# Why is VOD so important?



## LOBO2999 (Apr 9, 2004)

If you have a DVR? I just dont see myself using vod. Maybe I am missing something? This is just a question , I'm not trying to say people dont and wont need it or use it I just to want to know .

Thanks!


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Think of the VOD as being a channel out there, with possible 10,000 programs on at once.

So even with everything you DVR... there are times you just don't want to watch those things.... and out of the other 200 channels, there is nothing on.

So here is another 10,000 "shows" to pick from....
------------

Another angle is the discussed, offereings by some of the networks.
Such as some shows being offered a day earlier... or even later in the week, if for some reason your program doesn't record (or there was a conflict)... ect.

Plus there are some "shows" out there, that don't syndicate in some areas of the country... so now those could be available too.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

It's a pretty subjective thing. DVRs do allow you to be able to record and store about as much programming as you'd want, but the "on demand" idea is appealing if there is a database of programming not currently available on the air, (ie back episodes of a series, movies, etc.) which you can select from and not have to be bothered to program your box for. Plus, what if you miss a recording and don't want to wait for the re-run?

This advantage is a MAJOR selling tool of digital cable right now,and is certainly a psychological thing when people are making a choice of services to go with.

...plus "on demand" can make for apretty good baby sitter sometimes.  

My issue with D*VOD is that the content will have to reside on the box, and therfore be fairly limited at any given time, especially for HD content. Cable can stream its content, which I think will be the advantage in the long-run.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Where I think VOD will be cool is for premium channels like HBO and Showtime. On many cable systems, customers who pay for HBO subscriptions can access an entire library of VOD for HBO shows. 

I had never seen HBO's Entourage until Season 3 started, and I loved it from the first episode I saw. If DirecTV had VOD when I first found Entourage, I could have caught up on the first two seasons "on demand".


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Is there a fee for VOD or is it included?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

LOBO2999 said:


> If you have a DVR? I just dont see myself using vod. Maybe I am missing something? This is just a question , I'm not trying to say people dont and wont need it or use it I just to want to know .
> 
> Thanks!


To me the biggest thing is if you missed a show that's only on one time a week like on the major networks and thus have no means to record it again until the summer reruns.

Missed Heroes 2 weeks ago? Missed CSI as well? No prob! Go to VOD and you'll be watching them in no time.


----------



## packfan909 (Oct 6, 2006)

machavez00 said:


> Is there a fee for VOD or is it included?


I had heard that VOD was tied to the channel that you already pay for. Example, if you get HBO, there is a VOD version of HBO that resides higher in the channel list. HBO is at 501, so you would see HBO VOD on 1501.

I think it will depend on the content.


----------



## boaguy (Jan 18, 2007)

vod is important because it opens the door for howard tv and wwe 24/7


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

packfan909 said:


> I had heard that VOD was tied to the channel that you already pay for. Example, if you get HBO, there is a VOD version of HBO that resides higher in the channel list. HBO is at 501, so you would see HBO VOD on 1501.
> 
> I think it will depend on the content.


The video broadband marker channel had disappeared from the EPG


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

It's important because D* needs to be able to compete with the cable companies that are rolling out the feature.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

RAD said:


> It's important because D* needs to be able to compete with the cable companies that are rolling out the feature.


RAD may have nailed it, but one thing that does bother me about the Directv VOD approach is whether the average TV user will be able to figure out the intricacies of getting the HR-20 hooked up to the network. We have a lot of very smart people on this board who are having problems with the network setup. Just a thought....

I wonder if it's time for a poll on networking?


----------



## cnmsales (Jan 9, 2007)

I havent seen many having problems getting it networked, jut making it not time out.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

VOD is real PPV. Current PPV will look like a dinosaur with its limitations: Wait for next showing, limited numbers of movies, etc. 

VOD will likely have several options: free, free for premium channels you receive, and many price points depending on what the content owner wants (and inserts commercials into...) 

It will be very interesting to see how it evolves over time. Not just for DIRECTV, but for the entire industry. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## michael-reilly (Mar 18, 2007)

> Why is VOD so important?


Good question. I've never figured out a purpose for it. Maybe I don't watch enough TV but my DVR usually contains 1.5 - 2 weeks of programs I haven't watched yet so I've not seen a need for more. 


> It's important because D* needs to be able to compete with the cable companies that are rolling out the feature.


My local cable companies (one at each house) do not have VOD. I do not recall talking to anyone who wanted it.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

leww37334 said:


> ... one thing that does bother me about the Directv VOD approach is whether the average TV user will be able to figure out the intricacies of getting the HR-20 hooked up to the network.


Connecting the HR20 to the network is very easy, pretty much plug and play. Making it work with multimedia software on a pc is a different matter entirely. Two separate issues. What will be involved with VOD is yet to be seen.

Carl


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

michael-reilly said:


> Good question. I've never figured out a purpose for it. Maybe I don't watch enough TV but my DVR usually contains 1.5 - 2 weeks of programs I haven't watched yet so I've not seen a need for more.
> My local cable companies (one at each house) do not have VOD. I do not recall talking to anyone who wanted it.


I'll have to ask a buddy of mine to see if he has it on Charter. Also ask if his HD Moxie has DLB.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

VOD is the death of NetFlix/BlockBuster.
It may also be the death of the DVR
I should be able to watch any movie at anytime.
Now, if I can watch any show at anytime why should I worry about trying to record?

If you're D...you could now sell a much cheaper box than a DVR and offer much, much more.

That's why VOD is so important.


----------



## wakajawaka (Sep 27, 2006)

Let me get this straight, I have to network the HR-20 into my internet connection and then it will download VOD content on to the hard drive.


----------



## m_jraj (Oct 11, 2006)

cnmsales said:


> I havent seen many having problems getting it networked, jut making it not time out.


I have not been able to configure mine.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

wakajawaka said:


> Let me get this straight, I have to network the HR-20 into my internet connection and then it will download VOD content on to the hard drive.


When D* turns VOD on, yes, I think it will get "saved" to the drive for viewing....and I'm assuming you can watch it live as it downloads, but perhaps not. I don't see how VOD would work without writing to the hard drive....too many chances for network congestion issues in real time. Put it this way, if it doesn't, VOD won't work for me, as any streaming protocol here inevitably has glitches.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

wakajawaka said:


> Let me get this straight, I have to network the HR-20 into my internet connection and then it will download VOD content on to the hard drive.





hasan said:


> When D* turns VOD on, yes, I think it will get "saved" to the drive for viewing....and I'm assuming you can watch it live as it downloads, but perhaps not. I don't see how VOD would work without writing to the hard drive....too many chances for network congestion issues in real time. Put it this way, if it doesn't, VOD won't work for me, as any streaming protocol here inevitably has glitches.


It depends on the system. The Cox website does not say a DVR is required, just the D-STB. The Wikipedia article says there a streaming and downloading VOD sytems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand

The Wikipedia article on D* sister system BSkyB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Anytime 
Sky Anytime website: http://anytime.sky.com/


----------



## wakajawaka (Sep 27, 2006)

hasan said:


> When D* turns VOD on, yes, I think it will get "saved" to the drive for viewing....and I'm assuming you can watch it live as it downloads, but perhaps not. I don't see how VOD would work without writing to the hard drive....too many chances for network congestion issues in real time. Put it this way, if it doesn't, VOD won't work for me, as any streaming protocol here inevitably has glitches.


So I'm guessing that you pick and choose what you want downloaded, wait, and then watch? Or are shows downloaded automatically? A combo of both? I do a lot of web surfing while watching TV and I don't really want to tie up my internet for unwanted VOD content.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Question... will we be able to DVR what we are watching on VOD?

Since I didn't get my HR-20 until March, I was only able to DVR Return of The Jedi in HD from HBO-HD... Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back were on in February in HD.

If they store them on VOD, could I purchase them once, and the DVR them?


----------



## slaz55 (Sep 22, 2006)

Will this be streamed or downloaded thru your network connection recorded and played back later. I would imagine it's really going to depend on what type of bandwidth your network has.


----------



## miggo (Feb 28, 2007)

hasan said:


> When D* turns VOD on, yes, I think it will get "saved" to the drive for viewing....and I'm assuming you can watch it live as it downloads, but perhaps not. I don't see how VOD would work without writing to the hard drive....too many chances for network congestion issues in real time. Put it this way, if it doesn't, VOD won't work for me, as any streaming protocol here inevitably has glitches.


I don't see how this could be VOD. VOD to me is

1. Look for something to watch
2. Click here
3. Watch

If I have to wait for it to download it is not VOD, it is ..hey.. it's a DVR.


----------



## slaz55 (Sep 22, 2006)

Also everyone has different Internet connections, I would think you would need a pretty big pipe to view live video.


----------



## UTVLamented (Oct 18, 2006)

boaguy said:


> vod is important because it opens the door for howard tv and wwe 24/7


Ditto that. IMO, the best use of VOD is for uncensored content that can't be DVR'd anywhere else.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cnmsales said:


> I havent seen many having problems getting it networked, jut making it not time out.


Oh contrare...plenty of issues getting the HR20 networked, and more important, working with media server software to get to the Internet.

Despite installing numerous wireless networks, I have given up getting the Linksys game adapter and the HR20 to work with my wireless network. Others have as well...


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Can anyone imagine the bandwidth required to DOWNLOAD a couple of HD movies onto your drive, even at MPEG-4? Not to mention the time required? You'd have to plan your VOD watching a couple of days in advance...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tiebmbr said:


> Can anyone imagine the bandwidth required to DOWNLOAD a couple of HD movies onto your drive, even at MPEG-4? Not to mention the time required? You'd have to plan your VOD watching a couple of days in advance...


Sure... Take a look at the XBOX360 and their HD downloads (which are based on an MPEG-4 codec).

Some of them download in about an hour... others take longer.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Some of them download in about an hour... others take longer.


That's not exactly "VOD", though, when you start a download and an hour later you have something to watch...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tiebmbr said:


> That's not exactly "VOD", though, when you start a download and an hour later you have something to watch...


You are right... it is not "ON-Demand" equivilent of Cable-Co's.

But I was using it to answer your question about the "bandwith" aspect


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Tiebmbr said:


> That's not exactly "VOD", though, when you start a download and an hour later you have something to watch...


Can you start watching before it completes, given that kind of speed?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You are right... it is not "ON-Demand" equivilent of Cable-Co's.


However, that is the standard that cable has forced D* to live up to.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tiebmbr said:


> However, that is the standard that cable has forced D* to live up to.


Why?
I mean... Yes... there is the "I want it now" factor.

But why does DirecTV (and every other company), have to do it the way that the first person out there does?

Would "VOD" feature not be beneficiall... even if you have to wait 5,10,15,30 minutes to start watching the content?

99.9999% of that material in that VOD library is not going to be "live" programming... it is all previously recorded material.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Can you start watching before it completes, given that kind of speed?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Not on XBOX360 "VOD".

Don't know yet with regards to DirecTV's offering.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But why does DirecTV (and every other company), have to do it the way that the first person out there does?
> 
> Would "VOD" feature not be beneficiall... even if you have to wait 5,10,15,30 minutes to start watching the content?


They don't but in the case of cable VOD it's the best way to do it. I'll have to wait to see exactly how this is going to work, but IMHO, having to wait 30 minutes to be able to start watching isn't something I'd be looking forward to doing. Maybe they should call it Video On Request?


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> I mean... Yes... there is the "I want it now" factor.
> 
> But why does DirecTV (and every other company), have to do it the way that the first person out there does?
> ...


This is just an observsation of the marketplace...C* and others cram the Holy Grail of VOD down everyones throats as something "you can't do on the dish", so everyone now looks to D* to measure up, especially those they may want to attract over from cable...

Now, if D* does something toally revolutionary with they VOD that no one else is doing (the way N* capitalized on the uniqueness of the Wii, what do they call it..."the blue ocean theory"?), that would definitely pull people over who may be looking at the two options and VOD is on their list of priorities.

I am loyal to D*, but I do want to see them do something cool that really takes this technology into a new area...until then, cable has the leg up (at least as far as technology...content is a WHOLE other thing).

As far as content goes...exclusives would be a big thing...partnerships with the networks, new content (that doesn't involve video personals), and HD.

THAT would sell VOD on SAT.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

In the dead of a Chicago winter (or the scorching Phoenix summer), if my choice is to leave the house, get into a very cold or scorching hot car), drive to "Nextdoor" videos, find something that might be second choice because first is gone, stand in line, get back into car, drive home, then get comfortable again OR wait 5 minutes whilst I fire up the microwave popcorn to watch the movie I really wanted in the first place...

And, DIRECTV could have a much larger library than most cable companies, given that it can be in one or two central locations. Currently, cable companies have to maintain their libraries near the headend of each system, so they duplicate their library hundreds of times.

All gonna be very interesting to see what works and what doesn't.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Clint Lamor (Nov 15, 2005)

Well I can say from first hand experience that Comcasts VOD is more like Video If Your Lucky. While at my parents house for the christmas holiday my dealings with the VOD made me luagh at best and curse even more. I tried to watch 3 different movies and NEVER once did I actually get to watch any of them without interruptions from the system, horrible video artifacts, bad sound. Flat out video dying and kicking me back to the main menu. This is in a neighborhood thats new, filled with multi million dollar homes and supposedly this is their premier system. If thats all that cable has to offer (have seen the same here in FL on Time Warner at my in-laws house) well then no thank you I will pass. I would sooner download a movie from MovieLink and wait to watch it on my laptop. At least then it doesn't suck big time.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Clint, your experience it 180 from what mine was when I had Comcast. Requested program started within a few seconds and no problems once it started and their HD content looked good.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

My issue with C* VOD (besides, and I'll say it again, the overall mediocrity of the content), is the sluggishness of the controls during playback as well as the access times. I felt like everything I did responded about a second behind when I did it...took a lot of getting used to. 

When I'd left C*, the didn't as of yet have any HD content available OD.


----------



## CraigM (Jan 20, 2007)

I wonder if VOD could replace the DVR? I guess you could still need the DVR if you would want to view your VOD selection again without paying for it twice? Would DTV allow you to do that?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I don't think that VOD can replace the DVR because there are far too many local/regional channels that DirecTV just can NOT store on its servers for on-demand viewing.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Ah, but think of Comcast or D* as a reference library. You want the 15 minute cooking show on WXYZ (yes, I know one exists), then you go to the WXYZ library on your VODVR (did I just invent a term?) which is really a pointer into WXYZ's library. The only thing on the D* or Comcast server is a reference point (think URL). 

Then D* or Comcast pipe the stream from WXYZ thru to your VODVR.

An aside: If it takes an hour to download a movie, even if you cannot watch, that is one heck of a lot faster than getting a torrent!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> I mean... Yes... there is the "I want it now" factor.
> 
> But why does DirecTV (and every other company), have to do it the way that the first person out there does?
> ...


\\

Earl,

They don't...this isn't an apples or oranges though. This is the same feature that one company would have instantaneous and the other with a delay.

Hey, why does my company have to have email...interoffice envelopes only take a couple of hours longer.

My guess is D could safely buffer enough in 5 or 10 minutes to show the whole move without an issue...but then again using the internet and depending on all sorts of other factors is risky. They may just go for the full download happening and being CRC checked first before billing/showing the program.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

drew2k said:


> I don't think that VOD can replace the DVR because there are far too many local/regional channels that DirecTV just can NOT store on its servers for on-demand viewing.


Storage space ain't that expensive and gets cheaper and cheaper all the time. If you think about it they're paying for all that extra storage and more by having hundreds of thousands of HDs out there on our DVRs.

I would guess it won't be that long before every show is available from the provider. Our boxes will not have HDs (maybe a few gigs of static RAM for buffering purposes). Every show will be on the menu.

Point, Click, Watch. (and of course pay).

Now, the satellite companies need to find a way to compete with the speed/bandwidth of cable and terrestrial wireless. Actually, I can see them going to a bit of ground-based antennas much like Sirius and XM have done for radio.


----------



## ChrisMinCT (Dec 7, 2006)

I assumed when I first heard about D* VOD that they would be using the SATs Internet capabilities to download VOD content to the DVR. The more I think about them depending on a 3rd party broadband connection, the more potential problems surface. When the connection goes down in the middle of watching a VOD, who's fault is it? D* sent the content. It wasn't their fault that your ISP bombed out. So are they going to credit my account for the lost content? Will they have to pay licensing fees for both sends? How am I going to prove that I didn't get it all? If its all sent but there's a lot of packet loss and the quality stinks, who's fault is that and how do I prove that to D*? I could call with every VOD and say it wasn't good and seek credit. This could be a real customer service nightmare, couldn't it? How are they going to handle it if the connection just slows down too much to keep the video running - automatically pause and put up an intermission screen? 

The cable companies have a clear advantage here. They are not relying on 3rd party broadband connections. They have control of the entire medium. They can determine if a connection was lost or performance was bad. But D* will not be able to do that with a customer's 3rd party ISP service. 

Also, is D* going to require you to have a DVR to purchase VOD content? I would assume they are and that VOD is going to be a key motivation for more of their users to upgrade to DVRs. Lots of revenue for them in the DVR monthly service fees. 

Watching D*'s VOD service with avvid interest...


----------



## MattWarner (Feb 11, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I would guess it won't be that long before every show is available from the provider. Our boxes will not have HDs (maybe a few gigs of static RAM for buffering purposes). Every show will be on the menu.
> 
> Point, Click, Watch. (and of course pay).


But when Cablevision tried to do that recently(by storing all the content at the headend and using cable boxes as remote controls), they got sued by the content providers and were forced to abandon that idea. The court ruled that Cablevision was rebroadcasting content without the permission of the content providers.

-Matt


----------



## mtnagel (Sep 18, 2006)

ChrisMinCT said:


> I assumed when I first heard about D* VOD that they would be using the SATs Internet capabilities to download VOD content to the DVR. The more I think about them depending on a 3rd party broadband connection, the more potential problems surface. When the connection goes down in the middle of watching a VOD, who's fault is it? D* sent the content. It wasn't their fault that your ISP bombed out. So are they going to credit my account for the lost content? Will they have to pay licensing fees for both sends? How am I going to prove that I didn't get it all? If its all sent but there's a lot of packet loss and the quality stinks, who's fault is that and how do I prove that to D*? I could call with every VOD and say it wasn't good and seek credit. This could be a real customer service nightmare, couldn't it? How are they going to handle it if the connection just slows down too much to keep the video running - automatically pause and put up an intermission screen?
> 
> The cable companies have a clear advantage here. They are not relying on 3rd party broadband connections. They have control of the entire medium. They can determine if a connection was lost or performance was bad. But D* will not be able to do that with a customer's 3rd party ISP service.
> 
> ...


You bring up some excellent questions. Anyone have the answers? I'm assuming not until this thing is tested in the wild.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

I guess I have to resort back to my statement the last time we started to chat about a future product....

Let's not split hairs until the product is implemented...
And we have all the details.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

The problem with VOD is that you can view the program only as long as it's on the menu. A DVR lets you keep it until you're ready to watch it and even record it to other media. Hollywood isn't going to let you have anything that's worth anything without paying. If you want to watch last week's episode of "Lost", you can either pay to watch it on VOD or watch it with non-skippable commercials on ABC's website. If it's on your DVR, you can watch it for free and still skip the commercials. Which do you think people are going to choose?

As to the comment about VOD being the "death of Blockbuster/Netflix", don't bet on it. I can remember predictions of the the demise of Blockbuster and the movie rental business as far back as 1990. Last time I checked, Blockbuster was alive and well.


----------



## ChrisMinCT (Dec 7, 2006)

mtnagel said:


> You bring up some excellent questions. Anyone have the answers? I'm assuming not until this thing is tested in the wild.


I have all the answers, of course. But they haven't hired me to design the solutions yet!!!!! :hurah: :lol: :hurah:


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

My use of VOD would never really be to watch it *now*. I'd just tell it to download/store whatever programs/movies to my DVR and I'll watch it later, just like I do now with my recorded programs. Basically Netflix in my DVR.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> My use of VOD would never really be to watch it *now*. I'd just tell it to download/store whatever programs/movies to my DVR and I'll watch it later, just like I do now with my recorded programs. Basically Netflix in my DVR.


Yep.. could you imagine if even 10% of the subscribers in the chicago area went after a show at the same time? net would come to a halt..


----------



## thxultra (Feb 1, 2005)

I love the idea of vod. I would use it when nothing is on so I can watch stuff on my time. I know the movie channels over air movies but having a bunch of starz movies on demand would also be nice. Can't wait to get a HR-20 for that and hd recording


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Perhaps the showcases function will finally be activated on the HR20 once VOD comes on? Showcase NGC HD programs maybe, hmmm?


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

I think you'll find that a lot of the VOD content is copy-protected.


----------



## thxultra (Feb 1, 2005)

I think VOD contant expecially pay per view will be copy protected. I want the HR-20 for recording shows so I don't miss them.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> I think you'll find that a lot of the VOD content is copy-protected.


Copy protected as in HDMI w/ HDCP output only? Boo says I!


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> I think you'll find that a lot of the VOD content is copy-protected.


That's a good point...I have found that although HBO, Showtime and others copyright their movies via SAT, PPV movies can be burned to DVD from the DVR without issue. I wonder if this is a function of the "all day pass" or whatever that releases this from protection?

However, they are burnable.:disk:


----------



## GCanada (Apr 3, 2007)

Will VOD include Howard Stern TV?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Regarding the question of how DirecTV could reimburse the consumer if a VOD file craps out due to the 3rd party internet connection failing: I would think DirecTV would stipulate that two-way internet communication is required for its VOD service, and for each VOD title ordered, DirecTV would monitor packets sent and received so that if the network connection goes down, the service would know it. You'd either be prompted to "resume later" when connectivity is restored, or you could be automatically be fully or partially credited for the cost of the title that wasn't completed.

On a separate note, I really hope DirecTV sets up regional servers for the content, linked to by ZIP code. When I ran my speed tests to determine up/down speeds, I was over 12Mbps (Down) on East Coast servers, and the speeds dropped considerably the further away I went with each test, until I was near 5Mbps for California. I don't want to be making cross-country hops for VOD... I want to use a "local" server ...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

GCanada said:


> Will VOD include Howard Stern TV?


No idea...

We don't even know exactly how VOD is going to work, let alone what the content is going to be yet.


----------



## GCanada (Apr 3, 2007)

If it has Howard I'm all over it, if not im not sure if it fancies my panties or not.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> No idea...
> 
> We don't even know exactly how VOD is going to work, let alone what the content is going to be yet.


Although it would be difficult for them to overlook the "King of All Media" when building their content relationships...has he done satellite TV yet?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> The problem with VOD is that you can view the program only as long as it's on the menu. A DVR lets you keep it until you're ready to watch it and even record it to other media. Hollywood isn't going to let you have anything that's worth anything without paying. If you want to watch last week's episode of "Lost", you can either pay to watch it on VOD or watch it with non-skippable commercials on ABC's website. If it's on your DVR, you can watch it for free and still skip the commercials. Which do you think people are going to choose?
> 
> As to the comment about VOD being the "death of Blockbuster/Netflix", don't bet on it. I can remember predictions of the the demise of Blockbuster and the movie rental business as far back as 1990. Last time I checked, Blockbuster was alive and well.


No, Blockbuster can morph into something else. But when the time comes that a vast array of movies and tv programs are available whenever you want them at the same cost or less through a box attached to your TV...why exactly will anyone rent the same thing? The people that predicted BB were out of business several years back were talking about PPV as it is generally offered now. Mostly they were marketing people for Cable and Satellite.

I'm not saying real VoD is this year or next...but it's what we'll see in the future. As for where the program is stored (DVR vs. Server) that all depends on the cost of storage and transmission. My guess is that the content owners and the transmissions companies will want it on the server.

If the costs were reasonable I would want it that way too. As good as Season Tickets/DVR programming can get it won't be perfect there are too many things that can delay/interrupt the programming to put it outside the recording parameters...such as a rain delay in a baseball game...a football game that goes late...etc.

Just my two cents...hopefully D can figure a way to remain competitive when cable begins offering realtime PPV. I don't think having the consumer wait for the download to finish is going to do it...they gotta have a better long-term solution.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

MattWarner said:


> But when Cablevision tried to do that recently(by storing all the content at the headend and using cable boxes as remote controls), they got sued by the content providers and were forced to abandon that idea. The court ruled that Cablevision was rebroadcasting content without the permission of the content providers.
> 
> -Matt


Another decision by a judge who doesn't understand technology.

It makes no difference if the data is stored locally or stored centrally from a technology viewpoint. As long as the service isn't sharing or storing stuff that users did not store.

I wonder how this judge would rule on internet backup systems....

Back to topic....


----------



## boaguy (Jan 18, 2007)

hopefully vod will bring wwe 24-7 and howard tv thats the only 2 things that make me want to goto cable and there on demand service


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2007)

Ken S said:


> No, Blockbuster can morph into something else. But when the time comes that a vast array of movies and tv programs are available whenever you want them at the same cost or less through a box attached to your TV...why exactly will anyone rent the same thing?


That's the same argument that was made more than 15 years ago - why exactly would anyone go to Blockbuster to rent a movie when they could just order it up from home on PPV? And it wasn't just cable companies saying it - Wall Street analysts who followed the entertainment industry for a living were predicting the demise of Blockbuster.

Predictions like that rarely pan out. When TV became popular in the early '50s, it was seen by many as the end for movie theatres (not to mention radio). After all, why would anyone pay to go to a movie when they could watch TV at home for free? The same thing was said when HBO arrived in the early '70s.



Ken S said:


> I'm not saying real VoD is this year or next...but it's what we'll see in the future. As for where the program is stored (DVR vs. Server) that all depends on the cost of storage and transmission. My guess is that the content owners and the transmissions companies will want it on the server.


A simplistic analysis at best. If you think the content owners want their programs stored on cable companies' servers for on-demand viewing, check out the suit against Cablevision referenced in the messages above.



Ken S said:


> If the costs were reasonable I would want it that way too. As good as Season Tickets/DVR programming can get it won't be perfect there are too many things that can delay/interrupt the programming to put it outside the recording parameters...such as a rain delay in a baseball game...a football game that goes late...etc.


Ever hear of padding the recording time for a sports event? And what do Video on Demand and the issue of storing programs on servers have to do with live sports events, anyway?


----------



## CraigM (Jan 20, 2007)

Is DTV going to partner with the networks and offer their primetime shows for VOD? In case you forget to record it? I also wonder if the networks would put their old TV shows from the 50's to the 90's and even 2000 to 2006 on VOD?


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2007)

Anyone who thinks VOD is free of DRM should read the following:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060209-6151.html

If Hollywood gets its way, you won't even be able to record to DVRs, let alone burn from a DVR to a DVD.


----------



## xerxes (Jan 21, 2007)

drew2k said:


> Regarding the question of how DirecTV could reimburse the consumer if a VOD file craps out due to the 3rd party internet connection failing: I would think DirecTV would stipulate that two-way internet communication is required for its VOD service, and for each VOD title ordered, DirecTV would monitor packets sent and received so that if the network connection goes down, the service would know it. You'd either be prompted to "resume later" when connectivity is restored, or you could be automatically be fully or partially credited for the cost of the title that wasn't completed.
> 
> On a separate note, I really hope DirecTV sets up regional servers for the content, linked to by ZIP code. When I ran my speed tests to determine up/down speeds, I was over 12Mbps (Down) on East Coast servers, and the speeds dropped considerably the further away I went with each test, until I was near 5Mbps for California. I don't want to be making cross-country hops for VOD... I want to use a "local" server ...


What type of connection do you use for 12 Mbps down?


----------



## LOBO2999 (Apr 9, 2004)

rcoleman111 said:


> Anyone who thinks VOD is free of DRM should read the following:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060209-6151.html
> 
> If Hollywood gets its way, you won't even be able to record to DVRs, let alone burn from a DVR to a DVD.


This will have me renting more movies from Blockbuster and droping Say HBO, Showtime ect...


----------



## ChrisMinCT (Dec 7, 2006)

drew2k said:


> Regarding the question of how DirecTV could reimburse the consumer if a VOD file craps out due to the 3rd party internet connection failing: I would think DirecTV would stipulate that two-way internet communication is required for its VOD service, and for each VOD title ordered, DirecTV would monitor packets sent and received so that if the network connection goes down, the service would know it. You'd either be prompted to "resume later" when connectivity is restored, or you could be automatically be fully or partially credited for the cost of the title that wasn't completed.
> 
> On a separate note, I really hope DirecTV sets up regional servers for the content, linked to by ZIP code. When I ran my speed tests to determine up/down speeds, I was over 12Mbps (Down) on East Coast servers, and the speeds dropped considerably the further away I went with each test, until I was near 5Mbps for California. I don't want to be making cross-country hops for VOD... I want to use a "local" server ...


They'll likely have all the content stored centrally somewhere, but will then have off-net point to point connections to regional servers with POPs all over the place. So you'll get your live feed from a nearby POP which gets it over their network.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> That's the same argument that was made more than 15 years ago - why exactly would anyone go to Blockbuster to rent a movie when they could just order it up from home on PPV? And it wasn't just cable companies saying it - Wall Street analysts who followed the entertainment industry for a living were predicting the demise of Blockbuster.
> 
> Predictions like that rarely pan out. When TV became popular in the early '50s, it was seen by many as the end for movie theatres (not to mention radio). After all, why would anyone pay to go to a movie when they could watch TV at home for free? The same thing was said when HBO arrived in the early '70s.
> 
> ...


1. There's a difference and I assume you're intelligent enough to understand that PPV as it is now is not convenient because you are tied to their showtimes. With real VoD that wouldn't be the case. if the library of content is as large as a Blockbuster stores...why would anyone go out and rent a video? It's not the same as the argument made back then and it is in NO way analogous to the TV vs Movies...that's different content at least and a different format. This is the same content in the same format.

2. Padding doesn't always work. It's a guess at best.

3. Yes, tell me about the case? Did Cablevision have the right to store the content? That case has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Predictions often do pan out...but perhaps you're right...things won't change we'll be using DVRs with mechanical harddrives forever. Nothing will change. Hey, how's your slide rule working out?


----------



## CraigM (Jan 20, 2007)

How long will you be able to watch the VOD selection? One advantage video rental stores have is three to five day rentals and also with VOD I wonder if it will be 30 to 45 days after the new release is out on DVD like it is with PPV. Maybe they will shorten those wait times soon?


----------



## GCanada (Apr 3, 2007)

Tiebmbr said:


> Although it would be difficult for them to overlook the "King of All Media" when building their content relationships...has he done satellite TV yet?


He is only on cable for now. He recently slipped up on his radio show the other day mentioning he had D*. so I'm pretty sure if VOD happens he will be part of the content. That is the only reason why i'd ever switch to cable is if they dont carry howard tv.


----------



## thxultra (Feb 1, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Anyone who thinks VOD is free of DRM should read the following:
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060209-6151.html
> 
> If Hollywood gets its way, you won't even be able to record to DVRs, let alone burn from a DVR to a DVD.


Yep and that is a load of crap. I should be able to watch shows on my time. I can see them having issue with people putting premimum content on the internet but they shouldn't be stoping me from being able to record.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

xerxes said:


> What type of connection do you use for 12 Mbps down?


My cable company has a 10 down package. But 3 down is plenty good enough for me and that is the slowest you can get now. Crazy as that sounds.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Another decision by a judge who doesn't understand technology.
> 
> It makes no difference if the data is stored locally or stored centrally from a technology viewpoint. As long as the service isn't sharing or storing stuff that users did not store.
> 
> ...


The issue is all about the meaning of "retransmission". The cable companies have licensing deals with the content providers to retransmit their content "live". There are special licenses for VOD content for some providers (PBS, HBO, etc.) If Cablevision implemented their "remote DVR service", Cablevision would have been delivering the content more than once: one time "live", and multiple times thereafter as users played that content back from the remote DVR. Any retransmission after the "live" retransmission is a violation of the licensing deals, so technically the judge was correct.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

xerxes said:


> What type of connection do you use for 12 Mbps down?


I have Cablevision broadband.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2007)

Ken S said:


> 1. There's a difference and I assume you're intelligent enough to understand that PPV as it is now is not convenient because you are tied to their showtimes. With real VoD that wouldn't be the case. if the library of content is as large as a Blockbuster stores...why would anyone go out and rent a video? It's not the same as the argument made back then and it is in NO way analogous to the TV vs Movies...that's different content at least and a different format. This is the same content in the same format.


It's the same concept no matter how you slice it. And it's the same question that was being asked more than 15 years ago.

It's always easy to tell who is losing a debate - it's the one who gets testy and starts hurling insults.



Ken S said:


> 2. Padding doesn't always work. It's a guess at best.


VOD has nothing to do with live sports events anyway, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up, except maybe as a red herring.



Ken S said:


> 3. Yes, tell me about the case? Did Cablevision have the right to store the content? That case has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.


That case is _exactly _what you referred to in your post:

"As for where the program is stored (DVR vs. Server) that all depends on the cost of storage and transmission. My guess is that the content owners and the transmissions companies will want it on the server."

And that is exactly what the Cablevision case is about - the cable company buffering programs on their own servers so that viewers can watch them on demand.



Ken S said:


> Predictions often do pan out...but perhaps you're right...things won't change we'll be using DVRs with mechanical harddrives forever. Nothing will change. Hey, how's your slide rule working out?


Well, who knows? Maybe these outlandish predictions will all come true. Maybe we'll all ditch our DVRs and settle for watching whatever shows up on the Video on Demand menu. Maybe the entire universe of video content will show up on VOD and will allow us to watch it whenever we choose. And maybe the Tooth Fairy will arrive as well.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

drew2k said:


> I have Cablevision broadband.


They don't require that you carry at least their basic TV package to get their broadband? C* does....:icon_lame


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

RC, actually it was you that started with the snide and condescending remarks.

I guess you don't truly want to be a part of a discussion of technology and are going to cloud it with things like licensing agreements that can be changed in a moment (Apple and EMI for instance on DRM rights).

The discussion about sports and recording wasn't the actual recording of the sporting event, but how live events can push regular program times much later than someone could expect. Certainly noone that records 60 Minutes ever deals with this issue.

You can call what I'm talking about the same concept...maybe it was...but now the technology (at least for cable users) is very close. D appears to have some issues they need to work through.

Please explain to me why someone with VoD and a library of programming as big as any Blockbuster will continue to rent DVDs? What logical reason would there be for them to do so. Provided, of course, the cost is relatively the same? Pretty much similar to iTunes and brick and mortar record stores. Maybe you should look at what happened to Tower Records?

You do understand that computer technology and communications technology advances every so often? For instance 20 years ago a 1200 baud modem was about as good as it got. Ten years ago a 1.5mbs connection to your home required a T-1 line ($1,000+ month) and now we have people with 8mbs connections in their home for $50 month.

So, let me summarize my prediction...so you can stop twisting it.

Within a reasonable time frame (five years):

1. VoD will become a standard. Consumers will be afforded a vast array of content which they will be able to watch instantly (or with a very short delay for buffering). Companies in the video rental business will have to change their business model. Blockbuster is already doing so...but perhaps you should call them and they should stop this foolishness and stock up on DVDs. (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,42562-page,1/article.html)

2. Where is the content stored? Well, right now the DVR is a rather pricey box for the transmission folks (Cable, Satellite, etc) to provide to consumers. They're also more complex than what the vast marketplace likes. Finally, they depend on mechanical hard drives that are subject to breakdown. Content owners will be faced with two choices when it comes to VoD have their content spread out on millions of end-user HDs or have it centralized with a few authorized distributors. My guess is they'll choose the distributors as they'll have greater control of how their content is distributed. DVRs may not totally go away, but economically it may become much less expensive for the transmission folks to store them locally and only provide a small box than have to provide DVRs. Certainly bandwidth costs will play a part...but those prices, as I described above, are dropping dramatically as the speeds increase.

3. Will all programming go to VoD? Maybe, eventually...but there's a lot more than technology and finance involved in that case. People will always want live events, news, etc. Sure, the recordings can be made available...but I think there will always be some live scheduled events.

There's another factor. Much of TV programming is still funded by advertisers. Right now what they pay is based on polling by rating services. Do you think they wouldn't be in favor of getting actual numbers for viewers of their ads...rather than the extrapolations from people with diaries in their homes?

So...believe what you want. I've seen these changes happen before. Wasn't that long ago that a conversation like this was impossible. There were plenty of naysayers when I started working for a little company in Vienna, VA in 1985...who would ever use a computer for communicating? Let along watching TV and listening to music.

BTW...on another note...the folks at D and E need to watch out. The Sirius folks are talking about doing video. Look at the size of their dish and look at what is hanging off the side of your house and mine for D/E?



rcoleman111 said:


> It's the same concept no matter how you slice it. And it's the same question that was being asked more than 15 years ago.
> 
> It's always easy to tell who is losing a debate - it's the one who gets testy and starts hurling insults.
> 
> ...


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Tiebmbr said:


> They don't require that you carry at least their basic TV package to get their broadband?  C* does....:icon_lame


I'm sure they do. I have Charter and it's either get the broadcast basic package or pay a $10 extortion fee. I pay the extortion fee. I can't DSL at my house so I have no choice.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> I'm sure they do. I have Charter and it's either get the broadcast basic package or pay a $10 extortion fee. I pay the extortion fee. I can't DSL at my house so I have no choice.


Which brings me all the way around to one of my beefs against cable...I mean, c'mon! It's already attached to my house, why can't you just turn it on for data and not television? Extorsion is right...:flaiming

Does anyone on this thread use Directway for high speed?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Tiebmbr said:


> Does anyone on this thread use Directway for high speed?


No. 3 times as expensive and 10 times slower and sucks for anything but basic use (no games, etc.)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tiebmbr said:


> Which brings me all the way around to one of my beefs against cable...I mean, c'mon! It's already attached to my house, why can't you just turn it on for data and not television? Extorsion is right...:flaiming
> 
> Does anyone on this thread use Directway for high speed?


"Technically" I am a cable subscriber...
As my bill for Internet access from Comcast was $59 a month.
Adding BASIC cable... dropped the TOTAL bill to $57


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> No. 3 times as expensive and 10 times slower and sucks for anything but basic use (no games, etc.)


...plus an extra piece of hardware on your house...

It strikes me as odd, since D* pushes the product so hard on their info channel, but when you visit their website and look up "High Speed Internet", it's nowhere to be found...it's all DSL....interesting.


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> "Technically" I am a cable subscriber...
> As my bill for Internet access from Comcast was $59 a month.
> Adding BASIC cable... dropped the TOTAL bill to $57


I have the same thing as you Earl.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tiebmbr said:


> ...plus an extra piece of hardware on your house...
> 
> It strikes me as odd, since D* pushes the product so hard on their info channel, but when you visit their website and look up "High Speed Internet", it's nowhere to be found...it's all DSL....interesting.


If you don't "get" the DSL in your area... it recommends the DirectWay products...

Okay... :backtotop


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> "Technically" I am a cable subscriber...
> As my bill for Internet access from Comcast was $59 a month.
> Adding BASIC cable... dropped the TOTAL bill to $57


Just bizarre...so you pay less to receive something you never use? Obviously this is just C* way of getting you onto their subscriber rolls...to count you when touting the preeminence of the number of their subs over the competition.


----------



## Tiebmbr (Mar 27, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Okay... :backtotop


Sorry, what were we talking about again?

Moving on...


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Tiebmbr said:


> ...plus an extra piece of hardware on your house...
> 
> It strikes me as odd, since D* pushes the product so hard on their info channel, but when you visit their website and look up "High Speed Internet", it's nowhere to be found...it's all DSL....interesting.


IIRC, D* sold Direcway to HughesNet, so is D* pushing it just commercials.


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2007)

Ken S said:


> RC, actually it was you that started with the snide and condescending remarks.


You're the one who started your post with "I assume you're intelligent enough...", not me. That kind of remark is always a dead giveaway that you are on the defensive and losing the debate.



Ken S said:


> I guess you don't truly want to be a part of a discussion of technology and are going to cloud it with things like licensing agreements that can be changed in a moment (Apple and EMI for instance on DRM rights).


Licensing and copyright issues are the very reasons VOD hasn't had a big impact, even though the technology has been available for more than a decade. If the cable companies haven't been able to work through these issues after trying for years, what makes you think they can do it in a "moment"?



Ken S said:


> The discussion about sports and recording wasn't the actual recording of the sporting event, but how live events can push regular program times much later than someone could expect. Certainly noone that records 60 Minutes ever deals with this issue.


Given a choice between padding the recording time for "60 Minutes" and paying to watch it on VOD, which do you think I'll choose?



Ken S said:


> You can call what I'm talking about the same concept...maybe it was...but now the technology (at least for cable users) is very close.


The technology for VOD has been out there for more than a decade. Every system that has been wired for two-way communications has had the capability of offering VOD for years.



Ken S said:


> Please explain to me why someone with VoD and a library of programming as big as any Blockbuster will continue to rent DVDs? What logical reason would there be for them to do so. Provided, of course, the cost is relatively the same? Pretty much similar to iTunes and brick and mortar record stores. Maybe you should look at what happened to Tower Records?


Why would someone who could order a movie at home on PPV go to Blockbuster and rent it? Because you can only watch it during the eight times a day it's on the PPV schedule? Isn't that what VCRs and DVRs are for? Why do people read newspapers when they can read the same material on the Internet?

The demise of Tower Records and the brick-and-mortar music stores is the result of the music industry clinging to an obsolete business model - charging $15 for a CD with one or two good songs. When the Internet broke their ironclad grip on the business, they stubbornly refused to change with the times. Their response was to sell music encumbered with DRM and launch thousands of lawsuits against individual they claimed were "stealing" their music.



Ken S said:


> You do understand that computer technology and communications technology advances every so often? For instance 20 years ago a 1200 baud modem was about as good as it got. Ten years ago a 1.5mbs connection to your home required a T-1 line ($1,000+ month) and now we have people with 8mbs connections in their home for $50 month.


I work with computer technology for a living, so I do know a fair amount about it. I also know that new technologies always bring about predictions of the "death" of existing technologies and that those claims are usually premature and overblown.



Ken S said:


> Within a reasonable time frame (five years):
> 
> 1. VoD will become a standard. Consumers will be afforded a vast array of content which they will be able to watch instantly (or with a very short delay for buffering). Companies in the video rental business will have to change their business model. Blockbuster is already doing so...but perhaps you should call them and they should stop this foolishness and stock up on DVDs. (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,42562-page,1/article.html)


The same predictions were being made five years ago - and for that matter, ten years ago. The roadblocks are the same today as they were then - licensing, copyright claims, and DRM.



Ken S said:


> 2. Where is the content stored? Well, right now the DVR is a rather pricey box for the transmission folks (Cable, Satellite, etc) to provide to consumers. They're also more complex than what the vast marketplace likes. Finally, they depend on mechanical hard drives that are subject to breakdown. Content owners will be faced with two choices when it comes to VoD have their content spread out on millions of end-user HDs or have it centralized with a few authorized distributors. My guess is they'll choose the distributors as they'll have greater control of how their content is distributed. DVRs may not totally go away, but economically it may become much less expensive for the transmission folks to store them locally and only provide a small box than have to provide DVRs. Certainly bandwidth costs will play a part...but those prices, as I described above, are dropping dramatically as the speeds increase.


Again, that's a simplistic explanation that overlooks the realities of licensing, copyright claims, and DRM, which will trump the other considerations you mentioned. There is a reason DVRs are selling like hotcakes today while VOD has failed to gain much traction. The central issue in the Cablevision case is that it's "fair use" for consumers to record and store programs on their DVRs, but it is not "fair use" for the cable company to store that same content on their servers. They would have to charge viewers a second time in order to view the same content. So which do you think people will choose - to record programs to their DVRs and watch them whenever they like or pay for each time they watch them on VOD. The idea the DVRs are going to "go away" because of VOD is really pretty farfetched.

As to your comment about DVRs having "mechanical hard drives that are subject to breakdown", that's also true of the servers that are used to store VOD content. It's likely that future generations of DVRs will have the same kind of fault tolerance built into them that servers have. In fact, there are a lot of people who are already using RAID systems with their DVRs.



Ken S said:


> 3. Will all programming go to VoD? Maybe, eventually...but there's a lot more than technology and finance involved in that case. People will always want live events, news, etc. Sure, the recordings can be made available...but I think there will always be some live scheduled events.
> 
> There's another factor. Much of TV programming is still funded by advertisers. Right now what they pay is based on polling by rating services. Do you think they wouldn't be in favor of getting actual numbers for viewers of their ads...rather than the extrapolations from people with diaries in their homes?
> 
> So...believe what you want. I've seen these changes happen before. Wasn't that long ago that a conversation like this was impossible. There were plenty of naysayers when I started working for a little company in Vienna, VA in 1985...who would ever use a computer for communicating? Let along watching TV and listening to music.


...and you can believe what you want as well. If you want to believe that VOD is the greatest thing since sliced bread, go right ahead. When you start trying to view VOD programs with DRM restrictions that control when you can watch them and which contain non-skippable commercials, will you still feel that way?



Ken S said:


> BTW...on another note...the folks at D and E need to watch out. The Sirius folks are talking about doing video. Look at the size of their dish and look at what is hanging off the side of your house and mine for D/E?


In your view, I'm sure that means the "death of DirecTV and Echostar".


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

Its a nice backup for the HR20 which tends to miss scheduled recordings from time to time. Better than Bittorrent!


----------



## mtnagel (Sep 18, 2006)

islesfan said:


> Its a nice backup for the HR20 which tends to miss scheduled recordings from time to time. Better than Bittorrent!


It's not if I have to pay for VOD.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Tiebmbr said:


> They don't require that you carry at least their basic TV package to get their broadband? C* does....:icon_lame





bonscott87 said:


> I'm sure they do. I have Charter and it's either get the broadcast basic package or pay a $10 extortion fee. I pay the extortion fee. I can't DSL at my house so I have no choice.


Cablevision [of Hauppauge] does not require cable TV service in order to get broadband service. My mother has DirecTV for TV service and Cablevision for broadband internet, and pays $49.99 a month.

I actually DO have "family cable", because it's part of my condo common fees ("bulk rate complex"), but I pay $44.99 for broadband and nothing extra for the cable TV service, after a $5 discount for having both cable and broadband service.

The good news is that when VOD finally starts up, in my area the satellite subscribers will have a choice of broadband providers (DSL, Cable, or DirecTV) and won't have to pay cable TV fees just to get internet if they go with cable broadband...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> Licensing and copyright issues are the very reasons VOD hasn't had a big impact, even though the technology has been available for more than a decade. If the cable companies haven't been able to work through these issues after trying for years, what makes you think they can do it in a "moment"?


No, I said in the next five years. But I guess that's a moment to you. The market will force it to happen. Look at Apple and EMI for an example.



rcoleman111 said:


> Given a choice between padding the recording time for "60 Minutes" and paying to watch it on VOD, which do you think I'll choose?


We don't always get the choice...do we?



rcoleman111 said:


> The technology for VOD has been out there for more than a decade. Every system that has been wired for two-way communications has had the capability of offering VOD for years.


No, it really hasn't. Other than in some hotels. There are not a lot of systems that had working two-way systems until relatively recently.



rcoleman111 said:


> Why would someone who could order a movie at home on PPV go to Blockbuster and rent it? Because you can only watch it during the eight times a day it's on the PPV schedule? Isn't that what VCRs and DVRs are for? Why do people read newspapers when they can read the same material on the Internet?


We're talking about VoD. That's short for Video on Demand. So it's not eight times a day...it's whenever the user wants. Newspapers and websites are not totally similar and certainly not analogous to this discussion...you're stretching horribly.



rcoleman111 said:


> The demise of Tower Records and the brick-and-mortar music stores is the result of the music industry clinging to an obsolete business model - charging $15 for a CD with one or two good songs. When the Internet broke their ironclad grip on the business, they stubbornly refused to change with the times. Their response was to sell music encumbered with DRM and launch thousands of lawsuits against individual they claimed were "stealing" their music.


Yep, except all of the DRM from the major labels will be gone by the end of this year. EMI has already dropped it. The rest will follow shortly. You keep ignoring what happened with EMI this past week. You also ignored what Blockbuster is doing and heading towards in the link I included.



rcoleman111 said:


> I work with computer technology for a living, so I do know a fair amount about it. I also know that new technologies always bring about predictions of the "death" of existing technologies and that those claims are usually premature and overblown.


Congratulations. I've worked in the industry for the last 25 years. I know a little about it as well. Yes, there are plenty of crazy claims...but we're not talking remarkable technology that doesn't exist. It does...it's being refined and it's the least costly method of distribution for the content folks...with potentially the greatest payoff.

I know a whole lot about DRM and licensing agreements. When the content providers feel pressure and see money being lost they drop them very quickly. They can slow things down, but eventually the technology wins out...especially when the demand is there.



rcoleman111 said:


> The same predictions were being made five years ago - and for that matter, ten years ago. The roadblocks are the same today as they were then - licensing, copyright claims, and DRM.


If I haven't made it clear Licensing and DRM will not be an issue as the content owners will find it more profitable to distribute their shows via VoD than the current methods. The first to go will be the DVD.



rcoleman111 said:


> Again, that's a simplistic explanation that overlooks the realities of licensing, copyright claims, and DRM, which will trump the other considerations you mentioned. There is a reason DVRs are selling like hotcakes today while VOD has failed to gain much traction. The central issue in the Cablevision case is that it's "fair use" for consumers to record and store programs on their DVRs, but it is not "fair use" for the cable company to store that same content on their servers. They would have to charge viewers a second time in order to view the same content. So which do you think people will choose - to record programs to their DVRs and watch them whenever they like or pay for each time they watch them on VOD. The idea the DVRs are going to "go away" because of VOD is really pretty farfetched.


I guess you're of the belief that licensing agreements never change and market forces never cause those changes? Funny, my experience over the last 25 years is very much the opposite.



rcoleman111 said:


> As to your comment about DVRs having "mechanical hard drives that are subject to breakdown", that's also true of the servers that are used to store VOD content. It's likely that future generations of DVRs will have the same kind of fault tolerance built into them that servers have. In fact, there are a lot of people who are already using RAID systems with their DVRs.


Yep, they sure can. I'm sure you think that transmission companies feel it's less expensive to partially fund all those DVRs? Once again you just keep ignoring parts of my statements.
[/quote]



rcoleman111 said:


> ...and you can believe what you want as well. If you want to believe that VOD is the greatest thing since sliced bread, go right ahead. When you start trying to view VOD programs with DRM restrictions that control when you can watch them and which contain non-skippable commercials, will you still feel that way?


I don't think it's the greatest thing...I don't think DVRs are the greatest thing either. Why are you so sure of what we're going to be charged? You do realize that they can do the same things with your DVR now. You can argue all the fair use you want...but in the end D can control what you record and what you can do with it when it's on their machine (Most HR20s are leased). The only thing that will control DRM are market forces that show the content owners there's more money to be made from not putting them in place.

Mostly, I think it is the least costly way for the content providers and transmission folks to make the most money. It will also offer the majority of tv watchers the convenience they want.



rcoleman111 said:


> In your view, I'm sure that means the "death of DirecTV and Echostar".


No, but they're going to have to continue to innovate because they'll be in competition with another provider that has some interesting technology. If they don't innovate and change...yes they'll be dead.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2007)

Ken S said:


> No, I said in the next five years. But I guess that's a moment to you. The market will force it to happen. Look at Apple and EMI for an example.


You are the one who said licensing could change in a moment, not me. Hollywood isn't giving up on DRM and the idea that the market will "force it to happen" is just not realistic. While EMI has dropped DRM for its music, don't bet on the others following suit anytime soon. And last time I checked, Apple still had DRM on most of their downloads.



Ken S said:


> No, it really hasn't. Other than in some hotels. There are not a lot of systems that had working two-way systems until relatively recently.


I suppose it depends on what you mean by "relatively recently". There are cable systems that have been two-way since the late '90s. And the cable companies have definitely been trumpeting the benefits of VOD for well over a decade.



Ken S said:


> We're talking about VoD. That's short for Video on Demand. So it's not eight times a day...it's whenever the user wants. Newspapers and websites are not totally similar and certainly not analogous to this discussion...you're stretching horribly.


Thanks for briefing me on what VOD stands for. Maybe you should post the definition of "analogy" as well. In your view, it seems nothing that contradicts your predictions is "analogous to this discussion".



Ken S said:


> Yep, except all of the DRM from the major labels will be gone by the end of this year. EMI has already dropped it. The rest will follow shortly. You keep ignoring what happened with EMI this past week. You also ignored what Blockbuster is doing and heading towards in the link I included.


I'll believe that when I see it. At least we won't have to wait 5 years to see who is right about this prediction.

As to your link about Blockbuster, maybe you should take another look. As I understand it, they are offering streaming video at lower-than-DVD quality and with DRM restrictions. How popular do you think that's going to be?

There are other companies out there that have been offering similar services, including actual downloads of movies and other video, but none of them have really gained much traction. The reason isn't hard to figure out - it's Hollywood's insistence on DRM, which makes it unappealing to consumers. Who wants to pay for something that can only be watched on the computer that downloaded it? Or a video that can only be watched for 24 hours from the time you pay for it? Even downloads of TV shows from Apple can't be legally tranferred to other media. It's likely that you'll see the same issues come up with VOD - that's because Hollywood controls the content and they've never been able to get past the idea that people are going to "steal" it from them.



Ken S said:


> Congratulations. I've worked in the industry for the last 25 years. I know a little about it as well. Yes, there are plenty of crazy claims...but we're not talking remarkable technology that doesn't exist. It does...it's being refined and it's the least costly method of distribution for the content folks...with potentially the greatest payoff.


Congratulations to you as well. It's always fun chatting with others who work in the industry. With all the years you've been in the business, I'm sure you can remember a few years back when "thin clients" were going to take over the IT world. Nobody would have a hard disk in their PC (kind of like the idea that nobody will need a DVR with a hard disk in it), because it would be more cost-effective to store everything on servers.

If it were only a matter of whether the technology exists and what is the least costly method of distribution, you might be right about VOD becoming a major force in home video. But those factors are usually trumped by Hollywood's fear that someone will be able to rip them off.



Ken S said:


> I know a whole lot about DRM and licensing agreements. When the content providers feel pressure and see money being lost they drop them very quickly. They can slow things down, but eventually the technology wins out...especially when the demand is there.
> 
> If I haven't made it clear Licensing and DRM will not be an issue as the content owners will find it more profitable to distribute their shows via VoD than the current methods. The first to go will be the DVD.


The prediction that DVDs will go away because of VOD is even more farfetched than the idea of VOD overtaking DVRs in popularity. DVDs are the biggest moneymaker the entertainment industry has ever seen. Just as there are still people who like to read newspapers, there will always be people who will want a DVD of a movie or TV show. Some people like to collect them; others like the fact that a DVD can be played on any DVD player and TV set (and doesn't go away unless you toss it in the trash) - portability that they won't have with VOD. Today's DVDs will simply be supplanted by the newer high-definition DVDs.

I also think you're overestimating what VOD will offer you. A press release from Comcast today said they would have the capability of offering 10,000 streams for VOD - and that's using the newer video switching technology which they haven't even implemented as yet. We all know there are a lot more than 10,000 movies, TV shows, and other videos out there. Netflix has more than 75,000 titles in their library, and that number is growing rapidly. If you're expecting to have the entire universe of home video available to you via VOD, I think you're going to be disappointed.



Ken S said:


> I guess you're of the belief that licensing agreements never change and market forces never cause those changes? Funny, my experience over the last 25 years is very much the opposite.


If there's one thing that never changes, it's Hollywood's desire to control how and when you can view their product. Who knows, maybe they will see the light, but I doubt it. What we are seeing now with DRM is only the beginning - it is going to get worse, not better.

As far as "market forces" are concerned, the marketplace is speaking loud and clear - DVRs are a hot commodity and VOD is barely a blip on the radar.



Ken S said:


> I'm sure you think that transmission companies feel it's less expensive to partially fund all those DVRs? Once again you just keep ignoring parts of my statements.


I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring, but the "transmission companies" are simply responding to those "market forces" you referred to in funding all of those DVRs, which are flying off the shelves these days.



Ken S said:


> I don't think it's the greatest thing...I don't think DVRs are the greatest thing either. Why are you so sure of what we're going to be charged? You do realize that they can do the same things with your DVR now. You can argue all the fair use you want...but in the end D can control what you record and what you can do with it when it's on their machine (Most HR20s are leased). The only thing that will control DRM are market forces that show the content owners there's more money to be made from not putting them in place.


VOD is a whole different ballgame with regard to DRM. People are already accustomed to being able to record to their DVRs and do whatever they want with the content, just as they could always record to their VCRs. DirecTV could lock down content on the DVR, but it would only encourage people to switch to standalone DVRs. We are already seeing DRM being implemented in VOD, so it's not just my opinion that this will happen.



Ken S said:


> Mostly, I think it is the least costly way for the content providers and transmission folks to make the most money. It will also offer the majority of tv watchers the convenience they want.


And how convenient will these TV watchers find it when they realize they are being shackled by DRM restrictions?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

:down:

If you guys want to argue ... take it to PMs. Please.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2007)

All we're doing is debating an issue raised by the topic of this thread - "Why is VOD so important?" It's a legitimate topic of discussion.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

drew2k said:


> :down:
> 
> If you guys want to argue ... take it to PMs. Please.


Drew,,,
My advice to you...don't read this topic.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> You are the one who said licensing could change in a moment, not me. Hollywood isn't giving up on DRM and the idea that the market will "force it to happen" is just not realistic. While EMI has dropped DRM for its music, don't bet on the others following suit anytime soon. And last time I checked, Apple still had DRM on most of their downloads.
> 
> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "relatively recently". There are cable systems that have been two-way since the late '90s. And the cable companies have definitely been trumpeting the benefits of VOD for well over a decade.
> 
> ...


RC,

There's nothing more to be said. Slip your 8-track in your car player and put it in reverse. I've got my Sirius satellite radio tuned in and am headed forward.

Have fun.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> All we're doing is debating an issue raised by the topic of this thread - "Why is VOD so important?" It's a legitimate topic of discussion.


Absolutely it's a legitimate argument, which is why I have posted in this thread a couple of times already, and why I am subscribed to it. But I have to say the level of discourse has devolved a bit with two participants very close to sniping at each other. At least that's my take.



Ken S said:


> Drew,,,
> My advice to you...don't read this topic.


What, and miss out on classic "but you said it first" arguments?


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2007)

Agreed - there really isn't much more to be said. But it was fun while it lasted.


----------



## papa_azteca (Jan 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not on XBOX360 "VOD".
> 
> Don't know yet with regards to DirecTV's offering.


I haven't "rented" an HD movie on X360 but have programs and I have been able to begin to watch the program before it's fully downloaded. Is it different for movies?

I wouldn't mind if it's like this on D*'s VOD service as it will give me some time to put the kids to bed and pop some corn before I sit down and watch the program.


----------



## poncho (Aug 27, 2006)

papa_azteca said:


> I haven't "rented" an HD movie on X360 but have programs and I have been able to begin to watch the program before it's fully downloaded. Is it different for movies?


you'd think they would treat the vod download similar to the recording of a sat movie. you can start the playback of the sat movie even before the full movie is recorded, in fact just moments after the movie started recording. for vod, you should also be able to start playing a currently downloading movie - if they do this correctly.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

papa_azteca said:


> I haven't "rented" an HD movie on X360 but have programs and I have been able to begin to watch the program before it's fully downloaded. Is it different for movies?
> 
> I wouldn't mind if it's like this on D*'s VOD service as it will give me some time to put the kids to bed and pop some corn before I sit down and watch the program.


Is the VOD on Xbox360 that big of a market? I don't think that VOD will be a big as D* thinks it will. I have a 360 and it take for ever to download anything with a 5mb download. Only thing I download was the FREE stuff (HD south park). I'm to cheap and don't think that any of there VOD I can't already watch. That why I have a DVR. To record stuff.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Que said:


> I don't think that VOD will be a big as D* thinks it will.


Maybe not, but D*'s got to do it so they can say we have it also, just like cable does.


----------



## L2BENGTREK (May 31, 2006)

GCanada said:


> If it has Howard I'm all over it, if not im not sure if it fancies my panties or not.


I second that.....I listen to Howard every day, then think "Damn, if only D* had Howard On Demand!"


----------



## DJConan (Sep 14, 2006)

This has likely been asked somewhere, but I haven't run across it in my visits here (no way I can keep up with all the messages here).

I don't have any interest in sending music/photos from my computer to my TV. At this point in time, is there any reason I should be running a network cable from the HR20 to my router? If not, I'd prefer to put off the cable run until there's a benefit of doing so.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

DJConan said:


> This has likely been asked somewhere, but I haven't run across it in my visits here (no way I can keep up with all the messages here).
> 
> I don't have any interest in sending music/photos from my computer to my TV. At this point in time, is there any reason I should be running a network cable from the HR20 to my router? If not, I'd prefer to put off the cable run until there's a benefit of doing so.


As of right now then, no.


----------



## MnGuy (Sep 24, 2006)

DJConan said:


> This has likely been asked somewhere, but I haven't run across it in my visits here (no way I can keep up with all the messages here).
> 
> I don't have any interest in sending music/photos from my computer to my TV. At this point in time, is there any reason I should be running a network cable from the HR20 to my router? If not, I'd prefer to put off the cable run until there's a benefit of doing so.


No benefit right now other than for photos and music. That and its just cool to try to do it!


----------



## Conky (Apr 17, 2007)

First post

I have been mulling this over for a couple of weeks. I believe VOD will supplant DVD and any other distributable media as the leading choice for studios to sell their products. We may be talking a few years, but it is starting now. There are several reasons why VOD and download-able content is the key choice for media outlets and viewers alike. Convenience, ease of distribution, long-term profitability, DRM and license control are just a few of these factors.

I have been considering building an HTPC for awhile. The ability to archive DVDs and play them back from a hard drive is the key feature I saw in building such a machine. However, since I purchased my HDTV, I will not invest the money until I have the ability to rip and archive HD-DVDs or Bluray. That being said, I don't see my sole requirement happening any time soon. It is just as easy to imagine a subscription service that allows me streaming access to thousands of HD titles from a set-top box I already own. VOD offers all of the advantages of an HTPC archive, with nothing more than a remote control. I will let the distributors archive the material for me.

For distributors to make there product available they would merely have to setup servers, employing technology that is already in existence. Download speeds will always improve, storage space will always grow, technology will allow content providers to offer streaming HD content, with their complete control.

With the Home Theater movement larger than ever, it is not hard to imagine the media industry viewing every home as a movie theater. The distributors would like nothing more than to completely control how you view their content, and would rather lend it to you, rather than you own it, just like they do with the big movie houses. Watch it all you want, on there terms. As long as it is as easy as, or easier than popping in a DVD, people will accept it. Well, in my opinion VOD will be easier than using a DVD player, and cheaper too.

One copy. That is, ostensibly, all the distributors need to have. Just make it available to everyone who pays for it. Broadband internet makes this a reality. The cost of bandwidth may slow streaming distribution for awhile, but over time it will level out, and the content will be cheap enough to rival services like netflix. I can imagine paying 20 bucks a month for up to so many HD titles played over my HR20. It doesn't sound far-fetched to me.

One copy is also much easier to control, especially if it is streaming to a proprietary piece of hardware. No license flashed onto your machine? Sorry, no picture. DRM will be much better under VOD.

Remember when VHS tapes cost like $100? That was way too much money to spend on a movie, you would just rent it. That's the way the studios and distributors like it; they want to keep you coming back for more. They want you to go to the movies and pay the $10, subscribe to Netflix, or head down to Blockbuster. Now, they want you to find your movie on VOD and pay a fee, what could be easier and more profitable for them?

I would welcome any holes in my argument to be plugged or ripped open by reasonable responses. Like I said, this has been floating around in my head for a few weeks, and is by no means a completely vetted prediction. However, I think I make a solid case for VOD. DVD just doesn't make sense for the future.


----------



## DJConan (Sep 14, 2006)

MnGuy said:


> No benefit right now other than for photos and music. That and its just cool to try to do it!


Usually, I'd agree with you, but my work has me running cables, trying to "clean up" cable messes, installing software/hardware and making computers just work. I need the benefit of when I complete something, I get something for it. I don't enjoy tinkering as much as I used to, but when I gain something from it, I'll jump right into it.


----------



## quickfire (Nov 14, 2003)

Will VOD have the same day and date releases of movies premering at theaters....?I would most definately use VOD if i could watch a movie ...lets say "Spiderman 3" on my PJ if it was availible on VOD the same day it was released in theaters!!!!Or is this just wishful thinking?


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

quickfire said:


> Will VOD have the same day and date releases of movies premering at theaters....?I would most definately use VOD if i could watch a movie ...lets say "Spiderman 3" on my PJ if it was availible on VOD the same day it was released in theaters!!!!Or is this just wishful thinking?


No. It will be stuff that has been on TV.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> No. It will be stuff that has been on TV.


NOt necessarily "only" stuff that has been on TV. Depending on who DirecTV strikes contracts with, some content may make it to VOD before it makes it to "regular" TV, just like you can watch movies in hotels before they're out on DVD and premium channels like HBO.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Basically anything that can be shown in Video can be a candidate. Very old movies, special events, some same day releases, TV shows, etc.


----------



## Conky (Apr 17, 2007)

quickfire said:


> Will VOD have the same day and date releases of movies premering at theaters....?I would most definately use VOD if i could watch a movie ...lets say "Spiderman 3" on my PJ if it was availible on VOD the same day it was released in theaters!!!!Or is this just wishful thinking?


Maybe not Spiderman 3, but I don't think that its beyond the realm of possibility that studios, somewhere down the road, will release films simultaneously to both the theater chains and home theaters. If box office ticket sales continue to decline, I'm sure they will gladly take your money at home. I think we are on the cusp of a large paradigm shift in the entertainment industry. Its only a matter of time...


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> No. It will be stuff that has been on TV.


That why I don't think it will be a BIG hit. D* is only getting it because cable has it. Only thing is that's going to take away of some bandwidth that we need somewhere else.

I wish they just stop with the VOD. It's not really needed. At least for me.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Que said:


> That why I don't think it will be a BIG hit. D* is only getting it because cable has it. Only thing is that's going to take away of some bandwidth that we need somewhere else.
> 
> I wish they just stop with the VOD. It's not really needed. At least for me.


Every feature / offering is not for every consumer.
I don't have any of the extended movie packages... as I just don't need them.

Should they just stop with the HBO carraige?

VOD - Has a place... but until we know the cost and the content... it is very very hard to predict how much it will be used going forward.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Should they just stop with the HBO (7) carraige?


You also have Showtime (9), Starz (12), Cinemax, PPV all you need is a DVR. I hope it work's out for them. I just don't see a market for it.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Que said:


> You also have Showtime (9), Starz (12), Cinemax, PPV all you need is a DVR. I hope it work's out for them. I just don't see a market for it.


One of the MAIN reasons why I dont' have the the extended movie packages... Is that I simply don't get my $12 per package, usage out of them.

I have always wanted a way that I could get "just that one show" or special, or movie that is available.

If the price is right on the VOD, the offerings are setup that way... It may be a solution for those people (like me), that don't frequent the extended movie packages... and are disappointed in the PPV offerings


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> VOD - Has a place... but until we know the cost and the content... it is very very hard to predict how much it will be used going forward.


As long as D* does a good job with their VOD implementation (I've seen some cable providers offerings and they seem pretty mediocre at best to me) I predict that it will become almost as important to it's customers as HD.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2007)

Conky said:


> First post
> 
> I have been mulling this over for a couple of weeks. I believe VOD will supplant DVD and any other distributable media as the leading choice for studios to sell their products.
> 
> ...


There are more than a few holes in your argument, Conky.

First, DVDs are by far the biggest moneymaker in the history of the entertainment industry, so they won't be going away - at least not in your lifetime or mine. The current generation of DVDs will be supplanted by high-definition DVDs, but they will remain a major revenue source for the forseeable future.

You also have to take into account Hollywood's "windowing" system for releasing its product - first to theatres, then DVD, then PPV, then pay-TV, and finally to syndication. These windows are based on producing the greatest total amount of revenue from all sources, and Hollywood isn't going to give up any of them. VOD will fit into a window _after _the DVD release, not before or in place of it.

Why do you suppose the studios still spend millions of dollars making prints of films and distributing them to theatres, even though theatrical revenue is now dwarfed by DVD revenue? And keep in mind that's millions of dollars on _each film _they release. They have had the capabilty to deliver movies direct to your TV and charge you for viewing them via PPV for about 20 years. The reason is that they are not going to give up the revenue they receive from theatrical release any more than they are going to give up the revenue from DVDs.

It's entirely possible that VOD will catch on and become a major new revenue source, but the idea that it will somehow "replace" DVDs or other means of distribution is simply a fantasy. It isn't going to happen.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Here is where I can see some potential value in VOD: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=915381&postcount=16


----------



## Conky (Apr 17, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> There are more than a few holes in your argument, Conky.
> 
> First, DVDs are by far the biggest moneymaker in the history of the entertainment industry, so they won't be going away - at least not in your lifetime or mine. The current generation of DVDs will be supplanted by high-definition DVDs, but they will remain a major revenue source for the forseeable future.
> 
> ...


I would counter by simply stating that before DVDs the film industry had other "biggest moneymaker" products. VOD is part of the evolution of distribution. All forms of media have gone through transition, from record albums to download-able mp3s; from the first films of the Lumiere brothers to DVDs today. There have always been skeptics that decry the coming of new media, "this new thing will never replace that old thing...". When was the last time you bought an 8-track cassette, or rented a VHS?

As I see it, DVDs are simply a medium used to transmit the studios' intellectual property -- consumers don't want the discs themselves, they want the movies on them. The reason DVDs make the studios so much money is that the market accepted them because they are cheap to produce, and are a reliable playback source.

VOD is merely becoming a better mode of distribution for the studios, broadcasters and consumers; I have already laid out my reasoning for its future prominence, so I won't rehash. That being said, I don't think VOD is there YET, and can't imagine that D*'s service will be anything near what I am suggesting, but it is coming. Remember, DVDs have been around since the mid-90's, and it has only been in the last few years that it has completely supplanted VHS as the video media of choice -- you can still pick up copies of Barney in VHS at Wal-mart.

I will also concede that the transition period of DVD to VOD may be far greater than that of VHS to DVD, only the market and cost will bear that out. My prediction: 5 years from now, you will be able to "rent" almost any HD title you want, in streaming VOD from your provider. Not only new releases, as it is with PPV, but archived films and TV programs. Any movie, any show, any time you want. You don't have to keep a disc on a shelf, and stick it in a machine every time you want to watch.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2007)

Conky said:


> Maybe not Spiderman 3, but I don't think that its beyond the realm of possibility that studios, somewhere down the road, will release films simultaneously to both the theater chains and home theaters. If box office ticket sales continue to decline, I'm sure they will gladly take your money at home. I think we are on the cusp of a large paradigm shift in the entertainment industry. Its only a matter of time...


The same thing has been said since the home video market came into existence more than a quarter-century ago. Even though DVD sales generate far more revenue than theatres (and have for many years), the studios continue to release movies to to theatres first so as not to cannibalize that revenue stream. They will gladly take your money at home - once they have finished collecting the money from ticket sales at theatres.


----------



## Conky (Apr 17, 2007)

rcoleman111 said:


> The same thing has been said since the home video market came into existence more than a quarter-century ago. Even though DVD sales generate far more revenue than theatres (and have for many years), the studios continue to release movies to to theatres first so as not to cannibalize that revenue stream. They will gladly take your money at home - once they have finished collecting the money from ticket sales at theatres.


The home video market is completely different than the environment we have today. We are in the midst of the burgeoning "home theater" market. That's not just semantics either. What used to be considered 'high-end', enthusiast-only equipment is in high demand across the country. With HD equipment, HD content, and 5.1 sound so ubiquitous, the general public is willing to forgo the once great, now dreadful movie-going experience. I love film. I love the movies, but with my set and comfortable living room, I'm willing to "wait for Netflix" on just about anything Hollywood has to offer.

I stated earlier, this is a paradigm shift. Hollywood is changing the way it distributes its content. When movie theaters are less appealing to viewers, the theaters themselves become a weaker part of the revenue stream. I can't see Hollywood doing ANYTHING to lift ticket sales back to the levels of the Halcyon days of the 80's and 90's. They will look to other venues; VOD affords them this venue.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2007)

Conky said:


> I would counter by simply stating that before DVDs the film industry had other "biggest moneymaker" products. VOD is part of the evolution of distribution. All forms of media have gone through transition, from record albums to download-able mp3s; from the first films of the Lumiere brothers to DVDs today. There have always been skeptics that decry the coming of new media, "this new thing will never replace that old thing...". When was the last time you bought an 8-track cassette, or rented a VHS?


The transition from videotape to DVD is nothing more than a transition from one physical medium to another, just like the transition from standard-definition DVDs to high-definition DVDs. And before DVDs and videotape, there was nothing that generated as much money as theatrical distribution.



Conky said:


> As I see it, DVDs are simply a medium used to transmit the studios' intellectual property -- consumers don't want the discs themselves, they want the movies on them. The reason DVDs make the studios so much money is that the market accepted them because they are cheap to produce, and are a reliable playback source.


One of the reasons DVDs are so popular is that consumers _do_ want the discs. And the reason they make so much money for the studios is that they are priced to sell rather than rent. When VHS tapes sold for $100, they were only popular as rentals. The main reason DVDs make so much more money than tapes is that people will buy them instead of just renting. Selling a DVD generates more profit than renting it and will also generate more money than a PPV or VOD viewing.



Conky said:


> VOD is merely becoming a better mode of distribution for the studios, broadcasters and consumers; I have already laid out my reasoning for its future prominence, so I won't rehash. That being said, I don't think VOD is there YET, and can't imagine that D*'s service will be anything near what I am suggesting, but it is coming. Remember, DVDs have been around since the mid-90's, and it has only been in the last few years that it has completely supplanted VHS as the video media of choice -- you can still pick up copies of Barney in VHS at Wal-mart.


Whether or not VOD is a "better mode of distribution", Hollywood will not give up one stream of revenue for another. Just as they are not going to forgo the revenue from theatrical distribution for DVDs, they will not give up DVDs for VOD. As long as they can have both DVD sales and VOD, they will not do anything to cannibalize DVD sales. If VOD becomes popular, it will be as a third or fourth window of distribution, not a replacement of the DVD window.



Conky said:


> I will also concede that the transition period of DVD to VOD may be far greater than that of VHS to DVD, only the market and cost will bear that out. My prediction: 5 years from now, you will be able to "rent" almost any HD title you want, in streaming VOD from your provider. Not only new releases, as it is with PPV, but archived films and TV programs. Any movie, any show, any time you want. You don't have to keep a disc on a shelf, and stick it in a machine every time you want to watch.


[/QUOTE]

Once again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The transition from VHS to DVD was a transition from one physical medium to another. VOD will augment revenue from DVD in the same way that pay-TV and PPV do, not replace it.

Predictions like yours have been around for as long as the home video market has existed. For the reasons I've stated previously, it just isn't going to happen the way you envision it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2007)

Conky said:


> With HD equipment, HD content, and 5.1 sound so ubiquitous, the general public is willing to forgo the once great, now dreadful movie-going experience. I love film. I love the movies, but with my set and comfortable living room, I'm willing to "wait for Netflix" on just about anything Hollywood has to offer.
> 
> I stated earlier, this is a paradigm shift. Hollywood is changing the way it distributes its content. When movie theaters are less appealing to viewers, the theaters themselves become a weaker part of the revenue stream. I can't see Hollywood doing ANYTHING to lift ticket sales back to the levels of the Halcyon days of the 80's and 90's. They will look to other venues; VOD affords them this venue.


Have you ever wondered why those new 24-screen theatres with stadium seating have been popping up all over the place? I'll give you a hint - it isn't because people aren't going to the movies these days. It's because business is booming and box office revenues are rising, not falling. In fact, 2007 is likely to be a record year for theatrical revenue.

And while home theatre setups are popular, research has shown that consumers with the most home entertainment equipment and services are also the ones who go to movie theatres most often. I have a nice home theatre in my own living room, but my wife still goes to the movies almost every week.

New technologies always bring outlandish predictions of a "paradigm shift". In fact, we've hearing predictions like yours since the beginning of TV more than a half-century ago. Hollywood is not changing the way it distributes its content - it is simply taking advantage of new revenue streams to increase its profits. VOD is just another source of revenue - a third or fourth window of distribution. It isn't going to replace theatres or DVDs.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I can't remember the last time I went to a movie. For what they charge for the movie itself, snacks, watching commercials before the start of the film, theaters too hot or cold... I can just wait for it to come out on DVD and rent or order a PPV saving a bunch of money.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Que said:


> I just don't see a market for it.


Well then you have your eyes closed. VOD is the future.


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2007)

RAD said:


> I can't remember the last time I went to a movie. For what they charge for the movie itself, snacks, watching commercials before the start of the film, theaters too hot or cold... I can just wait for it to come out on DVD and rent or order a PPV saving a bunch of money.


Check out the weekend box office grosses and it's obvious that _someone _is sitting in those seats.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> Check out the weekend box office grosses and it's obvious that _someone _is sitting in those seats.


How much of that though is due to the continual increase in ticket prices or the studios increasing their share of the take? In recent years a number of movie houses on the Chicago area north shore (where I used to live) have shut down and no new ones opening. If business was that good I doubt they'd be going out of business.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The movie going experience is not going away. Yes, theatre owners and film producers are concerned about how to keep people in their seats as HD and home theatres improve. So they are looking at ways to improve their experience as well.

But going to the movies, eating theatre popcorn (and not having to clean up), watching a great movie with a knowledgeable audience, on a real screen (not those little 65" ones at home  ) will not go away anytime soon.

Sure some people may be getting too old for that experience, but the new batches of tweeners still _need! _to get out of the house and some of us older than tweeners like getting out too.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (Apr 18, 2007)

RAD said:


> How much of that though is due to the continual increase in ticket prices or the studios increasing their share of the take? In recent years a number of movie houses on the Chicago area north shore (where I used to live) have shut down and no new ones opening. If business was that good I doubt they'd be going out of business.


Those figures are grosses - i.e., they reflect the total dollar amount of ticket sales, not just the distributors' share. And while some of the growth in revenue is due to increases in ticket prices, money is still money. If a movie opens to a $50 million weekend and the distributor's share is 70%, that's still $35 million regardless of the number of tickets sold. Overall US box office sales are expected to approach $10 billion dollars this year, an all-time record. That's a booming business, not one that is dying.

Theatres close in some areas while new theatres open in other areas. Some of that is due to changing demographics. Some of it is due to other factors - when theatres started installing stadium seating a few years ago, for example, it rendered a lot of older theatres obsolete. A lot of older theatres closed, while new ones opened.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> Check out the weekend box office grosses and it's obvious that _someone _is sitting in those seats.


OK, I don't know how accurate this site is, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/, but according to it, from 2000 to 2006 four of those years saw a decrease in ticket sales and three had a increase. Less tickets were sold in 2006 then were sold in 2000. During the same time there was only one year that saw a decrease in gross receipts while the average ticket price on 2000 was $5.39 and in 2006 hit $6.58.


----------



## Elistan98 (Sep 18, 2006)

VOD is important to me because I want The Anime Network which has both a 24/7 channel as well as a vod offering. Ill take it any way i can get it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Elistan98 said:


> VOD is important to me because I want The Anime Network which has both a 24/7 channel as well as a vod offering. Ill take it any way i can get it.


Excellent point. DIRECTV will get instant marketting information to help them decide which channels to keep in their line up based on VOD usage.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2007)

RAD said:


> OK, I don't know how accurate this site is, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/, but according to it, from 2000 to 2006 four of those years saw a decrease in ticket sales and three had a increase. Less tickets were sold in 2006 then were sold in 2000. During the same time there was only one year that saw a decrease in gross receipts while the average ticket price on 2000 was $5.39 and in 2006 hit $6.58.


Box office receipts go in cycles. They slipped in 2003-2005, but are on track to set an all-time record of around $10 billion in 2007. And keep in mind that the $10 billion figure is just the _domestic_ box office - the worldwide box office is much larger than that.

The reason for the dip in some of those years has to do with the films that were released. And that is partly because of the studios' tendency to be copycats. Good films will get people into theatres. An example is the Da Vinci Code, which has grossed more than $750 million worldwide. That's a lot of tickets sold, even at today's prices. And even after you take into account the exhibitors' cut, it's a huge amount of money, which is why the studios are not going to cannibalize that revenue stream.

Here's a Reuters article from earlier this week that pretty much sums up the state of the box office:

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1619800620070416


----------



## thxultra (Feb 1, 2005)

rcoleman111 said:


> Box office receipts go in cycles. They slipped in 2003-2005, but are on track to set an all-time record of around $10 billion in 2007. And keep in mind that the $10 billion figure is just the _domestic_ box office - the worldwide box office is much larger than that.
> 
> The reason for the dip in some of those years has to do with the films that were released. And that is partly because of the studios' tendency to be copycats. Good films will get people into theatres. An example is the Da Vinci Code, which has grossed more than $750 million worldwide. That's a lot of tickets sold, even at today's prices. And even after you take into account the exhibitors' cut, it's a huge amount of money, which is why the studios are not going to cannibalize that revenue stream.
> 
> ...


+1 to that  Make better movies and people will go to the theaters. I personaly love going to the theater and don't see vod replacing the theater. I do however see vod replacing blockbuster and even netflix (if they can offer it cheap enough).


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> Box office receipts go in cycles. They slipped in 2003-2005, but are on track to set an all-time record of around $10 billion in 2007. And keep in mind that the $10 billion figure is just the _domestic_ box office - the worldwide box office is much larger than that.
> 
> The reason for the dip in some of those years has to do with the films that were released. And that is partly because of the studios' tendency to be copycats. Good films will get people into theatres. An example is the Da Vinci Code, which has grossed more than $750 million worldwide. That's a lot of tickets sold, even at today's prices. And even after you take into account the exhibitors' cut, it's a huge amount of money, which is why the studios are not going to cannibalize that revenue stream.
> 
> ...


Sorry, still don't buy your argument. 2003, 2004 and and 2005 each had a decline in tickets sold from the prior year, 2006 was the only year in that stretch that had an increase and you have to go back to 1998 to find a year were more tickets were sold. So how is that backing up your argument that the movie business is booming, it's not even back to where it was a few years ago with 2006 having a whooping 1.6% increase in ticket sales, hardly a booming business? The subject of this thread is about VOD on DirecTV so please don't being up international ticket revenues since that means nothing in regards to the subject.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2007)

RAD said:


> Sorry, still don't buy your argument. 2003, 2004 and and 2005 each had a decline in tickets sold from the prior year, 2006 was the only year in that stretch that had an increase and you have to go back to 1998 to find a year were more tickets were sold. So how is that backing up your argument that the movie business is booming, it's not even back to where it was a few years ago with 2006 having a whooping 1.6% increase in ticket sales, hardly a booming business? The subject of this thread is about VOD on DirecTV so please don't being up international ticket revenues since that means nothing in regards to the subject.


The facts speak for themselves, RAD, whether you "buy it" or not. Do the math - $10 billion in box office receipts, with an average ticket price of about $7. That's about 1.4 billion tickets sold in the US alone. That's a booming business by any measure.

The number of tickets sold doesn't really matter to the studios, anyway. That's why the published numbers are always the dollar amounts. The studios only care how much revenue they are getting, not how many people are sitting in the seats. A dollar of revenue is a dollar of revenue, whether it comes from one person or a hundred.

As far as the international box office is concerned, it has everything to do with the subject at hand as far as the studios are concerned. It represents a majority of all box office revenue.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

rcoleman111 said:


> The facts speak for themselves, RAD, whether you "buy it" or not. Do the math - $10 billion in box office receipts, with an average ticket price of about $7. That's about 1.4 billion tickets sold in the US alone. That's a booming business by any measure.
> 
> The number of tickets sold doesn't really matter to the studios, anyway. That's why the published numbers are always the dollar amounts. The studios only care how much revenue they are getting, not how many people are sitting in the seats. A dollar of revenue is a dollar of revenue, whether it comes from one person or a hundred.
> 
> As far as the international box office is concerned, it has everything to do with the subject at hand as far as the studios are concerned. It represents a majority of all box office revenue.


I'm not saying that the studios aren't making money, but after three years of decreasing attendance with only last year showing an increase doesn't show that people are flocking to the movie houses in droves, all it shows is that the studios are rasing their prices high enough to offset the revenue loss. And why are the attendance figures down three out of the last four years, combination of crummy product and high prices? IIRC, on many movies released now the studios make more money off the DVD, PPV, movie channels and TV rights then they do off the original theatrical showing.

Which get's back to the OP's question, "Why is VOD so important?" Because it allows customer to do that impulse purchase. Nothing on TV tonight and nothing on the DVR also. I've seen what I wanted to see listed on the PPV channels, oh but wait, here's something I've been wanting to see, hit the button and $3.99 later it's yours.


----------



## Conky (Apr 17, 2007)

thxultra said:


> +1 to that  Make better movies and people will go to the theaters. I personaly love going to the theater and don't see vod replacing the theater. I do however see vod replacing blockbuster and even netflix (if they can offer it cheap enough).


I couldn't agree with you more. I think I got off-track from my original point. I don't see theaters going away any time soon, but I do believe VOD will replace DVDs. That was my point, I guess I went off on a tangent.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I actually agree with RC on theaters remaining popular. Unless there is some kind of safety concern in the future with being in a theater they will remain a viable entertainment option...one that differs from watching the same movie even on the nicest home theater. Going to a movie is a social even that generally involves others...that's not always the case with home theaters.

As for DVDs...RC loves his shiny discs. They hold data. Better, faster and less expensive methods for data transmission will render them to the same place as the ceramic record, vinyl record, laser disk, 8-track, cassette, and VHS tape.

Here's a quote from a recent article...

The Digital Entertainment Group, a nonprofit trade consortium, reported for the first time in 2006 that overall DVD shipments were stuck at about 1.65 billion units, roughly the same as 2005, after years of rapid growth. According to the weekly DVD Release Report, combined DVD releases dropped to 12,887 in 2006 from 13,712 in 2005.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/m...ml?ex=1330660800&en=58ffffeaac289faf&ei=50880

Here's another...

That led Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Tom Wolzien to speculate in a recent research report that a long-anticipated slowing of DVD sales may be showing up sooner than expected. "These data points...suggest that U.S. consumer demand may be cooling faster than our models suggest," Bernstein wrote. For the moment, Bernstein is projecting that DVD sales will increase by 9% in 2005 and 4% in 2006. That compares to a 29% growth in 2004, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. 
(http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005071_7277_db035.htm)

and a third...

PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK, October 24, 2006 -Over the past decade, the DVD sales category has enjoyed tremendous growth from year to year. More recently, however, overall DVD sales growth has slowed considerably. According to The NPD Group, a leading consumer and retail information company, through June 2006 the DVD business increased unit volume sales by 4 percent over the first half of 2005; but that's half the rate of growth that NPD saw last year. One of the key reasons DVDs have not slid even further is the continued health of TV programming purchased on DVD. NPD also noted significant growth in the online rental or purchase of digital TV content from Web retailers like Apple iTunes, MovieFlix and CinemaNow.
(http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_061024.html)



rcoleman111 said:


> There are more than a few holes in your argument, Conky.
> 
> First, DVDs are by far the biggest moneymaker in the history of the entertainment industry, so they won't be going away - at least not in your lifetime or mine. The current generation of DVDs will be supplanted by high-definition DVDs, but they will remain a major revenue source for the forseeable future.
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2007)

Ken S said:


> As for DVDs...RC loves his shiny discs. They hold data. Better, faster and less expensive methods for data transmission will render them to the same place as the ceramic record, vinyl record, laser disk, 8-track, cassette, and VHS tape.
> 
> That led Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Tom Wolzien to speculate in a recent research report that a long-anticipated slowing of DVD sales may be showing up sooner than expected. "These data points...suggest that U.S. consumer demand may be cooling faster than our models suggest," Bernstein wrote. For the moment, Bernstein is projecting that DVD sales will increase by 9% in 2005 and 4% in 2006. That compares to a 29% growth in 2004, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
> (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005071_7277_db035.htm)


Welcome back to the debate, Ken. Just when it looked like the smoke was starting to clear, you're back with some fresh ammo. If nothing else, this thread has been a lot of fun.

You've raised some interesting points with the research you've done. It's certainly true that those older analog media like vinyl records, audio cassetes, and videotapes became obsolete, but they were replaced by newer digital media that are still around today.

It's also true that DVD sales have been leveling off, but it had to happen sooner or later, with or without the addition of VOD. Just as trees can't grow to the sky, DVD sales can't keep growing at double-digit rates forever. Now that almost everyone has a DVD player who wants one, there are only so many DVDs that can be sold.

You're right about those shiny discs - I do like them, and so do a lot of other people. And while I agree that VOD will bring in a significant amount of revenue eventually, I also think there will always be people who want to buy their own copies of movies. That's what has made the DVD market so lucrative - that people will pay $20 to buy a DVD when they could just rent it instead at a fraction of the cost. When you consider that Walmart pays $17 per copy for new DVD releases of movies and that a large portion of that is pure profit, you can see that Hollywood won't want to give up that revenue. Unless people stop wanting to buy DVDs, which isn't likely, Hollywood will keep selling them and they will continue to generate revenue.

Another factor in the leveling off of DVD sales is the transition to HD. So many people are buying HDTVs today that high-def DVDs should be flying off the shelves. Unfortunately, Hollywood shot itself in the foot by backing competing and incompatible standards. The format war that is going on now is affecting not only high-def DVDs, but standard-definition DVDs as well. Nobody wants to own today's Betamax, let alone a collection of high-def DVDs that will become coasters. And nobody really wants to build a collection of standard-definition DVDs when high-def versions are out there.

It will be interesting to see how the market for VOD develops. Maybe it will take over the world and maybe it won't. In another 10 or 15 years, we'll know who is right.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

RC,

I guess I don't see VoD as anything different than another data transmission method. I understand people want to own content, but tha can be accomplished with VoD.

Sometime down the road I may be able to purchase a movie and have it either:

1. Stored on my service provider's system (meaning I pay once and can watch it as many times as I want whenever I want)
2. Store it on local media (iTunes type model).

There are neanderthals at some of the studios that will make this harder with stupid DRM/licensing models...but in the end they'll either find a way to make DRM completely transparent and/or do away with it. This is especially likely to happen when they see they can offer content in different flavors and different costs...

(amounts are just made up)
1. one time view - $1
2. one week viewing - $5
3. anytime viewing with DRM - $15
4. anytime viewing no DRM - $20

(BTW, I'm sure you understand that when you BUY a movie on DVD from a retail store you don't own the movie...you only own the right to view it in a non-public setting (there are many other limitations as well). You do own the media it comes on however.)

The increased revenue is what convinced EMI to go no DRM on it's songs. I think they get .99 for DRM songs and 1.30 for non DRM. That's a nice 30% bump for selling the same content...it also saves them having to pay licensing fees, systems, etc for the DRM.

Anyway, we'll see....and ya never know I may just buy all your old DVDs when you sell them on eBay 
2.


----------



## Milominderbinder2 (Oct 8, 2006)

To see why you want VOD, see what Comcast offers right now:

http://www.p.comcast.net/m/p/com/mic/index.asp

- Craig


----------



## jlancaster (Feb 10, 2006)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> To see why you want VOD, see what Comcast offers right now:
> 
> http://www.p.comcast.net/m/p/com/mic/index.asp
> 
> - Craig


Good Post

I for one cannot wait!!!


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

Milominderbinder2 said:


> To see why you want VOD, see what Comcast offers right now:
> 
> http://www.p.comcast.net/m/p/com/mic/index.asp
> 
> - Craig


Thanks for the link, Craig. To get an idea of what Comcast is offering via Video on Demand, I jotted down some movies I'd like to watch in HD and did a search.

Star Wars
Godfather
Robocop
Terminator

In each case, I got "Your search search for...[title] ...produced no results". Am I doing something wrong? If not, can you tell me again why I want VOD?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> In each case, I got "Your search search for...[title] ...produced no results". Am I doing something wrong? If not, can you tell me again why I want VOD?


I see plenty of titles at the Comcast VOD web site that I would want to watch. In fact, the list of categories alone is quite impressive.

Movies
Free Movies
Network shows
HD On Demand
Premium Channels
Music
Kids
TV Entertainment
Life & Home
Sports & Fitness
News & World
The Cutting Edge

If you couldn't find anything under these categories, that's your own issue - no one else can help you answer your question. You know the saying: "You can lead a horse to water ..."


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

drew2k said:


> I see plenty of titles at the Comcast VOD web site that I would want to watch. In fact, the list of categories alone is quite impressive.
> ....
> 
> *The Cutting Edge*


Is COMCAST spying on us? and making it a TV Series?


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

Just look at all the "I missed Heroes this week!"  threads, and you can see where the demand for VOD comes from. It will go a long way towards covering the HR20's flaws. It may forget to record your favorite show, but you can always download a backup.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

drew2k said:


> I see plenty of titles at the Comcast VOD web site that I would want to watch. In fact, the list of categories alone is quite impressive.
> 
> If you couldn't find anything under these categories, that's your own issue - no one else can help you answer your question. You know the saying: "You can lead a horse to water ..."


Drew, I never said I couldn't find anything I would want to watch. I'm sure I could browse through what's out there and find plenty of stuff that's worth watching. But I can also find lots of stuff in the regular guide, record it to my DVR, and watch it "on demand". In fact, I can find a lot more stuff out there than I have time to watch.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> I can also find lots of stuff in the regular guide, record it to my DVR, and watch it "on demand".


You can watch it on demand *after* it's been recorded, and *until* you need the space for something else. VOD lets you pick any program to watch *RIGHT NOW* without waiting for it to be broadcast.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

islesfan said:


> Just look at all the "I missed Heroes this week!"  threads, and you can see where the demand for VOD comes from. It will go a long way towards covering the HR20's flaws. It may forget to record your favorite show, but you can always download a backup.


Well, I did a search for "Heroes" on that Comcast site and here's what I got:

Converge: 'No Heroes' Converge: No Heroes havoc TV TV-PG 03/23/07 04/27/07 Music / havoc TV / Metal

Gym Class Heroes: Cupids Gym Class: Cupids MTV2 TV-PG 03/30/07 04/26/07 Music / MTV2 / Rock

Heroes Heroes MOVIEplex 03/23/07 05/24/07 Free Movies! / Movieplex / Drama 
My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys Encore on Demand 04/06/07 06/07/07 Premium Channels / Encore on Demand / Drama

Unstrung Heroes Unstrung Heroes Encore on Demand 03/30/07 07/05/07 Premium Channels / Encore on Demand / Comedy

Unless I'm misreading it, that isn't the "Heroes" episode you missed. So I guess I'll have to rely on my DVR if I'm going to watch it "on demand".


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Unless I'm misreading it, that isn't the "Heroes" episode you missed.


Comcast doesn't carry NBC OnDemand. DirecTV will. Your attitude is getting annoying.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> You can watch it on demand *after* it's been recorded, and *until* you need the space for something else. VOD lets you pick any program to watch *RIGHT NOW* without waiting for it to be broadcast.


OK, so tell me how I would watch "Heroes" on demand.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> OK, so tell me how I would watch "Heroes" on demand.


You would go to NBC OnDemand, pick Heroes, pick the episode, and watch it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> You would go to NBC OnDemand, pick Heroes, pick the episode, and watch it.


Do you have proof that DirecTV will be carrying NBC's shows on demand and that they will be available before they are shown on the local station?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Do you have proof that DirecTV will be carrying NBC's shows on demand


Yes, I've seen the UI for it. I'm trying to find an article that mentions it, because I'm sure you won't believe me.


rcoleman111 said:


> and that they will be available before they are shown on the local station?


Why would they be available before they're shown? That's generally not how VOD works.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Why would they be available before they're shown? That's generally not how VOD works.


I was going by what you said previously:

"VOD lets you pick any program to watch RIGHT NOW without waiting for it to be broadcast."


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> I was going by what you said previously:
> 
> "VOD lets you pick any program to watch RIGHT NOW without waiting for it to be broadcast."


I meant that when you pick a program from the list, you can watch it immediately. Unlike when you pick a program from the guide, where you may have to wait up to 2 weeks to watch it.


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

VOD via DVR is pretty peevish, plus it eats HD space I need for things I want to record. I was very sad to learn that the 622-1 will have a larger HD, but only for VOD. Might as well not exist. 

Eventually VOD via network (IP or otherwise) will be pretty cool. If someone wants to see the sixth episode of the second season of Gilligan's Island, bang, it's there. Along with anything else. Like the last episode of Mr. Ed or the pilot for My Mother the Car. I can't wait!

Paying for it, well, that remains to be worked out, but the infrastructure isn't even close to being in place yet, and HD makes it worse. We're looking at 20 MB/sec to the home, more if future Internet and communications share the pipe.

What Dish is offering now is VOD in name only. Basically one or two PPV movies that can start anytime. I don't care.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

FogCutter said:


> Eventually VOD via network (IP or otherwise) will be pretty cool.


You do realize that this is what we're talking about, right? DirecTV will have VOD via network very soon.


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

Jeremy,

Yeah, but I was talking more generally. Many ways to implement, and I was thinking down the road when the full potential is realized. This first shot will be like the original AOL before content on the Internet really flowered.

I guess I am a skeptic. I expect this will be very limited for a long, long time. 

I've just been skimming this thread. What are they going to do with commercials, has anyone said?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

FogCutter said:


> I expect this will be very limited for a long, long time.


Last I heard, DirecTV had 12 networks lined up to offer VOD content. That's not counting the 2000+ movies. Once the service is actually launched, they'll be getting even more content.


FogCutter said:


> What are they going to do with commercials, has anyone said?


That into hasn't been released yet.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

I have read through the thread and still cannot understand what all the fuss is about. I will reserve my opinion of the product until I see a price list and recording/storage options. Broadcast shows aside, I cannot see the advantage of VOD over renting a dvd and burning it. Seems like that would be quicker also.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

armophob said:


> I cannot see the advantage of VOD over renting a dvd and burning it. Seems like that would be quicker also.


If your connection is fast enough, VOD will be nearly instantaneous. I don't see how renting is quicker than that.


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

armophob said:


> I have read through the thread and still cannot understand what all the fuss is about.


Right now it is more important to the companies that it is to the consumer. Potentially most content could be VOD. The companies see it as a way to charge more, but that said, no one has a business model that is really compelling.

The technology has been tried many times through various cable venues, but limited content has held back wide acceptance. In the old days no one had a server that could deliver multiple video streams in a VOD setting. There were even some companies with racks of VCRS that would play movies when ordered. Nice try, but sheesh. Imagine keeping that running.

It will be interesting to see how this thing via DirectTV works out. I have a feeling that even with a VOD library of 2000 movies there won't be a dang thing on to watch!

Jeremy, thanks for the synopsis on commercials. I'd love to see a flat fee for unlimited access to a huge library of everything -- with no commericals of course. That will make VOD worth the fuss.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> I meant that when you pick a program from the list, you can watch it immediately. Unlike when you pick a program from the guide, where you may have to wait up to 2 weeks to watch it.


So in the case of "Heroes", you're saying I could watch in on demand as soon as it appears on the local station. On the other hand, I could also watch it on my DVR as soon as the local station airs it. So why would I choose to watch it via VOD?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> So in the case of "Heroes", you're saying I could watch in on demand as soon as it appears on the local station. On the other hand, I could also watch it on my DVR as soon as the local station airs it. So why would I choose to watch it via VOD?


Maybe you wanted to record something else at the time, and didn't have a free tuner. Maybe you just saw Heroes for the first time this week, and wanted to watch earlier episodes. Maybe someone else in your household watched the recording and deleted it when they were done, not realizing that you hadn't seen it. I could keep going, but I think you get the point.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Maybe you wanted to record something else at the time, and didn't have a free tuner. Maybe you just saw Heroes for the first time this week, and wanted to watch earlier episodes. Maybe someone else in your household watched the recording and deleted it when they were done, not realizing that you hadn't seen it. I could keep going, but I think you get the point.


Just keeping with the thread title " Why is VOD so important?", Not to label your intentions or interests, but you seem to be VOD's biggest cheerleader so far in this thread, (no Heroes pun intended), but have you any more insight in the per episode, per package, or VOD in general pricing schedule?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

rcoleman111 said:


> So in the case of "Heroes", you're saying I could watch in on demand as soon as it appears on the local station. On the other hand, I could also watch it on my DVR as soon as the local station airs it. So why would I choose to watch it via VOD?


Why to thousands buy the episodes of TV shows just shown on TV on iTunes for $1.99 each? 

Say a storm went thru and knocked out my sat signal for 5 minutes during Heroes. So I need to see the episode.

So I have a choice.
Watch it online at nbc.com in a small window, buy it on iTunes (assuming available) again on a small window, Bittorrent but again, small window or I can get it VOD via DirecTV full screen and possibly in HD.

I think I'll take VOD.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2007)

Thanks, Bonscott, I can see that you might want to use VOD in a situation where a storm messed up your recording of a program. That brings up another situation - when the local station puts storm warnings on the screen and switches to SD. Or when they break in for local news stories or shrink the program down to postage-stamp size. Maybe it will force the local stations to clean up their act when they realize people can just tune out and watch the program on VOD. Bypassing the local station would certainly be a good reason to have VOD.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

So if you have a DVR why would you want VOD? I guess maybe a new movie release but that is it.

If you have a show you want to watch, record it! Set a season pass. Maybe if the HR20 fail to record don't download it. Call D* tell them to fix the HR20.

I still don't see why I would use VOD. Hope it works out at D*. I just don't think it will get that much use. That is *IF the price is even right.*


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Other reasons:

1) A show becomes a hit... but you haven't been DVRing it since the start of the season, and want to catch up...

2) You don't want to spend the $12 a month for HBO... but still want the Sapranos or what ever.. if they are a $1 an episode... you can still watch the show you want... for the price you want

3) There are times... that you just don't want to watch, or can't watch (due to a family member being around or not being around), stuff you have DVRed.... and there is absolutly nothing else on LIVE... For Free, $0.99 or what ever... you can find something in the VOD Library.

4) There is probably going to be some content that is simply not available via the channels you get on DirecTV, or DVD or any other means.... So this is an opportunity to access some of that.

5) As VOD makes it way onto DirecTV and probably Dish Network... you may see a "shift" in the programming model... where more and more shows that are not "good enough" for network television, can continue on in the VOD world... So some shows that you really like, that get canned after a couple weeks... may possible continue on for season after season... on VOD (take a lookat "Passions"... granted it is going to be broadcasted... but think of other shows like that... )

6) Independents... College Classes, Individuals, small budget, ect... this gives another "arena" that could possible distribute those works

7) "Technical/Informational" type programs.... For example, the next DirecTV launch... while it will be broadcasted live... many people will forget to set the recording up... or it might not be even possible. You could then access something like that via VOD, when you get home.... 

8) "DVD Extra" type content... Example: American Chopper - Bloopers, Never seen scenes... Bikes that where never finished... Bikes that the customers hated... stuff that doesn't make it to the show

9) Infomercials... Seriously... You saw a commercial for something... and wanted to learn more about it... What if there was a "link" on the commercial (similar to TiVo's thumbs up), that will download the 30 minute infomercial on it.... So instead of staying up till 2am... you can get it now. (yah... I am stretching it a bit there... but there have been a few products over the years I have been intrested in enough to watch the Infomercial).

10) How To Videos: Anything from fixing a bathroom... to the latest features on the HR20

and

11) In the last year, there was discussions (and some articles on this)... Movie's that are still in the theaters... Around here in Chicago, it costs me $27 just for 2 adults and 1 child to go see a movie... If a first run was $30 on VOD... I would rather buy/rent it at home... and watch it here.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

armophob said:


> have you any more insight in the per episode, per package, or VOD in general pricing schedule?


No more than anyone else. But I imagine network programming like Heroes will be free.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

OK I can see that Earl. I hope it works out also hope the price it right. 

So you HAVE TO have this network to work then? There are some that are on a download limit (have to watch how much they download/upload). Does it only download (network bandwidth) when you need it? Any idea how many MB per movie. I guess GB if it is HD.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Que said:


> So you HAVE TO have this network to work then? There are some that are on a download limit (have to watch how much they download/upload). Does it only download (network bandwidth) when you need it? Any idea how many MB per movie. I guess GB if it is HD.


Yes, the network is necessary. It'll only download what you request, unrequested content comes from the satellite. It's a safe bet that HD movies will be over a gigabyte.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> Drew, I never said I couldn't find anything I would want to watch. I'm sure I could browse through what's out there and find plenty of stuff that's worth watching. But I can also find lots of stuff in the regular guide, record it to my DVR, and watch it "on demand". In fact, I can find a lot more stuff out there than I have time to watch.


Hmm. I guess your post was a little confusing then, because you made it sound like if you couldn't find the four titles you searched for, there was no reason you would want VOD.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Ok. Just to clarify and put a couple threads together. In another thread it has been discussed that the HR20 recorded content cannot be transferred. The VOD content retrieved will be coded for one unit only, correct? So after a year of downloading movies and storing them on extra hard drives, your unit dies and you receive a new one then......?
Again, I am not bashing VOD, just asking ?'s about it.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

armophob said:


> So after a year of downloading movies and storing them on extra hard drives, your unit dies and you receive a new one then......?


VOD content will only be watchable for a very limited amount of time, probably 24 hours. You can't stockpile it like that.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Here's a better question. Why do I want TV the way it's presented to me right now?
Why do I have to scan through over 100 channels filled with content of no interest to me?
Why can't I pick what I want to watch ala carte?
Why do I have to pay for HBO and have 8 channels clogged with programming, some of which I may find offensive, more of which I find dull in order to watch The Sopranos and Entourage once a week?
Why do I have to use a rudimentary search function on a DVR and hope I picked the right channel broadcasting in the right definition and that the DVR operates properly and records those programs (and doesn't miss something because of a network time shift).
Why if I have MULTIPLE DVRs do I have to search, program and record the same show in order to have my choice of screens to watch that content on?
We all pay upwards of $75/month (roughly) to use about 1% of the programming available.
VoD can bring us closer to getting the programming we want when we want it...and NOT having to either filter through or support the content we don't want.

But, hey Comcast doesn't have Star Wars in its library today...the whole concept must stink then. Let's go back and watch Home Shopping Network.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

armophob said:


> Ok. Just to clarify and put a couple threads together. In another thread it has been discussed that the HR20 recorded content cannot be transferred. The VOD content retrieved will be coded for one unit only, correct? So after a year of downloading movies and storing them on extra hard drives, your unit dies and you receive a new one then......?
> Again, I am not bashing VOD, just asking ?'s about it.





Jeremy W said:


> VOD content will only be watchable for a very limited amount of time, probably 24 hours. You can't stockpile it like that.


VOD that stays in the reserved section space of the disk will rotate as new VOD is sent to receivers. If unwatched, will be gone. If watched, who knows. Can it be marked Keep? And does marking something Keep change its status on disk from VOD reserved space to normal space?

VOD that is watched via Internet might not fully be on disk at anytime. It might only be buffered there. So could you save it when it isn't there?

VOD that is scheduled and downloaded via satellite or internet for future use will arrive as a complete package on disk. What are the rules for that? How long will it be on disk before it expires like an unwatched PPV?

Fortunately we'll get to know the answers very soon. (And maybe we're asking questions that are causing DIRECTV to consider new answers.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Que said:


> So if you have a DVR why would you want VOD? I guess maybe a new movie release but that is it.
> 
> If you have a show you want to watch, record it! Set a season pass. Maybe if the HR20 fail to record don't download it. Call D* tell them to fix the HR20.
> 
> I still don't see why I would use VOD. Hope it works out at D*. I just don't think it will get that much use. That is *IF the price is even right.*


Your points are valid but here's the problem I have: I have the premium package cause I want to catch some movies. Problem is it's a pain in the arss to actually find the movies to record. Sure would be nice to go to the HBO VOD page and just see a list of movies in alpha order by genre and select which ones I want.

I'm thinking like what the Tivo's used to do so very long ago, the Showcases they had per channel. So you'd select HBO or Starz or whatnot and you'd presented with a "What's new this week" option as well as a list of genre's and you could quickly and easily see what movies are available and choose to record them. Must easier and faster then a search (you gotta know what your're searching for in the first place, I don't know what's new) or going thru the guide.

I would love to have a Starz VOD channel in which I can either set those movies to record if they are in the guide the next 2 weeks or download via VOD. It will make it so much easier to actually get more value out of my subscription.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> No more than anyone else. But I imagine network programming like Heroes will be free.


It will be interesting to see if network shows will be offered for free and what kind of DRM they'll have that restrict how you can watch them. If it works the same as a DVR recording, it would offer a nice way to bypass the local TV stations when they interrupt network shows. I'm also wondering if we'll be able to watch these shows the same way we watch DVR recordings - i.e., fast-forwarding through the commercials and skipping the parts we don't want to watch. Any idea on that?


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> I would love to have a Starz VOD channel in which I can either set those movies to record if they are in the guide the next 2 weeks or download via VOD. It will make it so much easier to actually get more value out of my subscription.


I liked the "Starz on Demand" when it was offered by DirecTV, even though it wasn't a true VOD. The new releases would show up on my DVR the week they were premiering on the regular Starz channel, in addition to some older releases. One of the things I liked most was that I could watch the cast information at the end without the annoying split-screen interviews. Starz also has an annoying tendency to run a bug on some of their channels, sometimes even on their main channel.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Fortunately we'll get to know the answers very soon. (And maybe we're asking questions that are causing DIRECTV to consider new answers.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Ok, so everything now is still speculation. Prices can't be decided because content and delivery is still up in the air. I guess with all the buzz lately, I assumed the basics had been set already. I will revert back to my original post and reserve my opinion until I see the actual product description.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

armophob said:


> Ok, so everything now is still speculation. Prices can't be decided because content and delivery is still up in the air. I guess with all the buzz lately, I assumed the basics had been set already. I will revert back to my original post and reserve my opinion until I see the actual product description.


_We don't know_ shouldn't be translated to DIRECTV doesn't know. They probably know many of these things and are also probably going to continue to negotiate new arrangements forever. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> I'm also wondering if we'll be able to watch these shows the same way we watch DVR recordings - i.e., fast-forwarding through the commercials and skipping the parts we don't want to watch. Any idea on that?


I have a feeling that forced commercials may be a part of the VOD platform.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I have a feeling that forced commercials may be a part of the VOD platform.


Commercials could be part of any free VOD content, like "Mag Rack" or other network "promos", but I don't see how it would be "forcced". Just look at Showcases now - nothing stops us from forwarding through them.

Anyway, I have a feeling we won't see commercials for VOD content we pay for, so IMHO, if we're getting some VOD for free, any commercials with it are the "price" we pay for that free VOD content.

But why not just wait and see?


----------



## FogCutter (Nov 6, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I have a feeling that forced commercials may be a part of the VOD platform.


Jeremy,

That's my guess too. It would be so easy to lock out the FF function for specific programming. These DVRs are too complex for most of we mere mortals to hack. WSJ had a piece a while ago where forced commercials would be buried in the free VOD and for a price the same content could be viewed commerical free.

Once the bugs are out, would there be any interest in total VOD, no scheduled programming at all? Like others have voiced why pay $$$ a month and only ever view 1% of the content. Pay $ and watch the 1% we want.

To really fly VOD will need massive servers with hundreds of thousands of programs and movies available whenever, and an interface people can actually use to find their stuff.

The only conventional feeds might be live sports and breaking news.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Another use for VOD. On the Versus hockey game tonight they had a little ad for Versus On Demand where you can get clips and recaps of all the playoff hockey games. Sounds like the Sunday Ticket clips that download to the Tivo's. That would be a cool VOD application.


----------



## Kash76 (Aug 9, 2002)

I certainly hope we don't have to pay for VOD. My parents get it free with their basic digital package on Comcrap. The content isn't top current movies, etc because they don't have HBO and the like. But, it is "free".


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Kash76 said:


> I certainly hope we don't have to pay for VOD.


Access and some content will be free.


----------



## Kapeman (Dec 22, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Excellent point. DIRECTV will get instant marketting information to help them decide which channels to keep in their line up based on VOD usage.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I would also be somewhat interested in the VOD version of "what's hot".

At first I was very skeptical of VOD and didn't really see what it has to offer, but the more I hear about what will be available the more I am thinking about breaking out the wireless gear again!


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2007)

drew2k said:


> Hmm. I guess your post was a little confusing then, because you made it sound like if you couldn't find the four titles you searched for, there was no reason you would want VOD.


I was just making the point that what's out there right now is really kind of skimpy. That will probably change in time, but whether VOD becomes the next Blockbuster or Netflix remains to be seen. A lot depends on how it is implemented.


----------

