Jennlog

The above statement was said by Mark Cuban at the CTAM (Cable Television Association for Marketing) Summit. Multichannel News reports he also declared, “The Internet’s dead. It’s over” and states that the only “new application” to emerge is YouTube.

Now, I realize that Mark was in a room full of cable industry execs and it would seem a likely place for him (or anyone) to announce that the Internet is dead and cable supreme, but what was he thinking?

There are dozens of new services using peer-to-peer technologies — like Joost, Grid Networks and Vuze to name just three. Pre-Internet, these services would not have been allowed to exist in a cable environment unless:

1. the peer points existed on closed cable-owned and operated boxes
2. used software owned and installed by the cable company
3. only transfered media content that the cable company allowed subscribers to see (i.e. was compensated by media owners to deliver to subscribers)

There are dozens of new services that enable interactivity in the television-like world of broadband video distribution, for example:

1. viddler (timeline tags — your own personal MST3K)
2. brightcove (create a “channel”, monetize the channel and analyze statistics)
3. Digg Video (influence the video zeitgeist)
4. podcasting (be the tv)

Cable has done a really poor job of growing beyond their passive media delivery roots (of replicating the original passive over-the-air public broadcast in a private wire-bound spectrum).

It’s not coincidental that the number of “Interactive Television” startups exploded simultaneously to the acceptance and popularization of IP, the Internet and WWW as a communications and interactive media. The cable industry facilitated the creation of ITV Hype 2.0 (in the early 90s, ITV Hype 1.0 didn’t go so well) because if they didn’t they would have lost even more ad dollars and eyeballs to the Internet.

We’ve seen ten years since the mainstreaming of the Internet (and ITV Hype 2.0) and the open Internet is well into “Web 2.0″ while cable is still struggling with delivering the promise of “Interactivity 1.0″ (beyond pointing and clicking a remote to select a PPV on-demand movie — yay interactive tv!).

On the other hand, if Multichannel News misquoted Mark and his statement was restricted to the distribution and use of passive high definition television — he is correct, the Internet doesn’t enable the sustained distribution of 19.2mbps MPEG2 transport streams to the home in 99.99% of the world’s cities.

But the number and quality of pixels displayed on a television set does not equate to the sum total of the visual media experience. At the 1999 National Association of Broadcasters show, my team proved the acceptable visual media experience is flexible and will adapt to low quality if the subject matter is exclusive, informative and/or compelling.

The Internet allows for a much wider variety of exclusive, informative and compelling media. The Internet delivers this media to an ever increasing number of devices and network architectures.

Cable offers… Pay Per View… to your television.

I’ve been watching quite a lot of television on the web since I put my DirecTV service on hiatus for the summer.

Thus far, I think the winning implementation for delivering on-demand television to the web is Move Networks. The shows (sometimes) available from my local Fox station are next to flawless and really enjoyable experience.

In contrast, the worst experience by a wide margin can be found on CBS’s “innertube”. The CBS television experience features hundreds of “Buffering… Buffering… Buffering…” waits between random akamai/doubleclick errors* and dozens of CBS web server-based “slow script”** errors. When did Akamai and Real Networks begin to suck so much?

And what is up with the web television commercials that have the audio cranked to 11? One word for you web television services: “NORMALIZATION”. Seriously, the audio on some of these commercials is at least three times louder than your programming content. Computer users should not have to leap to their volume controls in an attempt to prevent their speakers from being destroyed every time a commercial starts streaming.

I can’t wait until web television/IPTV content aggregators decide to apply some quality control to their products. This industry technology left the experimental stage more than ten years ago.

Peer-to-peer television holds great promise, but the most popular solutions all seem to require Microsoft Windows or Intel CPUs at this time. I wonder if Broadcast TV would have been as popular if NBC programming was limited to General Electric TV sets and shows on ABC were only compatible with RCA sets?

Web Television has a long way to go.

* “RealPlayer: Connection to server has timed out. You may be experiencing network problems. rtsp://a1770.v219276.c21927.g.vr.akamaistream,net/ondemand/7/1770/21827/v7201400/
cmscomstor.download.akamai.com/8605/_!/g2demand/entertainment/primetime/bigbrother8/
rebroadcast/ep05/bigbro805d.rm?auth=daEcObMbEb.dwbkaWb1cLbncHaadMcsddai-bgOq2X-buy-EaEncVlg&aifp=v07201400”

** “A script on the page CBS.com - Innertube http://www.cbs.com/innertube/player.php?cat=140205&vid=&format=&auto=1 is making Safari unresponsive. Do you want to continue running the script, or stop it?“

All the hype about Apple’s iPhone has me thinking about a device so cool and useful that I would do just about anything to own one. These are the features such a device would have:

Form factor

1. The device would be about the size of an iPhone and weigh no more than 4oz.

Interface

1. A high-definition screen, larger than 240×320 pixels — preferably 480×720 at 180dpi or higher. It would work in both portrait and landscape orientations.
2. There would be on-screen virtual keys and also connect to a bluetooth keyboard.
3. It would accept voice commands, including voice dialing.
4. It would be capable of connecting to a bluetooth headset
5. The video could be output into an external monitor (think airlines / desktops / tvs)
6. The OS and Applications windowing API would allow for slick and reactive experience.

Memory and Storage

1. There would be at least 2GB of RAM
2. There would be at least 20GB of stateful storage (disk or solid state).
3. There should also be a USB2.0 or Firewire port for external storage
4. There should also be an API available to connect to WebFS or some other remote IP-based storage service.

Power

1. The battery should be removable, with spares sold as accessories.
2. Battery life should average 8-10 hours, regardless of voice or video use.
3. There should be modular mains connectivity for worldwide AC options.
4. There should be an option for Car, Boat and Plane DC power connectivity.

Multimedia

1. There would be a camera with a resolution of at least 2MP. This would be used for taking photos or capturing video.
2. It should be able to receive streaming video from files or broadcast
3. It should be able to address my home media server(s) through a tethered sync or from any IP network
4. there would be a stereo microphone.
5. There would be sound input (line and mic) and output jacks (line and headphone).
6. There would be a hardware OpenGL 3D render engine.
7. There would be hardware H.264/MPEG 4 encoding and decoding. A FPGA/Media ASIC for future codec compatibility

Applications

   Productivity

1. Email should be compatible with IMAP(S), POP3(S) and Exchange over IP
2. Calendar should sync over IP with Exchange, .Mac, Yahoo or Google calendars and also have the option to sync via tether to my local Outlook/iCal
3. My address/phone book, notes and lists should also sync over IP and/or tether.
4. I should be able to plug in a GPS USB key and tie location into meetings/events in my calendar
5. There should be an option to perform the above securely (OpenSSL, MSFT VPN and Cisco VPN compatible)
6. The geek in me also wishes an SSH client — because my productivity often relies upon a command line.

   Internet

1. There should be a full featured web browser with Javascript, Flash and a full Java Runtime Environment
2. There should be freedom for developers to develop for the device platform, release open source applications or commercial applications as they desire
3. There should be freedom for consumers to use open source or commercial applications upon the device as they desire
4. There should be an open API that Internet software can utilize to plug into the camera, microphones, USB and A/V ports.

   Voice Calling

1. 100% Voice over IP.
2. Roaming and Long Distance constraints and rules would not be tied to the device.
3. The phone number or network address should be temporarily or permanently assignable to other IP-based devices

   Video Calling/Conferencing/Receiving

1. 100% Video over IP.
2. Compatible with other IP-based video calling and conferencing standards as they are adopted
3. Compatible (and addressable at no extra cost) with my IP Video Television services and subscriptions

Network Plan

1. Membership/Subscription/Identification/Access Control should be performed and verified at the personal level rather than the device level. I should be able to replace my IP Communications device freely without pre-notifying the network operator and having to negotiate new device credentials.
2. The communications device will never ever register itself on a cell/mobile operator’s voice network. Ideally, there will be no “Home Network” registration required and therefore no need to roam.
3. The network service will actually be a network access aggregator who, through relationships with WiMax and WiFi network operators, will ensure that I have a near-seemless worldwide access experience at a flat rate price.
4. There is no mandatory application or service feature bundling requirement from the network operator or aggregator. I am free to form application delivery relationships with anyone I wish, worldwide (including VOIP and Television).
5. I am free to use any network-delivered applications or device-based features I wish without network owner/operator/aggregator interference.

Price

1. The base device MSRP should be US$700.00 or less.
2. The network subscription fee should be US$100.00/mo. or less.
3. Alternately, network subscription fees could be subsidized by ads or traceable in-network affiliate-like purchase agreements or gifting by other services
4. Application subscriptions should be US$20.00/mo. or less — or ad supported, or free.

While I am thinking of NAB, it dawns on me again that even through the hype of “Interactive Television” that spawned many start-ups and industry initiatives in the late 1990s and early 2000s (thinking of all the set-top middleware companies, design-once use-anywhere application platforms and CableLabs projects here), television hasn’t been able to move beyond Video on Demand as their killer interactive application. There is nothing “interactive” about VOD. You use your remote, click and your tv bill goes up while you sit on your sofa — ooooh. People have been clicking at television sets since the late 60s. There has to be something better.

Yes, there are some interactive TV applications that were developed for delivery upon the various set-top middleware, but they were never released universally upon all platforms through all television distribution networks.

Interactive television can be found on the Internet now — where there are no walled gardens, where there is no carrier specificity or manditory development certification. The sooner cable networks move from RF/MPEG frames to IP, the sooner consumers will be able to experience everything interactive television can and should be.

Yesterday, the annual National Association of Broadcasters show began in Las Vegas and this is the first year in more than ten that I haven’t spoken, shown or attended in some capacity. I also didn’t attend the annual Consumer Electronics Show in January this year, because my professional focus has been off IP media management and delivery and on Yallery.

I’m probably different than 99% of the participants with ten years of NAB attendance because I’ve never experienced the NAB show in a capacity that, in some way, didn’t involve IP-based media management or distribution. In the mid-to-late 90s, it was difficult to raise even an eyebrow on the show floor or in the sessions about IP — Internet Protocol.

In 1999, this changed a little. I was leading a technical consulting team at INTERVU in San Diego to help design and build-out their network. And, as a little extra for their marketing folks (to bring some thunder to NAB), I introduced them to IP Multicast and architected a video service delivery demonstration that featured the distribution of a live CNN feed to both NAB show floors (LVCC and Sands).

The CNN feed was encoded in San Diego from satellite and sent through an INTERVU MDC, in multicast tunnels to the convention halls where it was shown on television sets within the booths of INTERVU, Microsoft and AT&T. I felt it was important to place the full screen steaming video on actual TVs because they were the native video frame of the typical NAB attendee. In addition to our TVs, anyone with a Windows PC and Microsoft’s media player connected to the show networks could tap into the Multicast feed.

We had some issues with the show networks getting saturated with random traffic from other exhibitors, but after contacting the venue network engineers about our needs and goals, we were able to negotiate a good chunk of their network to ensure the quality of our IP Multicast tunnels for the duration of the conference. The show floor opened to the public on Monday and the IPTV demo worked as expected (not especially crisp, but “good enough for tv”).

The next day, April 20 1999, I flew to Chicago at 6am because I was chairing a panel discussion on “Integrating Voice, Video and Data on IP Networks” at COMDEX Spring. We had a wonderful session and within 15 minutes of the end, I was back in a cab to the airport for the return to Vegas.

I had my phone turned off because of my session and turned it on to get messages during the ride and I had 20 messages — I don’t normally have 20 messages in a day, and this was only three hours. What had happened, was the nation’s worst nightmare and our demo’s best case scenario. An event so newsworthy had occured to place CNN into live coverage mode. Columbine High School was all over the Airport CNN television sets and at the NAB show, where the broadcast television universe had converged, it was on our three TVs. According to my team and the executives at INTERVU, there were crowds formed around our humble IP streams, watching television as events unfolded.

Our demonstration received a tiny amount of coverage from the TV technology and business press, taking a few pages away from “The year of HD”. The pieces compared the value of our Internet video content over the possibilities of crisp HD nirvana. And, maybe we helped a few RF/broadcast people reconsider the power of Internet-delivered video that year.

Over the last few years, the NAB show has witnessed an explosive growth of IP-based video management and delivery solutions for broadcast, cable and IPTV. There are even pseudo-official delineations of IP-based video markets identified by the NAPTE ranks, amongst other broadcast, content and cable groups. The accepted vertical markets are “Broadband Video” directed to computers (aka Internet streaming video), “Mobile Video” directed to portable devices such as PDAs and Cellphones (aka wireless streaming video) and “IPTV”, which is directed to set-top boxes (aka real TV).

I don’t agree with these definitions, because as we showed in Vegas during the 1999 NAB show, any computing device with a NTSC scan converter could be a STB. With WiFi, Wimax, DVB-H, MediaFLO or DMB/DAB-IP (amongst other infrastructure technologies) nearly any wireless device released in the next two years may receive real-time video from IP networks.

Content should be valued and monetized within the context of a consumer’s entire media device+network ecosystem.

Anyway, it will be interesting to learn where the buzz lies this year.