TV MEETS THE WEB

Hany Saleeb

May 2001

PREDICTIONS

Lord Kelvin, mathematician and physicist, 1895

– “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”

Lord Kelvin, 1897

– “Radio has no future”

Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

– “I think there's a world market for, maybe, 5 computers"

Ken Olson, President, Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

– “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home”

CONVERGENCE OF HARDWARE

• Viewing conditions are very different– TVs are viewed from a considerable distance

• typically 6 - 10 times picture height

– Computer users are much closer to the screen• typically less than 2 times picture height

• TVs are often viewed by several people, whereas computer usage is a solitary activity

• TVs are unsuited to interactivity, but PCs will be used to display TV programs

?

CONVERGENCE

Broadcasters “Internet” services

InternetBroadcastdelivery

or DIVERGENCE?

COMPETING DELIVERY SYSTEMS

• There will be numerous competing delivery mechanisms

• Success in the consumer market will depend on:– the range of features– ease of use– cost of equipment– cost of use– content (quantity and quality)

• Attractive content is the most important factor in the success of any multimedia product

GROWTH OF THE INTERNET

0

10

20

30

40

50

1970 1980 1990 2000

Date

Nu

mb

er o

f h

ost

s (m

illi

on

)

Take-off around 1995?

Source: Network Wizards (http://www.nw.com)

Every washing machine will have an Internet address!

REPLACEMENT TECHNOLOGIES

• Nevertheless, we would be equally foolish to believe that all new technologies will automatically replace all old technologies– Radio broadcasting has not been replaced by

television– The cinema has not been replaced by

television or by video-cassettes

BROADCASTING

ADVANTAGES• delivers high quality video & audio services

simultaneously to millions of users• huge installed base of receivers• portable and mobile use, especially for radio• easy to use, cheap hardware

DISADVANTAGES• spectrum scarcity has limited the number of

broadcasters (but this problem will be eased by the introduction of digital broadcasting)

• little opportunity for interactivity

INTERNET

ADVANTAGES• offers interactive multimedia services, including

reasonable quality audio• two-way communication enables a multiplicity of

content providers• world-wide network, apparently “free” to users

DISADVANTAGES• expensive equipment is needed• it suffers from severe congestion• it cannot yet offer video services of useful quality• it can be difficult to use

BROADCASTING v. INTERNET

Capability

Internet

Broadcasting

AUDIO VIA THE INTERNET

• Does audio broadcasting via the Internet make sense for broadcasters or for listeners?

• Although there are millions of potential listeners on the Internet, typical audio servers can support only 100 - 500 simultaneous listeners

• The Internet can offer audio-on-demand services, in addition to re-broadcasting of radio services

• Few broadcasters would spend $80,000 on a new radio transmitter to serve 200 people, – but they do on the Internet!

ECONOMICS

• Broadcasting is a “public good” because the marginal cost of extra listeners or viewers is zero

• On the Internet:– broadcasters have to pay per hour for each

extra listener– each listener may have to pay additional costs

(telephone call charges and/or ISP charges)• Will advertisers pay per listener?• Are advertisers interested in reaching 125

listeners? Probably not, unless the individuals are attractive targets for their advertisements?

• Low bit rates are possible through reduction of:– picture size – quality (resolution, colour fidelity, S/N, etc.) – number of frames per second

• Video over the Internet uses all these techniques– typically 1/16 of full screen– poor image quality– poor portrayal of motion

• High quality, full-screen, full-motion video requires high bit rates

VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET

BROADCASTING VIA THE INTERNET

• Many broadcasters already use the Web to offer:– programme-related information – audio services (quality now OK)– video services (quality unacceptable)

• Broadcasters are attracted by the global reach of the Internet:– real benefits for international broadcasters – even little stations can be “global” players– listeners can hear their favourite radio station

wherever they are

ECONOMICS OF THE WEB

• There is no clear “business model”• Almost all web sites lose lots of money

– they generate little or no income – large web sites are expensive to develop and

to keep up-to-date• You may become a “victim of your own success”

– if your web site becomes very successful, you will have to pay for more hardware (e.g. servers) and for greater bandwidth

WEB LINKS ON TV

• Many TV programmes refer to URLs which offer additional information on a specific subject

• Problems with this approach– erroneous URLs– web sites can be overloaded by peak demand

• Solutions – direct access from digital TV (URLs are sent as

data, digital TVs include modems)– broadcast the web pages

PRICE TRENDS

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Year

Pri

ce p

er M

B (

UK

£) Factor of 2 in

18 months

Factor of 2 in12 months

Random-accessmemory

Hard disks

Broadcasters “Internet” services

InternetBroadcastdelivery

THE WINNERS?

?

THE FUTURE?

Capability

Internet

Broadcasting

CONCLUSIONS

• The Internet: – will not “kill” broadcasting – will become very important for delivery of

multimedia services & applications• TV and radio sets:

– will not be replaced by “traditional” computers– will have processing power and mass storage

(in effect, becoming “computers”)• Usability will be the biggest challenge

– users must be unaware of the fact they are using a computer

CONCLUSIONS

• Broadcasters (content providers) will become agnostic about delivery systems

• Traditional broadcasting will remain ubiquitous, but broadcasters will use the Internet (and its successors) to deliver new types of service

• Too many debates on the future of broadcasting concentrate on delivery systems:– a few customers are motivated by technology,

but most are attracted by “content” • Not enough debate about content creation