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