HDTV and Home Theater Podcast #338 - Can IPTV replace Cable and Satellite?

[arad]

We've talked about wanting to give our television providers the boot for the past two years now. In the end, at least for us, there is no way to eliminate them completely. This week while reading an article in Broadcasting and Cable entitled Web Sports Enters HD Arena we thought it would be a good idea to revisit the subject. For this study we looked at our viewing habits and tried to come up with online equivalents.


[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/podcast/2008/12/hdtv_and_home_theater_podcast_338_-_can_iptv_replace_cable_and_satellite.php]Read Show Notes[/url]

[rtywonia]

Until a box with an interface became available that was as easy to use as a sat/cable box; I doubt that this would be a viable option for most consumers. I for one prefer to relax while watching TV. Computer equals work for me. Sort of a necessary evil to communicate, get information, and complete transactions - not a tool for relaxation. Even for music - i hate using the computer for downloading - necessary evil to get it to my ipod.

[stevekaden]

I may be missing technical points both large and small....but isn't FiOS at least a form of IPTV?

[jjkilleen]

If you had to, you could cut the cord between you and your cable company and not miss a beat.

My only reaction to this statement is one word-nonsense.
Most of what is available OTA or via the internet is garbage, and that's before you consider it's PQ.

[akirby]

Most of what is available OTA or via the internet is garbage, and that's before you consider it's PQ.

Compared to what?

[jjkilleen]

Akirby-good question.
The podcast totally ignores content only available on cable, and the fact that much of what is good OTA, is not available on-line, e.g. PBS shows.

I'm not suggesting that there may not come a time where the PQ and content of internet borne TV catches-up with cable, but there's no reason to believe that we're anywhere close to that point in time.

I might also point out that, since many of us receive our internet via cable, it's almost becomes meaningless to talk about cutting the cable link.

If the time comes when the cable content becomes available via internet, the cable companies will just increase one part of the bill, and cut the other. If anyone thinks that the ISPs, cable and otherewise, will increase their capabilities so that their customers can start downloading "free" TV on a regular basis, and not increase their charges accordingly, they're sorely mistaken.

[akirby]

Akirby-good question.
I might also point out that, since many of us receive our internet via cable, it's almost becomes meaningless to talk about cutting the cable link.

I didn't know DSL was meaningless.

[jjkilleen]

[I didn't know DSL was meaningless.[/quote]

In terms of having the capacity to carry massive amounts of HD quality video, it is.
But my main point is that the podcast totally disregarded shows only available on cable.

[akirby]

I agree about the podcast ignoring cable but you implied that you can't cut cable because of internet access. DSL is a perfectly viable alternative to cable for internet access. And it does work for AT&T Uverse HDTV.

[miller]

We've talked about wanting to give our television providers the boot for the past two years now. In the end, at least for us, there is no way to eliminate them completely. This week while reading an article in Broadcasting and Cable entitled Web Sports Enters HD Arena we thought it would be a good idea to revisit the subject. For this study we looked at our viewing habits and tried to come up with online equivalents.


Read Show Notes

My oh my!

Ara & Braden, I typically agree with you both on many points ... and I truly enjoy your podcast ... but you have made a MAJOR mistake here. The premise of your podcast is fine, but you should NOT be referring to those services as "IPTV", for they are not.

Each of the services and websites you mention do provide video content, but it is NOT IPTV, it is "Internet TV/Video". The difference is that "Internet TV" travels over open, public networks (ie. The Internet) whereas IPTV is distributed via private network where the provider controls both end-points. Also, IPTV is a "broadcast" or "streamed" video, not delivered via download. If you have to download it, it's NOT IPTV.

It really gets under my skin when these "Internet Video" sites start touting their services as "IPTV" just to grab the coat-tails of the latest buzz-word. Please do not perpetuate this nonsense.

So, let's look at the services out there and clarify what is and ISN'T IPTV:

FiOS - IPTV
U-Verse - IPTV
Hulu - NOT IPTV
YouTube - NOT IPTV
Joost - NOT IPTV
Anything delivered via RSS - NOT IPTV
(Insert-website-here-with-embeded-video) - NOT IPTV

If your piece would have substituted "Internet TV/Video" for "IPTV", it would have been a great piece ... but as it is, it is fundamentally flawed.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iptv#IPTV_and_Internet_TV
http://www.dailyiptv.com/news/iptv-vs-i ... tv-121506/

Cheers,

- Miller