Comments on: Consumers are stuck between ISPs and content giants in the battle for online video

By: Eliot Blades

Eliot Blades — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:00:04 +0000

I wrote about the multiple-points-of-failure in my master’s thesis a couple of years ago, which is now available in this blog

http://razoredmedia.blogspot.com/2012/02/factors-which-challenge-emergence-of.html

where I saw customer support issues and the resultant consumer confidence as a major issue. Writing from the UK I think things have improved since then, but I think businesses are still up against it when trying to convince users to start making regular one-off purchases for streaming content. I recently used a streaming service on a Roku-like box and the film would not restart correctly after pausing – a disastrous situation.

By: Dale Cooper

Dale Cooper — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:56:46 +0000

The simple answer to this is: because the customer doesn’t want to wait start watching the movie.

By: Kevin Marks

Kevin Marks — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:33:37 +0000

The real question is why they are streaming the file instead of downloading and caching it locally.

By: altondrew

altondrew — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:36:05 +0000

This article is a reminder of how simple life was before video streaming. I remember when we either went to a theater or watched a movie on TV a few months after its theatrical release. Oh. Wait a minute. We still have that option …

By: d0ubleaughtc0de

d0ubleaughtc0de — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:12:09 +0000

Most ‘stuttering’ of video is NOT the suppliers fault. It is the ISP’s. I havent buffered for a number of years but my ISP delivers its signal over a Fiber to the Home connection. Its lighting fast (ALL THE TIME NOT JUST NON-PEAK HOURS) and always on. Any of my family/friends who have a Utopia fiber connection (delivered via several different ISP’s) claim the same.

I hear all the time about how bad NetFlix was such and such night, or how one could barely play a YouTube and think its the providers issue. This is the only spot I feel for NetFlix. As one with an ACTUAL internet connection, that isnt based on the theory of ‘Turbo/Power Boost’ signal transmission, I can say the stuttering has NOTHING to do with NetFlix.

We are all starting to understand, via the free market delivering goods/services on the internet, that most current methods ISP’s utilise are so far behind what one ACTUALLY needs to view video trouble free. Start calling your ISP and demanding they deliver a signal that is big enough (and constant enough) for you to use the various things out there, properly and without headache.

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:03:18 +0000

You’re a lobbyist for Google. Why else would you keep mentioning their name?

By: Info Dave

Info Dave — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:08:45 +0000

As a recent cable cord cutter, I can relate to much of this. You have to want to do it, you must actively participate, and no matter what, you will have “issues”. The cable solution lost me when commercials were extended to 3-minute blocks, and content choice was reduced to hundreds of informercials.

I have no problem actively seeking out my entertainment. I do have a problem with problem resolution. There are too many points of failure. Is it the content provider? Is it my ISP? Is it my equipment? Nobody is willing to accept responsibility. And you know who receives the most blame. Me.

A la carte choice would kill 90% of what is on cable. Most channels can’t stand on their own merits. Most channels are owned by the cable providers. A la carte programming ain’t going to happen.

A point not discussed here is the exclusivity of sports. Sports entertainment is un-american, controlled by a virtual monopoly; ESPN and regional Fox Sports. Sports are vacating the broadcast channels and are becoming exclusive property of cable. MLB.com will sell me access to every team, except the team I want to watch. I can’t even listen to a radio stream of my NFL team. That content is blocked. Not the radio station, just the football games.

By: Brett Glass

Brett Glass — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:49:15 +0000

As usual, Stacey — essentially a lobbyist for GigaOm advertiser Google — brands ISPs as evildoers for expecting to be paid for what they do.

By: Martin Bergstrom

Martin Bergstrom — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:29:58 +0000

I’ve been thinking about this a bit as I recently did a project on Netflix Instant Streaming and it’s hard to see an easy solution. I think you can take heart in a couple things though: First, the a la carte fight is one they may lose sooner rather than later and I’ve heard some rumblings that Pay TV packages may begin allowing customers more personalized choices in bundles. We’re on the the edge right now, but I think that the moment one company breaks ahead of the others in this, we’ll see a rapid flurry of changes.

The second thing though is much more general and I wish I had some rumors to go on, but video streaming is still in its relative infancy. This means that there are going to be a lot of companies jockeying for top positions and things will be messy, but it will likely calm down in the rather near future. It may take a couple mergers or strategic partnerships, but the demand is there and since none of these companies benefit from illegal downloads (which users will turn to if the legal options are too arduous) I think that we will start to see some better cooperation and coordination soon. It may take them a while to figure out the optimal way to pursue this, but even some low revenues are better than sacrificing consumer demand to illegal markets.

By: Martin Bergstrom

Martin Bergstrom — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 20:26:50 +0000