Selling TVs is a Tough Job

For those readers who've been living in a cave, the last few weeks have been earnings weeks, that time each quarter when corporations announce earnings, compare them to analysts' estimates, and either puff out their chests or duck for cover. Well, this week it was Dell's turn, and the news was not very good.

To make matters worse, last week the company recalled some 4 million Sony-made batteries that could spontaneously combust and announced it had been cooperating with an "informal" investigation by the SEC. In all, it was an extremely forgettable week for the nation's second-largest PC maker.

What does this have to do with TV, you ask?

Well, all that bad news made me wonder why tech companies like Dell are still in the highly competitive HDTV business. Shouldn't these companies learn something from Gateway's forgettable foray, particularly given today's corporate focus on cutting divisions that drag on the bottom line? Would they be better off focusing on their core business? More importantly, should I even consider buying a TV from a company that might not be selling them a year from now?

When Dell announced its intent to enter the business, analysts figured its mass production, cost-cutting, direct-to-consumer model would gain the company a foothold and bring downward price pressure on the market. Unlike PCs however, TVs are not commodities—they really need to be seen. As a result, the direct-to-consumer model is not conducive to selling televisions.

For its part, Dell says it is "very committed to our television business," adding "Dell is very much driven to deliver what our customers tell us they want. It is one of the benefits of our direct model—direct customer feedback in real time." I could be wrong, but it's hard to imagine Dell is overrun with customers begging them to sell TVs. Just the same, the company is not planning to do so without a slight change to its business model. Dell now has 175 kiosks around the country and is in the process of opening two Dell Direct stores where people can see the sets in action.
Unfortunately, the Dell price influence hasn't really materialized in the TV market. In fact, go to Dell's site and you'll find a 37-inch LCD for $1,799. Go to Amazon and you'll find a 37-inch Sharp Aquos—which you can also see at your local CE store—for less than $1,700. Few consumers, given the choice of buying a more expensive TV sight unseen from a PC maker or purchasing one from a reputable CE maker, are going to opt for the former.

For other manufacturers, the big issue is shelf space. Getting just a little bit for your product at larger CE stores is a hell of a lot of work—manufacturers really have to convince these people products will be around for the long haul. I know this is true because I did some work for a PR agency that represented the consumer electronics division at a major technology manufacturer. Frankly, the division was so small and brought in so little revenue to this giant company that the constant concern was whether it would be around next year. Everything hinged on shelf space and if the retail folks couldn't get it, the division would die.

Just how important are the home entertainment divisions to these companies? Watch reports on CNBC. Whenever there's an earnings announcement, you won't hear one word about the digital entertainment divisions. It's three years since Dell and other tech companies entered the CE business and still, they get virtually no play.
Frankly, I don't see how these companies can continue to compete against the likes of Sony, Samsung, Sharp or Panasonic. Selling TVs is a tough job and these days PC makers are so focused on their low-margin core businesses, I have to think the focus shifts to software or business services, driving the stepchild even further from the parent. How do these companies gracefully exit a business they never should have entered in the first place?

We may find out sooner than we think.

Get It If You Can

Regular readers know I crave the idea of competition for my cable provider. So it was with some interest that I took in the new Verizon commercial where the company promises to offer phone, high-speed Internet and television service, all for $95. Go to Verizon's website and you'll notice the typical offerings—DSL and phone service. But there's also a choice for satellite or FiOS, a fiber optic data line.

As copyeditors are fond of saying, "God is in the details." Jump, to see the divine catch.

So I visited Verizonfios.com to learn more about the benefits of FiOS. What I found was a shockingly useless website. I especially loved the option to "enter your phone number to see if the service is available in your area." Chances are, it's not. In fact, according to Verizon's own numbers, the service is currently available to 3.1 million homes, and has a mere 375,000 subscribers in California,

Even now, my biggest concern with FiOS is whether it's going to be everything the Verizon claims it is. The website is so innocuous, it's hard to tell. Even more important, will it be available when they say it will? After all, phone companies have a history here—they were singing the DSL's song long before the service was actually ready for prime time. And they're still playing catch up.

Telcos are obviously desperate to get a foot in the TV door by offering their own "triple play" and they'll say damn near anything to get consumers to buy in. But for the vast majority of Americans, they're really trying to tie you into a satellite contract you may not be able to escape once FiOS actually becomes available. And even if you can get out of it, you're stuck with a useless satellite dish on your roof. In short, they're doing it again. They don't really have a service—most likely won't until 2008—but they're selling the hell out of it anyway because the triple play offered by cable companies is kicking their ass.

Back at the VerizonFiOS site, I "initiated game sequence" against the cable creepers that drag me down. And I drew a picture that turned into some psychedelic graphic. How in the world can they promote TV offerings and have this be the best example of what they intend to do? It's embarrassing. Why can't I see what it offers? Where are the testimonials making me want FiOS? Seriously, the site is awful. If this is indicative of what I can expect from FiOS, cable companies don't have much to worry about.

Listen, I bitch about this because I care. I really want a direct competitor to cable so I don't have to continue to pay the obscene amounts my provider is charging me. Still, despite all the rhetoric from people like John McCain and his cable a la carte fetish, no one does anything to address the real issue—that I only have one cable company to choose from. But do I really believe legitimate competition is going to come from some theoretical service promised by the phone companies? Do I even have a choice?

Maybe.

I know some in blogger-land can only deign to think of WiMax as a third-world wireless Internet solution. But think about this. One of the more interesting under-the-radar developments of the last few weeks was DirecTV's participation in the wireless spectrum auction held by the FCC. Remember, I told you once before that Intel demonstrated WiMax's capabilities at Sundance, beaming a full-length feature to a movie theater several miles away. Could DirecTV be thinking about hawking its own triple play? Probably.

And could the same be said of Sprint, which recently announced its 4th generation network would be based on WiMax. Listen to what the folks at Current Analysis have to say about the company's decision to throw its eggs in the WiMax basket:

"By having high throughput (estimated at 2-4 Mbps) and by having uplink speeds as well as down-link speeds in the Mbps range rather than the kbps range, Sprint can really deliver on its promise of providing next-generation applications such as interactive video-sharing, to include customer generated video content. Business applications such as interactive database access and video-conferencing will also be possible. The speeds of the new network really make wireless an attractive alternative to DSL access."

Hello, Verizon. Can you hear me now?

How TV is Transforming

In case you missed it, The New York Times today declared an end to tube televisions (see Monday's technology section), saying they'll begin disappearing from the market after the holidays. In fact, Geoff Shavey, Costco's TV buyer, says his stores won't be selling tube TVs a year from now. So those of you looking to buy that extra set for the game room, get it in gear before your only choice is an overpriced, underperforming flat-panel or projection set. But the hardware changes are only the beginning of TV's transformation. More after the jump.

Meanwhile, from the "only a matter of time" file, Google announced today it was going to partner with MTV to insert ads into online video clips, including "SpongeBob" and the MTV Video Music Awards. MTV will sell ads and split the profits with Google.

The news follows a report I received last week from In-Stat that said the market for online content services would grow from 13 million households last year to more than 131 million by 2010. And that report coincides with a Yankee Group webinar I attended last week entitled, "Broadband Video: Witnessing the Birth of an Industry." Mike Goodman, Yankee's senior analyst for media & entertainment strategies, theorizes broadband video will impact TV the same way TV impacted radio. In short, video via broadband changes the business model and alters the current relationship between providers and viewers. That said, it also allows new companies to get a foot in the door.

I spoke with Goodman to get his thoughts on new video services and what this proliferation means to an audience already overloaded with too much crap.

You say these new services are going to "empower" consumers. Won't the proliferation also confuse them? For kids, teens and young adults, absolutely not. And it won't confuse that segment of the adult population that's comfortable with broadband video at work. Another segment is the email segment, and their association is email, casual games and photos and not much more, so the potential for confusion absolutely increases. That older segment is much less likely to watch video on a PC than a TV. To get them to use a PC, you must really simplify the process. It has to be like another channel on the dial—it has to be seamless.

Who's going to enable all this technology? Is Media Center the only real option?
They're not the only one. But it's a crawl, walk, run scenario. We're in the crawl stage. When I wanted to connect my Xbox 360 to my home network, I had to go through hoops. It does a lot of it, but if it doesn't connect on the first try. For someone who's not technologically sophisticated, it's very intimidating.

But the really important thing is the interface and the software. And that's when you get into some interesting questions. Should we build this to interface with Windows Media Player or enable the TV to surf online so I can access the content directly, whether it's through the PS3 model, going out to the PS network—there's no PC in that equation. Or do I use an open model where I can surf around and get any content I want directly to my TV? It's still way too early to say which is going to emerge as market leader.

How successful will AOL be in making video content available to folks outside the walled garden?
It depends on timeframe. I think to grow this market it has to be ad supported first. If you lead with subs, it becomes what I call a 10 percent marketplace. Only 10 percent will be willing to purchase. It's about building behaviors. You really have to make this an integral part of consumers' consumption behavior. That's what YouTube is doing now. You've built an audience, now you can monetize it. Then you layer on subs and transactional services.

AOL's approach is a little like YouTube's, but they're already one step down the path. When YouTube came they had to build first, then layer on advertising. AOL, despite all the losses, it still has a pretty big user base. And they're not worried about driving traffic since they're on stage two of monetizing it. YouTube is still about building behavior. AOL has seen the writing on wall and they know they're no longer in the access business; they're in the content-delivery business.

Speaking of YouTube, what do you see in the company's future?
YouTube's founder says the market is a clip culture world and going to stay that way. I don't agree but he was pretty adamant about it so that's indicative to me that what you see is what you get. In the long term, it's a lot harder to say because we need to see how the market evolves. As it stands right now, I see them sitting on the model they have.

Is TiVo looking to get involved in broadband video?
TiVo's not really interested. It's focused more on the TV side of that equation—the place shifting of video onto a portable device—more than to record online TV or integrating broadband into the set-top box. I think EchoStar has an integrated DSL box so they're coming out with set-top boxes that are going to be a critical component in bringing broadband content to the TV. It could be a game console or traditional box; it could be a more dedicated box like an Akimbo box. There are a lot of different approaches to what kind of box will deliver broadband video into the home.

Is there anyone out there who can possibly catalog all the broadband video currently available?
I don't think its possible. It's kind of what a Yahoo or Google and Cablevision are all trying to do. The Internet is really the ultimate in democracy. There are so many niche things out there, it doesn't lend itself to a single service provider bundling all this stuff together. The more important thing is a need for better discovery and navigation tools. If Comcast can offer a powerful discovery and navigation tool that makes it easier to find what you want, it's not a centralized approach. You're not trying to control. You're aggregating because you're providing a service that's beneficial. You're a pseudo portal, a tool that becomes a gateway for people to discover content and you provide for people from there.

Media Server Madness

I don't remember when the obsession with home media servers developed, but it seems virtually every research firm has caught a bad case of media server fever. For example, this week a Parks Associates report arrived in my inbox claiming shipments of media servers would hit nearly 50 million by 2010. That echoed another recent report from ABI Research that declared "Media Server PC category to exceed $44 billion by 2011."

My question: Who the hell is buying these things?

But then I read what's actually considered a media server. Parks defines it as "a platform that can provide digital content to other platforms through certain networking technologies." In short, any network-attached device, like the Buffalo Technologies Linkstation 250GB Network Storage Center; multimedia PCs or any machine that runs Windows Media Center; set top devices, like TiVo or cable boxes from Scientific Atlanta; and high-end options like the McIntosh MS300 Music Server. ABI defines them pretty much the same.

After the Vista demonstration at this week's analysts meeting, I was curious to know what analysts thought would actually run these things. For those who didn't see it, a forlorn Micro-softy tried in vain to demonstrate a voice recognition program that performed so badly, analysts in the crowd laughed at the poor guy. In short, the disastrous demo didn't inspire confidence the company could ever produce good software for an entertainment device.

So I decided to ask Michael Wolf, ABI's principle analyst for broadband and multimedia research, to find out why he thought media servers would be so hot over the next few years. Wolf said Intel's push for Viiv to be the center of the digital home and new devices like the PS3 would make servers more appealing to consumers than today's options.

I can buy the PS3 angle, but when it comes to the push for Viiv, uh, no. And the problem is not with Intel. Rather, the problem is that these multimedia PCs are supposed to run Vista. These days, few people buy new PCs (Didn't someone recently declare the PC era over?) and virtually no one is buying Media Center PCs. So why would anyone buy Vista machines to run digital media? "Today Media Center is a hybrid," Wolf says, "but with Vista, it becomes part of the core operating system." I don't know about you, but the core of my entertainment experience will never be a PC.

Besides, God knows when Vista's actually coming to market. Sure, Microsoft says it's supposed to arrive early next year, but they don't sound overly confident. In fact, one joke making the rounds this week was that Vista was to be renamed Windows 2010.

So what's the alternative? Well, I've said before that smart CE companies should think about how they can partner with Apple to develop an interface for their devices—one based on the iPod. Sure enough, this week analysts began saying iTunes could be the "Trojan Horse" that allows entry into the digital den. All that's required is for CE manufacturers to add support for iTunes to their products.

If there really is a market for home media servers, it makes sense people would gravitate to an interface they already know. Otherwise, the market is just another analysts' fantasy—the type that aims to create a market that doesn't really exist and costs companies a lot of money.

And that doesn't benefit anyone.

The Week In TV

There they go again: Last week AT&T rolled out Homezone, its initial "IPTV offering" in San Antonio and Ohio. Turns out Homezone is less IPTV than just another package deal that brings together a phone company and a satellite service—in this case, Echostar—to provide the same types of voice, Internet and entertainment services many cable companies are already delivering.

Frankly, IPTV is looking more and more the DSL rollout from seven or eight years ago. At the time, it looked like the phone companies were going to beat the cable companies to the broadband punch. The problem was they weren't ready to deliver on their initial promises. I remember a gentleman from the newsroom at Money magazine who was on the phone every day for three months trying to get DSL installed into his NYC apartment. By the time they were finally ready to install it, Time Warner had launched Road Runner in his neighborhood and he just went with cable. I'm sure he wasn't the only one who lived through that ordeal. The end result: telephone companies botched the launch so badly they still haven't completely recovered. Today DSL has 44 percent of the broadband market compared to cable's 56 percent, and telcos have had to offer all manner of cut-rate pricing to reach that number.

AT&T spokesperson Amanda Ray says Homezone was part of the company's strategy to increase its video offerings. But it's dangerous for phone companies to even imply that these half-assed solutions as part of their initial IPTV rollout when the reality is, they have absolutely nothing to do with IPTV. When consumers subscribe and find out exactly what these services are, their experience will completely sour them on the idea (just like DSL). As a result, these telephone companies will spend the next few years of their rollout just trying to recover. Maybe this time, they'll learn their lesson.

Yeah, and maybe they'll offer IPTV for free....

This past week, I attended Sony's annual line show at Aspen, in NYC. There was the usual lineup of TVs, digital cameras, camcorders, and home theater units. But beside the fact that the air conditioning seemed to be broken and the new PlayStation 3 was safely posited behind glass, the most striking—but not surprising—thing about the event was the push for Blu-ray. Sony obviously hopes Blu-ray can carry the day for the company this holiday season, but I have my doubts. Honestly, how many people do you know who are going to pony up $1,000 for a technology that won't work with an existing DVD collection?

Just the same, look for the BDP-S1 Blu-ray Disc Player, Vaio BD-Enabled PCs, and the BWU-100A Blu-ray internal disc drive for PCs to come to your local PC and electronics store soon. Just don't look for a lot of people to be buying.

YouTube recently announced it had 19.7 million visitors in June, a nearly 300 percent jump over January, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. It's another indication viral video made with phones, camcorders and digital cameras is on the verge of posing an even larger problem than the networks ever imagined. Suddenly, people are entertaining themselves via the Web and the networks—who can barely handle competition from cable—are understandably nervous.

And speaking of YouTube, MTV Europe announced today it would launch MTV Flux, a new channel in the UK that only airs video created by viewers. According to Angel Gambino, MTV's VP of digital strategy in Europe, the new service will be a guide to the best of what's out there, and will come from phones, computers and any other video source. Users will be able to "snag it, drag it, and drop it into Flux," she says, where they'll be able to view it on the PCs, phones or TVs. Gambino adds that MTV will even offer tools that allow users to create ads for its new service. Hmm. A network where the network doesn't have to do any of the work—sounds like a good business to me.

Actions Speak Louder Than HDTV

by Brian L. Clark

Often, the best advice is not what someone says but rather, what someone does. For example, as a technophile, you've probably read any number of columnists' opinions on HDTV—some may have included quotes from well-known industry analysts. Well I thought it would be interesting to see what TV technologies some of these journalists and analysts actually have at home, so I sent out a simple email to inquire. Their responses might surprise you.

Ross Rubin, Director of Industry Analysis, NPD
"I have five TVs, not including an old Casio handheld. Only two (a 36" and a 27") are currently connected to a cable box. A third (a 13" model that had a built-in VCR) is connected up solely for previewing edited video and a fourth (27") is used almost exclusively for video games and DVDs. The last one is an old 20" that I may redeploy to another room.

They are all CRTs and none are HD. Much of this was due to their being purchased before HD was even available and my not watching that much television since my son was born almost two years ago. Furthermore, few of my favorite shows are available in HD; I'm not a big sports fan. I'll likely purchase my first HDTV early next year.

I'd prefer to go with a microdisplay technology such as DLP or SXRD, but may be swayed by another household decision-making constituency who would likely prefer a smaller and slimmer LCD flat-panel."

Michelle Abraham, Senior Analyst, In-Stat
"3 TVs, one 2001 CRT rear projection HDTV monitor, the other 2 analog CRTs from the early 90s. In 2001 when I bought the CRT, RPTV was the best deal for the size my husband required. We were replacing an analog RPTV and it made no sense to buy another one. DLP RPTVs had been out in the market a few months but cost over $10K, so that was not an option.

I'm still waiting to replace the other two. Prices will keep coming down so I'll likely continue to wait and wait and wait...unless one of them breaks. Too much knowledge tends to hold me back from purchasing."

I mentioned to Michelle that few of the folks I'd heard from at that point actually had HDTV.

Her response: "You may find it more from too much knowledge than a technology choice. Back when I did PC research, the members of the PC group had the oldest home PCs in the company because we were always waiting for the next quarter's new technology or price declines before we bought a new one. In the meantime, the quarters rolled on by."

Kurt Scherf, VP & Principal Analyst, Parks Associates
"The Scherf Household is a late-adopter household. We have three TVs, but none of them HDTV."

David Naranjo, Analyst, Formerly of DisplaySearch
"You would be surprised to find out how many in the business (analysts, product managers, VPs, etc.) actually have a HDTV Plasma or LCD in their house. It is not as many as you might think. I am one of those that do not have either flat screen technology. I have seven TVs in my house, and they are all CRTs (including a 32" HDTV)."

David Pogue, The New York Times Columnist & Winner of the "Tuning Fork Most Technologically Advanced Award"
"Our main TV is an LCD set (1080p high-def), chosen because it's in a very bright room, all windows, where a plasma wouldn't do well.

We also have an older, 34" CRT, also widescreen high-def, now in my office. Ordinarily, I'd consider two HD sets a bit [of] overkill, but having two types/brands is very useful in my job, which entails testing and reviewing high-def camcorders, DVD players, services, etc."

Lance Ulanoff, Columnist & Reviews Editor, PC Magazine
"I am a bust in this arena. I have three TVs, all CRTS (waiting to buy flat panels until my construction and painting is done). None of them are HD.

I know I want one for my den and am seriously considering a 32-inch LCD from Vizio (costs around $800 from Costco), but I need to get the room sanded and painted first."

David Elrich, co-founder of Etown & Contributor to TWICE
"I have a "mere" two: An older 36" CRT and a 4:3 36" HDTV (1080i). My next TV will most likely be the 65" plasma (1080P native). 1080P native is the only type of TV to buy in 2006."

Walt Mossberg, Tech Columnist, The Wall Street Journal (He declined to participate in the overall survey but did, however, offer his thoughts on why CRT still seems to be the choice of people who know.) "Digital flat panels do a horrible job of displaying standard analog TV, and that's still most of TV."

The moral of the story: Many of these folks are still waiting to get a TV at the right price, while others are waiting for the technology to improve prior to making their move. Sound advice, I think.

Attention HDTV Shoppers: Patience is a Virtue

There's nothing quite like covering a technology in its infancy. Take HDTV, for instance. It seems every day, there's something new coming around the bend. And as the markets for those technologies wax and wane, they all have an impact on prices.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, a reader wrote to inform me of something called thick dielectric electroluminescent (TDEL) technology. In theory, TDEL offers "a viewing experience that is much closer to the CRT and superior to other flat panel TV technologies," according to Nick Khoury, President of iFire, the company pushing it. Earlier this year, iFire built its first manufacturing plant to produce engineering samples of 34-inch flat panel displays for HDTV. Khoury claims the technology could shave 30 to 40 percent off manufacturing costs, and that translates into more affordable TVs.

On the surface, TDEL sounds great, but when I spoke to industry analyst David Naranjo, his feeling was that new efficiencies in LCD manufacturing would erase any price advantage pretty quickly. "The general feeling," he says, "is that as more time passes before the commercialization of TDEL, flat panels will have become good enough in terms of picture quality and certainly in terms of price." Naranjo added that Sanyo was the only major CE manufacturer to have signed a partnership deal with iFire.

Then there are the market factors. Last Friday, 3M warned analysts it would not meet second quarter earnings estimates. The reason: Lower than expected World Cup demand had helped create a glut of optical film, a key component in LCD televisions 3M says makes them significantly brighter, more energy efficient and more vibrant in real-life lighting conditions. 3M's optical film technology offers consumers more flexibility to put a TV in a variety of locations without sacrificing picture quality.
A glut is almost always good news for potential buyers and bad news for the companies involved. So while the news that 3M had overestimated demand sent its stock reeling, analysts began to speculate on what it would mean to the price of TVs.

J.P. Morgan said 3M's inventory issues should be confined to the second quarter, but frankly, we're entering the slow season for TV purchasing, and I don't see the company clearing up excess inventory until demand picks up in late Q3 or early Q4 of this year. In fact, according to research firm DisplaySearch's PriceWise data, the price for LCD panels will have dropped another $100 from May through the end of July. "Prices will continue to come down fast," says Charles Annis, who tracks components for DisplaySearch. That, he adds, "will drive more demand and stabilize panel prices somewhat in the latter part of the year."

The moral of the story: It pays to pay attention to what's going on in the components market. Because when manufacturers are caught overestimating demand, there's a very good chance consumers will come out ahead.

So hold on, HDTV shoppers, your patience will pay off. As for me, I will continue to wait for that sub-$1,000, 40-inch LCD TV. If things continue at their present rate, I may get my wish sooner than I think.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Inc., Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

Yesterday, I watched a Frontline documentary called "The Dark Side," which covered Dick Cheney's efforts to expand executive powers after 9/11. That's not such a big deal, but the fact that I watched it online at www.pbs.com, I think, is. Here it is, weeks after originally the original airdate, and I can go to a website to see a show I missed last month. I like that kind of convenience, but as you've heard me say before, the option to aggregate those shows in one central location is something I want even more.

Well, this week, I may have seen another step toward that kind of integration when ReplayTV, which was first to market with digital recording, announced it had an Alpha version of DVR software for the PC. ReplayTV lost the initial DVR Wars to TiVo. But the company is shifting its focus to concentrate on allowing PC users to do all the same things you used to be able to with their box.

Well, this week, I may have seen another step toward that kind of integration when ReplayTV, which was first to market with digital recording, announced it had an Alpha version of DVR software for the PC. ReplayTV lost the initial DVR Wars to TiVo. But the company is shifting its focus to concentrate on allowing PC users to do all the same things you used to be able to with their box.

So last week, while TiVo was touting its new Series2 DT DVR, ReplayTV was demo-ing its PC Edition software, the company's latest foray into digital recording. ReplayTV claims the program "offers TV enthusiasts the ultimate DVR experience." Bill Loewenthal, ReplayTV's vice president and general manager gave me a walk through the software, which, at the moment, only works with Hauppauge WinTV/PVR tuner cards. "We had to look at where we were headed as a consumer brand," says Loewenthal. "And we believe TV and video will follow the path of music and photos, and migrate to the PC."

Given the emergence of sites such as YouTube, which just signed a partnership deal with NBC, and Guba.com, which recently signed a pact with Warner Brothers to distribute films via their site, it appears the company is on the right track.

The software is a lot like ReplayTV's box. It lets you discover and record shows and movies by genre, actors or director. It also allows you to record programming on one PC and watch it on another. The interface is clean and intuitive, and features a Recorded Shows screen that groups your latest recordings, and an overlap manager that allows you to record a second show even if the one your already recording runs a few minutes long. And Quickskip (a 30-second skip forward) tries to preserve one of ReplayTV's best features—the ability to de-commercial your television viewing.

Cool as ReplayTV's PC Edition is, however, it still doesn't allow me to record the Internet broadcasts I want. Loewenthal assures me that's coming, but can't offer a time frame.

Back in the day, when TiVo and ReplayTV were battling it out for DVR supremacy, I always liked ReplayTV better. Then the company's troubles began and I never bought one. But now, I'm being given a second chance. And when the folks at ReplayTV add the ability to record Internet broadcasts, I'll be among the first in line.

Folks interested in the ReplayTV replay can go to www.replaytv.com and download a free trial version. (Remember, you have to have a Hauppauge video tuner card.) If you like it, you can buy the ReplayTV PC Edition for $99. That covers the first year of service, which is $20/year thereafter.

Update: This week, the Senate Commerce Committee took up John McCain's pet project, cable a la carte, and roundly rejected it, 20 to 2. Ironically, the provision was part of a bill that allows phone companies to get into the television business. In short, the Senate gets to keep everyone—except consumers—happy. While Olympia Snow and McCain were the only two to support the amendment, Senators Ted Stevens and Trent Lott both promised a la carte pricing would come and encouraged cable providers to "get on with this." Lott even went so far as to say this was the last time he would vote against it. Kind of makes you wonder why, no?

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Inc., Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

If you've read any past "Tuning Forks," you know I feel nothing but contempt for the current cable company monopoly over who provides my service. With two companies' lines running behind my house, the idea I only have one to choose from annoys me no end.

On top of that, cable prices have been climbing at an absurdly high rate—over the past ten years, rates have leaped almost 70 percent—so the lack of competition is even more galling. Why aren't more people bitching? For one thing, there's the so-called triple play, whereby providers can offer cable TV, Internet service and phone service. If you're told the bundle costs X, you're less inclined to look at what your individual cable bill costs. But since I haven't gone with VoIP yet, I know full well how much I'm shelling out for my mediocre cable service.

In any case, this week, Congress, at the behest of the phone companies, decided to get into the middle of this mess. I'm not a big fan of this type of intervention—I believe generally, Congressional intervention only makes things worse. But when it comes to the cable monopoly, it may be the only option. So it got my attention last week when the House told telecom providers that unlike cable companies, they wouldn't have to approach every town to seek permission to offer next-generation television services, like IPTV.

This particular bill was sponsored by Texas Congressman Joe Barton (R) who, interestingly enough, gets a sizable chunk of money from both cable providers and phone companies. (I wonder how Comcast is feeling right now about the $27,000 opensecrets.org says it contributed to Barton last year?) Barton's bill goes on to the Senate, now, where it is likely to pass in some form or another. This was originally attached to the net neutrality amendment, which would have prevented ISPs from charging more to high-bandwidth users who download things like video. But Congress didn't see the need to protect consumers, and tossed net neutrality in favor of ramming the franchise exemption through.

Barton claims his bill will do three primary things:

1. Provide more choices and more control for consumers.
2. Clear roadblocks on the information superhighway.
3. Create jobs and strengthen the economy.

The first two are enviable objectives, but the last one sounds like political BS.

Barton adds, regulations that govern cable stifle competition and prop up prices and that American consumers are used to being able to look for the best deal. Fair enough, but I personally think it's because once a cable company lays lines to your home, it has exclusive access to your business. If you want to open up competition, force cable companies to open their lines to other cable companies. They did it with the phone companies, for crying out loud, and look what happened to long-distance rates.

Later this week, the Senate is supposed to take up a compromise proposed by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R). Apparently, Stevens' bill preserves consumers' ability to surf anywhere on the Net, but doesn't ban ISPs from charging for specific content that companies like Microsoft and Google are seeking. IOW, online video fans beware.

One of the other issues surrounding this bill is that cable companies believe telcos will cherry pick their towns, offering IPTV service only to areas with higher incomes. It's illegal, but not hard to believe, even though the Telcos deny it's their intent. To top it off, Congress plans to put that regulatory wonder, the FCC, in charge of making sure the phone companies don't. Can't you just imagine Telco Legree rubbing his hands together at the prospect of an agency as inept as the FCC regulating the phone company steamroller? It's like asking a Little League commissioner to oversee drug testing for Major Leaguers—he'd be out of his league. Oh, wait...

What this boils down to is cable companies and telcos fighting to force their own agenda on consumers while telling us it's for our own good. Meanwhile, Congress, ever obliging and the one-time guardian of the people, is really only interested in placating industry lobbyists and corporate interests. As to what's going to happen down the road, suffice it to say that it's all likely to work out in the end...for them.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

TV sure ain't what it used to be. The emergence of TiVo, the popularity of iTunes video, the growth of YouTube, mobile video and the IPTV invasion are just a few examples of how the TV Universe is in flux. And don't think the network folks haven't noticed. Just look at how they're scrambling to make content available to virtually anyone who'll have it. Even gray-haired CBS has put shows online at the iTunes Store, joining such hits as the "Super Monkey Robot Team" and Jim Cramer's "Mad Money." If only iTunes would add "Deadwood." Alas...

With all due respect to TiVo's Guru Guides, I don't need someone to make recommendations for what I ought to watch—I already know what I want and when I want it. What I need is something that actually goes out, retrieves and consolidates that programming in one place, no matter what the source may be. Besides, do I really give a crap what Courtney Cox-Arquette is watching? I mean, I know the "experts" at many of these magazines anyway. If I want a recommendation, I'll call and ask.

As I opined last month, what I really want is a network that caters to my own tastes—a so-called "personal TV network." Knowing there's so much content available on television and the Internet, I want a consolidator to go out and draw it all together so I can record and watch it whenever I want, in spite of snarky "Yawn..." comments made by some disaffected readers.

Well this week I got a call from a Burlingame, California, company called MeeVee that aims to do just that. MeeVee is a service that provides search and discovery technology it claims offers "television viewers and video content enthusiasts...a smarter, easier way to navigate the growing universe of television programming and video content." The company received an "Official Honoree" designation at this year's Webby Awards and seems to be on the right track. "TV isn't just what you watch at a certain time anymore," President Michael Raneri told me last week as he made his way back to San Francisco from a meeting with Microsoft. "Now it extends beyond TV to what you watch on a PC, your phone or any other small device."

According to Raneri, MeeVee aims to allow users to define the content they're looking content via categories, keywords and other attributes. "You can literally create your own personal channel," he adds. MeeVee also provides an international list of streaming channels. Unlike the U.S., a great deal of television around the world is state owned. MeeVee plans to metatag all that content and make it available to viewers interested in a particular subject matter. For example, Raneri says, you may be interested in sailing but have no idea about video available on the myriad websites out there. MeeVee will gather all that programming and help you access it.

The company is currently working with cable companies looking to make video available via their portals. More interesting, however, is that MeeVee is developing a peer-to-peer player that allows users to download shows in the background and stream DVD-quality video from a hard drive.

"Cable no longer has a lock on how people get content," says Raneri. "And if you can take the masses by the hand and introduce them to this new world, you'll have a very loyal user."

Perhaps even those that currently yawn at the idea.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

Each week, I'm "blessed" with numerous research reports, all touting some newly-discovered nugget of information bound to have an impact on the long-term market for hardware or technology services. Generally speaking, these things are nothing more than educated speculation. But every once in a while, one comes to my inbox that feels as though it's trying to create a market that just isn't there. Take, for instance, one I received this week from well-known research firm Parks Associates. The headline was straightforward: "Sales of Home Media Servers at 50 Million Units by 2010."

Apparently, they know something about this market that I don't.

The report concludes that "demand for media backup, competition among video providers and wider accessibility of IP content are driving deployment." Aside from the fact this statement makes it seem like these things are already selling like hotcakes, that last sentence actually got me thinking they might at least be on the right track.

"Consumers will benefit from the capabilities and features provided by home media servers, which will enhance their home media experiences and offer safeguarding and storage for their digital content," according to Kurt Scherf, vice president and principal analyst. "Many industry players—including technology vendors, equipment manufacturers and service providers—will benefit from the development and distribution of centralized storage platforms to the home."

You know, I get the whole, "I want to have everything in one place and distribute it everywhere" mentality. But the idea of trying to transfer my somewhat substantial iTunes library to another machine (again), and then going through the process of authorizing the machine and de-authorizing another machine—yes, I've reached my five PC limit—is more than I can bear. And I'm certainly not going to waste precious time ripping my DVD collection to a new machine. That said, there is something to the idea of having a central storage place for new video and film content coming available via the Internet.

So where is this magical media box going to come from? After all, someone still has to make the hardware and create an interface users are comfortable with. So right off the bat, that all but eliminates Sony. Not that the consumer electronics giant won't try. In fact, I attended the event where they introduced the Vaio XL-1 Series. When I asked why they decided to go with Media Center, the simple answer was that they tried their own OS (remember Giga Pocket) and the world yawned. Alas, the reality is Sony may be great at making electronic devices, but it sucks at software. And the company knows it. So rather than work with someone outside to develop a groundbreaking and intuitive OS people would be comfortable with, they caved and went with the clunky interface and limited capabilities of Windows Media Center.

To be fair, that also eliminates the vast majority of PC manufacturers that can't get beyond Windows as an all-purpose tool, whether you're at the office or at your leisure. And therein lies the problem. I say again, the general public just doesn't want Redmond's drop-down menus and reboots mucking up their viewing experience. If you've ever used a digital entertainment device running Windows Media Center, you know what I mean.

It's interesting to speculate on what Apple will do, but I'm not sure Apple gives a crap about building media servers so much as it does making scads of money selling content at the iTunes store. The company doesn't easily cave to fads, either. I remember talking to Apple in 2000 about when it was going to release its own Internet appliance. Apple's response: The iMac was the ultimate Internet appliance. Turns out they were right and the analysts were wrong. (Confession: At Money, we actually thought Gateway had a better long-term strategy.)

In any case, iTunes offers music and video and, given the recent marriage of Pixar and Disney, is likely to sell feature films down the road. One would think if anyone were going to figure out a way to deliver first-run content—the kind people might actually want to store—to the masses, it would be this group, with Jobs at the helm. But again, that leads to the device to store this stuff. Apple seemed to be heading to a solution with the release of the Mac Mini and the development of Front Row, but that program's capabilities are even more limited than WMC. And frankly, I'm tired of waiting for Jobs to give his Cupertino Kids permission to just build one. Which leads me back to the original question: Who is going to make this media server Parks is so hot on?

Well, if I were an enterprising young consumer electronics executive, I'd be greasing the wheels in Cupertino about developing an iTunes-like interface to license for my brand new device. Apple may be notoriously difficult to deal with. But really, what other option is there? Vista? Not on my TV.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

I've been doing a lot of bitching lately—remember, I bitch because I care—so this week I thought I'd look at something that I'm actually kind of excited about: The use of LEDs as a backlighting source for HDTVs.

Samsung introduced what they called the first ever LED light-sourced DLP rear projection HDTV sets at this years' Consumer Electronics Show, claiming the lack of a color wheel provides smoother, more stable colors; a faster, 7-second turn-on time and a 20,000 hour plus lamp life with no picture degradation. As a result, you don't have to worry about spending $300 or $500 to change the bulb when they've exceeded their usual 3,000- to 6,000-hour lifespan. LEDs in rear-projection sets offer additional benefits, as well, including less noise (no color wheel means easier cooling), no mercury and lower voltage, which means less cost to operate.

All of the aforementioned claims are echoed by David Naranjo, an analyst at research firm DisplaySearch. "LED's definitely offer advantages over UHP [ultra high powered] bulbs," says Naranjo. But he also cautions that while LEDs offer many benefits, "the current configurations of TVs on the market are not optimized for LED use." The end result, he adds, is that projection sets lit by LEDs are likely to be priced between $500 and $700 more than a comparable 1080p DLP set that uses a UHP lamp.

In fact, the real price differential appears to be somewhat higher. For example, a Samsung HL-S5679W, the 56-inch set the Korean electronics giant introduced at this year's CES, is listed at $4,000. That's about $1000 more than a more traditional 1080p DLP set.

Ouch.

The HL-S5679W was supposed to be available in April, but it appears as though it hasn't hit stores yet. Except for the option to "pre-order" at a couple online outlets, I couldn't find anyone that had it in stock.

The price is even steeper when you look at LCDs backlit with LEDs. While the benefits to LCD sets are said to include a larger color gamut, dynamic white control and a reduction in motion artifacts, the cost of those benefits is significant. In fact, Sony's been using LED backlighting in some of its extraordinarily expensive Qualia televisions for the last year or so. And if you have $8,000 and the stomach for it, you can buy the Kdx46Q005, a 46-inch LED backlit 1080p LCD HDTV right now.

Alas, it appears the high cost for LED backlighting on LCD TVs is unlikely to drop for the next year or two, according to Naranjo. "As far as LEDs for LCD backlights," he says, "several companies are working on improving the cost benefit curve." The good news is that a host of companies, including Osram Opto Semiconductor in Germany and Coretronic in Taiwan are ramping up to enter the market to make LED backlights for televisions, so it shouldn't be long until market pressure helps to lower the price.

All of this is to say it appears to me that LED backlighting is the next big thing in HDTV. And it's something I believe is actually worth getting excited about. I mean, what else can manufacturers do? Increase resolution to 2160p? Now, if they can only get the price down to that magical $1,000 for a 42-inch set, count me in. At least, until the next great innovation comes along.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

God bless the porn industry. Yeah, I said it, but before some of you get your panties in a bunch, know this: If you want a technology driver, you need only look to the porn industry to see where video is headed.

Porn just seems to gravitate to new technology. It was the porn industry that helped decide the winner in the VHS/Beta wars 25 years ago. The porn industry helped make CD-ROMs ubiquitous and created the basis for online payment systems so prevalent today. And as a big-time electronics company executive told me a couple months ago, it will be the porn industry that decides the ultimate victor in the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD wars. So it's not surprising the industry decided to pioneer in the area of digital downloads.

Today (May 22, 2006) Vivid Entertainment is supposed to begin offering $19.95 downloads that can be burned onto a DVD. "Leave it to the porn industry once again to take the lead on this stuff," Michael Greeson, founder of Plano, TX research firm, The Diffusion Group, told the AP. Not surprisingly, he added, "The rest of Hollywood stands back and lets the pornography industry work out all the bugs." That should be small comfort to folks who already believe Hollywood is way behind the curve when it comes to digital downloads. But hey, at least they have an example.

The truth is, this gets to the heart of the longstanding distrust between Hollywood and technology companies. The high-definition, big-screen TV phenomenon is wreaking havoc with Hollywood these days; more people are waiting for movies to be released as DVDs—both legal and illegal—so they can watch them on their giant televisions. The film industry tried to address that issue with the semi-simultaneous release of Steven Soderbergh's "Bubble," which hit theaters on January 27th and came out as a DVD four days later. Clearly, they know the direction the industry is headed. Now if they'd just take a page out of the music industry's book by providing a download service that offers first-run flicks. Even if it doesn't allow me to burn DVDs, I'd still pay $25 to download and watch a first-run movie. After all, once I factor in a babysitter and the cost of the crappy food in the theater, it's going to cost me $100, easy.

To be fair the studios do have to deal with the fact that they now look to make more money from DVDs than they do from ticket sales. So it's unlikely a retail operation like Wal-Mart or Blockbuster would look too kindly on being cut out of the food chain. Then again, if Hollywood was really smart, it might stop actually fighting technology and work with those retailers to develop a secure method for digital distribution that keeps pirates at bay. After all, who really wants to trudge to the store to buy or rent a DVD when all they have to do is download a film and watch it on their TV?

Some entertainment companies actually do get it. Revelations Entertainment, for example, is working with Intel to help bring the latter's vision of digital entertainment to reality. The task, says Morgan Freeman, one of Revelations' principles, is "to make film easier to buy than to pirate."

For that reason, I'm rooting for the porn industry. After all, with a nod to "Avenue Q" (hilarious, btw, if you haven't seen it), the Internet is perfect for porn.

Brian L. Clark is a writer and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Inc., Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

Do We Need Another Wireless Standard?

One of the most interesting things about covering tech is you're constantly bombarded with propaganda touting the "next great" technological breakthrough. For example, these days I'm thinking the next great thing is WiMAX, or 802.16. WiMAX is, essentially, WiFi on steroids. The idea behind it is to extend the range of broadband wireless connectivity not by hundreds of feet, but by miles—2 to 7 miles, depending on terrain, as opposed to WiFi's theoretical 300 feet. WiMAX products will likely hit the market later this year, with Intel building connectivity into mobile chipsets in 2007.

Now you might wonder what that has to do with a column about all things television. Well, Intel recently announced it was partnering with a Swedish company called NDS to develop a trial system that provides TV and video systems via WiMAX. According to NDS, the technology would allow WiMAX service providers to bundle TV and video-on-demand with broadband offerings and would use NDS's secure VideoGuard technology to provide paid access.

This isn't the first time Intel has dabbled in wireless entertainment, by the way. At last year's Sundance Festival, Intel partnered with Alvarion and Mountain Wireless to stream a feature-length movie to a theater nearly two miles away. According to attendees, the "resulting image quality was indistinguishable from customary commercial theater showings." Also important, Intel claims that this was no special setup but rather, a "straightforward installation of market-available hardware." In other words, the WiMAX products they used to conduct this experiment are already available.

WiMAX is exciting because it allows providers another avenue to distribute content to subscribers. This week, there were rumblings in the analyst community that Microsoft should look into acquiring Time Warner. Whether that happens or not is irrelevant. Just imagine Microsoft (or Earthlink or AOL) as your wireless Internet service provider offering subscribers the option to stream all of Time Warner's content, including CNN, HBO, or Cinemax via a WiMAX wireless connection. And then think about being able to watch that content on your TV, which happens to be a connected to your home network.

Now carry it a step further. Imagine that with 802.16e, or Mobile WiMAX, you'll be able to receive Sirius or XM satellite television. And this is where my previous idea for a personal TV network comes in to play. If I'm driving down the road on a Sunday afternoon and my beloved Eagles are available via that network, I'll be able to tune to the game on the TV in the back of my SUV. Of course, I'd listen to it in the front seat, but my fanatical oldest son (a chip off the old block) would be able to give me his own play-by-play description of what's happening on the field. Not a sports fan? Then think about live broadband traffic updates where you'd request info for the Garden State Parkway and your network tells you to get off at exit 157 because of the logjam at exit 159.

No one's suggesting any of this is going to happen in the next year, but again, that's the fun of writing a technology blog. Speculation is free and, generally speaking, doesn't scare the crap out of shareholders.

Brian L. Clark is a writer and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Inc., Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

I remember when I was a kid, my old man and I would sit on the back porch in Central Pennsylvania and listen to AM radio broadcasts of Phillies games. I won't tell you how long ago that was, but the fact we weren't able to watch them on cable TV should give you some idea. In any case, I've been doing a fair amount of bitching lately, so I thought I'd write this week about something I actually enjoy. It's MLB.tv, a subscription service that allows baseball fans to watch video streams of Major League games around the country. I've been enjoying the service since the site launched in 2003.

Essentially, MLB.tv allows you to pay $79.95 to watch virtually any game you want, so long as there's no conflict with a local or network broadcast. I bring this up because this week, I broke out that previously useless doorstop—the digital entertainment device that runs Windows Media Center—and used it to receive the stream on my TV. Not my brand new HDTV (which I still don't have, btw), but rather, on my 27-inch Toshiba CRT.

As I sat there watching Friday night's game, it occurred to me this was the real potential of the merger between PCs and entertainment devices. With the emergence of sites like YouTube, and networks like ABC and Comedy Central making shows or show segments available online, the ability to actually watch what you want to watch—whether it's on cable or the Internet—is the real killer app. To put it succinctly, I'd no longer be at the mercy of my cable TV service.

When I can receive all the content I want (including customized news) via the Internet and watch it on my TV, my cable subscription becomes redundant. And that massive investment in IPTV the phone companies are making these days? Don't think they're not chewing their nails wondering if someone like YouTube could become the first "customized TV network" to broadcast solely via the Internet. Given the networks' push to get online—shows like "Lost" and clips from "My Name Is Earl" are now available at ABC.com and NBC.com—I'd say they're thinking about it, too. Meanwhile, the Tiffany Network started Innertube, which it calls an online entertainment portal that offers both network and exclusive, Web-only video releases.

Then there's iTunes. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Apple work with the folks at TiVo to create a subscription service that allows me to record any show I want, either via broadcast or the Internet, to watch any time I please. I rather like the idea of having my own personalized network to consolidate all of the content my cable company can't offer. I can even see the video iPod as the key to unlock video that only plays when the device is seated in a Mac Mini's built-in dock.

Until then, however, I will continue to enjoy services like MLB.tv with my oldest son, watching games on the TV in my basement or catching them on my laptop, sitting on our back porch in New Jersey.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

This week I received an invitation from Parks Associates to attend the Mobile Video Summit 2006. Since Gizmodo has informed me it's not in the budget to send yours truly to Seoul, Korea, I'll just have to comment without actually seeing what the mobile TV folks have to sell. Doesn't matter, really, I'm always happy to share my opinion about unnecessary technology.

Mobile TV is, quite honestly, another attempt by phone companies to justify their enormous investment in 3G. In fact, according to the invite for the Summit, mobile TV is about to become the "name of the game globally." This particular event offers a "great opportunity to see, feel and foresee the mobile TV solutions and visions presented, discussed and exhibited by international big players."

Interesting phrasing.

In any case, the invite made me think about how I should "see, feel and foresee" the whole idea of "international big players" enabling me to watch TV on my phone. Let's say it's fall and I'm stuck at another Sunday soccer game, for example. Even worse, let's say I'm forced to listen to another God-awful Jets or Giants game on my AM radio just to get the score for my beloved Eagles. (We had a better draft, by the way.) Personally, I'm much more inclined to listen to the game via a service like Sirius—assuming they ever offer a portable that plays live broadcasts—than I am to actually watch video on my phone.

Building out a mobile TV network isn't gonna be cheap, either. According to a Pyramid Research report entitled, Rescuing 3G with Mobile TV: Business Models and Monetizing 3G, the phone companies are looking at an additional infrastructure cost of about $12,000 per site. Let's say our hypothetical network requires 50,000 base stations. That's over a half-billion dollar investment.

Which leads to the big question: How much would mobile TV service cost subscribers? Well, according to Pyramid, the price people are willing to pay for video service on their phones is somewhere between $9 and $15 a month.

Alas, no one asked me.

So I ask you, is there anyone reading this who doesn't think they already pay too much for wireless service? Besides, entertainment dollars are already stretched thin. Folks who pay out the wazoo for cable and Internet access, plus a subscription to Netflix, Napster and maybe even satellite radio are not inclined to add another $15 every month to watch video on their tiny little phone screen.

So phone companies are also exploring a pay-as-you-go model, whereby users are charged $1.10 for a five-minute interval. In my experience, phone companies will see this as another opportunity to tack on "small-print" charges—the type I may or may not understand even if I actually take the time to read the fine print in the contract. As a result, that $1.10 is likely to end up being $1.50 or $2.

Verizon is also experimenting with two-tier pricing for its V CAST service, offering a lower monthly subscription for people willing to be exposed to advertising. According to the Pyramid, "indications are strong that this model will reach widespread adoption as Mobile TV evolves." That means splash screens while videos load as well as 10- to 15-second spots. Oh boy.
Finally, there's the initial cost for hardware. Early adopters should be prepared to shell out some serious scratch, according to the report—handsets compatible with a broadcast mobile TV standard are likely to run $400 to start.

Obviously, it's early in the mobile TV game. Just the same, all this makes me think the best thing that could happen is for mobile TV to be part of an IPTV bundle, provided by carriers like Verizon or AT&T two or three years down the road. But that would have to mean some type of cooperation between old line telcos and their wireless brethren. And that's about as likely to happen, as I am to watch TV on my phone.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

I've bitched on several occasions about the high price of HDTV, particularly flat panel HD sets. Well, the tide finally seems to be shifting in consumers' favor. Earlier this year, the price of flat panels for 32-inch LCD TVs dropped about 10 percent, from $540 to $485. For panels 42 inches and above, the price dropped a little further, from $1,040 to $925, or about 11 percent.

The good news is things are likely to get better. "TV makers are expected to increase their output of large screen LCD TVs in the next few years," says David Narranjo, VP of consumer electronics research at DisplaySearch. "With recent announcements by Samsung, Sony, and Sharp to expand and build new panel production facilities, we do expect significant growth in the greater than 40-inch segments over the coming years."

Indeed, major manufacturers are building plants like their feet are on fire. Taiwanese LCD maker AU Optronics, which announced this week it would acquire Quanta Display Inc., is opening a new plant later this year. Overall flat panel production in Taiwan is already up about 37 percent over 2005, according to Taiwan's Industrial Economics & Knowledge Center. Given he government's declaration that flat panel displays are a developmental priority, downward pressure on flat panel pricing should continue.

Meanwhile, electronics giants Samsung and Sony—which also happen to be the largest LCD makers—announced in early April they planned to invest $2 billion to build a massive new LCD facility in Korea that would focus on panels larger than 40 inches. The plant, scheduled to open in fall of next year, will be capable of putting out some 50,000 LCD panels/month. You can also look for these two companies to use this partnership to develop newer technologies (like Organic Light Emitting Diodes) that yield flatter, higher quality panels for next-generation high-definition televisions.

LG Philips has stepped up production. Even Hitachi is considering building a new flat-screen plant. So what happens when manufacturers ramp up production to meet anticipated demand? "With a growing amount of panel capacity coming online optimized for the 32-inch and larger LCD TV market," says Narranjo, "TV supply and demand should loosen, resulting in further price reductions for the larger screen segments."

What that means is the $1,400 32-inch LCD TV you buy today could well be priced below $1,000 by the end of the year. Folks looking for larger sets are likely to find today's $3,000, 42-inch set drops to less than $2,000. That's a savings of 28 and 33 percent, respectively.

Sometimes, it pays to be patient.

On the other hand, if consumers are really smart, we'll consider the possibility of holding out to drive prices down even further. So, with that in mind, I'd like to call for a temporary boycott of flat panel LCD TVs. Don't buy one until the prices have fallen to a more reasonable level. I myself promise not to buy the 32-inch LCD I want for my bedroom till it drops below $750. If you, dear reader, promise to do the same, I'll have one less thing to bitch about.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

In the event it hasn't come to a TV near you, readers should know there's a turf war shaping up between Telcos rolling out IPTV and cable companies protecting their God-given right to maintain a local monopoly. The bottom line: cable operators around the country want telephone companies to do what they had to—sign franchise agreements in each and every municipality where they want to do business, a process that would take years. Phone companies don't want to wait that long, so here in New Jersey Verizon is trying to reach a single agreement with the state. Not surprisingly, cable operators have gone on the offensive by airing a truly grating (and somewhat misleading) TV spot warning that Verizon wants to "triple your cable tax."

I love it when cable companies show they care.

To find out more about this little pissing match, I visited a website set up by NJ cable providers called KeepItLocalNJ and found the following: "Our ability to decide for ourselves how cable television service is provided in our own neighborhoods is being threatened."

Translation: Verizon wants to horn in on our turf, and we want to make it as difficult as possible.

I dug a little deeper and discovered "myths and facts" about the debate. For example, "Verizon claims cable companies have a monopoly." I nearly choked after reading cable's retort, "The claim is false and Verizon knows it." Actually, the claim is true and I know it. Otherwise, how is it I have only one choice of provider?

Ah, the smell of semi-free enterprise.

The legislation in Jersey does indeed call for an increase in consumers' fees, but more than three quarters of the 4 percent fee would be passed on to local communities to provide relief from the state's painfully high property taxes. The remainder would go to providing cable television services for little old ladies. Seriously.

Here's another little fact cable companies don't want you to know: According to a 2004 study by the General Accounting Office, cable subscribers in towns where two or more cable companies compete against one another pay an average of 15 percent less than residents in towns with only one provider...like mine.

I subscribe to digital cable, which costs about $67/month, so my current fee is about a buck. Under the proposed legislation, my monthly fee would rise to $2.68. But let's say the competition from IPTV lowers my bill by 15 percent, or about $10/month. Let's see, a "tax" of $2.68/month vs. a savings of $10/month. Clearly someone's hiding something here.

Look, I'm no fan of phone companies. I subscribed to DSL for a year and it was one of the worst online experiences I've ever had. But that was four years ago, and given the money I fork over to my cable provider every month, I've reached a point where any competition is better than the state I'm in right now, in spite of my cable company would have me believe. As I mentioned in an earlier column, two providers have lines running directly behind my house, but I can only "choose" to subscribe to one of them. I really hate that.

You should too.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

Disruptive. That's one way to describe YouTube.com. But founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen tend to disagree. To them, this market is a clear extension of the entertainment industry. Since its public preview in May of last year, the YouTube video entertainment community has exploded to 35 million video views a day and caught the attention of TV networks' marketing and legal departments. The big guns of the VC world are interested, too. Last November, YouTube secured $3.5 million from Sequoia Capital. Just this week, Sequoia enthusiastically agreed to kick in another $8 mill. These days, Hurley's a busy guy who doesn't have time for a lot of interviews. Still, he managed to squeeze out a few Gizmoments for Gizmodo.

Q: What got you into this?
A: Steve and I started this company because we personally experienced how hard it was to share videos online. We were at a dinner party and we were taking photos and videos and the next day just had a really difficult time emailing these video clips to each other. So we thought this would be a great problem to help people deal with that online. And we just started working on the project in my garage.

Q: Which one of you guys is the programming genius?
A: That would be Steve. I'm the marketing guy, UI guy, designer guy. So we combined forces to create a highly technical, highly advanced architecture with an extremely easy-to-use interface.

Q: People are always talking about disruptive technologies...do you see YouTube as disruptive?
A: No. We see our service as something very complementary to the television business as a whole. What we're really focused on is delivering short-form, entertaining content—giving people the opportunity to interact with a piece of video without having to commit a half an hour, an hour of their time. They can sit down and watch a two-minute clip and interact with that and share it with their friends, so at the end of the day, it drives people back to television.

Q: So it's like skipping to the good parts?
A: Exactly. We're working with many content providers to help them take advantage of our large and growing user base to get content in front of our users that they want to watch and share with one another.

Q: Do you consider yourselves a kind of social networking site that relies on video the way previous generations relied on photos?
A: Yeah, we really view this market as similar to where digital photography was a few years ago. With more and more people gaining access to devices that can take video—from cell phones to digital cameras—we think we're poised to see an explosion of video content.

Q: How can the Internet serve to make TV better?
A: Well, I think where we're coming from, video makes the Internet more entertaining and we're trying to democratize the entertainment experience where anyone can get involved. We're just providing the stage. So it's a matter of how many people respond and share with one another. It's really the community that decides what's popular.

Q: How do you track that community?
A: We're tracking video views. We also have ratings and comments but primarily if something's getting a lot of use, you can see it's a popular clip. So it rises to the top and people can easily find that.

Q: Do you know what your demographic is? Is it mostly young people?
A: There's definitely a lot of growth from MySpace and a younger demographic, but what we're seeing is our demographics are expanding because our content appeals to a lot of people. [YouTube's primary demographic is 18 to 49.]

Q: That seems the ideal demographic for the TV people. Let's talk about the kind of relationships you're developing with networks and other content providers. It seems to me you have a pretty attractive model they've not necessarily been able to exploit.
A: We started this company as a personal solution to host videos and for people to share their experiences very easily but what we've turned into is a consumer media company for people to watch and share original videos worldwide. We're really creating a new market and helping studios, networks and labels to hook in and work with us in a legal way to reach people in a new way, basically.

Q: So you guys have been working with marketing and legal departments, sometimes within the same network?
A: It's pretty funny. We have a great way to serve up promotional and marketing material to drive interest. We really think we can provide a lot of value for people. At the same time, we are a new experience and they want to make sure we're operating correctly. We're happy to work with them to work through these issues. Basically, there's a great opportunity here. They can embrace us and we can both create something that benefits everyone, or they can work against us. We'll see how it plays out.

Q: YouTube is free right now. What's the long-term business model? Everybody's gotta make the donuts, right?
A: Yeah, everybody's gotta make the donuts. We're going to be pursuing advertising as our business model. We're exploring many more possibilities but what we're really committed to is providing the best experience for people to watch and share these videos. And as we move forward, we have an opportunity to present really relevant advertising.

Q: You mention the user experience. What have you guys learned, since you've gone live, to help improve the user experience?
A: We've tried to limit the barriers to entry that were associated with video, like requiring people to download a piece of software. We're a completely Web-based experience. Then we do a lot of work for the user, where we take pretty much any video format and encode that into Flash video. So it plays back seamlessly in a browser without requiring multiple media players. Layer on top of that really easy to use features for people to share these videos and that's why we've seen a lot of tremendous growth.

Q: Facebook just turned down a $750 million offer, saying they were seeking $2 billion. Do consider yourself a million-dollar-kind-of guy or a billion-dollar-kind-of guy?
A: What we're really committed to is providing the best experience, and we're not really thinking about what we're worth. We're just viewing this as solving a really hard problem and that's how to distribute video in an entertaining way. So as we move forward, we're just going to stay committed to that.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.

This week I was enjoying a tasty red-meat dinner with an executive from a major tech manufacturer when I learned the real reason for Microsoft's sudden change of heart regarding Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

It wasn't that HD DVD has Mandatory Managed Copy, which is supposed to allow users to copy a disc's content (and which the Blu-Ray Forum agreed to adopt). It also wasn't about iHD, which is supposed to allow content providers greater interactivity (though there's no doubt Microsoft hates Java). And it sure as hell wasn't that Microsoft was looking out for consumers. Rather, it was about forcing Sony to delay the release of PlayStation 3, the game machine/home entertainment hub with built-in Blu-Ray playback capabilities.

"If it's true, it's very clever and shows Microsoft can still be aggressive on a number of different levels," says Roger Kay, analyst and founder of Endpoint Technologies. "And it is in the mold of Microsoft's style."

OK, so maybe it sounds silly, particularly since Sony is more than capable of creating its own delays, but consider the stakes. PlayStation currently controls the worldwide console market, according to research firm In-Stat. That dominance is likely to continue until 2010. Any holdup in the release of PS3 affords millions of gamers an opportunity to give the Xbox 360 a second look—assuming, of course, Microsoft can overcome its own inventory issues.

Then there's the threat the PS3 could become a home's entertainment hub. With all the money Microsoft's sunk into Media Center, do you really think they'd stand for losing that position to Sony? Unlikely.

At the outset of the Blu-Ray/HD DVD snit, Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter told the Los Angeles Times, "If you hear Blu-ray wins, it's over for Xbox. It's not that [Microsoft] did anything wrong on the gaming side," he said. "Sony is exploiting its position as one of the dominant consumer electronics manufacturers."

HD DVD players like Toshiba's HD-XA1 ($799) and HD-A1 ($499) are due to start shipping this month, as are the first round of movies available in the format. In my opinion, that's a hell of a lot to pay for something that ain't a burner and that may not even win the format war in the long run.

Just the same, the reality is that to move from music to video, users need the capacity a high-definition DVD format offers. For that reason, Kay says a standard has to emerge soon because the ubiquity of digital movies depends on that capacity. Although, again, all that capacity seems a waste if you can't burn on it, which happens to be the biggest drawback with HD DVD.

Kay says if he had to bet on which format would win out, he'd put it at 60-40 for HD DVD...at least for now. But since this game is unlikely to play out till the end of 2007, the best advice is to let these companies fight amongst themselves and buy the last one standing. In other words, it's in consumers' best interests to hold off and continue enjoying those old-fashioned DVDs on your new-fangled HDTV.

Brian L. Clark is a reporter and consultant on all things digital, runs the The Tech Enthusiast's Network, and writes for Money, Men's Health, and Laptop. Read more Tuning Fork here.