One of the things that has bothered me for a few years now is that television distribution has remained essentially unchanged for the past several decades. Even on the newest systems, such as several of the TelcoTV offerings as well as Google Fiber where the television is truly a TCP/IP service (compare with some fiber offerings where the TV is split out at the coax and shows up as analog cable), the idea of recording television hasn't changed since Betamax, and with few exceptions, TV service is organized around certain channels based on who owns the content and how "premium" it is, rather than whether or not it's necessarily related.
The last time I actively watched TV on my own, I tended to put on my calendar that I wanted to watch a certain show and I needed to be at the TV at that time. Even once Hulu showed up, I had to "catch up" within a certain time, or else I'd completely miss that episode. For a brief time, I had a Windows PC with a TV tuner recording TV in this manner, but that suffered almost all of the same problems I have seen with other video services, such as recording duplicate episodes and poor timing on recordings.
If I were to start "using" television again (as a product) what I'd want is the ability to have a device in my home accumulate high quality video files or recordings of television shows I plan on watching, either "recorded" (ideally, simply transferred as a file to ensure consistency, I'm okay with waiting for it) when it was released, or acquired in bulk, particularly handy for binging on an older show. I don't actually have a television, so I'd like the video to be viewable on one of my many computing devices, and because I have so many computers, it would be ideal if the video was collected on some kind of network storage device, so I could view it on my desktop computer during the day, my Microsoft Surface when I'm hanging out in the kitchen, etc. In addition, I'm interested in particular shows and movies, not necessarily in the channels. It's typically only by the time that you've got hundreds of channels that any one of them is really compelling all the time, so to maximize the value of five to twenty channels in a typical broadcast or basic cable situation, you need to time-shift some of the content by using a multi-stream recording device or network streaming, so you can see all of the prime-time content, for example, or the presentation of a movie that inexplicably shows at 3 a.m.
Different people use television in different ways these days. One of the things I've noticed that the colleague from whom I rent my room and her kids use TV is that they accumulate a few different episodes of the shows they like and they'll let it play in the background while they hang out together (often using the computer or whatever) in the living room. They don't typically watch anything live, preferring to let the DVR system of their satellite product collect it and show them what it has gathered for them through the week.
A few things about my housemate's situation bother me, at least with regards to how television "works." For example, they end up manually fast-forwarding through loads of advertising, and either missing the first few moments of a show as it comes back on, or watching the same ads over and over again for several hours. In addition, because they're not using the television as a social tool, or necessarily keeping track of the exact plot arcs of some of their shows, the timing of the episodes matters less than for some types of television viewers, but that certainly hasn't stopped the system from recording the same episode of House as it airs as a re-run on two different channels. One of the other odd things I've noticed is that if the dish itself has a problem with the video, it gets recorded as digital artifacts or as a black screen. In addition, when sports events or news coverage changes the schedule of shows, the "record on a schedule" nature of the system means that they miss most of the episode.
By and large, this works and the equipment and connections we use for this are fast enough to handle it, or we're using dedicated video connections (as is the case with satellite television and cable) but it still strikes me as odd that the only non-real-time option for video distribution is Apple's iTunes store. iTunes is pretty great and if I were really into one or two particular television shows (instead of casually interested in six or seven of them) then I'd probably go ahead and do it, so that I can have the episodes and look at them on my own schedule. It would cost about as much as a video subscription does, at $20-60/mo for basic or slightly-enhanced cable and I'd be able to put them on my iPod, iPad, watch them in a window on my computer, or use a television.
The main disadvantage to iTunes really is the cost if you're into any number of television. For the price, you get a lot of flexibility, but it can also be a disadvantage if you don't plan on re-watching your shows, as one example, because iTunes no longer allows "renting" television content. iTunes also quickly gets too expensive if you want to buy video content to run in the background or if there are shows such as Million Dollar Listing: New York which are $15 a season on iTunes that are interesting but that don't otherwise merit a $15 purchase to keep on hand forever. I don't mind watching old content, but I'm unlikely to want to watch a particular season of The Office over again, in the way I will probably watch a season of Wallander or Sherlock over again.
Netflix and Hulu provide a good alternative if you're into more television shows and don't want to pay for a video subscription from a traditional incumbent, but Netflix is typically forced to delay new content, and Hulu still shows advertisements, even if you are a paying subscriber. They are both great service, but I have one more problem: 1.5 megabit DSL. It's technically possible to stream video on 1.5 megabit DSL, but it's not a pleasant experience by any means, nor is it even possible if I also want to load web sites, run updates on any of my computers, play World of Warcraft, or if somebody sends me an e-mail or accesses my web site.
Because I'd like to get access to specific episodes, just recording TV off the air or off a cable line isn't necessarily a good solution for me. In addition, my colleague already has satellite and cable services and I'd like to avoid any problems that might arise from trying to enable two satellite or cable subscriptions at a single home. I also don't want to use her satellite subscription to gather content, because I'd like to use the service in my room.
In addition, a lot of the TV I want isn't necessarily brand new, but it's stuff I could hypothetically get on Hulu, iTunes, or Netflix. Because I spent a few years watching no television, and because so much of what I'd like to see these days is plot and arc driven, I'd like a TV service that lets you start at the beginning of a show and watch it through. In addition, because I don't want any additional wires, I'd like it to run over my home network connection.
For Music, there has been a solution for a few years now: Spotify. For free, Spotify will let you listen to any song or songs you want with advertisement on a desktop, and on a phone, they'll let you stream "stations" with advertisements in the same fashion as Pandora or Slacker. If you pay for the service, you get the ability to cache music on a local device and listen to your specific playlists on mobile devices. I started subscribing because it was the most convenient way to get new music and old music alike on both my phone and desktop without having to synchronize the two. The service is $10/mo and I consider it worth every penny. Spotify doesn't care if I listen to every single new album that's released, or if I just stream a single old Lady Gaga song over and over for the better part of a month.
That said, if I had to describe my ideal television service, it would be an over the top IP TV service with options for deployment as a computer application or as a physical set-top box with an Ethernet jack on it. Instead of organizing content by live channels, it would let you sort and filter through television shows in various ways, and then let you start accumulating the shows by transferring the data when your Internet connection is otherwise unused, either on a schedule or by manually telling the box to start and stop using the network. For faster Internet connections, setting a speed limit on the box would also be helpful. It would keep a selection of relevant commercials on hand to show at the typical commercial points. Other options, such as selectable quality settings and downloading shows overnight might help alleviate issues such as prime time network throughput crunches that many consumer-focused networks experience, especially when a large number of customers use Netflix and Hulu.
The service would ideally cost somewhere between $10 and $30 monthly though I'd likely be willing to pay up to $50 for it; and would have similar selection to Netflix, iTunes, and Hulu. Ideally, these three combined, TV and movies plus original content. Additional bonuses for international content. I'd be okay with advertisements on the system if they helped offset the overall cost of it, and if they used the non-real-time and often-updating nature of the system to show you updated advertisements, which is one of the biggest missed opportunities I think that existing cable/satellite "recording" arrangements suffer – if you record an episode of House from last week, or if you record a whole lot of television from a week you were gone and then watch it in three weeks, most of the ads are no longer relevant.
Although I think there are some undesirable aspects to it, the other thing a two-way service (such as Hulu) delivered over a generic data pipe can do is gather data on what ads a viewer does and doesn't like. If I own no pets at all, it makes little sense that I watch cat food and flea commercials all the time. On the other hand, I'm pretty likely to buy telecommunications services, computer software, and gadgets, which is most of what I've told Hulu about myself already. When you watch Hulu, it shows you ads that are both current and (as much as they ever can be) tailored to what'll be most effective on you. It's annoying, and you can opt out from answering any of their questions, but since opting in, Hulu has been really good at not showing me ads about faulty hip replacement surgeries.
In terms of the specific implementation of the caching, I think a lot of people are gunning for a super-Netflix with less of the trouble Netflix currently has with getting the licenses for content. It's well agreed that most people would pay a bit more for that. Heck, it would be perfectly fine by me if a beefed up Netflix offered this service, paired with a box that acts as a local cache to their content delivery network. Although, my ideal version of it would likely start as a new provider, or one of the Telcos or media companies offering it as a true over the top video service. The subscription aspect of it could make a great addition to iTunes, for example.
The other aspect is while I'd like to view the service on my computer, I would be okay if it was centered around a set-top box in the home. As a set-top box, the role is fairly straightforward – gather video from the Internet, pump it through a video output. As a network appliance, I imagine that it would have a local web interface (or that you might configure it by going to the service provider's web site) and use html5/Silverlight/flash or a client application on a computer or device on your local LAN. I imagine that as with Netflix and Hulu accounts, there would be some limit on the number of concurrent streams, but it would be nice if it did allow them, even if that's not a feature I'd personally use.
Previously, I've written that I would be interested in a box provided by the Telco or another network service provider that caches content you're likely to stream. I wouldn't be opposed if the local Telco combined this box (or some of it) with their other network equipment, but I think this is something I'd also be willing to take or would want separate. Of course, because I don't have a "television" I am going to put the box on my bookshelf right next to my DSL modem anyway, but the ability to take the service with me to another network service is part of what makes it an over-the-top service. It also seems to be accepted by the TelcoTV providers that their set-top boxes aren't going to be in the same place the residential gateway is going to be, and splitting the box into multiple set-tops or receivers makes it a bit more involved than I think is strictly practical for a first go at this kind of product. For an existing player in this market such as Netflix, Hulu, or iTunes to add this kind of functionality could mean an instant big and vivid ecosystem, but with the right functionality, I'd pay for it from a new name and with few choices for hardware.
I'll finish by saying that for $10-30/mo, you're unlikely to get some of the neater things you can do with iTunes files, such as synchronize them to an iPod or iPad for offline viewing, but I'm sure there's a market for a service like this, and I know that if notified of its existence, I'd sign up immediately. I have a list of television shows and movies about two miles long I'd like to watch, but my Internet connection is too slow to sign up for my own Hulu and Netflix subscriptions, and the other standalone video services are either very inconvenient, very expensive, or most commonly: both.