Transcript Internet - Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information

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 or DIVERGENCE?
Broadcasters
Broadcast
delivery
“Internet” services
Internet
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
Number of hosts (million)
Every washing machine will
have an Internet address!
50
40
30
Take-off around 1995?
20
10
0
1970
1980
1990
Date
Source: Network Wizards (http://www.nw.com)
2000
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– Radio broadcasting has not been replaced by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– The cinema has not been replaced by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
Broadcasting
Internet
Capability
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?
VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET
• 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
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
Price per MB (UK £)
100
Random-access
memory
Factor of 2 in
18 months
10
1
Factor of 2 in
12 months
Hard disks
0.1
0.01
1990
1992
1994
1996
Year
1998
2000
THE WINNERS?

“Internet” services
Broadcasters
Internet
Broadcast
delivery



?
THE FUTURE?
Broadcasting
Internet
Capability
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