Placeshifting Devices Could Threaten Mobile Video Services

[Darius Wey]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/2517/placeshifting_devices_could' target='_blank'>http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/2...g_devices_could</a><br /><br /></div><i>"As more consumers use products such as the Slingbox to get "anywhere access" to their premium and personal content, so-called "placeshifting" technologies may face opposition from wireless carriers, according to a new study from ABI Research. The ability to stream pay TV from a set-top box and digital content from a home PC over the Internet to a variety of devices has the potential to disrupt new content services being delivered by mobile operators... Despite this potential resistance, ABI Research sees a bright future for placeshifting as consumer awareness of hardware, software, and embedded solutions grows. While today's placeshifting market is largely hardware-based, as adopters use the Slingbox or Sony's LF-PK1, a growing number of consumers will also adopt software solutions such as that from Orb Networks and SageTV, or embedded solutions such as placeshifting enabled set-top boxes."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/wey-20060307-SlingBox.jpg" /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48431">Hollywood may not think highly of placeshifting technologies</a>, and mobile operators may not either. The article looks at the shift in consumer dollars away from the mobile operator market to the placeshifting market - primarily because consumers want the freedom to control how they watch their media and how much they spend to watch their media. With regard to the latter, software solutions such as Orb effectively allow you to do it all for free (excluding the data costs), and the Slingbox essentially involves a one-time setup-and-go fee. So, all factors considered, what do you think? Do mobile operators have the right to oppose placeshifting technologies at this present moment, or do you think they should revise their current (expensive) offerings before whipping out the big guns (lawyers et al)?

[Peter Traugot]

They certainly have the right to oppose, as long as their opposition doesn't include lawyers.

It's a free market. If you're slow to the table, or your technology is inferior in the public's eye's....BYE BYE.

they (carriers) should study these findings and determine if they are on the right path.

[cameron]

The interesting question this raises concerns the fair compensation of the mobile operators for the services they provide.

If the operators are making money on content, then they will be incented to reduce the cost (maybe even offer it free) of bandwidth. This means lower data charges for all of us.

I'm not an expert on the economics of this business, but I would think that if the operators aren't making money on content, and customers are using bandwidth-intensive technologies, the operators would then have to charge more for bandwidth.

Theoretically I would think that the latter would actually be cheaper in the long run, because if I'm paying the operator for content I'm subsidizing those subscribers that don't buy content - unless of course you are one of those people who don't buy content - then its more expensive.

[Peter Traugot]

Actually, the business model most providers are going for is premium content charging and priority delivery.

Meaning:

Right now, US providers have no way to bring third party content through their network. Therefore, they can't charge pemiums for content, just air time.

Also, they can't control the priority of said delivery.

Under new technologoes being rolled out as we speak, they will be able to do both. In this new model, providers will be able to incorporate third party content through their networks and therefore, charge for premium content (Cable company model). Also, since they will know exactly what is being piped to every user, users will be able to pay premiums to bump the prioity of their feed.

Want to watch a football game on your phone live? Pay a premium. Want to make sure your signal isn't interrupted? Pay a premium. Want seemless transfer from your network to your local wifi? You can add that service too...For a premium : )

[heatlesssun]

I pay the cable company for content and data serivces. As long as I use the content for personal uses, I can make copies of the the content, thats well established law.

I pay the wireless network company for wireless voice and data, I have data plan with my phone.

Now Verizon, my wireless provider, does state in there TOS that streaming is not allowed, however, I think that this is just a way to discourage the less savy. Cingular and Sprint say its okay on there networks, so really, I don't think that Verizion can battle this too hard, otherwise people would simply switch.

Whatever the situation with the Verizon TOS, at least some providers say its okay to stream, and the content from my cable company I paid for, so to charge me twice, three times for the same thing? No, no, no!!!!!

I am so sick of these guys trying to squeeze every dime they can from the average Joe! Stop trying to interfere with leagal applications of technology!

We need to get some laws protecting the individual use of content and technology. If the content is legally obtained and for individual use, then we need consumer protections to allow that content stored and retransmitted for personal use. That needs to be the absolute law of the land regaurding this subject.

[cameron]

We need to get some laws protecting the individual use of content and technology. If the content is legally obtained and for individual use, then we need consumer protections to allow that content stored and retransmitted for personal use. That needs to be the absolute law of the land regaurding this subject.

I generally agree with what you are saying - however what if the "retransmission" must be done over another company's network? The use of that network does have a cost to the network provider, so shouldn't you have to pay for that use? You could argue of course that I already pay for it with my data plan, and that if my provider is willing to provide me unlimited data that I should be able to use an "unlimited" amount - which should include streaming content. However if everyone does this, and the providers are losing money on the unlimited data plans (because people aren't buying content), then I'm sure the unlimited plans will be gone in a flash.

Want to watch a football game on your phone live? Pay a premium. Want to make sure your signal isn't interrupted? Pay a premium. Want seemless transfer from your network to your local wifi? You can add that service too...For a premium

Peter - that's interesting (and slightly scary as well). If you believe in efficient markets, then the price I pay the provider to watch their premium content (i.e. the football game live) should be the same as the price I pay them for the use of their network to stream that same football game from my home using my Slingbox (minus the cost to get that stream from my home to the provider and a component representing the cost of the Slingbox). Equal utility should mean equal cost.

Unfortunately this market is probably the farthest thing from efficient. The problem with buying the football game from the provider is that now you've added another middle man into the process who is going to want a profit on the content itself, in addition to the profit that they look to get on the transmission of that content. This will lead to a higher cost to the consumer.

[Don't Panic!]

It's a free market. If you're slow to the table, or your technology is inferior in the public's eye's....BYE BYE.I agree with that completely. Mobile Providers should just stick with their phone and data plans. All the ballywho about Vcast, iPod phones, and that poor MLB Phone service (That iPOd Phone thing in particular, Vcast, Television on your phone my rear-end. The MLB Service was little known and passed away quietly), shows that consumers know what they want and Mobile Providers aren't offering it yet. Give consumers what they want and they'll come in droves.

Instead of bitching about the so called competition Mobile Providers should be beefing up their networks to handle the coming load. Everybody's going to want broadband wireless services as these place shifters and real mobile cable channel providers get going.

[heatlesssun]

I generally agree with what you are saying - however what if the "retransmission" must be done over another company's network? The use of that network does have a cost to the network provider, so shouldn't you have to pay for that use?

Of course you have to pay for the data connection. As far as the unlimited plans go, Verizon is getting $45/month from me right now. That's what I pay for my cable broadband, and its only 1/20 the speed.

This pay as you go model for content is okay, but that shouldn't replace general purpose data connections. I want an open and general purpose network, not a kiosk always try to sell me something.

If Verizon can't make money from their data plans at $45/month, they're incompetent.

Wireless broadband will only get bigger I think.

[Peter Traugot]

It's a free market. If you're slow to the table, or your technology is inferior in the public's eye's....BYE BYE.I agree with that completely. Mobile Providers should just stick with their phone and data plans. All the ballywho about Vcast, iPod phones, and that poor MLB Phone service (That iPOd Phone thing in particular, Vcast, Television on your phone my rear-end. The MLB Service was little known and passed away quietly), shows that consumers know what they want and Mobile Providers aren't offering it yet. Give consumers what they want and they'll come in droves.

Instead of bitching about the so called competition Mobile Providers should be beefing up their networks to handle the coming load. Everybody's going to want broadband wireless services as these place shifters and real mobile cable channel providers get going.

In fact companies such as Cisco Systems have developed back-end systems to do exactly this. they can prioritize, filter, manage, etc all content that comes through the system. As the carriers implement these new systems (and they are), service offerings will jump through the roof and you'll pay for each and every one of them. You're cell phone bill will have a breakdown of every type of service that came down the airwaves to your phone.

Mind you, some of this is a GOOD thing. If someone wants to have a video conference on their cell enabled device, and they want a garantee that there won't be frame drop, freezing, or complete throughput drop, you can "buy" that level of service. If you don't want that level, you can use the "standard" plan. It will be a pure "you get what you pay for" system with a multitude of offerings. Just like cable; If you don't want the premium channels, you don't have to pay premium price. Given the alternative, if carriers have the ability to offer premium service, but didn't have the ability to charge a breakdown, you know darn well that they would simply charge the highest tolorated rate.

[thunderbass]

Imagine how it would be if ISPs did business the same way that cell phone providers do. I seriously doubt that we’d have much of an internet today if that were the case. As long as they have complete control, they can block certain types of traffic on their precious networks and disable features on phones to force people to pay them for accessories and over-priced services, but I think the longer this sort of thing goes on, the more people will want out from under them. The internet is supposed to be pretty free, and they’re messing that up for all of us.