Aaron Huslage

Sit down at your TV and turn it on. Welcome to one of the most engrained behavioral activities of modern life. It’s also totally obsolete. There is no technical reason to channel surf anymore. Your TV likely has a set-top box that also happens to be a very capable computer. All that power is being wasted on displaying poor quality “guide” data that is patched on top of a linear channel stream filled with content you don’t want to watch. Explain the efficiency of this system. The interaction model is completely useless in this modern age. There is not a single technical reason, aside from lame excuses like “the infrastructure is already there” or “people already know how to make this work”, to keep the current system in place.

The original reasons for TV Channels were technical in nature. Analog signals had to be broadcast in one linear stream over the air on a particular frequency and guardbands had to be placed around those frequencies to make sure one channel didn’t interfere with the other. With the advent of digital distribution and transmission technologies (ATSC, DVB, Digital Cable and Digital Satellite, and others) these frequency limitations have been taken care of. Modern transmission and distribution systems have more in common with computer networks (either wired or wireless) than they do with traditional analog systems. We now stream huge amounts of data around the air and through our cable and telephone systems every day. Companies have built the largest one-way data network ever built.

When you think of it that way, this network has a ton of possibility for innovation. No longer is a TV station able to broadcast only one stream of video and audio, but now they can send out multiple streams at differing bandwidths and for different purposes. No longer are cable systems only able to give you 99 channels of programming, but 500+ with video-on-demand and raw IP networking on top of that. DSL and PON lines to your house send in not only data but TV. All of the purpose-built cable head-end equipment from behemoths like Motorola and Scientific Atlanta is quickly becoming obsolete. We don’t need to constantly stream 500 2mbit/second TV channels 24 hours a day. This one size fits all model is completely useless to most consumers.

So the technology exists to better utilize the over-the-air spectrum we have available along with the huge bandwidth available on telco and cable lines. The rise of TiVo and DVRs proves that people watch TV shows and not channels. They are happy to find a show they like, sit down and watch it without having to go page-by-page through a huge list of junk they don’t care about.

Consumers are also happier if they can watch what they want, when they want it. They don’t want to operate on some faceless network’s schedule, they have busy lives and can only watch when they have time. Timeshifting is important. The availability of many shows from various Internet sources, both legal and not so legal, has made timeshifting easier even though it has drastically lowered the quality bar. Bittorrent counts as one of the most popular ways to download TV and movies and that says a lot about what many consumers want.

Another indicator that TV channels are outmoded is the rapid decline in revenue that the networks have seen over the past few years. People simply aren’t watching channels for long enough every day to make it worthwhile to advertisers. The current system of revenue is based on what networks call Dayparts. This system assumes that by chaining together programs in creative ways on the schedule, a viewer will be less likely to surf and thus become a better target for advertising. The traditional argument by larger broadcast networks for the failure of this model is that people have more choices and are fleeing to cable to get what they want. I think this argument may have held true 10 years ago, but now I think the reason is that technology is starting to catch up with how the viewer wants to watch TV. The viewer simply doesn’t care about the TV network they are watching. It’s not even close to the first thing they think about when choosing what to watch. They care about the program, and now they have the ability to shift things around to meet their time and preferences better. A consumer never even thinks about sitting on one channel for hours on end, but they do assign value to the brand of that channel and what it represents in terms of programming style and editorial value.

I’ve established that the current TV channel system is not cutting it. Consumers want to be able to watch what they want, when they want it with a minimum of fuss. The DVR has gone a long way to fixing this problem, but the EPG and linear distribution mechanism still get in the way.

Let’s think about what it would be like if the user was presented with an ontology instead of a list of channels with programs. The user could search genres, topics, user generated tags, transcripts, descriptions or titles for the programs that interest them. They could watch a small preview of the show and then if they like it, watch the whole thing. Each show would have a branding associated with it that would replace the current channel. This brand would be the network that produced or distributed the show. The program would still have advertisements, but they would be sold more like Internet ads (by impression, click-through or action). At the end of the program, or if the user got tired of watching, they could choose to switch to something else or continue on with similar programs from that network. If the consumer just wants to sit down and watch programs, they can go into a more casual mode that uses their stored preferences, ratings and viewing history to dynamically generate a channel or set of them that is just right.

This interaction model could be very powerful if properly researched and tested. My hunch is that many people would be more than happy to throw out their existing set-top in order to watch this. This is more than just video-on-demand or network DVR, it is a sea change in how people use television. It turns TV into a better platform. It allows for new business models, expanded revenue and high quality distribution with better bandwidth efficiency and higher consumer conversion.

This is technically possible to accomplish now. A sample system could be set up in fairly short order by simply recording the programming of the channels on the air now, leaving in the commercials and promos. It would be a platform to develop the system with real consumers and real advertisers. Networks would still retain their branding and promotion methods, which will remain important to the viewer.

TV needs a kick in the rear end. The business models are horribly broken and now the technology exists to make things better. Consumers are ready and the networks are ready.

What is required to move one’s career out of the slumps? How important is it to “move up” or “onwards” in a career path? Is one’s career a reflection of their persona or simply a means to an end?

My thoughts of late have centered on these things. I’ve been a System Administrator since 1993. That’s pretty much my station in life, it appears. I’ve tried doing other things: I’ve been a CTO at a failing company and an infrastructure consultant for Internet companies. But the key is that both of these forays into other career territory have ultimately just brought me back around to being a sysadmin in some way, shape or form. I’m really pretty good at it, not the best but not the worst. I’m proud of my accomplishments and resume. Some would say that from a career standpoint, I’m at the top of my game with a primo Microsoft job.

The problem is that I really hate it. I just don’t care anymore about what I’m doing. I sit at work all day and wish that I was doing something else. My job consists of mainly editing configuration files and dealing with silly politics that have nothing really to do with me. I have a ton of ideas about what Microsoft should be doing (who around here doesn’t), but I know that my ideas, like almost everyone else’s, will ultimately not be heard. I feel like my career has stopped. I make the same amount of money (on par) as I did in 2001. I have approximately the same amount of influence over the company I work for as I did then. I have zero creative outlets at my job, so I get home and I have tons of cool things that I want to do, but my mind is adrift by then and I end up slouching on the sofa and IMming with friends and being a slob. It’s very hard for me not to feel sorry for myself.

I deserve more for myself. I deserve to have my ideas heard. I deserve at least some creativity in my workplace so that when I come home from work, I can feel free to spend time with my wife (and the baby in June) and not think about it. I deserve to make more money. I deserve to be happy and fulfilled in my home and in my work, not just one or the other.

Now what?

There is a major flaw in current reporting around Internet video stemming from the thought that online video (and video on demaind) and the technology used to watch them are inextricably linked. I’ve been using many services lately trying to figure this out and I’m nowhere near an answer.

I have a Tivo HD, Comcast DVR, AppleTV, DVD player and a PC all hooked up to my tv and a Vudu on the way. I use my iPod for music that I buy chiefly off of iTunes. I’ve tried some movies on the thing, but I simply don’t care. It’s not something I’ve been interested in using for video very much. 

The Tivo wins for accessibility for me. It’s easy to use and I can get Rhapsody and Unbox downloads on it in addition to my normal tv/movies from cablecard. I hardly ever use the awful Comcast DVR anymore as there is simply no compelling reason for it to exist. The AppleTV is great for my iTunes library, but to be honest with Rhapsody on the Tivo I hardly ever use it. The PC is great for viewing net content like Netflix streaming, ABC TV shows and the occasional BitTorrented something, but the experience is far from compelling and I highly doubt that a non-geek would touch it. The DVD player still sees quite a bit of use from my Netflix shipments, but ideally it will go away at some point. We’ll see what the Vudu brings to the table. I’m very interested in how it performs and if the video quality is up to snuff. The interface looks quite nice and the remote is nothing short of revolutionary. 

So I’m a high use person, but I still mostly watch Tivo when I want to watch something. Maybe it’s because I’ve been a Tivo user for as long as there has been Tivo, or maybe it’s because the experience is simply amazing. But none of it has to do with the DRM restrictions that Forrester has been fond of quoting for some time. While I dislike it from a philosophical point of view, it doesn’t really matter to me on the practical level. These things have been worked out to the point where they are more or less invisible to me as a consumer of media. If I were to try to take any of this content with me, then I would certainly be more annoyed.

All of these things are helping to evolve entertainment media, but the content companies should learn to understand that fearing them is no longer useful. The delivery medium and how I use the content are not ways of further monitization, they are annoying consumers. They are not even linked.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking for the past few days about production values on the web. The advent of social networks, video sites, podcasts and blogs has made them really take a nose dive. We’re back in the age of high-school video production classes, horrid writing and reverb saturated audio. This effect has made it acceptable, if not desirable, for the so-called professional media to embrace as their main aesthetic quality. It’s as if for you to be “cool” you have to make junk productions.

The fact is that in this day and age there is absolutely no excuse to make a poor quality product. The equipment I can buy in my local Best Buy is leaps-and-bounds better than the stuff I could buy 5 years ago. Even a cheap microphone has great quality. A couple of hardware store clip-on lights can properly illuminate a “set”. This stuff is simply not difficult. The only thing it takes to make a video production of very acceptable quality is a decent microphone, camera and some lights.

Take a look at the work of Ze Frank’s “The Show” to see what I’m talking about. He used a decent mic, camera and the lighting available to him in a smart way. It took him all of 10 minutes to set up the day’s shot. Sure, he actually took some time to write what he was going to talk about and memorize it. Sure, he took some time to edit things well. Sure, he’s a very talented and funny guy by nature. But none of these things is difficult to achieve if you’re a reasonably creative person.

On the higher-end are the excellent TED Talks. This is a conference where people pay good money to see really smart people talk about the stuff they do. After the conference they publish a DVD for the members of the TED community and post some number of the talks online for the public. These multi-camera shoots made by professionals, but their techniques are far from difficult for people to achieve with even modest means.

Another good example of decent production values (albeit with poor quality audio) are the productions of Revision3. They are a startup in San Francisco formed by refugees of the now defunct TechTV. They have built a small studio space where they produce simple episodic shows about technology trends. They spend some amount of money on graphics packages, talent and equipment, but I get the impression that they are run on a fairly small budget.

These 3 examples of decent production values are fairly difficult to spot on today’s computer screens. There seems to be a dearth of high-quality productions out there. I wish companies would spend a little time to educate their staffs on how to make good productions. They should start by teaching 3-point lighting, good microphone technique, and editing. These are the bare minimum to get someone started on the path to high quality productions and they take only a day to teach. The harder parts, like writing, take a bit more time, but all of it has significant payoff in the end. If you teach your people how to use the tools you’ve given them you will be rewarded with happy viewers.