What is the future of web video? How long until you can watch web video on yout TV? Visit WebProNews for more information.

Convergence. Media center PCs are in living rooms, hooked up to large screen TVs (plasma displays, lcd displays, crts even) with wirless keyboards, mice, and other input devices, along with dobly digital surround, high-speed Internet for streaming that video in. Why get off the couch for web video?

I think the cable companies will do as much as they can to stifle the growth in this market, but it is inevitable that it will happen in my opinion. Today's consumer is more savvy on maximizing time, and they don't want to wait for a show, they want it when they want it, how they want it. Web video will give them that, eventually, and there is an entirely new advertising revenue stream waiting for enterprising individuals and entities to tap into. Can you imagine Adsense for Video - your ad being inserted into any one of a thousand videos streaming realtime across the Internet to diverse homes, businesses and even mobile users sitting on the T-Mobile Hot Spot at Starbucks.

That's power right there.

I have been using a system for almost a year now that supports longer video play back. And our "set top" boxes will be coming out during the first quarter of 07. Not only that, but it's not just about watching "other peoples' content" but creating our own as well.
For anyone that is interested in anything pertaining to digital media online, It's worth investigating.
The future of the Internet IS streaming media. For pleasure, communication and promotion.

Just my 2 cents,
Angela

__________________
Online Streaming Media--The system does everything for you. Record, save and publish your own media content.
http://vmdirect.com/teamb

The future of web video ??
Ask Google.
Advertising revenue, video quality and longer shows ?
Some of the very low end productions on youtube have received MILLIONS... yes Millions of views.
#1 2 kids, very low quality video and 16 MILLION views. Cost about $5 for the tape?
I just pulled this up randomly here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XxI-hvPRRA


59680 ratings
Save to Favorites
Add to Groups
Share Video
Post Video
Flag as Inappropriate
Views: 16,925,237
|
Comments: 22812
|
Favorited: 56624 times
|
more stats...
There are 14 honors for this video

This is just a random example...16 mil views in 1 year is worth big$$$ for advertisers.

#2 NBC is trying to get into the internet video market also.
Here is a link to a video I have posted for the music video contest.
They provided the music and I put the content together.
Mine is G rated, a dog sled racing video.
please comment if you can.
You can watch what you want when you want and show your friends,
You can watch TV from other countries, baseball and sports events on the internet.Here is the link.
http://www.itsyourshowtv.com/669.shtml
I know of a company that is selling internet TV channels with full support.
I could go on but I won't.
pat C

The future of video over the Internet in my opinion is very perdictable. For those of us who have been watching the page view behaviors of ONLINE video viewers daily for years, we know some key secrets regarding the direction video is moving in.

I sit here and have a website that can trace every page my viewers are on and for how long they are on that page. I can also trace how long they watch each video. I think the real question is "what type of videos will people watch online." As TV's get bigger, people are moving to bigger and bigger TV sets. When Internet starts providing VIDEOS on my big screen with one or two clicks of my remote, then we will be subscribing to Internet video portals and watching films on the BIG SCREEN. This is the first time ONLINE MOTION PICTURES will be a HUGE HIT. Until then, people will continue to look for one of a kind videos that can't be seen on TELEVISION.

CONTENT CONTENT CONTENT. It's not who owns the most, but who has the best content designed for ONLINE deliverly.

Ted Trent
http://www.OutoftheCloset.TV

Way ahead of you...

I started this project in November 1999, when I directed, produced and hosted four live webcasted shows. Recently the project has taken on some new aspects, and will continue to indefinitely:

http://www.TalkShowThis.com
http://www.myspace.com/TalkShowThis

The changes are still coming, including archived, segmented shows that will be downloadable into multiple formats including iPod and DivX.

Seven years ago I tried to tell so-called web media executives about this idea. They laughed.

The best part of this, no budget. Only the cost of Mini DV tapes and blank DVD's. However, if anyone wants to jump on board with sponsorship, let me know. There is always room for polishing.

I've been preaching the effectiveness of web video since 1998. People laughed at me then and told me it would never happen.:-)

__________________
Ignite Your Site with Sound and Motion!
Make Your Marketing Memorable with Rich Media
http://www.wbcimaging.com
520-742-5780

The future of video on the net is huge and I have been in with the helloworld portal now for sometime time and it is absolutley amazing what the most beginner person can do with video...... let alone how the more advanced marketers and users can ake advantage of this product...

This market is huge and a vital service to add to any business...... I strongly recommend that you check out these two sites to find out about the digital media solution for your entire digial media collection....

www.vmdirect.com/mongrel
www.helloworld.com/mongrel

This opportunity as seriously changed my life and is providing huge growth for my businesses and is truly connecting people and changing lifes. That is the power of video..... that now the masses have this ability......

Email me at mongrel@helloworld.com if you have any questions about this.....

Why is it you think AT&T, Verizon, and the Cable Companies are trying to scuttle Net Neutrality? They wish to control and monetize what we see.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

I see longer videos on the internet easily becoming a success. I personally don't watch many videos on the internet, but just recently was on NBC's web site looking for some information and saw a 2-minute clip of a new series they have out. The 2 minute clip definately sparked my curiosity and moments later I found myself watching the entire 45 minute episode on my laptop.

There is also a new television series called Completing Kaden (www.CompletingKaden.com) which I noticed released online before television. It's still pretty new and not many people know about it, but for a show which was released online in May and just recently picked up for worldwide television distribution - the online success (relating to how many people know about it) has seemed to be quite high, and I've found myself watching full episodes on their web site.

So, I definately see web video working it's way into the market of possibly creating a norm for people to watch full 30 minute to 1 hour episodes of their favorite television shows and favorite web shows online.

[quote="CompuKAL"]I see longer videos on the internet easily becoming a success.

I agree and that's why when we got into the video space, we went for the longer ones. We have documentaries, public domain, personal videos and we are the archive for these folks.

In the big picture, sitting before the TV and watching Internet video is exactly where it's going. Was today at Streaming Media West Convention in San Jose, California and that's a part of the buzz there.

You folks on this blog are right on.

Check out www.muzility.com. We are on the march.

Peace,
Calius

We are definately set for a large user explosion in this area.
This I believe, will continue be fuelled by a number of factors.
Increased availability and affordability of high speed internet connections.

Better encoding techniques for streaming video resulting in higher picture quality and smoother playback.

A discontentment with Television and the high cost to small businesses in buying advertising airtime.

The desire of many people wanting to access a wider choice of programs.

The desire of users wanting to create their own high quality content.

This is personally very encouraging to me - since I am directly involved in supplying products and services in this expanding market.

__________________
The world's only video enabled social network with integrated email, powerful webcasting tools and more

"When it rains on your parade - dance in the puddles!"

Ive started using P2P TV through a chinese site which is pretty good at streaming. www.tvants.com/ You will have to view a translated page on google for the download.

The initial buffering takes 5mins but then runs okay if you set up your port forwarding correctly. I use it for watching mainly football (soccer for those who believe football is played with hands) although there are lots of other channels available.

Its definately going to be a big thing in the future i believe

__________________
www.rattan-home.com
www.rattan-island.com

You are (still) so wrong about this. Net Neutrality was meant to allow users of the internet access to all legal sites using all legal software and hardware. That's it, that's all it was. Same as the CarterPhone decision of the 60's. It was meant to prevent to monopolization of the internet by certain software and hardware providers.

It was warped into a cause for "free" internet at unlimited bandwidth by content providers. They want to the end-user (you and I) to pay for their bandwidth, whether or not we even access their content.

The companies that built the internet backbone, chiefly the telcos and then the cable companies, simply say pay for what you use.

Your skewed version of Net Neutrality would have us paying for every piece of spam email that is sent. If you don't like it, build your own internet and offer it free to all content providers and see how many subscribers (average users) you will attract with a price of a gazillion dollars per month.

You won't and no one else will either, because it won't financially work. It's called socialism and it's failed everywhere it's been tried. Even in Canada, if you've bothered to notice.

__________________
DrTandem's San Diego Web Page Design, drtandem.com

DrTandem1, I think I'll believe these guys over you, a Telecomm Shill.

Net Neutrality

Re the above link, this is the list of the people who have put this document together, just so you understand their qualifications to speak on this matter:
Pete Ashdown, Founder & President, XMission
John Bachir, Lead Developer, Lyceum
Daniel Berninger, Senior Analyst, Tier1 Research
Dana Blankenhorn, journalist
Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime
Steven Cherry, Senior Associate Editor, IEEE Spectrum
Gordon Cook, Editor, Publisher and Owner since 1992 of the COOK Report on Internet Protocol
Susan Crawford, Associate Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School
Cynthia H. de Lorenzi, Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy
Ray English, Director of Libraries, Oberlin College
Miles R. Fidelman, President, The Center for Civic Networking
Richard Forno (bio: http://www.infowarrior.org/rick.html)
Bob Frankston, Telecommunications Analyst and Visionary
Paul Ginsparg, Cornell University
Lucas Gonze, founder, Webjay
Bob Gregory, I. T. Manager, Community Action Opportunities
Michael Gurstein, Chair: Community Informatics Research Network (CIRN)
Dewayne Hendricks, CEO, Dandin Group
Eric Hensal, Managing Partner, Murray Hill Group
Paul Hyland, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
David S. Isenberg, Ph.D., Founder & CEO, isen.com, LLC
Saleem Jahangeer, Ph.D.
Seth Johnson, New Yorkers for Fair Use
Paul Jones, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Peter D. Junger, Professor of Law Emeritus, Case Western Reserve University
Joe Karaganis, Social Science Research Council
Bruce Kushnick, chairman, Teletruth
Michael Maranda, President, Association For Community Networking
Kevin Marks, mediAgora
W. Scott McCollough, Esq.
Sascha Meinrath, Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, Free Press
Wilson Michaels, Senior Software Developer
Edward Mills, Independent Technology Consultant
John Mitchell, InteractionLaw
Steve Mossbrook, President, Wyoming.com
Kenneth G. Olthoff, EFF Austin Advisory Board
Andy Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media
Dave Pentecost, documentary television producer
Bruce Perens, VP Sourcelabs, Co-founder of the Open Source initiative
Jan L. Peterson, Software Developer
David P. Reed, contributor to original Internet Protocol design
David Rosen, Ed.D., Senior Associate, Newsome Associates
Lawrence Rosen, Rosenlaw & Einschlag; Stanford University Lecturer in Law
Pamela Samuelson, Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Berkeley
Clay Shirky, Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University
Jay Sulzberger, New Yorkers for Fair Use
Rahul Tongia, Ph.D., Systems Scientist, School of Computer Science (ISRI) / Dept. of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
Siva Vaidhyanathan, Department of Culture and Communication, New York University
Eric F. Van de Velde, Ph.D., Director, Library Information Technology, California Institute of Technology
Esme Vos, Founder, Muniwireless
David Weinberger, Fellow, Harvard Berkman Center
Michael J. Weisman, JD, LLM, Technology and Intellectual Property Law and Policy
Diana Woodhouse, Technology & Systems Support, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Steve Wozniak, Co-Founder of Apple Computer, Inc., Member, National Academy of Engineers
Brett Wynkoop, Wynn Data Ltd.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

Nice spin. Again, the argument was for accessibility by legal software and hardware, not a free ride for a few on the backs of the many. The way the legislation is being written ignores the technology and is simply a shifting of costs of content providers onto internet users whether or not they are accessing that content.

What is so difficult to comprehend? Pay for what you use. Sorry, I don't want to pay for spam nor do I want to pay for John Doe watching porn or Jane Doe watching needlepoint demonstrations over the internet. I am willing to pay for the bandwidth I use.

__________________
DrTandem's San Diego Web Page Design, drtandem.com

You're the one who doesn't seem to get it. We all do pay for the bandwidth we use. I pay. You pay. Google pays. Small website owners pay. Everyone pays. Saying we don't pay is just plain bulldoody. This is not about amount of bandwidth, no one has a problem with amount. It's packet sniffing and "prioritizing" we have a problem with.

Your telecomm employers don't own the "Pipes". US Taxpayers paid for them (and then the Telecomms didn't build them out with fiber like they promised, in order to get that money. That's called theft.) Why should the telecomms be allowed to dictate which traffic gets priority? They shouldn't.

Funny how the Telecomms are regulatory whores when it suits them, then call foul when it doesn't.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

Yes, we now pay for what we use. So, why do you want to change it? If you haven't noticed, the more the telcos have been deregulated, the more they have deployed fiber. Here's the reason:

The BOCs were forced by government regulations to share their networks at below cost to any and all competitors. They were further forced into "parity plus" where they had to give preferential treatment to their competitors before their own customers.

At the time Pacific Bell was deploying broadband at a pace that almost bankrupted their competitor, Cox cable in California. SBC then bought Pacific Bell. The government, controlled by democrats at the time, then ordered the RBOCs to not only share (again at below cost) their PSN (public switched network) but also their separate data networks. SBC and the other RBOCs quickly stopped all broadband deployment.

SBC responded by creating a deregulated CLEC (competitive local exchange company) subsidiary called Advanced Solutions, Inc. (ASI). It competed with the other CLECs for the same data customers. Because the compliance issues were so severe, ASI recieved second-class service compared to the other CLECs.

The government's order has sunsetted. AT&T (the former SBC) and Verizon are busy deploying fiber that can't be stolen from them and their customers. The customer in Southern California is the winner. Competition is so fierce that high speed broadband from all the major players is below $15/month.

The bottom line is that the more the government tries to legislate rates, the higher the prices will go. The perfect example is cable TV. Since the government didn't allow a level playing field, CATV rates have skyrocketed about 85%.

__________________
DrTandem's San Diego Web Page Design, drtandem.com

I'm not the one who's trying to change that. The Telecomms are. That's what scuttling Net Neutrality is all about.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

Sorry, I don't see any legislation backed by the telecoms that is trying to force someone to pay for what they don't use. I do see a warped Net Neutrality measure trying to change the current market forces.

Stopping the warped version of Net Neutrality would leave things as they are. So, you are now in favor of having it as it is, that is pay for what you use?

__________________
DrTandem's San Diego Web Page Design, drtandem.com

First of all, there are no current market forces in effect when people only have one or two options for broadband, and proposed mergers are going to shrink that number even further. Secondly, Net Neutrality was in effect the whole time the internet w