One of the biggest impediments to freeing up space on cable television systems is the amount of analog television programming viewers still watch over televisions not connected to set top boxes.  Time Warner Cable customers, already weary from paying $7 or more a month per television to rent digital boxes could eventually be in luck, if they own certain televisions made by Sony or Samsung.

The cable operator announced at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show it would begin testing delivering cable television directly to some television sets equipped to receive the Internet.

Time Warner Cable’s test of IPTV would deliver the cable lineup over its broadband network, which removes the need for an expensive and unsightly cable box.

Since the cable company would only deliver the channels customers were authorized to receive, boxes with complicated digital tuners and encryption schemes would be unnecessary.  For the first time in years, consumers could once again get the full cable lineup just by plugging a single cable into the back of their television.  No boxes, no TV set remotes rendered useless, no cableCARDs, and no more tangled cables behind the set.

The company could also eventually dump their DVR boxes, which require regular service to maintain and replace worn out hard drives.  The future of DVR’s is “cloud storage,” — your recordings would be stored at the cable company on their equipment, ready for on-demand access.

Could the days of the set top box be numbered?

The new IPTV service can also deliver advanced graphics and provide better on-screen programming guides, and even open up the potential to integrate Internet applications with the television experience.

IPTV already exists today with AT&T’s U-verse, which delivers all of its video programming over the same bandwidth their phone and broadband services rely on.  But U-verse still has a box attached to each television in the home.

Consumers could end up saving plenty if they got rid of expensive rented cable equipment.

But there are some downsides — the biggest being the currently limited number of televisions equipped to handle Time Warner’s proposed implementation of IPTV.

IPTV has often also opened the door to concerns from content producers about stream security — could a consumer capture perfect digital copies of movies over the cable company’s IPTV network?  And what happens politically if the cable company tries to deliver unlimited cable TV over the same broadband network it tried to limit in the past.

Cable providers and phone companies are trying to keep video subscribers happy in hopes they won’t drop service.  Comcast and Time Warner Cable both announced last week they are trying to build virtual cable systems that would deliver their channel lineups live to tablet computers, starting over home Wi-Fi networks.  Verizon and AT&T are also working on similar features.

Amazon Prime members may get access as part of their $79 annual membership fee.

Amazon.com is talking to TV show distributors and media companies about launching a new online streaming service comparable to Netflix to provide online television programming, according to sources familiar with the talks.

Amazon already offers $1.99 online access to individual shows and movies, but the new service would charge a flat fee for unlimited access.

Various news reports indicate Amazon has approached NBC/Universal Studios, Time Warner, and CBS/Viacom, among others.

The Wall Street Journal obtained access to one proposal that would bundle the yet-unnamed service with its existing Amazon Prime service, which charges frequent Amazon shoppers $79 a year to get two-day “free shipping upgrades.”

Would Amazon.com have access to current hit shows or find themselves restricted to showing 1970s Wonder Woman reruns?

Analysts say Amazon Prime’s steep annual fee has only attracted a small percentage of Amazon customers who perceive value from it, but including unlimited TV programming would give Amazon a built-in subscriber base and potentially attract new interest among current Amazon customers who want something more than two-day shipping for $79 a year.

Large web players are jockeying for video programming, seen as the next big thing as broadband becomes commonplace in most American homes.  It’s already a huge revenue generator.  Americans spent $340 million dollars watching TV online and another $300 million for online movies in 2009, according to Adams Media Research.

Those familiar with Amazon’s proposed service say the service is likely to find studios amenable to licensing older TV shows and second-run content, similar to what Netflix streams today, but will likely find strong resistance to licensing first-run, current network shows.  Most TV networks and major cable networks reserve those for services like Hulu and the cable industry’s TV Everywhere, which they own and control.

Some studios are concerned that licensing reruns of current shows might be eating into their lucrative deals with cable networks, which license network TV programming as part of cable programming lineups.  But many studios also recognize that viewers blockaded from access will simply pirate the shows online, downloading them from newsgroups, commercial file storage networks, or peer-to-peer services.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Sony to Expand Service Amazon May Start Online Video 9-1-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News covered Amazon’s video service in this morning’s Business Briefs, which also gave word Sony was dramatically expanding video options on its Playstation console and Motorola was putting $3.5 billion in cash into its mobile phone and set-top box unit destined to be spun-off in 2011.  (1 minute)

TV Everywhere isn’t just for the United States.  Canadian cable operators are also threatened by cable cord-cutters, although their pervasive Internet Overcharging schemes have kept TV addicts from watching too much video online.

Both Shaw Cable (serving western Canada) and Vidéotron (best known in Quebec) have this week introduced their own online video portals providing “authenticated” cable subscribers with access to on-demand movies and television programming as an extension of their cable package.  But neither company is willing to exempt its customers from Internet Overcharging schemes which apply data caps and overlimit fees to broadband accounts.

Of the two services, Shaw Cable’s is bare bones, offering a relative handful of TV shows and a movie library.  No live video is provided, and many titles carry per-viewing fees, even for cable subscribers.  Non-subscribers face even higher fees to view programming.  Vidéotron takes a different approach, offering a video portal called Illico Web that offers on-demand and live streaming feeds of a wide range of cable networks, mostly in French for its Quebec subscriber base.

Shaw positioned its video-on-demand service as an extension of its cable service.  It hopes its announced acquisition of Canwest Global, which runs the Global television network in Canada and 18 cable networks will vastly expand its offerings in the future.

Vidéotron warns its subscribers watching its service eats into monthly broadband usage allowances.

“Technology continues to evolve with the ability to watch content on multi-platforms,” said Peter Bissonnette, President, Shaw Communications. “That’s why Shaw is investing in bringing exceptional content delivered in various ways. Our new broadband VOD Player provides our customers the convenience of watching their favorite movies and television shows when and where they want to.”

Pierre Karl Péladeau, the president and chief executive officer of Vidéotron’s parent Quebecor was more abrupt when he said on Wednesday that its TV Everywhere service would offer “an alternative to piracy.”

But in Canada, there is a catch.  Neither cable provider offers subscribers unlimited broadband service.  Both employ Internet Overcharging schemes ranging from usage caps to consumption billing schemes with overlimit penalties.  Vidéotron reminds its subscribers to “keep an eye on your Internet usage.”  That’s because they don’t exempt their online viewing service from their usage limits.  Vidéotron’s video portal does eat its way through subscriber allowances.  The company provides these estimates to help guess by how much:

[flv width=”432″ height=”263″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Welcome to illico web 6-10.flv[/flv]

Illico Web produced this video introduction to its TV Everywhere service. (French with English subtitles — 3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Anti-Cable Pay TV Ad from the 70’s.flv[/flv]

I ran across this “public service announcement” about the perils of cable television coming from the over-the-air broadcasters terrified of the implications of a new concept in television delivery — coaxial cable.

Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, big lobby dollars from broadcasters kept a foot on the throat of the newly-born cable television industry, prohibiting them from showing sporting events, movies and programs offered in syndication, unless they were from local stations of course.

To allow this new competitor to gain access to lucrative programming would cost local jobs, hurt investment in television stations providing local community service, and ruin it for everyone!

Ironically, broadcasters are still using these arguments when confronting intransigent cable companies that won’t write checks to pay those “free TV stations” for the right to carry them on the cable lineup.

Whenever a new player enters the marketplace, the existing ones panic.  That’s why the National Broadband Plan, Net Neutrality, and the concept of open networks terrifies incumbent players.  It’s a whole new world — one they aren’t comfortable with — market instability and players out of their comfort zones always invoke a fear-based response, especially on Wall Street.

Forty years after the pay television monster envisioned in this advertisement, we are still watching local over-the-air broadcasters.  In fact, the only harm viewers have experienced comes from an industry that treats local TV stations like commodities, bought and sold for millions of dollars, even as many stations cut local programming and community service.  These days, it’s not uncommon to find a major local affiliate not even producing a newscast any longer.

We now face another transformation in telecommunications with the release of a national blueprint for improved broadband.  Existing players have no problem with it, as long as they define it, benefit from it and get to implement it.  But the idea of opening their networks and providing consumers with additional choice, as well as protection from meddling providers who want to monetize all-things-Internet, just cannot be entertained.  To do so would … you know, cost jobs, harm investment, and ruin it for everyone.

Much like a broken record, this rhetoric is obsolete.

HBO Go is currently only available directly to Verizon FiOS customers. Comcast customers have access through Fancast, and Time Warner Cable indicated it wasn't interested in participating in HBO Go, for now.

HBO subscribers who are also Verizon FiOS TV customers are the first to get access to the premium channel’s new online video portal — HBO Go, launched Wednesday with over 600 hours of HBO programming, available free to authenticated HBO and FiOS subscribers.

HBO Go is another project spawned from the cable and pay television industry’s TV Everywhere project — putting television programming online for anytime viewing, for free, as long as you maintain a cable or pay television subscription.

Ironically, the service launched Wednesday on Verizon’s telco-TV service FiOS, leaving lots of cable subscribers waiting for access.  If you subscribe to HBO through cable, satellite, or U-verse, the service remains unavailable to you, for now.  Comcast subscribers already had access to HBO’s programming through the Fancast Xfinity TV website.  If you don’t pay for television, the service remains unavailable to you indefinitely — they won’t sell it to you at any price.

“Ultimately this is about extending the subscriber lifecycle,” HBO co-president Eric Kessler said. “It’s more about subscriber retention.”

Subscriber retention through incumbent providers, he means.  HBO doesn’t want to risk selling direct to online consumers who might want to cut ties with their cable or other pay television provider.

Stop the Cap! reader Jared has FiOS and HBO and let us sample the service through his FiOS connection (his 25Mbps/25Mbps connection with remote access maxed out our Road Runner Turbo connection and still left him plenty of leftover speed).

Let’s start with the viewing experience.

It’s a big improvement over HBO’s Wisconsin trial in 2008 with Time Warner Cable, which required viewers to download Windows Media-encoded video files protected with Microsoft’s annoying digital rights management scheme.  It was cumbersome for trial participants, and dealing with Microsoft’s player and DRM cut Mac owners out of the trial.

HBO Go is Flash-based, using Adobe’s Real-Time Messaging Protocol to keep viewers from saving permanent copies for themselves (and potentially their friends.)  Using Verizon FiOS, viewers should rarely encounter any artifacts or speed-related viewing problems.  The picture was fine, even for me using remote access software. Of course, if your Internet connection is considerably slower than FiOS or your neighborhood suffers from online congestion, you could experience issues streaming HD content, but HBO Go is designed to buffer when encountering slower connections.  The files are encoded in MPEG-4 at 1.2Mbps and 2.6Mbps, which theoretically should be fine for the majority of viewers.  Comcast subscribers – remember watching counts against your usage cap.

Wandering around the HBO Go library was simple  — easier to navigate and less cluttered than Hulu.  The site was intuitive and should be easy to use for just about everyone.

Up to three members of your household can each watch programming from the service at the same time, even away from home, anywhere in the country.

HBO Go claims to be a work in progress — about 25% of the content will be refreshed by HBO every week, with new episodes available on the service immediately following their TV premiere.

But the service hardly offers a comprehensive viewing experience.  It’s much closer to Hulu or your cable company’s HBO on Demand service.

For example, rights issues limit virtually all of HBO’s original series to a handful of recent episodes or seasons.  Only The Wire has a complete library to watch from its premiere forward.  Curb Your Enthusiasm, aptly named when considering HBO Go, is missing completely.  So is Real Time with Bill Maher, although four of his earlier specials are archived on the site.

As for movies, there are gaping holes there as well.  Available titles resemble Cinemax’s selection of movies you’ve already seen.  There are gaps between what you can watch on HBO itself and what is available on HBO Go.  Babe is online, for instance, but anything Harry Potter isn’t.

In other words, what could have been a compelling addition for HBO subscribers feels redundant.  I would never pay anything extra for HBO Go, nor will it be a factor in keeping HBO.

Online viewers need not apply.

HBO could have used the opportunity to sell the service to non-cable subscribers for a monthly fee and pick up some additional revenue, but that wouldn’t sit well with the pay television cartel that is behind the TV Everywhere concept.  They don’t want you cord cutting — those that have are locked out of the HBO Go Clubhouse.  For now, I suspect few were clamoring to get in.