Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Internet Technology

Online TV May Be IPTV's First Step 217

Posted by Zonk from the baby-steps dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to the San Diego Union Tribune Time Warner Cable is letting its customers in San Diego watch live television over their hi-speed internet PCs via 'Online TV'. Time Warner's Broadband TV service (no cost above the min system requirement of cable and hi-speed modem) offers the identical '80 channels that are available with its standard cable TV service.' According to Judy Walsh, Time Warner's San Diego division president, 'It's basically like having another outlet for watching TV. It's TV on your PC. It's that simple.' Is this really the first step towards full-fledged IPTV or is this a service for dad's who can't wrestle the remote control from their kids?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online TV May Be IPTV's First Step More

Online TV May Be IPTV's First Step

Comments Filter:

  • groovy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zxnos ( 813588 ) <zxnoss@gmail.com> on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:29PM (#13075520)
    if it goes national- instant, precise ratings.

    • Re:groovy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Princeofcups ( 150855 )
      > if it goes national- instant, precise ratings.

      About as accurate as web page rankings.

      jfs

      • About as accurate as web page rankings.

        Web pages are much easier to cache than video streams. Any scheme created to decentrally distribute streams would also probably take tracking very seriously.

    • Re:groovy (Score:2, Insightful)

      by MirrororriM ( 801308 )
      That would be kind of nice because then maybe networks would realize that not nearly as many people tune in to reality shows as they think. BUT:

      1) Unfortunately, not everyone uses RoadRunner nor does everyone have it available.

      2) Secondly, not everyone would necessarily watch TV from their computer. They'd...you know...go out in the living room and watch TV.

      3) Lastly, I wouldn't use it because then Time Warner can grab statistical data for their own marketing purposes freely and easily (don't tel

      • i am thinking future, 10-15 years.

        imagine, it is mainstream to route all communications through your computer. user 'zxnos' logged in at X.comcast.X viewing 'the simpsons'. they would have instant access to what you are watching. statistics on how many viewers are lost/gained during a commercial break. i think this could be sold to producers.

        privacy concerns? for sure.

      • Re:groovy (Score:2, Insightful)

        by forrestt ( 267374 )
        You're right, I would much rather watch ads for crap I am totally NOT interested in. If they could do better advertisment targeting, they might actually be able to show LESS ads and make the same amount of money (not that they will show less ads, but you never know. If they show 2 ads, and find out I have changed the chanel, they might figure it out.) Besides, I have predicted for years that once the PVR's get more widestream, ads will be IN the show, not between segments (example, someone picks up a Cok

        • Re:groovy (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Alex P Keaton in da ( 882660 )
          Good point- Showing me ads for Maxi Pads when they could be showing me ads for beer is a waste of my time and their money.
          I believe what we are forgeting for advertising is product placement. Hey look, Hobie on Baywatch just drank a YooYoo chocolaty drink, now I want one! This is common in films, companies pay to put products in movies all the time. I for one, would never have bought a Pontiac Aztek if it hadn't been featured on Survivor. This can be as simple as a billboard in a wide pan shot or seeing th
        • "...ads will be IN the show, not between segments (example, someone picks up a Coke and drinks it instead of a 30sec commercial on how good Coke is)"

          They have done this in movies for years. In Asia, it's common to have this same type of pervasive advertising. Also, the credits at the end of serial shows generally has alot of advertising info.

          The show 24 is a prime example of this as well. All of the special phones they're using are Cisco VOIP phones and video VOIP phones. Nearly all the vehicles they us
      • They'll advertise to you any way. Personally, My policy has always been if I could have every tampon/maxipad/vagisil/etc comercial replaced with girls gone wild, I'd be better off.
    • If it goes national? It's not even local yet! I am downtown San Diego, with all the requirements, and it tells me I am outside the test area.. which is not in the suburbs I should remind you. Who knows. (shrug)

    • Re:groovy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by The Lynxpro ( 657990 )
      "if it goes national- instant, precise ratings."

      I'd bet TiVo kills the Nielsens before IPtv has the chance to do so.

      And yes, before anyone tries to correct me, I do know that the Nielsens have a pilot program using TiVos currently. But that's just an "embrace and extend" strategy on their part that will ultimately finish them off. Kinda like how Mozilla killed the original Netscape Navigator, although many would argue it was self inflicted, or a mercy killing.

  • First Step? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:29PM (#13075528)
    s this really the first step towards full-fledged IPTV?

    No - the first step will be the licensure of the thousands of obvious patents that have already been filed.
    • I was thinking more like, why is "online TV" not considered "IPTV"? While they don't necessarily mean the same thing, what "online" delivery method exists that doesn't involve IP?
    • And for those who don't wish to wait for "Step 1" may I direct your attention to this site... [craftytv.com]. Yeah, it isn't the current broadcast; it is more like pay-per-view of your favorite shows (except that it is free and probably a copyright violation)
  • Maybe I lack imagination, but I'm not sure that I understand the purpose of IPTV. Television can be viewed on a computer using a simple video card, and any time shifting and program recording can easily be handled by the myriad PVRs available.

    Can someone enlighten me why IPTV matters? Is it the possibility of creating your own content, and delivering it What's the deal?

    • Re:What is the point or purpose of IPTV? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:35PM (#13075599)
      What is the point or purpose of IPTV?

      A practical purpose of IPTV is to allow content from anywhere and anyone - not just Big Business. Now, Time Warner is doing this only to prevent such a thing from happening.

      Take, Strong Bad [homestarrunner.com], for example. I would easily pay like $5/year to watch this creativity a couple times per month. What happens if 30 million others feel the same way? Instant negation of Big Business, that is what.

      Time Warner, Comcast, NBC, CBS, Fox and all those others need to be first here or they will be gone in short time.
      • You're obviously a fan of Homestar Pay Plus [homestarrunner.com]!

      • Re:What is the point or purpose of IPTV? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Woogiemonger ( 628172 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @02:20PM (#13076106)

        Take, Strong Bad, for example. I would easily pay like $5/year to watch this creativity a couple times per month. What happens if 30 million others feel the same way? Instant negation of Big Business, that is what.

        Millions of people can make their own CDs, but we haven't seen the major record labels "negated" yet. With TV, the major studios are the ones who can supply the cash and resources for sets, special effects, big name actors, etc etc. Although I can imagine there will be a lot more cult followings of low-budget TV shows and the big TV networks will have less control, they'll not have to worry about instant negation. Strong Bad will be bought and whored out like nobody's business long before any one goes out of business.

        • So true. The most likely case is that it follows the South Park model: a cult internet favorite gets a million bucks or so thrown at it and tossed onto one of the many "broad interest" or "special interest" cable networks that are always in desperate need of new content.

          If you're doing this as a hobby, having someone say "we'll pay you to do this full time" sounds like a damn good idea. Of course, then you lose creative control, and risk having the network steal the soul of your show.

          You'd be in a bette
      • Take, Strong Bad, for example. I would easily pay like $5/year to watch this creativity a couple times per month. What happens if 30 million others feel the same way? Instant negation of Big Business, that is what.

        Wrong. Instant creation of new big business is what happens. Not negation.

    • As with many other "advances", this technology isn't targeted towards you, dear parent poster. It's targeted to the user that still has their ISP's home page set as their default, who uses their ISP's email as their only email address, and who cheerfully clicks on the "to unsubscribe, click here" links.

      This is meant for those without the technical savvy to install a video card in their computer, or to bother with something as "advanced" as a PVR. It's meant for someone who will just exert themselves enou

    • Re:What is the point or purpose of IPTV? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:38PM (#13075655)
      Can someone enlighten me why IPTV matters?

      IPTV forever frees the broadcasters from the shackles of fair use: with Microsoft's help, they can dictate whatever terms they like for viewing.

      IPTV also frees the system manfacturers from the shackles of competing with an installed base: at any time, they can declare your particular display, computer, hard drive, etc. to be noncompliant and the system will stop working until you upgrade.

      Between these two, it's a Brave New World for two business sectors which were facing market saturation and declining revenues.

      • IPTV forever frees the broadcasters from the shackles of fair use: with Microsoft's help, they can dictate whatever terms they like for viewing.

        That has to be the most insightful thing I've read this morning, right after I used up my mod point... that's when the good stuff gets posted.

        IPTV also frees the system manfacturers from the shackles of competing with an installed base: at any time, they can declare your particular display, computer, hard drive, etc. to be noncompliant and the system will stop w

      • Well, the broadcasters will not need MS's help. As it is, the current admin is helping to rewrite laws to allow hollywood to remain in control. While the courts killed off the admins first attempt (via FCC Powells first attempt), Hatch, Delay, Frist, and GWB will continue to push through legislation that will strip us of our fair-use rights.

        BBC and other companies have been broadcasting over the net for a while. Hopefully, an open standard will prevail which will prevent companies from taking fair-use.
    • The purpose is so network providers only have to maintain ONE infrastructure.

      If you can get Internet, telephone and television all over IP then the people that run the wires no longer have to maintain three separate infrastructures.

      "Just give me bandwidth" will be the new mantra.

      They also have the ability to centralize their content distribution. Instead of having to put satellite downlinks everywhere and banks of video recorders in each city, then can focus on a high-speed network and create a central
    • I don't know that you could call this "true" IPTV, but RAI (italian network) have been offiering most of their programming on-demand via the web at: http://www.raiclick.rai.it/ [raiclick.rai.it]

      It's wmv format, so it's not the best quailty, but it sure is nice to see multiple seasons worth of programming a click away for the user.

    • Ever get sick of the CNN sensationism or Fox's bias/predujices?

      Are you sick of having your local TV being controlled by just a few?

      Would you like to see news from other countries? I have found that American news source are disaster WRT to reporting on what is happening here in America. Did you know that GWB just gave another unbided 8 billion contract to halliburton. If you look all over the world, you will find that other sources are reporting about left right and sideways. Nothing in American sources.

      O

    • I like the idea of IPTV, but not in the way that it is being used in this article. I'd really like the concepts of networks and channels to pretty much go away, leaving only studios and ISPs.

      As it stands now, studios have to beg and plead networks to carry their programming, and a lot of times, they have to compromise their artistic creativity to pander to the networks' need to sell advertising to sponsors and meet stupid FCC anti-obscenity standards. Consumers have to pick through hundreds of hours of

    • Personally, I like the idea of no longer being bound to the company that owns the coax wire-network in your geographic area. For instance, I live in a Charter area, I have one choice for cable, charter. Now, if there were one or more providers willing to provide their distribution via IP, without requiring me to get my broadband from them (for instance, if I could sign up for Comcast to watch their channels over an existing broadband connection, even though they cant offer physical hookup in my area, that w
    • One thought:

      Traditional TV is unidirectional. This makes video on demand and other uses that require information to be sent in the other direction difficult. IPTV solves this.

      Plus, once everyone has converted to IPTV and TVs are made that support it, you can do interactive content like polls or other voting with your remote. You could browse live game statistics while watching sports with your remote. Have play-along game shows where you answer multiple choice questions with your remote. There's lots
      • Every see a digital cable box. If you look in the inside most are Cable Modems with MPEG2 Decorders that convert MPEG2 data sent over IP into Analog that your TV understands. IPTV is alive and well inside your digital cable box. Digital Cable Boxes providers could just remove the cable modem part and use 10/100 Ethernet and pull the data from the inet directly and would likely make them cheaper to boot but who would buy them is the problem. I can see a market for something like this. Picture Netflex wi

  • Cable Packages (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tgrimley ( 585067 )
    I don't think this can ever really take off unless cable companies change their business model to accomodate a la carte selections. As the article intimates, more refined selections of channels would be easier. I just don't really see that happening here.

  • I had something like this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by niskel ( 805204 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:33PM (#13075580)
    My ISP has/had (I don't know, or care, any more) a service like this for a while. Whil not as robust as this, it had ~8 channels. News, Comedy, TechTV/G4, TSN, Much Music and some other stuff. In this situation though, the buffer was always underunning. The picture quality was sub par for even regular streaming video. On top of all this, it was incompatible with anything but Internet Explorer. You could look at he source if you were clever though to get the stream addresses but as a regular consumer service, you shouldn't have to. My experience with Internet TV has been poor so I may be biased, this new service may be great but I'll believe it when I see it.
    • In this situation though, the buffer was always underunning. The picture quality was sub par for even regular streaming video.

      I agree. Someone at the streaming website should do basic math. At what point can the buffer be large enough that even though you are watching more data than is being recieved, you have enough data in the buffer to watch the whole episode. Either that, or increase the amount of servers and bandwith, so you can send out a larger stream.

      From the article:

      Time Warner's Road Run

  • Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

    by periol ( 767926 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:34PM (#13075587) Homepage
    I've been waiting for something like this to start happening. I don't have a television, don't want a television, don't intend to get one. But I like to watch sports.

    This year, my roommates and I have a subscription with mlbtv.com. For around $70 we get all non-local/national broadcast streamed via either real or windows media. Setup two laptops, forward the appropriate ports and traffic types through the router, and !voila! two baseball games.

    (for those who care, mlb.com checks your IP address to find out where you are, so using a proxy server gets you access to local games)

    If BASEBALL, the most old-fashioned, stodgy sport out there, can stream all games online, there's absolutely no good reason besides stupidity that the NFL, NBA, and other sports don't take advantage of this.

    Just like there's no reason *not* to stream television over the internet. Forget being nice to your customers. How about the extra commercial revenue they'll get from having people online and watching tv at the same time.

    Cable Companies! Stop being stupid and stream your broadcast signals my way.
    • I don't have a television, don't want a television, don't intend to get one. But I like to watch sports.

      So...you've got something against appliances?

      If you like to watch television programming ("I like to watch sports") then why are you against owning a television?

    • > I've been waiting for something like this to start happening. I don't have a television, don't want a television, don't intend to get one. But I like to watch sports.

      This baffles me -- professional sports is the one thing for which the TV model makes perfect sense. There's a mass audience that all want to watch the same thing in real time, and, in fact, timely delivery of the content is a big part of the added value. The mass-ness of the audience means one provider and many receivers (broadcasting)
    • "I've been waiting for something like this to start happening. I don't have a television, don't want a television, don't intend to get one. But I like to watch sports."

      While I like watching things while I'm in my office on a computer screen....don't you get tired of watching such a small screen ALL the time? Frankly, I like to lay out on the couch in the living room, where all my audio and video equipment is to watch most of the time....I like a much bigger screen (60" for now), but, even in the bedroom..

  • Well, duh. It's a full-fledged IPTV service for dads who can't wrestle the remote control from their kids, of course.

    More seriously, why would we pay for another big display when every member of the family already has a computer? Instead of a separate TV set you can add this money to the cash you have put aside for your monitor and buy a huge display that will help your eyes in your daily work.

    (this comes from someone who hasn't watched TV in several years. Heck, I even downloaded that overhyped Retali
    • this comes from someone who hasn't watched TV in several years

      Exactly, though. I watched last year's presidential debates on my computer- but only because I didn't have a TV. If I'd had a TV, I would have used that; the resolution was pretty crappy. Admittedly, I could stop, pause, and rewind... but then, you can do the same thing with TiVo.

      In general, I think the trend is not towards consolidation of devices- it's towards proliferation of devices- iPods, digital cameras, cell phones, PlayStations, TVs

    • You can get a 19" tv for under a hundred bucks. Just how "huge" of a display do you expect to get for an extra hundred bucks? My 23" display, far from "huge" in my eyes, cost me a ton of money and my firstborn male child. Granted, it's an Apple display, so overpriced, but still you aren't going to get much in the way of hugeness for the extra cost of a normal sized tv. You can get a 40+" tv to watch the game on for under a thousand dollars. Spend the same amount on a computer monitor and you'll get som

  • I want... (Score:3, Funny)

    by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Friday July 15, 2005 @01:36PM (#13075621)
    I want my IPTV!
  • One of the keys to the IPTV technology is that instead of sending all the channels to a customer all the time, as is the case with traditional cable, only the channel selected by the customer is transmitted, saving on bandwidth.

    That's the part that makes me wonder why this has taken so long to implement.

    BUT HOW CAN THIS BE TRUE? 75 channels that go to everyone takes the same bandwidth as 75 independent streams, right? Got more than 75 subscribers on a loop then the bandwidth demands INCREASE, right. T
    • Multicast.

      Right, it's not really usable on the internet by large. But, in this case, the cable company controls the software and the routers. There is no reason they can't have their network handle these streams and put no more than 75 channels on any given piece of pipe. It can be less than 75, if a given channel is not viewed by anyone in a given neighbourhood, but never more than 75.
      • I'm sure you're right they're using multicast. Then again, that would mean it's not much of a service because it isn't on-demand. Just a different protocol for digital cable.

        But I don't think honest-to-gosh point-to-point television is all that far off. With the right codec, a 3 mbit stream looks pretty darn good. 3 mbits of network isn't as much as it used to be, especially if it's being served not far away at the Cable Co.

  • From the article:

    Bob Jones, vice president of engineering for Time Warner's San Diego division, said the key to high-quality video is keeping the data on the company's private network. While the video travels along the same pipeline as e-mail and Web sites, it never leaves Time Warner's lines.

    Sounds like you can't use this from just anyplace on the Internet -- you have to be a Road Runner subscriber using it from home. Still, pretty nifty.

    • From the site:

      "Thank you for your interest in Time Warner Cable's Broadband TV product trial. Please confirm that you are using Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher. If so, we regret to inform you, however, that you live outside the service area in which the trial is taking place. We sincerely appreciate your interest and hope you will continue to embrace Time Warner Cable products and services as they are developed. Thank you again - we appreciate your business and value you as a customer!"

      Gahhh, IE requir

  • For instance... Is this a DRM'd copy that's being pushed, does it tie us to a Windows Media player, or can an OSX or Linux user also just point their browser at the correct IP, and watch this also.

    For that matter, how do they limit this to the test rollout group? Is there a login, or do they restrict by IP, or what? What keeps my TV-lovin' ass from watching this up here in the boonies? (aka Michigan)

    The biggest question it raises, as far as someone like m'self goes, who cannot get this, is how this w
    • The article isn't *that* light on details...

      1. They're using Realplayer. It's probably Windows-only, because they have some proprietary program they're using.

      2. DRM? Depends how you define it. It's been illegal to rip Real streams for a while, but if you can find a copy of Streambox somewhere you can do it - if you find the stream URL (they try really hard to hide that). But there are always ways to rip video streams.

      3. It's pretty clear that they're keeping this limited to their internal ne

    • Is this a DRM'd copy that's being pushed, does it tie us to a Windows Media player, or can an OSX or Linux user also just point their browser at the correct IP, and watch this also.

      The article says realplayer, so I assume that means mac/linux/windows.

      do they restrict by IP

      Most likely since they are handing out the IPs to everyone eligible.

      why shouldn't I be able to view what I want to watch, when I want to watch it?

      Because AOL/Time Warner dropped the ball and the other content providers have no

    • ignores that once you've seen an ad, you can be reminded of that ad and the product in a tenth of a second to half a second.

      Its pattern recognition and humans are endowed with a pattern recognition engine at the back of their skull that works at amazing speed. They aren't even conscious that its hapening which is why it takes up to half a second for them to register awareness of it.

      All you need are a couple of key frames, not even audio, and don't need to watch the whole thing over and over and again.

      Ads
  • They're streaming live TV to you and they don't charge for it? They must have discovered some source of free bandwidth!

    Hmm, or maybe they just have the advertisers sponsor it, just like normal TV. But even then, others could do the same. Maybe free movies on demand is not that far off...
    • Same place as they get the bandwidth for "standard" digital television - the bandwidth/connection never has to leave the cable co's own network therefore there is no external links etc which need to be paid for, merely the ongoing maintanence of their own network.
    • They're streaming live TV to you and they don't charge for it? They must have discovered some source of free bandwidth!

      RTFA. This is Time Warner Cable, who owns the network. They are streaming IPTV over their own local network. When you have all your subscribers running on a 100 megabit segment, and each channel can be compressed down to 500-1000k a second, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that multicasting ~70 channels will take up anywhere from 35-70 megabits out of 100 available for each neigh
  • Will never take off until ISPs address quality control issues with their services. Up until now, the biggest factor preventing services like this from happening has been prevelance of broadband. Now, with wireless and satelite technologies, combined with the expansion of networks via traditional means, most people have or have access to some form of broadband now. And, most people are switching.

    What has not been addressed, however, is how poor many of these ISPs' networks are. For cable TV, if your c
  • because that not what the net is about.

    It will fail because nobody can make enough profit from it unless they improve content (kick out the advertisers) while making it time shift and media shift.

    The average home has three TVs, two of which are used as door-stops because there's nothing worth watching whenever you'd want to watch it.

    The remaining set is drowning in ads. Who want's to watch ads?

    Wouldn't you rather watch a show? One shown in its entirety, however short or long that might be?

    But the econo
  • service for kids who can't wrestle the remote control from their Dads :)
  • I wonder if this service will only allow one to watch IPTV from my home where the Timewarner cable modem resides or if I can actually watch it from work, as long as I am a customer and pay for the service. Would be great to watch it from work.

    --
    http://unk1911.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  • Right now, only those who can pay for the bandwidth can broadcast streaming media. It seems to me that a streaming protocol using bittorrent style swarming would really open up the possibility of broadcast over IP to those without the big bucks.

    Instead of transmitting a single file as chunks of data that may be requested from multiple sources a la bittorrent, imagine a sliding window of time in which chunks are valid. Peers advertise available chunks and the remaining window in which they are valid, and d

    • The problem is the business model. At the moment, studios produce a pilot, shop it around and see if anyone wants to finance a whole series. They then get primary broadcast rights, and have a vested interest in making sure the show is not distributed beyond this. I propose the following:
      1. Studio releases pilot for free distribution under a creative commons licence (free distribution, no derived works).
      2. Studio publishes how much it would cost to produce the full series.
      3. Individuals who would like to watch
      • I would like for creative producers who do something because they want to (like all technology geeks, I'm a big believer in 'push' rather than 'pull') not to have to water it down pandering to what the broadcasters (or even the theatre chains) will allow.

        The censorship after the Fatty Arbucle (I think that's who it was) incident was started by a small grocery chain and they cowed the studios like the Taliban (and for the same purpose.)
    • There are several P2P streaming projects in development in universities: ESM, TMesh, YOID, etc.

      Real IPTV deployments are based on multicast. It doesn't require IPv6 BTW.
  • What about multiple streams? Will they allow that?

    I am dreaming of a Tivo-like device that can archive LOTS of different "channels" (ie: streams) at the same time. Given enough storage, I could Tivo EVERY channel and every show for a period of about 2 weeks. And storage is only getting cheaper so this is technically possible.

    In the non-IP world, I'd have to have a tuner for each channel. In the IP-world, the channel becomes a stream. And we all know that PC's can handle many many streams at o
  • If they offer 'The Apostrophe Channel' I suggest the submitter and his dads watch it.
  • current bandwidth usage could be reduced drastically by implementing all the features suggested in the MPEG4 spec.

    It's interesting, how hardware innovation is going much faster than software.
  • From a user perspective, how is this better than bittorrent + tv sites?

    I don't watch North American TV. But if I did, it'd be with video podcasts.
    • Actually, I couldn't.

      But your attitude has got to get spread.

      You're seeing what media is heading to: aggregation of meta information, (features about content,) instead of the content itself, which is disseminated asynchronously over the net, reconstituted, and presented when you want to see it.

  • Comcast is in trial stages with this right now. It's already pretty damned cool!

    look out for it
  • Linux users need not apply..

    Same as the "free TV" option on CNN and MSNBC sites.
    When is it "free" when you are required to use an non-free and expensive operating system to view it?
  • I've been subscribed to XTV (link [xtv.com]) for a few months now. It's a pretty great service!

    They provide 50 Channels of IPTV porn 24 hours a day, plus several other features such as Pay-Per-View and other interactive features.

    I think the only down side to this technology will be video quality and BANDWIDTH.

    Aside from that, kudos to Time Warner!
  • It's TV on your PC. It's that simple.' Is this really the first step towards full-fledged IPTV
    Now I can watch CSI on CBS via IP (from my ISP) instead of on TV!
  • First off, say what you want about American TV... but this is really cool.

    I've seen products from Adelphia, Comcast, FrontierVision, and Time Warner in action... *nobody* comes close to the user-friendliness and speed of a TW Passport box. Extrapolating (erroneously?) from that, I'm going to assume that this service is going to be just as spiffy as their other magical stuff like Video OnDemand and whatnot.

    This article finally confirms something I had a feeling about but never bothered to verify -- TW is a
  • Why are we talking about Iowa Public Television in the headline, then jumping to Time Warner and San Diego in the body?
  • Saves them money, makes them money.

    One of the keys to the IPTV technology is that instead of sending all the channels to a customer all the time, as is the case with traditional cable, only the channel selected by the customer is transmitted, saving on bandwidth.

    OK, so the company is saving money is respect that they can reach more customers on a given pipe due to lower congestion.

    The million dollar question though, is whether the internetTV usage counts towards (monthly, etc) bandwidth limits? One o
  • Does anyone knows what software they are using for streaming? What hardware and OS?
  • Until I can buy shows a la carte and view them on my schedule I won't be signing up. This is really no different than regular cable TV.

  • If memory serves, the powers that be quashed somebody trying to sell to send customers TV signals over the internet sourced from free over the air transmissions, precisely as cable is legally allowed to do, because the "content is altered" (degraded quality, I guess, because of compression/encoding).

    This even though I am certain that I can see degradation from my local cable converting signals to mpeg over digital cable, and even though many people have chronically bad connections over the cable, degrad

Slashdot Top Deals

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Close