News

Television, as we know it, is changing. Not the actual content, mind you (too bad, in some cases) but how programs are being delivered to us. This year has seen a slew of announcements from TV networks that have ushered in a new era of broadcasting by making shows available for download on the Internet — some of them for free.

Couple that with new technology that can beam programming across the house or around the world , and it's safe to say television viewing habits are going through a bit of a transformation.

Mathew Ingram, columnist, tech writer and blogger , describes the phenomenon as television's fragmentation, almost as though the half-century-old monolith is getting chopped up and delivered now in varied and much smaller pieces.

Mathew was on-line earlier Thursday. His responses are below

Mathew Ingram joined The Globe and Mail's on-line news team in June, 2000, after spending four years as The Globe's Western business columnist, based in Calgary. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature from the University of Waterloo in 1985 and graduated from Ryerson University's School of Journalism in 1987. After graduating from Ryerson, he moved to Edmonton and was a senior writer at the former Western newsmagazine Alberta Report for four years. He then moved back to Toronto to work for three and a half years at the former Financial Times of Canada before joining The Globe in 1994 to help launch the revamped Money & Markets section.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Michael Snider, globeandmail.com: Hi Mathew and welcome. We've finally got you on for your first live discussion, which is somewhat ironic because you're probably the most communicative Globe staffer when it comes to discussing with readers because of your blog. Welcome readers, too. Glad you could be with us. We already have a good load of questions so let me get things rolling: Mathew, what's TV going to look like in five years? Can you paint us a picture?

Mathew Ingram: Sure, Mike. Basically, I don't have a clue what TV is going to look like in five years :-) But seriously, I'm not sure anyone really knows what it's going to look like, and I would include the major TV networks. I think they and a lot of other people — advertisers in particular — are trying desperately to figure out not just what it's going to look like but who is going to pay for it and how. To try and answer your question a little more directly, I guess I would say that it's going to look a lot like it does now — except more so. That is, more distributed, more fragmented, more "dis-intermediated" as analysts like to say. And that's likely to be both good and bad — for consumers and for content producers.

Ron Shaw from Toronto writes: With respect to video over the Internet, today's WSJ story that U.S. carriers are moving to restrict and meter bandwidth usage on their wireless ISP plans is of some concern. If people have to pay for content as well as transmission, this may put Internet video broadcasting at an even greater disadvantage over traditional TV distribution. (content originators already pay dearly to get their video streams onto the Internet) So the question is: When do you think we will see the Internet opened up for multicast routing? (a single stream shared by unlimited users) This already works well on private networks, and would be a way to foster growth of live video over the Internet. (BTW video-on-demand can't really benefit from multicast-only 'live' video will)

Mathew Ingram: That's a great point, Ron. I think the issue you're touching on there is the whole idea of what's called "network neutrality," and how the telcos and cable companies to a lesser extent would like to control what goes over their networks and how, so that they can effectively charge content distributors for preferential access or speeds, and any other content sort of gets the slow lane as it were. As far as multicast routing goes, my understanding is that that's more of a hardware and standards issue, to the extent that Cisco and the other networking gear-makers have to support it, and then the network operators have to implement it, and so that's why it's probably not here yet in the way you're describing.

Geoff Wozniak from Hamilton writes: Why aren't TV shows available for download from the Canadian (or any non-US, for that matter) edition of the iTunes Music Store? To my knowledge, music videos, movie trailers, and some Pixar short films are the only video content available within the Canadian edition. And to follow that up, even if TV content were available, is the current quality of the content offered sufficient given the proliferation of high definition television into the market? It may be fine for the video iPod and even standard television, but the quality hardly scales up to full-screen viewing on a 17' monitor, let alone HDTV. Is the purpose of TV over the internet to encourage personal viewing instead of making TV a social affair?

Mathew Ingram: That's a good one too, Geoff — and one that bugs me as well, particularly when we hear and read about all the shows that are being made available on the U.S. version of iTunes. For what it's worth, I'm sure Internet users in other countries apart from ours are equally frustrated — I think New Zealand only just got iTunes a little while ago, for example.

The biggest issue there is the licensing and copyright agreements that have to be worked out between the content owners — that is, the networks and studios — in order to allow those shows to appear somewhere else. Since they have usually already sold the rights to a Canadian network, I would expect there's probably some resistance to having those shows available for download as well, since that would theoretically eat into the market for those programs in Canada, so there's likely some horse-trading that has to go on there before we can get access to them.

As for the content quality part of your question, I think what we're seeing — and what we've seen with music and Mp3s — is that in many cases people are willing to accept a lower quality version of something provided it meets other needs; in other words, because it's cheaper (or free) or because it's more portable or whatever. And I think we'll see that more and more with TV as well.

Robert Vitella from Halifax writes: Costs to produce television content are not decreasing (except for reality programs), yet with the increased number of channels, networks will continue to have a harder time posting profits. Given the poor programming choices available, do you foresee a future when viewers will be required to pay for the specific shows they watch, especially as the HD reality approaches? As well, do you see a return to true program sponsorship where advertisers foot the bill for a show?

Mathew Ingram: You're right about the costs, Robert — although as you note, reality shows are a lot cheaper (even with their million-dollar prizes) and I don't think it's a coincidence that we've seen an explosion of those types of shows over the past few years. But costs for things such as HD and sporting events are rising, and that's definitely putting the squeeze on content producers. I think the networks would love to find a way for you to pay on a per-show basis, and it's possible that downloads will be one of the ways they try to make some of those costs back. And to answer the final part of your question, I think program sponsorship — like the old days of Texaco Fireside Theatre or whatever Uncle Milty showed up on — is not out of the realm of possibility, and in fact is already happening in some cases with specialty content and with web-based programming.

Christopher Faulds from Toronto writes: Mathew, There's a big push going on in the wireless industry with mobile video and connection speeds.. every week or so there seems to be a new press release from one of the carriers saying they're now the fastest or some new content deal has been reached. Are any of the carriers currently carrying live-to-air, or next day broadcasts via mobile in Canada? I know Bell Mobility has NHL highlights but I'm curious to know if anyone is broadcasting a TV signal and mobile signal simultaneously?

Mathew Ingram: Chris, I'm pretty sure that all the major carriers are offering -- or at least are rolling out in various markets -- broadcasts from MSNBC, Fox News, the Weather Network and CBC Newsworld in partnership with a company called Mobi-TV, with more channels coming in the future. You can't get the service in every area and in most cases you have to be on the higher-speed digital networks, but they are out there.

F M from Toronto writes: TV is experiencing dis-intermediation. The broadcast, satellite and cable networks are between the viewers and the creators/producers. Increasingly, the middlemen are going to get squeezed and not be able to sell ads or charge customers (likely both) as the iPod generation uses Google or some other search engine as the 'TV guide' of 2010. My TV will have a wireless card in it and the only cord will be the power cord and files (containing TV shows, among other things) will be played on it via my home wireless network. My cable will deliver internet and phone (VoIP?) only. There's also the fact that the iPod generation will crave interactivity so much more than their ancestors, and therefore viewing shows, movies, and even sports will suffer compared to on-line interactive gaming communities. Please comment as to when you think my vision will come to fruition, and/or correct errors.

Mathew Ingram: FM, I think you are probably right on the money as far as your vision is concerned. I think if you look at "location-shifting" technologies such as Slingbox and Orb Networks — which are kind of the next generation after TiVos and that kind of thing — you can quickly see that TV is becoming just a stream of content that can be captured and stored in multiple places and viewed wherever you happen to be, and I think in many ways the industry is still struggling to deal with those shifts. You can see it when the networks tell the video-sharing site YouTube to take down the Lazy Sunday video , and when they try to apply all sorts of digital rights management to video files instead of using video sharing as a tool and a marketing opportunity. I think in many ways they are fighting a losing battle — the genie has already escaped from the bottle.

Stephen Drahos from Wolfville, NS writes: In your opinion, will Apple dominate the video download market too or will the networks be more savvy than the music industry?

Mathew Ingram: Stephen, there's no question that with the kind of dominance Apple has been able to develop in the music industry, they make a natural partner for the networks, which are still experimenting with what they want to do as far as downloads are concerned -- and Apple has also in many ways conditioned iTunes users to expect digital rights management restrictions on their music files, which is a battle the TV industry certainly has no interest in fighting all over again. So I think for a couple of reasons Apple stands a good chance of being able to extend its market dominance in music into the TV industry, unless one of the networks decides to get brave and do something on its own.

Bill O'Keefe from St. John's writes: How will the fragmentation affect the cable TV companies, given they also are big providers of broadband internet access? Are they in a stronger position? Will their revenues increase?

Mathew Ingram: I think the cable companies are to some extent benefiting from the fragmentation of the TV business, in the sense that the downloading and sharing of video tends to push people towards higher-speed Internet service -- and of course the cable companies are also continuing to push digital cable service and high-definition TV, which are both sources of increased revenue. And they are likely looking -- as the telcos are -- at ways of charging content producers for preferential access to their networks, which could become an added benefit unless legislators act on the idea of "network neutrality," which I referred to in response to an earlier question.

Christopher Faulds from Toronto writes: With the proliferation of on-line adverting and website looking for more and more content to provide to visitors, will we see real-time TV broadcasts occur on-line either in conjunction with a TV broadcast or perhaps the next day? I know icravetv.com tried it years ago (eventually shut down by the courts), but I have to think the content providers and/or TV networks are seriously considering other platforms to broadcast on with internet and wireless phones being at the top of that list.

Mathew Ingram: I think you're probably right, Christopher. The problem with icravetv.com was that it was an attempt to do an end-run around the networks, a kind of Napsterization of the TV business, whereas what is happening now is being driven much more by the networks themselves. I think they realize that viewership for TV shows (with exceptions, such as American Idol) is nowhere near what it used to be, and a lot of that has to do with the Internet and alternate sources of content — in order to continue bringing in as much ad revenue as they have in the past, networks have to find ways of reaching people wherever they are, whether that's on the Internet or using their cell-phone, or on their iPod or whatever.

Jason Fournier from Acton writes: I find it surprising that it has taken this long! On-demand content is getting established on satellite and most homes now have access to broadband internet, so this seems like a logical step. I went looking when one of two Canadian satellite providers jacked their rates yet again and was surprised to find nothing mainstream. I believe the era of broadcasting is in its sunset phase and look forward to choosing my own content. Once content is available, I look forward to getting a simple device to connect to the venerable T.V. that my family can operate.

Mathew Ingram: I look forward to that too, Jason — especially if it means I don't need yet another remote control :-) But I think your point is a good one about how long it has taken for the TV industry to get the message that it needs to change and evolve along with its audience. It's not like the Internet came along yesterday, or even high-speed access — we've had those things for years now, and so the writing has been on the wall in a very real way, not to mention the early warning that the TV industry got by watching what the music industry has gone through. I think the fact that it has taken this long says a lot about the difficulty of moving away from an entrenched business model, even in an industry that is supposed to be so in touch with the needs and interests of the average consumer.

Ian Ross from T.O. writes: Wondering where you think tv monitors are going in terms of quality and price, and in your opinion are plasma sets still prone to problems of losing pixels and burn-in? What's the best bang for the buck today?

Mathew Ingram: Good question, Ian. I think TVs and monitors are going in one direction in terms of price, and that is down. I think we'll probably continue to see prices dropping by 30 or 40 per cent over the next year, and the main reason for that is that all the major manufacturers of LCD and plasma screens have spent billions building new plants, and there is likely to be a flood of large screens — 32 inches and up — hitting the market over the next year. It's a great time to be shopping for a TV.

As for the plasma versus LCD debate, I am still a big fan of plasma, if only because the response rate — that is, how quickly the individual pixels react to changes in motion or colour — tends to be better than with the average LCD (although newer LCDs have gotten much better in that regard). As for "burn in," for the most part newer plasma screens don't suffer as much from that because the manufacturers have designed ways of preventing it. The one area where plasmas can fall behind LCDs is they don't tend to handle large amounts of ambient light as well, but if you have it in your basement it doesn't really matter.

I would say for the price, plasma is still a better bet.

C Clayton from Calgary writes: I realize that there is a lot of confusion to the average consumer when it comes to HDTV... It seems to me that there is zero incentive for Canadian broadcasters to step up to the plate and provide Original Canadian HD programming outside of the NHL and CFL. The broadcasters also feel that Over-The-Air (bunny ears) is unnecessary and a step back in time. However, HDTV delivered through cable or satellite is compressed and therefore not as true as it could be. Outside of Southern Ontario and Vancouver, there is no uncompressed HD available to the rest of Canada. What do you think the future holds for HD transmission in Canada?

Mathew Ingram: Thanks, Clayton. I think the HDTV market in Canada is to some extent suffering the same kind of growing pains that it has in the U.S., and in many ways it's a chicken and egg problem. It used to be that the lack of TVs that could handle HD was the big hurdle, but that is less and less the case now — so now it's just the lack of compelling content that is holding people back. But without enough consumers paying for it, there's no real incentive for broadcasters to provide the compelling content, and the small size of the Canadian market in many ways exacerbates that problem.

As you've mentioned, networks also often compress their HD in order to save on broadcasting costs, which makes it even less compelling than it would be at full high-definition quality, so in some cases I think they are the authors of their own misfortune. And to date no one has really made a big bet on going HD. I'm not sure what it will take for someone to do that.

Michael Snider, globeandmail.com: Mathew, that was great. Thanks very much. Readers, thank you as well, for submitting and for reading. Sorry if we didn't get to your questions/comments. However, please add your thoughts on the topic or the discussion by clicking on the "comment" link below.

If you would like to see a particular reporter/columnist invited on or a particular subject covered, let us know. You can email your requests to msnider@globeandmail.com

Mathew Ingram: Thanks a lot, Mike. I'd like to close with an anecdote that I think really sums up a lot of what is going on with the TV industry, and it came from Jeff Pulver — a pioneer in the voice-over-Internet or VOIP market in the late 1990s — who was telling me about a recent trip he took to Jerusalem. He was sitting in his hotel room watching Law & Order on his laptop, which was receiving it from his Slingbox at home in Long Island, New York.

But that's not the best part. The best part is that Jeff got bored and decided to change the channel — and after he did so, his cell-phone rang and it was his wife at home in Long Island. She had been watching the Slingbox feed upstairs in their bedroom, and yelled at him for changing the channel. To me, that says volumes about what the TV business is going through right now.

Thanks for all the great questions.

Mathew