I've always been puzzled by IP-TV. Despite all the talk - and Microsoft's huge investment to get into the market - the prospects for IP-TV seem, at best, modest. It's not like consumers are clamouring for another way to receive television programming. And it's like the cablecos and satellite-TV service providers are dropping the ball in terms of new services. According to a recent In-Stat report, the cable industry is enjoy strong growth around the world as consumers demand for TV programming, as well as voice and data services. In-Stat found that of the 1.2 billion TV households around the world, 355 million are cable customers. This includes 106 million in China and 69 million in the U.S. The question is how the carriers are going to establish a foothold with IP-TV other than using lower prices than cablecos. Maybe the triple or quadruple plays will help them build some market share but attacking the cableco franchise seems like a Don Quixote-like exercise. In Canada, it will be interesting to see how well Bell Canada and Telus do with their IP-TV offers. Bell is still in "testing" while Telus has launched an IP-TV service on a selective basis in Calgary and Edmonton. The challenge is differentiation so there's a compelling reason for consumers to go with IP-TV rather than cable. Other than price, it may come down to services such as programming-on-demand in which every television show is stored on a server and available if and when the consumer wants it on a pay-as-you-go or subscription basis.

There's an awful lot of chatter today about the future of television - what with Jeff Jarvis writing a long post in response to a keynote made by a BBC executive, who referred to a column Jarvis wrote in The Guardian; rumblings about the Venice Project's launch (the new TV service from Skype's Nikas Zennstrom and Janus Friis; and Steve Gillmor suggesting "TV is dead". But what about the cableco? They have oddly not been a big part of the discussion, which is strange given they are one of the main distributors of TV programming. You would think that if the TV industry is poised for major changes, the cablecos will be impacted along with broadcasters, content producers and advertisers. It may be that cablecos are in an advantageous position because they have two key strategic assets: a ubiquitous (at least in North America) delivery platform for traditional television, and high-speed Internet networks to deliver next-generation programming/TV 2.0. If the traditional delivery model continues to thrive as people migrate to PVRs, video-on-demand and pay-per-view, the cablecos will thrive. On the other hand, id the Web starts to become a way to deliver programming through streaming video, downloads, etc., the cablecos could do well by leveraging their high-speed networks and customer relationships. Another angle to the cable story is my theory on targeted TV watching vs. couch potatoes, which is based on the idea people are watching fewer television shows but building a stronger relationship with those shows through the PVR, time-shifting and blogs. Even though more people are becoming more selective about what they watch, these programs are spread across the cable spectrum. Some shows, for example, will be found on basic cable, while others such as The Sopranos and ESPN are part of higher-tier packages. What it means - at least until pay-as-you-go TV packages emerge - is consumers will continue to pay for multiple cable packages even if they are watching less television. All in all, I would aruge it's good to be a cableco right now.

It's impossible not to buy into the idea this is the year of video (much like 2004 and perhaps 2005 were the year of VoIP). Today, there were three different events that hammered home this reality home. First, YouTube is delivering a staggering 100 million videos a day, according to Hitwise. Then, IP Democracy reports more than $600-million has been invested in video start-ups such as YouTube, Slingbox (a personal favourite) and MobiTV in the past year. Finally, Montreal-based cableco Videotron said its Extreme high-speed Internet service will be boosted to 20Mbps from 16Mbps, which will enable consumers to do, what else, watch video.
   Of course, there's lot of excitement but plenty of questions. YouTube, for example, is still working on the details on how to turn 100 million videos a day into a business. In many ways, MobiTV's success is dependent on whether millions of people are willing to watch videos on a small screen. Slingbox is selling lots of cool units for $250 a crack to watch your TV while away from home but there are still questions about the size of its potential market and whether there is revenue/life beyond selling something once without any kind of recurring revenue. Meanwhile, Videotron is betting consumers are willing to pay C$79.95 for an ultra-fast broadband connection. No doubt, the excitement will carry on but there also has to be some not-so-good developments as some players fail to keep pace.
Update: In response to Videotron's claim to be the fastest gun in the North, Primus Canada touched base to point out it launched a high-speed service last month that offers speeds up to 22Mbps.

Ready for something else other than Rocketboom? In other news.....eMarketer had a story earlier this week looking at YouTube's explosive growth over the past year. According to comScore Media Metrix, YouTube's unique visitors jumped to 12 million in May from 58,000 in August 2005, whle Nielsen//NetRatings suggests YouTube had 20 million unique visitors in May, more than half of whom were between the ages of 35 and 64. Of course, success comes with a price. Apparently, YouTube's server and bandwidth costs are $1-million a month, which is being funded by a $8-million of venture capital raised earlier this year. YouTube has talked about rolling out AdSense-like advertising but it's still talk rather than walk. Speaking of video, Bell Canada is rolling out a new service called Optimax, which guarantees 16Mbps of high-speed residential service for $80 a month and 10Mbps for $65. Naturally, this prompts one to ask about Bell's IP-TV plans but the company declined to bite the bait. Either Bell's IP-TV service, which involves Microsoft, isn't ready yet or the carrier doesn't want to tip its cards yet. It's probably a combination of the two. For more, check out Jon Arnold's blog.

So you'ren a five-hour train ride from Toronto to Ottawa with a burning desire to watch the World Cup. What do you do? Well, if you're Stuart MacDonald, you fire up the laptop, connect to Via Rail's Wi-fi network and watch the Holland-Argentina soccer game using a Slingbox. How cool is that?!
   While the Slingbox is wonderful technology, the nagging question is how broad its appeal can be. I used to think the Slingbox was a no-brainer for road warriors and people able to watch TV at work but the more I see it used, the more I think it's a relatively inexpensive (one-time expense of $170 to $250) tool to give you even more control over how, when and where you watch TV. For anyone who spends a few thousand dollars on a big-screen TV, why not spend a few more bucks on a nice-to-have feature.