Wireless TV?

"Soon, I predict, we'll begin seeing new 'wireless TV' offerings, as sharp marketers repackage OTA into smartly-dressed, easy-to-use, packages"

Wireless TV? What a concept!

Of course the 'wirelessness' of TV is not anything new. For the first several decades of television it was, by definition, 'wireless'. The infamous, now rusty and beaten, TV antennas of yesteryear attest to that.

Then, starting in the mid 1960's, 'cable' TV took over. Even 1980s satellite TV didn't really develop mind-share as a 'wireless' technology: It was just another way of getting 'cable.'

At the same time, traditional 'wireless' TV, while even today still easily available in most large cities and providing top-of-the-line HD reception -- has remained pretty-much unknown, partly due to its highly unfriendly new name, 'OTA' -- short for "over-the-air."

Go figure.

Co-incidentally, the term 'wireless' is now virtually owned by today's ever-developing personal telecommunications marketplace, where cellphone and 'wireless' Internet: access services are, arguably, the place to be.

This has made the term 'wireless' hot property to sharp marketers.

Soon, I predict, we'll begin seeing new 'wireless TV' offerings, as these folks repackage OTA into smartly-dressed, easy-to-use, packages. Not the oft-touted playthings of the early Internet years, but a simple solution that actually works -- using existing, inexpensive and well-proven technologies and marketing channels.

The money will be made not by charging monthly (and often highly-questionable) service charges, but through the consumer electronics marketplace -- not unlike satellite radio. (Though, ones hopes, with a lot more success.)

After all, mounting a small, nice-looking, sealed, smart antenna is very-much like mounting a satellite dish. And set-top boxes are already the standard.

Some would-be players will obviously attempt to charge subscription fees for some sort of value-add -- a fancy set-top box promising some sort of magical must-have, or a link to a proprietary Web service or sports network perhaps -- but it's far from necessary.

What's more, OTA picture quality is already superior to digital cable because there's no need for video compression. Hi-Fi, multi-channel, sound is already there too.

One would think the broadcasters would like the idea of having a viable alternative to today's cable/satellite distributors too. (Not to mention an unmediated back-channel from viewers. But that's a secret!)  After all, there's nothing new, nothing to add. They need only promote the idea to bring viewers back to OTA.

What's really new is that the traditional down-side of not having OTA access to the cable world's speciality channels is today increasingly being offset with a simple home Internet interface -- either via a spiffy, new, service-specific, set-top box, or through one of the many existing alternative devices such as Apple TV, Internet-enabled Blu-ray players, PVRs, etc.

And check out the just-announced Google TV. It melds TV listings with Internet search, while serving AV streams from the Internet to, ostensibly, your television: Sort of a super-duper uTube, but on your TV along with the TV channels we're all used too. Use your TV to search for and view content from any source -- in super HD. For Free!

But a move back to OTA could also make for some very interesting times in TV-land, not only as it calls into question the future of the existing, 'second party' TV distribution networks (cable, satellite, etc.), but also the very existence of 'television network' programming, as the marriage with the Internet moves the programming itself out to the viewer.

Keep in mind though, these changes will not happen overnight. Though I'm betting we'll start seeing hot new 'wireless TV' offerings this Christmas.

And a two-piece system (set-top box and antenna) should cost less than $200.00!!

Xris

The wisdom of herds: How social mood moves the world.

Another good article on group-think. Helps one understand some of the craziness in the world.

"No collective human activities or actions, such as globalisation or, for that matter, trends in popular culture such as fashions in films, books or haute couture, can be understood without recognising that it is how a group or population sees the future that shapes events. Feelings, not rational calculations, are what matter. To see what our world might be like tomorrow, next year or next decade, we need to spend time and money investigating "social mood"


(Click on the orange title below)

The wisdom of herds: How social mood moves the world - opinion - 24 May 2010 - New Scientist

Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth

A very enlightening article to anyone wanting a better understanding of one driving aspect of group thought. Part of an entire New Scientist Magazine feature section about denial and modern culture.

"This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines - and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial?"

(Click the grey title below)

Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth - opinion - 19 May 2010 - New Scientist