try to perpetuate that lie continually around here?


You specifically said when they "started adding additional compression." That's such a generic statement that it doesn't really make any sense.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

It's only generic because they've done it a million times!


----------



## chris8796 (Aug 19, 2007)

I think the linear channels will be around for quite a while.

Advertisers have already started to move from commericals to inside the programming. It seems like the 50s with all the product placement going on. They have even moved to non-subtle ads, like the ads running at the bottom of the screen during American Idol.

Also agree that with transmission costs decreases more channels/programming will be available. We will see more programs from around the world. This will be even easier as we move towards an IP TV approach.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Wish we could stick to the subject and not talk about compression or transmission methods


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I was listening to Dishnetworks Promo feeds talking about those Local Networks they will no longer be broadcasting.

Interesting stuff, the number one reason they give is that the Stations wanted more money for the channels because their "Advertising Revenue" had fallen.

Dishnetwork did not think it was fair that the Satellite owners should pay more for what is normaly a free station via outdoor antenna. I agree, but that does show how desperate times are getting. I expect the Axe to fly on the first few channels within another month or two with numerous others following afterwards.
The wheat and chaff are about to be seperated.


----------

