DISQUS

patricia · 2 years ago

I disagree. I think there's a very narrow window of opportunity here. I work within entertainment all the time and they're a LONG way from this. They've only now just started to believe in the viability of internet shows - most producers and executives can't figure out where/how to make money, and there are only a few spending at the moment. The industry is a little desperate, but it's still very inexperienced and doesn't know. There's a slim, slim chance you'll be picked up - sure, now is a time for possibly an opportunity, but you better have more than just an idea. You need an audience. They can generate ideas themselves.

Just my .2

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins · 2 years ago

Perhaps, given the context of the story Kristen just published before me, my meaning is somewhat muddled. Adoption rates of viewing internet entertainment online means not that shows will get picked up by the networks, but that folks will turn to the internet for their entertainment.

patricia · 2 years ago

@mark, come on - that's been going on for two years. users have migrated from using the web as an information source to it being a form of entertainment since 2005 if not earlier. what's going on to drive this is convergence in the infrastructure, and speed. the web was born to do what it's doing right now, and it's going to do more. pay attention to what telecom is doing - it'll say it all. in the future, IP is going to be the single channel that broadcasts everything. it isn't an "if" but a "when".

what pangs me is that this has been a reality for years - yet everybody ignores it, talks about the immediate they see and then has this sort of excited wonder as if it's a brand new concept. it isn't.

:)

Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins · 2 years ago

@patricia: So you're telling me that you don't consider TV entertainment to in any way be competition for online entertainment? You don't believe that in the absence of Old Media entertainment that people will seek it in greater numbers online?

patricia · 2 years ago

@ Mark, no, I really don't. I mean, to a degree, but you can be on the web and watch tv at the same time, but that's small picture, short term stuff in my opinion. I worked in telecom 8 years - the plan for telcos (at least as of a year ago, i've since left the industry) is that all things - video/tv, voice, data - will go over a single channel, IP. The IP channel is very stable and more importantly, cheap in comparision to existing channels (mobile, PSTN, broadcast), so putting everything on it makes sense, and, I believe that what we are witnessing is that migration of these networks, as well as the users. It isn't that people will seek greater numbers online. It's that online will be the sole channel. I personally think everything's going to look and be very similar to what we see now. Same movie, different distribution channel. Everybody gets all excited when they see things like Joost, or a good internet show. To me, I see it and it's like "Yep, happening right on schedule."

I've been right on what's going to happen for two years now. But, we'll see. :)

patricia · 2 years ago

I should add that I'm a hobbyist, not an expert :)

James Gillmore · 2 years ago

I know this is a little different than the main concept of this topic...but, Patricia u mentioned that IP is more "stable," but cable TV is obviously more stable, in real-time, than anything on the web. I'm just curious what you're opinion is--or anyone else's--about that???

patricia · 2 years ago

@ james, i'll ask around on some of my telco contacts. I hadn't worked at all in cable... Interesting question. I wish I had the answer, but will inquire! :)

James Gillmore · 2 years ago

cool...I guess the main thing is about bandwidth resources. Here's my thinking:

Cable television is setup to deliver one channel at a time; it also is setup so there are only a given number of channels to choose from. So essentially only one of, say, 300 channels at any given time will be viewed. Moreover, everyone will only be watching one of these 300 channels. This is all of course totally different from the internet and how each person can be viewing one of a trillion "channels" or sites.

However, the same technology that delivers cable TV can deliver internet, and simultaneously I might add...so there must be a better interface that combines the two. And I'm sure there already is, like TV tuners on your computer, etc. But it seems that what is really needed is the ability for all domain owners to be able to broadcast a special stable real-time channel that can be browsed in high quality like cable TV.

I'm not even going to discuss all the possibilities for a browser/interface for this, but the point is really this:

WE NEED TO ALLOW ANYONE WITH A DOMAIN TO CREATE A CHANNEL AT THE CALIBER OF A MAJOR NETWORK WE CURRENTLY WATCH ON TV.

patricia · 2 years ago

@ hmm... well it would have to also do voice, which cable can do but if memory serves, there are reasons why that's not attractive as IP... I can't recall. I want to say it's in the signaling or maybe in the quality... no less, this is where I think everybody should pay attention to the internet. What the infrastructure does ultimately directs where we all head thereafter :)