Internet TVs and Moto GP - WSBK Subscriptions

[Rock]

Researching new TVs and would love to drop Comca$t. Any input on pros/cons to internet TVs?

I know a Moto GP subscription is available but what about WSBK?

Thanks for your input.

Rock

[wsuduc]

Rock, I have no first hand knowledge on this but have done a fair bit of research on how to pull this off.

Best solution I have come up with is not to rely on the internet capabilities of the TV but to get a media center of some sorts. I like the idea of a mac mini plugged into your TV. There are PC based solutions out there as well, but I am a mac guy so I gravitate to the mac mini side of things. There is the small problem with controling the mini and there are wireless remotes that act like a mouse to navigate the system.

There are programs that incorporate everythign into a cable style menu system like Boxee, Plex, and a few others.

With this solution you can network it all together and have access to music, movies, online content, and use online content like Hulu, netflix, and all the other online providers.

I guess it isn't 100% there, but it is doable. It all depends on your watching habits and your level of nerd-dom. It would work for me personally, however with the Mrs. and a daughter it gets a little more complicated.

[Heathbert]

Windows Media Center is pretty slick it's included in Windows 7 Home Premium, Ultimate, Professional, and Enterprise; and in Windows Vista Home Premium and Ultimate.

If you have a newer TV with various inputs and a pc with two video outs, you can use the TV as a second monitor and watch the Media Center stuff on the big screen

You can also use XBOX 360 to access the Media Center on your TV via a wired or wireless home network.

I use both methods in the bedroom, and an XBOX in the family room.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...t/default.aspx

[Mitch]

I'm curious about this too. (as Comcast appears to be getiing worse)

Does F1 have a subscription service?

Who do you guys without Comcast like for internet service?

[Heathbert]

Originally Posted by Mitch

I'm curious about this too. (as Comcast appears to be getiing worse)

Does F1 have a subscription service?

Who do you guys without Comcast like for internet service?

We HAD Verizon FiOS. July 1, Frontier took it over. I shudder to think what the future holds with them. But for now, I'm rockin' 25mbs up 15mbs down speed (may go to 35/35 before I don't have the option) no monthly cap and have only had it go down once due to someone cutting the fiber.

I don't think F1 has a subscription service, though that does suprise me. Ecclestone isn't one to pass up a buck.

[fseven]

Well, now you're talking my core expertise as my job is the technology side of digital media distribution for the Mouse. Here is my 2 cents.

Cord cutting is an interesting thing. My wife and I did it about 2 1/2 years ago and haven't really looked back. When we did this, there really wasn't one truly good single solution. We used a PC for watching some content, and an Apple TV for others. Even today, from an insider's perspective, it's still a little difficult to get away with a single box for all online content.

Advantages of a Window's-based system:
Most web-based video applications work off of Flash and Flash Stream. Adobe has leveraged the ability to tap into modern hardware acceleration, meaning the video experience for sites such as Hulu tend to be better on a PC than a Mac. This is mainly due to the high CPU requirements for decoding the video on the Mac. The same goes for Netflix, as the web version uses Silverlight (due to Windows DRM requirements). Once again, hardware acceleration on the Mac is non-existent.

Additionally, most new PC motherboards are coming with HDMI out ports, which will give you a true HDMI connection to your TV set.

Lastly, some companies, such as Disney, are considering output protection of their content for online distribution. If you're not familiar with output protection, it basically means that you can't put a piece of hardware/software between the file and what is decoding the file to make a copy and distribute it yourself. Think burning a CD to MP3. While I'm not a fan of this, personally (and this is just me speaking personally), it is something the industry is considering. Why is all of this important? Because currenly Mac OS does not support HDCP output protection. If the light gets flipped on, it could leave some Mac users in the dark. Since many of our executives USE Mac, output protection hasn't gotten too far at the moment.

Advantages of Mac-based
iTunes (if you use it). Renting movies on iTunes is great, especially with their HD collection. Although, admittedly, I wish that they would start using their streaming technology that they use for iPhone/iPod. They, to date, have not. The user interface is very nice, and it does make for a nice "lean-back" experience.

Roku/XBox/Connected TVs
These are all great solutions, but for very explicit purposes. Not all services are rolled out onto these devices, and you basically get what they offer (unlike a browser experience). Where these devices have an advantage, though, is their fast start-up times and, like the Mac, the "lean-back" experience.

Where the industry is heading
Most of the media industry is still trying to figure out monetization models. ESPN (owned by Disney) uses an affiliate model, much like their broadcast version. Basically, you are allowed to access ESPN3 if you have Comcast, Verizon or a few other internet providers. This is great for the user of the service as it's free, but it's kind of a pain at the same time because you have specific choices of ISPs if you want to go this route.

Sites like MotoGP and now Hulu are looking toward subscription-based models. These are good in that the user can pick, a la carte, what services they want. However, if not careful, they could end up spending way more money because of different pricing models (MotoGP being annual, while Hulu premium is monthly, etc).

There is also a push from our favorite, Comcast, to restrict certain content to only users who have subscribed to their cable services. This is basically their attempt to keep their pockets full as people begin to sever the cord. This is what their "xFinity" and TV Everywhere projects are all about. I, personally, really hate this idea because it REALLY screws us, the users.

As for technology, there is some play in the industry for multicasting over the intertubes. Without divulging too much detail at this time, here is a general overview. Currently, the major cost of delivering content to end users online is that it is a singlecast model. For each user who wants to watch a file, that user has to contact a server and the server has to deliver it up to the user. This is an expensive transaction, and it gets exponential as the number of users increases - more servers need to come online, a larger data delivery pipe needs to be purchased, etc. Broadcast models are multicast - they are sent out from the broadcaster to the stations, and anyone subscribed to that station can watch it. That means that delivery costs are capped regardless of the number of views. Disney's delivery cost for an episode of Lost broadcast on ABC is capped to a certain amount, but for each user watching it on abc.com, that cost continues to grow. It's one of the reasons currently why ad-supported models aren't working so well.

In the not so distant future, however, this could be solved. The solution is very similar to todays multicasting options with television stations, but based more around ISPs and content delivery network cachings. It means that the cost of delivery could be lowered, even while the quality of video is increased dramatically.

All of this is said because it's really up in the air on where the industry is going to land. We currently have a number of efforts underway to figure out the best paths to take, and everyone from Walt Disney Studios to ABC Television group are experimenting constantly.

That said, I wouldn't invest heavily on an end-all-be-all device. Get what you think you are most comfortable with now, with the idea that you will most likely need to upgrade within the next year to three. These are based on a lot of different market factors. But definitely drop cable like the parasite that it is. (Even now, I say that to my own detriment due to ESPN's business model and the cash cow that it is for Micky)

As for internet service, if you can get it, go with Verizon's FiOS service. Fiber is blazing fast! Ironically, the next best service I've had luck with is Comcast. We have used Qwest, but their delivery speeds for online media were pretty appalling for us in Seattle. I don't know if it was because we were too far from the hub or what. Where we would have to wait about 30 to 45 minutes to start watching a video on Qwest, we could do so with Comcast in about 2 to 3 minutes. Ridiculous difference. That said, ask around in your area. Qwest speeds are dependent upon your distance from the data hub and your house. The farther you are, the worse off your connection is. If you are really close to the hub, then you could have a great connection. Likewise, Comcast is affected by the number of people on their hub. Speeds can be drastically reduced from the advertised one if their hub is overloaded.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation. And it was probably way more than what you were asking for. But I thought it would be interesting for people to have a view from someone in the industry.

[steveg]

To get F1 and MotoGP, I've been using the site below this season:

atdhe.net

I've mostly used it for F1, but it should work for MotoGP also.

It's not perfect but I've not missed a race yet (I did miss one qualifying when it wouldn't load).

The downside is you have to watch them live and the quality isn't great. It's fine for a laptop but less so for a TV.

Trust me, you feel like a REAL FAN when you're waking up at 5am!!!

On the upside, for F1 it's the BBC broadcast you will end up migrating to and it's FAR SUPERIOR TO THE U.S. BROADCAST, ESPECIALLY FOR QUALIFYING! Once you get used to the BBC version, you'll dislike the Speed version even more.

steve

[Rock]

Thanks you guys for the great responses. You can always count on a great knowledge base here.

Guess I'll have to weight the options/cost and see which way to go.

Rock

[TCS]

Thanks for the insider perspective fseven. I really enjoyed reading this! The future of how consumers receive home entertainment is really exciting. It will surely look very different in 5 years than it does today.

Originally Posted by fseven

Well, now you're talking my core expertise as my job is the technology side of digital media distribution for the Mouse. Here is my 2 cents......