Talk:Internet television
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet. For more information, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the class scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
watch all tv channels at www.onlinetvlinks.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.128.220 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fan site
 |
This article or section resembles a fan site. Please help improve this article by removing excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links.(December 2007) |
From the article. I am sure this is not a fan site, but a very important site for people that cannot see TV (i.e from his/her origin country) in the terrestrial TV. --Mac 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This article does not resemble a fan site and the tag will be removed 70.173.153.24 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] IPTV
IPTV should remain alone. Its implications are more than iTV. It's quite possible, for example, that some will use IPTV in a "broadcast" mode with no interactivity at all. We do not know in the U.S. how television viewers will react to iTV because we're not there yet except for PPV, DVRs, etc. The assumption that IPTV will demand interactive television from its users is questionable at the very least.
[edit] IPTV is a technology, Internet TV is one implementation of this technology
IPTV is actually a wide technology, of transporting television content (e.g. video) over IP networks. It has several implementations.
In the past 3-4 years, many telephone companies worldwide launched IPTV commercial services, with the goal to provide digital TV for residential consumers, competing with satellite and cable digital TV. In some countries, this application of the IPTV technology is known as TVoDSL. Most of these services relies on a set top box directly connected to a TV (no computer required).
Internet Television, is another application of IPTV technology, which exists for many years through several TV companies broadcasting their shows over the web using various technologies. Most of these services are computer based.
Both applications are strongly different, both in terms of service (computer based vs. set top box), and in term of implementation and technology. Typically, Internet TV is based on unicast streaming using media players applications. IPTV is usually in a closed environment, and relies on multicast streaming (using IGMP and/or PIM SSM network protocols).
In that regard, Internet Television could actually be a sub-article of IPTV.
Kindmartin 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I agree in general, but I really think that the main difference comes from the fact IPTV is now a telco's service for his customers only and Internet TV is more applicable for content distribution across several Telcos, ISP (as is Internet...). Services as Zattoo may be not allow access from diferents areas / countries but is in essential Internet TV, as they not own the last mile (to home) access network.
Regarding with IP multicast, there are Internet backbonnes that already support it, and in the future this tecnology will be deployed in more ISP.
Is not difficult imagine in 5 years standard definition, near DVD quality TV channels Multicasting from origin servers using Source Specific Multicast (SSM) trough Internet, as the same way you get now a web page. But as this channels will consume more than the 20 - 50 kb/s per broadband access the problem to solve will translate to the access network, not the IP Multicast backbonne.
[edit] The name that has been adopted by the media
User:DianaSousa
Reading the news availabe about recent Internet TV developments I've noticed the media already chose the term "IPTV" to refer to Internet TV services. I don't see much point in keeping them separated here when to the general audience IPTV already "means" TV services distributed over the internet.
So one hypothesis is to merge both articles and explain that IPTV doesn't mean "only" Internet TV.
The other hypothesis is to rename the Internet television article to IPTV and rename the IPTV article maybe to Internet Protocol Video Distribution (IPVD). I noticed many so-called IPTV websites are essencially a library of VoD. Is there any sense in calling them TV, when for the average person Tv means a different thing, it's more like the service they are used to get from regular cable / satellite / terrestrial TV providers.
[edit] Technical versus general understanding
I think we should keep IPTV and Internet TV as separate articles, because both reflect different approaches in the general understaning:
- Internet TV is understood as TV channels delivered over the public Internet
- IPTV is understood as a TV service (including broadcast TV, PayTV, VoD) delivered over a closed network (generally a telco operator's network)
but definately reference them together
Technically , indeed both are TV content transported within the IP protocol, but that is about all that is common. In fact, some of the differentiating aspects are:
- Quality of service which cannot be guaranteed on the public Internet
- Codecs: MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 for IPTV versus Microsoft VC-1 for Internet TV
- Decoders: SetTopBoxes for IPTV versus Microsoft Media Player for Internet TV
- Digital rights management: propriatary for IPTV versus Microsoft DRM for Internet TV
- Contractual relationship: consumer to telco for IPTV versus consumer to content owner/ content retailer for Internet TV
I agree with Stefano's view on the long term, all content will in the future be available everywhere over the Internet... but this is not the case today and this will not be the case tomorrow.
[edit] This has to deal with the future organisation of the net
StefanoQuintarelli See debate in Italy on these issues coordinated by Leonardo Chiariglione (leader of the MPEG group) in the dmin.it forum.
Indeed IPTV is to Internet TV as IP is to the Internet. (and as IPRadio is to the Internet Radio, and as IPWeb is to the Internet Web).
Would you think of an IPradio on a network different than the Internet ?
10 years ago, when web pages had just gray backgrounds, and bandwidth was scarce for audio transmission, it would have made sense.
Moore's law has brought down the cost of devices which in turn have become more powerful and from the 300bps back in 1987, DSL2 reaches 20Mbps on the same wire with similar investment costs (for telco companies and users on their respective sides).
Would you think of an IPTV on a network different than the Internet ? As today, yes, because we are told that in order to pay for network upgrades, operators must increase revenues by selling content.
So they want to keep the two issues separated.
But the Internet has evolved and now we have radio (everywhere) and (if we don't close it) will evolve and we will have video (everywhere).
This is the key part.
must increase revenues BY selling content
My take (and Andrew Odlyzko's as well, see Telecom Dogmas) is that they can increase revenue by selling more capacity to users that demand it.
So my position is that
- IPTV without the Internet is a Paradigm supported by (some) majors and telco operators in order to define a separate network from the internet where video content provision and fruition are strictly controlled limiting the possibility of Internet interoperability and
- Internet Television is a paradigm of transporting video content over the internet and that
- Internet Television and IPTV rely on base technology which (may eventually) include streaming, QoS management, set-top boxes, accounting and billing systems, interactivity support, video servers, network caches, etc.
[edit] xx
I think it is a mistake to merge subjects. IPTV does not necessarily mean that you are using the Internet to deliver your TV content.
[edit] BBC iMP link
I have removed this link because the BBC iMP is only available to people located in the UK, and we are an international encyclopedia, SqueakBox 17:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The mature one
Base on my experience, PPLive.com is the best one so far though it focus on Chinese audience.
[edit] Suggestion
"the trend is clear until people lose their appetite for faster internet connections."
Shouldn't this be "the trend is clear UNLESS people lose their appetite for..."?
[edit] Neologisms
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, the author of IPTV Needs a New Name - How about "NewTube" (October 2005) has added the term "NewTube" into this article by introducing the sentence "Alternative names include: Vlogging, Vodcasting, Vodcatching and the Newtube." However, I modified the sentence because there were problems:
- Vodcatching - gets less than 10 unique Google hits. Not really used.
- NewTube - this term gets less than 150 Google hits, compared to vlog (5,760,000), vcast (87,900), vidcast (566,000), vodcast (1,810,000). It seems to stem mostly from Charles' article, mirrors, and unrelated hits. However, advocating neologisms is not encouraged by Wikipedia policy ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox" -WP:NOT, WP:NEO).
- Vodcasting, Vlogging: I think Internet TV is different, while vodcasting and vlogging are the same thing. Whether vodcasting, vlogging, and internet tv refer to the same thing or not is being debated at the bottom of Talk:Vlog.
—Tokek 15:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging IPTV & Internet Television
This is such a fledgling area, so we need to be really clear on what Internet TV is. And the 2 are almost synonymous - any slight differences in usage could be clearly explained.
I'd prefer it to go under Internet Television as I think it will be the popular name for it.. but that's just guess work on my part. I'm basing that on "SDTV" being pretty unpopular, and people calling it "Digital TV". Though perhaps "HDTV" is a better example, which is a name many people do use.
What do you think of merging? Support? Objections? Greg 04:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- IPTV and Internet TV should be kept separate. IPTV can delivered over (and is mostly associated with) a closed network while Internet TV is obviously delivered over the public Internet. One describes the protocol while the other the delivery method. A very clear distinction in my mind. —Unsigned comment by 66.250.5.66
-
- Makes sense to me - IPTV is to Internet TV as IP is to the Internet. Perhaps the articles need re-writing with this distinction in mind. For example, the section on "Technologies used for Internet television" would go under IPTV. I vote to keep the articles separate. Alf Boggis 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the votes guys, and I'm tending to agree. The 2 articles should go hand-in-hand though I think. Also, the differences between IPTV and Internet TV are not made clear in the article at the moment. Greg 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, the more I write on either of these articles, the more uncertain I am of WHICH article to put something in. For instance - everything about interactivity & video-on-demand is true of IPTV, so it belongs there. But it's a major factor in Internet TV. I still consider it a grey area - but I'm wondering if a single article on both is better, yet still making very clear the differences between the 2. Hmmm. Greg 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe there is a clear distinction between IPTV and Internet Television.
IPTV is used in the telecommunications sector for delivering TV services over a service provider network using the IP protocol. It is used by DSL providers and Mobile (UMTS) providers to provide video based services to their subscribers for a fee. They are geographically constraint by the footprint of the service provider, because it is thightly linked to infrastructure to provide QOS in the access network. It is a way to compete with cable and satellite TV providers and wants to offer comparable or better image quality.
Internet TV is a way to provide video to users worldwide by content owners that don't own telecommunication infrastructure. Services are offered over the public Internet often free. Image quality is currently often weaker and no QoS is provided.--KoenPeeters 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My understanding (which many be wrong) is that:
- IP TV is a stream/signal designed to be transferred from broadcaster to end user over the internet
- Broadband TV is a service from, usually, a commercial operator to broadcast TV signals/stations to the end user using IP TV technology. e.g. NOW Broadband TV in Hong Kong, which broadcasts channels that, in North America, would usually be broadcast via Cable TV. The technology is such that there is usually a decoder which decodes the signal and outputs a data stream that enables watching of the programmes on a television set (although people can hook things up to watch on their computer if they so wish). Broadband TV subscriptions usually (and indeed usually must include, for TV output quality purposes) a 'high-speed' broadband connection, such as 10mbs - hence broadband TV providers, where they exist in the world, are usually heavily involved in broadband connectivity as well - e.g. NOW Broadband TV in Hong Kong is an operating unit of the local telephone company PCCW.
- Internet television is the subset of IP TV broadcasting that is not Broadband TV. i.e. it's everything else, and signals are not usually encoded, and programmes are generally designed to be watched on a computer screen (although people can hook things up to their TV set via a computer if they so wish).
--Ordew 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with above definitions from Ordew. Within the broadcast industry the term IPTV is being used to describe TV stream/signal from Broadcaster to end user using Internet Protocol. It does not necessarily travel over the Internet. So Broadband TV and Internet TV, together with "IPTV" in the common usage by the broadcast industry, are all subsets of IPTV with its true meaning of Internet Protocol Televsion.
The technical term IPTV should be distinct from the various flavours of IPTV that the technology has produced.
--[J M Rackowe] 21:14, 27 Oct 2006
[edit] Related topics, but not the same
IPTV is different from Internet TV, This would be an incorrect statement if considered in totality. Internet TV is one way of implementing IPTV (or is it the other way round? :-) ). So the topics are definitely related, overlapping, but lets keep a more broader vision in perspective. IPTV is not Internet TV. My 2 cents.
IPTV is a general term. The use of IP (Internet Protocol) as a delivery medium for television or audio-visual media does NOT restrict IPTV to transmission over the Internet. Check netvue.co.uk for non-Internet examples. Internet Television is what it says it is. Internet Television may be regraded as a sub-set of IPTV. The two terms have to be clearly differentiated.
[edit] =
They are 2 seperate types of viewing media, i work in this business. Thanks,
[edit] Not quite the same
IPTV and iTV are not the same. While they both use the IP for their delivery, an IPTV network can be setup using the same protocols, yet be completely disjoint from the Internet, and having proprietary DRM mechanisms plugged into it to realize the business models of the provider. It is possible to have an IPTV broadband connection which is employed only for providing TV content and not capable of browsing the Internet in general
[edit] Alternative Distinction
Despite the mis-use of the term IPTV to describe closed networks, I think internet TV still counts within IPTV as internet TV uses internet protocol.
I propose that within IPTV, a ditinction be made between "closed network" IPTV (such as with cable, satellite) and "public internet" TV (such as YouTube). Both are IPTV, but they are fundamentally different concepts as far as broadcast of content goes. Andrew Drake 12:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Keep the definitions separate
I think the useage models are very distinct between Internet TV and IPTV. Where as Internet TV is about using the public Internet to deliver TV like media content, the IPTV is a technology that vendors and carriers deploy to provide a replacement for Cable TV, often using a "Broadcasting model" (watch it when being broadcast). The business model for each definition is so different, the names should be kept in separate articles on Wikipedia, even if the technology appears similar.
While you can provide Video on demand over an IPTV system, it is still restricted to the content a Network provider may offer in a closed system. The Internet TV also supports Video on demand, but the content is open to any members of the public Internet.
The use of the term for IPTV seems to generally imply the use of a set top box, similar to the usage model the cable TV companies deploy. This fits the closed network model. Internet TV at the moment is most likely to be displayed on a PC.
Also an IPTV output is a deterministic stream. Internet Television has a conotation of streaming video to a computer. These will likely be short form content such as a news video clip. (M. Mifflin).
Closed system versus Open system is quite a difference, so please keep the articles unique, but with cross links.
[edit] Internet TV definition needed - IPTV should be kept separate
I propose that we tighten the discussion into a definition of Internet TV that effectively describes the category. IPTV can be then differentiated accordingly. I have been developing IPTV and Internet-based television technology solutions for almost 9 years, and these two terms have inexplicable differentiation in the industry.
Internet TV is used broadly to encompass digital video on the internet in the form of channels or shows. Podcasts, Youtube channels, googlevideo, and even websites that display video segments or "episodes" have been called and classified as "internet tv". There needs to be constraints around how to classify something as just video on the internet versus internet television. If I make a video for a product daily and put it on Cnet, and call it a dialy show, is it internet tv? How about my home video that I upload to youtube, is that internet tv? What about watching Zee TV on a website based service like Planetvu or JumpTV that streams the video from a head end in the middle east to a content delivery network like vitalstream for delivery to end users? The phrase "Internet TV" is clearly broadly used and has many connotations. It should be defined as such, and agreed upon by not only professionals in the industry, but by laymen and users of these services, hopefully here on wikipedia.
In my opinion, IPTV is the deliverance of broadcast television via video streaming technology from a central head-end location to a user or group of users through the use of the internet or by using either TCP/IP or UDP/IP technology. I believe that the IPTV section on Wikipedia is an accurate definition and represents specific details to define IPTV's boundaries and scope. It should be kept separate from Internet TV because they cover two similar concepts, but IPTV isn't internet TV, and internet TV isn't IPTV.
-- nviusguy
[edit] NBC Rewind
Recently, NBC has been uploading episodes of some of their shows to their website. They have even uploaded entire half seasons of Heroes and Friday Night Lights after they went on hiatus. Does this count as internet TV? - INH 8: 28 PM 12/6/2006
No that's not really internet tv. They're just internet videos, like youtube type videos. FredZygle 8: 08 AM 12/18/2006
[edit] IPTV and Internet TV are different but may merge
I agree with all the previous comments about the difference between IPTV and Internet TV. In general, IPTV offerings are offered on discrete service provider networks. This is usually not specifically (or not just) to maintain a walled garden of content, but to be able to manage QoS and maintain a known end-to-end environment. For Service Providers aiming at high quality broadband content, delivering over an unknown network is just not practical. At the moment.
However, in time we may see end-to-end QoS, managed home networks, universal DRM. It may become more practical to achieve a managed quality over the open Internet. Then the difference between IPTV and Internet TV might largely disappear. (Although Service Providers will still look to bundle triple/quad-play packages.) In my view the most of the technologies (codecs, applications etc) are similar.
My vote: keep separate topics - for now at any rate - but cross reference.
Simongarrett 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There is an official Definition by ITU
Anyhow I see no value to discuss wheather its good or bad, but there already put some people brain into, and i think it states quite cleary a position that no one needs to discuss any longer. So Checkout ITU-ORganisation http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/IPTV/docs/iptv034e.doc and lets use brain for endless set of undiscussed topics
Dieter Huelskamp 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There is a difference between IP and Internet
It doesn't matter wether you are talking about IP based Radio, TV, or any other service, just because it is IP based, doesn't make it Internet Based. For example, you can run an IPTV server on a DSL network, you can run it on a Cable Network, or you can run it on a WAN (such as the internet). DTVB could also be sent over an ethernet network via UDP, but this wouldn't make it internet TV either.
Yes, IPTV can be run over the internet, but it is definately not the same thing as 'internet tv'. The internet is merely the infrastructure that the service is operating under. In my opinion - the two topics should most definately be kept seperate.
[edit] It was the smart TV
It was the new technology for everyone. Smart Tv is the one product you will choose from other product. Smart TV are include with TV and PC. So everbody can download internet from Smart Tv. Everyone will love it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.93.8.190 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 March 2007.
[edit] What is the diffence between Internet and Internet Protocol?
I still don't see the difference between the terms Internet and Internet Protocol. IP is simply the way that you access the internet. Therefore the terms IPTV and Internet TV have no difference from one another.
Even if people think Internet and Internet Protocol are different, I'll quote from the two articles: "The playback of IPTV requires either a personal computer or a "set-top box" connected to a TV." and "...IPTV is more general than Internet TV. ... in that case, IPTV in just a part of Internet television."
Obviously the second quote, coming from Internet TV is contradictory, showing they should be merged, or at least edited.
That's my two cents.
XPMaster 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)XPMaster
[edit] Internet TV vs IPTV
Internet TV is the same as what the industry is calling Broadband TV this differs from IPTV (TelcoTV) as follows
- Broadband TV represents a horizontal market, where typically devices are sold, which connect to any ISP and access video based entertainment over the Internet
- These are typcially PCs as access devices and Web Sites as servers, but some "players" such as Joost, Win Amp and others access entertainment direct
- broadband TV therefore represents the "free to air" model of traditional TV broadcasting
- The quality of Broadband TV is variable, depending on bandwidth available, client technology and server loads.
- IPTV represents a vertical market, where a single operator will acquire content rights, have a deployment network and supply a consumer device in the home, often based on a PAY TV or subscription model
- This is akin to satellite and cable pay TV operations, where an explicit network is used as a distribution mechanism for TV
- Investments in network infrastructure for IPTV operators make them different from Internet (or broadband) TV:
- Often IPTV video will be delivered using dedicated hardware in the Telco exchanges and network
- Bandwidth assigned to IPTV may not actually be visible to the end user as "internet" bandwidth
- IPTV operators offer a QOS (Quality of Service) akin to broadcast TV services
Ian Valentine 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Advertising
Why is a large chunk of this article *still* a listing of providers, many of which are so tiny they are completely insignificant? I'm going to cut this list down to the popular ones unless someone can come up with a reason why every tiny Chinese company looking to make a buck streaming American TV should have a listing here. SHARD 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have cleaned the article and tagged it for further cleanup. -SHARD 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've completely removed the "History" section, because it had only one entry of actual history. Hopefully I won't have to edit war for too long to keep it out.--Boffob 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I have created a site around Internet TV I was wondering if i could add this to the external links section i am fully aware that i dont get ant SEO for this or any PR or anything like that (i am not trying to do that i know the wiki is not simply a link dumping ground), mysite isnt selling anything its a comprehensive well put together collection of free stream channels from around the world url http://www.ezwebtv.com. currently showing over 1000 channels from broadcasters all of the world, Thanks for taking the time to review my site. --ozjames
[edit] IPTV is a specific technology, Internet TV is totally different
IPTV operates within walled gardens, employing point-to-point delivery, eg Fios, BT Vision, Imagenio. Specifically, it always involves a set top box (STB).
Internet TV is video content that is openly available on any internet connection and should be browsable via a web browser and viewable using a media player object.
Internet TV largely uses the Flash (Sorensen/On2) and Windows Media (VC1) codecs, with some H.264/MPEG4 content, whereas IPTV almost exclusively uses MPEG2 content, with some MPEG4 now coming online.
The terms 'TV over IP' or 'TV on IP' is the catch all, covering packet based delivery to mobiles, IPTV, internet tv (broadband tv), etc.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.194.237.238 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Inconsistent Deletion policy
Babalooey 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Babalooey Babalooey 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This listing has recently been butchered removing the history and showing a great deal of bias in allowing links to specific sites and obviously a lot of biased editing as to Internet TV sites that get acknowledgement. If this is listed as a fan site, then shouldn't the fans be allowed to list links that represent the topic?
- I deleted the history section on the ground that there was no history to speak of. One notable event, the first full service internet TV, then four or five badly listed local launches of little to no notability. Most of the section was just a long list of companies, company specific technology or websites. That's not history, it's nothing more than commercial promotion, and as such has no place on Wikipedia.--Boffob 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Babalooey 19:56, 2 May 2007 Boffob - you should also remove the following from the page as they are similar if not the same. You are showing incredible bias in your deletions. In violation if the no1 rule of Wikipedia,... that "A Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]". SO if you remove one listing that points to a provider of tlevision service from this page then you should equally point to all or point to none. How about removal of the ones below from ==See also== :
Web TV For more about moving regular pay-tv channels to internet-based delivery
P2PTV For more about Peer to Peer () internet TV
Joost Skype's founders new IPTV venture
Zattoo Free Peer to Peer internet TV with licensed European and international channels
Finally, you state "..it's nothing more than commercial promotion, and as such has no place on Wikipedia.." There are a multitude of pages in Wikipedia that are long lists of "commercial promotion". For exampe look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_Thailand
and as just one of many such pages it shows tremendous inconsistency in your statement and as such makes it indefensible. It just seems that there are enough inconsistent Wikipedia guidelines that can be pulled out of the broad editing guidelines so there can be any number of justifications used by any editor for defending a biased editorial action where you've rather blatantly removed some commercial references and left others. Will you delete them all? Babalooey 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Babalooey
- The list of television stations in Thailand happens to be what it says it is, unlike the removed "history" section of this article. As far as I know it also conforms to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, just like the "See also" section of this article.--Boffob 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] p2p technology
I'm not so fussed about the use of acronyms. To me internet TV means simply TV delivered over the internet. This could be streaming or on demand, and could be delivered by unicast or multicast or via a peer to peer network. Regarding p2p networks there are several p2p based systems emerging - e.g Joost, and also the BBC iPlayer and the Channel 4 offering. I'm concerned that some of these are a bit dubious in their software offerings - several based on Kontiki software seem to generate significant problems for end users. Also the specifications of some of these systems seem to leave a lot to be desired right now. Apart from situations where one has actually missed a broadcast, some of the systems (e.g 4OD) take longer to download a programme than it takes to watch it. Lastly, in some sense Internet TV has been around for more years than many think. Some commercial digital TV operators use internet protocols and dedicated networks, as do some network providers. For example, Telia in Sweden has been using dedicated networks for TV distribution since before 2000. It may be that some clarification should be made between the use of internet protocols and the use of the public internet for TV distribution.
Regarding networks, earlier use of dedicated networks provided better guarantees of reliability, and better quality control (shorter delays, low jitter etc.), but gradually what we consider to be the public network will acquire many of these characteristics.
Regarding TV, it may be important not to get too hung up on particular standards, or on who provides the services. I see no reason why in the long term that the display standards should dictate what we call TV. There will be convergence between computer displays and TV devices, and it'll take some time before these are seen as essentially the same.
I'm sure that some of the big media providers would like to claim a monopoly on TV distribution, but I see that it's perfectly possible that small TV operators will emerge, and these should also be considered to be providing internet TV.
The article could reflect some of these issues. David Martland 10:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
As internet television is in its infancy, it is important for readers to look at various services under development. Innovation will come from private companies trying to capitalize on new technologies. Please do not delete these important external links.
64.65.208.51 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Broadband TV and Internet TV?
My vote is "No."
Internet TV is not the same as Broadband TV.
Loosely speaking, "Internet TV" is a product, the "broadband TV" is a technology.
More accurately, "broadband TV" is TV technology that is "broadband," and "Internet TV" is a class of services that is currently being offered at various web sites on the Internet. The "Internet TV" article has (in my opinion) an excellent and approprioately concise description of this class of service.
"Broadband TV" is the same thing as "high bandwidth TV." In the early days of video over the Internet, the pictures came through frame by frame; one picture every .5 to 2 seconds. It was almost more like watching a series of still shots that watching a moving picture. When AT&T calls their product "Broadband TV" what they mean is that the experience is more like watching a high resolution color movie with high quality synchronized audio than like watching the early moving picture (video) technology on the Internet. In other words, "Broadband," in the popular, non-technical understanding of the word, is synonymous with "high quality."
There are notes at the top of the Wikipedia "Intelnet TV" and "Broadband TV" web pages saying that these pages are considered being merged and inviting comments. I could not find a section on this topic so I started this section. Maybe the decision has already been made NOT to merge the two articles. That would be nice. I would not mind if the misleading article on "Broadband TV" were deleted.
So what does everybody else think? You don't have to start a new section if you don't want to. You can put your comments right here in this section.
DeaconJohnFairfax (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
