I'll try to run through what's currently available and where to find it.

First of all, I went spent almost 6 years studying abroad, so I know what it's like to be on a desperate search for internet tv. For the majority of that time, it just didn't exist. It was either a problem of not enough content or a massive fee. A lot has changed since then.

There are basically 3 or 4 very good options in 2007, but that is very dependent upon what you mean by "free tv on the internet."

The first, and by far the most popular version of internet tv is on-demand viewing. There are several different companies that offer you the ability to watch previously-aired programs and television series for free. If you are looking, perhaps, to discover a television series that you never really got into and now you feel out of the loop, this is the way to go. If you scroll down the page later you can read some of the reviews I did on the specific sites and software.

However, this isn't really internet "tv" to me. This is kind of like a free movie rental of a television series. That's not what I was searching for myself, so I'll assume there are some of you out there like me who want a real television experience on your computer (and one that isn't going to cost you monthly fees).

Ok, in that case, there are basically two really good options: placeshifting or an all-in-one solution.

Placeshifting was a term coined a few years ago by a company called SlingMedia, but it's more of a marketing buzzword than anything, really. What's important to know is that this tool allows you to take the cable service that you already pay for in your home, and transport it with you on the road, over the internet on any computer, anywhere in the world. For about 50% of you reading this, the SlingBox is the answer to many of your prayers.

If you travel with any kind of regularity, even to a neighboring state, this little devil makes you feel right at home. Anything you have on your own cable network you're able to access on your computer. Local news, local sports, local weather. Any premium channels you subscribe to like HBO. You can even access the "on demand" screens and pay-per-view channels! Even cooler than that... are you ready for this? On the premium models, you can even control your home dvd player, DVR, or other external devices that are plugged into your home network!

I have tried out the very first version of this product, some 3 years ago, and i was blown away. There were some small things I would have changed about the quality of the image when connecting to some slower internet connections, but for the most part it was awesome. I'm sure today it is really, really good.

The slingbox itself is an actual piece of hardware that you connect in your home to your cablebox. It's not very large and pretty simple, just plug and play, but if you aren't looking for equipment to buy, you want more channels than what you currently pay for with cable, or you want to drop cable all together, this product probably isn't for you.

However, I have to mention their website because it's freaking awesome. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the Mac VS Pc commercials, but I love them. This site does a sort of a rip off of that general idea, but in the end it makes it even better. Here are just a few screen shots, but you really have to see it to understand the humor.





















Moving along... The second option, and the one I use right now, gives you a lot more freedom and can save you a boat load of money even if you never leave your house.

It's basically a downloadable software program that uses the internet to connect to a network of satellite channels. The premium version of the software gives you access to over 4000 stations! That's insane. The cool thing, I thought, was that you can get channels from virtually any country on the planet. I would list them here but it's a big waste of space. If you don't live in the US or you travel abroad, this thing is great because it works anywhere.


This is a screenshot of what the software looks like, channel listings on the left in this view. You can play around with a multitude of settings, window sizes and resolutions, etc., etc.

Another great thing is that the product costs 1/2 of what the slingbox costs. And that's just for the actual product. It's just a one time fee and then no monthly fee after that. Where I live, part of the year in the US, my cable + internet bill is $120. And I'm almost never here. Even with Slingbox I would have had to continue paying. Now I use this other service, and I pay nothing!

That's as close to perfection as you're going to find in free tv on the internet in 2007. I'm totally happy with my setup, but I am going to keep watching to see what is coming up over the horizon in the next few months. I hope that answered some of your questions.


by the way, you can now download this software directly from THE DOWNLOAD PAGE

From the Wharton School of Business

"If Viacom thinks that shutting down its content on YouTube will get people to go to Comedy Central, it is wrong. People will stay on YouTube and watch cats lip synching."

October 3, 2007

The network jostling raises questions. How do television networks brand themselves in a digital future where viewers are more loyal to individual shows? Do networks still matter? When will online advertising become a significant revenue stream for networks? What other experiments should be conducted by networks? Does Internet viewing help or hurt the broadcast business model? The answers to those questions aren't entirely clear, but experimentation will eventually turn up a model that works for viewers, media giants and Internet partners, says Fader.

Embracing New Web Techniques

While experts at Wharton are encouraged by television networks' penchant for experimenting with new models, they are unanimous that more could be done. Fader argues that broadcast networks are in a unique position to take their video libraries and create new forms of media for consumers. By adopting so-called "web 2.0" techniques -- such as consumer rating systems and new combinations of content -- networks could create a sense of community, much like that found at social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook.

There are many steps that networks could take to add value and deliver a better experience, says Fader. "These networks have the breadth of content and could do things like have celebrity interviews" or get a comedian to give play-by-play commentary on a recent episode. Networks can launch online initiatives "beyond just replicating the content on TV." The key, according to Fader, is to resist the urge to protect content but instead to focus on giving users a good experience. "The goal is creating connections and a trail to eventually buy a DVD. Doing that would create revenue and a deeper relationship."

Kendall Whitehouse, senior director of IT at Wharton, notes that better connections between networks and viewers will emerge if media companies don't obsess over controlling their content too much. In fact, Whitehouse says, television networks should err on the side of fewer restrictions, and let users access and repurpose the content in as many ways as possible.

"Because networks want to control their brand, they [tend to be too controlling] with their content," says Whitehouse, who advocates giving viewers power over editing existing shows -- much like CBS is now doing with EyeLab. "As YouTube has proven, people love to share their favorite moments from TV programs. The networks' web sites typically contain full-length episodes" which may be easier to monetize with embedded ads but may not be as popular to watch on PCs. "Why not give people the best of both worlds? Post the full episode, but let users create 'virtual clips' by selecting where to start and stop each segment. With the right user interface, this could be easier than making clips on your own and uploading them to YouTube."

Sherf says social networking features common on the web today will become increasingly important to television networks. "The Internet could allow networks to recreate the water cooler virtually. The focus should be on affinity groups. People want to know what their friends are watching at any given moment."

Do Networks Matter?

Amid experimentation, Internet distribution and a quest for new business models, one question about television networks remains: Will traditional television networks matter in the future?

Experts at Wharton say the networks face a challenge wooing a younger audience. "The power of the network is weakening with TV viewers. I'm not sure young people know what shows play on which network. They are much more affiliated with the program itself," says Whitehouse.

The power of traditional networks has been in decline for years, adds Tomczyk. First it was cable and hundreds of targeted channels. Then it was digital video recorders that allowed viewers to watch shows at their convenience and skip ads. Today, it's the web. "The real question is: How do networks, which are compelled to offer fairly broad programming, compete with such highly targeted and focused cable shows -- most of which do not include advertisements?" he asks.

One possibility would be to offer targeted shows for online distribution only, say Wharton experts. However, it's not clear whether there are enough viewers and advertising interest to recoup production costs.

Williams suggests that if the economics line up, the networks could create more shows. "Online-only shows are possible. When you are broadcasting on a network, you have to reach the largest audience possible. But online, a smaller audience can be supported through advertising. Networks could reach more people with more programming if they think about reaching niches that they haven't served. Today, media companies think targeting a niche means a new network. The Internet allows networks to target niches without creating a new channel," Williams says.

Fader argues that networks do have one core asset that buys them time: brand equity. When compared to the music industry, which fought Internet distribution in court, television networks have a much better image on the web. "I think that consumers have [stronger] feelings about ABC than about Universal Music. People have a good sense about what a network stands for," he says, adding that networks can succeed by targeting niches on the web -- science fiction fans for instance -- and developing shows for them.

Internet distribution could also allow networks to distribute more content. Some networks, such as the Disney Channel and home improvement channel HGTV, have models that work on television and on the web. In addition, networks could play an important filtering role amid the growing inventory of video content. "A network could be viewed as a seal of approval for content," says Fader.

It's Not a Zero-sum Game

The biggest mistake a television network could make is to ignore the Internet as a distribution platform. Why? It's possible that web and TV viewing could be complementary. In a working paper titled, "Lost on the Web: Does Web Distribution Stimulate or Depress Television Viewing," Waldfogel found that sites like YouTube can stimulate demand for the networks. A survey of University of Pennsylvania students, also done by Waldfogel, indicates that the web can actually increase network viewers.

"While I find some evidence of substitution of web viewing for conventional television viewing, time spent viewing programming on the web -- four hours per week -- far exceeds the reduction in weekly traditional television viewing of about 25 minutes. Overall time spent on network-controlled viewing [television plus network websites] increased by 1.5 hours per week," writes Waldfogel in his paper.

In other words, web vs. television viewing is not a zero-sum proposition, he notes. Internet distribution through YouTube and other sites acts as free advertising. In addition, web video may reach consumers who wouldn't otherwise watch television. If Waldfogel's findings are correct, web video could gain viewers without causing losses for content creators. "It would be really tough for networks to give video away, but they would if they were convinced it would generate more interest for the core product," he says.

Williams suggest several reasons why the web won't replace networks today. First, viewing video on a PC just isn't the same as on a TV because the screen is smaller and there are often bandwidth constraints. Second, there's still a market for high-quality content. Networks like HBO are known for their quality programming, says Williams. "To [create programming] at a high level [of quality] is an expensive proposition. Networks have writers and producers that others don't have."

Meanwhile, Williams says the data on whether the web is a threat to networks is far from definitive. Rating services, such as Nielsen, have trouble measuring shows that are watched on digital video recorders like TiVo. These ratings services also have trouble counting the audience for shows like the NCAA basketball tournament that are watched by groups. In other words, the rating services haven't caught up with people's viewing habits and these new distribution platforms.

"Everyone knows that the audience watching live television is shrinking, but there's no sense of magnitude," says Williams, who adds that some viewers may use the web to simply catch up on an episode missed on television. "It's hard to track the time spent watching a show. That's why there's no sense of what the future looks like yet. Even so, it's not a zero-sum game."

Given the uncertain outlook for video content, it makes sense for networks to place many bets on future business models, Fader says. He argues that Viacom made a big mistake by pulling its content from YouTube. "Viacom pulled its video from its largest distributor. If Viacom thinks that shutting down its content on YouTube will get people to go to Comedy Central, it is wrong. People will stay on YouTube and watch cats lip synching."

Maybe a bit too in depth for this blog, but an interesting conversation nonetheless.

What The....

Ok, I think I've done a pretty decent job of staying totally focused on free tv on the internet, but this new technology I ran into is just mind-blowing and I have to post something on it.

So, now let's say you've found the free tv on the internet solution that fits what you're looking for. Now you've got tv, radio, IM and text messages, and much more all running for free on your system. What's missing? For me, one of the key interactive tools I use almost everyday is Skype. And it's great. The call quality has been fantastic. However, as I also have plenty of friends and family who don't use Skype, I make just as many calls with it to fixed landline phones or cell phones. Considering I'm abroad all the time, $.02 cents a minute to make a call from, say, Germany to the US doesn't seem unreasonable. Actually, it's much less than any calling card you'll find.

But cell phone calls do add up, and I'm always on the lookout for something to get around this. Enter pudding.

With Pudding, you can make free unlimited calls to any phone in the US or Canada, all from your web browser, and no software to install, nothing. YES! When I saw this I nearly flipped out. So where's the catch? Surely they aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Well, depending on your point of view, the catch is either simply an afterthought, or one of the most terrifying invasions of privacy you'll come across.

Pudding uses voice recognition technology to "listen in" on your conversations, and as you speak, key words are analyzed. All the while, pudding uses this to display on your screen various websites, images, news and advertisements that correspond.

This is really genius. And really evil genius. Most people won't even think twice about using this service. The phone company is ripping them off, and they are bombarded with internet ads all day anyway, why not take the free calls? I'm probably in this camp. But just think of all the evil implications.

Click HERE to watch a pretty cool video presentation by the directors of Pudding, you'll get a better idea of how it works. Good stuff.

Previously Aired TV

If you're simply looking to watch some old episodes of television series, the site I like best is Joost.com.

At first I got really excited about it, and it's hard not to. The whole site and user platform has that unmistakable Mac OSX look and feel. It just looks cool.

And for some people, the selection is more than adequate. They claim to have over 15,000 different shows up at this point with more than 250 channels. However, when they say "channels" that doesn't necessarily mean the television stations you are used to. Some of them are user created content, and others come from who knows where, but aren't really the marquee stuff you'd expect to see. And on select channels, like Comedy Central, don't expect to see shows like "The Daily Show" or "South Park." Even so, there are some that seem to be popular these days, and series like CSI are available.

There are a couple of problems that make this not something I use very often. First, not all of the programs are available outside of the US. In fact, a lot of them aren't. I'm oversees more than I am here, so this just doesn't work for me.

Besides the lack of content, the biggest issue that I have with this, and most other services like it, is that it's not really TV. TV for me means laying on the coach and surfing through channels until I find what I like. That means being able to come in to a program that's already in progress and not have to interrupt myself each time by closing a window, browsing titles, reading descriptions, and then starting a whole other thing from the beginning.

Still, if you're thoroughly bored, it's one of the better sites out there for previously-aired content.

From the MontrealGazette...

"According to iSuppli Corp., a technology industry research company, Microsoft has been losing around $126 U.S. on each Xbox 360, of which there are about 11.6 million units, mostly in the United States. But now the pieces of Microsoft's grand plans are starting to fall into place - in the United States at least.

Americans with Windows Vista Ultimate or Windows Vista Premium can download an application that will turn their computer into a TV broadcaster. No Canadian release date has been set. The content - already hundreds of hours of TV shows and live concerts - is all being supplied by Microsoft for free. As with traditional broadcasting, there will be ads in place to make the venture profitable.

For those uninterested in buying an Xbox 360 to watch Internet TV broadcasts, the company announced the Home Media Extenders, which are basically little black boxes that sit on top of a person's TV and decode TV signals sent from a the computer.

Watching TV over the Internet has become a hot trend. Earlier this year, Apple Inc. released its Apple TV device in the U.S. In a similar fashion to Microsoft's technology, the device is capable of streaming movies and video from the Internet. It can also access files from a home computer. More than a million people have bought the unit so far. But as with Microsoft's new option, Canada is not much of a factor.

Then there is the well-documented Youtube phenomenon. The website hosts about 100 million videos, with 65,000 new videos uploaded daily and more than 20 million visits per month. For Microsoft, the company's latest assault on the living room will help to boost profits. People who want to watch Internet TV will need an Xbox 360 or a Media Extender and Windows Vista."

I guess if you already own an Xbox360 and Windows Vista this is ok.....no, wait, it still sucks! I really don't have any idea where these technology giants are trying to go. Ok, so my computer with internet access, a 300 GB hardrive, latest video card and surround sound speakers is sitting 20 feet away on my desk. But my media experience won't be complete until I buy this other thing which beams all that stuff over here to my 300 dollar game thing... what? I'm lost. I understand that you have a few old tv shows and whatnot available for free, but why not just put them on the internet so I can watch it on that new computer and Vista operating system you told me to buy?

I, myself, am not a gamer. I don't like playing them, I like even less watching them be played. However, I have had a chance to see the Live Marketplace where you can download movie rentals, even those in HD, directly to your Xbox. This seems quite nice. But I don't understand why Microsoft wouldn't make this available to it's PC users. Calling it a bigger market is the understatement of the year. And why is it that they charge for movies in a point system instead of dollar value? Is that simply to trick children into spending a bunch of money each month in downloads before they've realized it?

At the end of the day, Microsoft TV isn't really TV. It's just another place where you can download a clip here, or a clip there. Not really what many of us have been waiting for.

Another Interesting Concept That Won't Work

From money.cnn today...

"Justin.tv publicly launched its live, free streaming services this week, making the power of live video programming available to anyone with a computer, a web cam and an Internet connection.

On2 Flix Publisher Live is an innovative browser based plug-in that renders the user's browser into an encoding and publishing platform without any expertise, installation, or investment required by the user. The videos are encoded directly on the user's desktop and streamed live on the Internet by simply plugging a webcam into the computer and logging on. On2 Flix Publisher Live works with Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox browsers."

This idea has been around for a long, long time, and I think there's a reason that no one has launched such a service until now.... it doesn't work. In theory, it's a nice concept -- give content hungry internet surfers their ultimate fantasy: the ability to produce their own LIVE programming and broadcast it over the internet for FREE. And as a second added bonus, be able to WATCH other people do it even worse..... for FREE.

If you take a look at some of the content that's up right now, it's pretty bad and there isn't much of it. Seasoned youtubers aren't even going to look twice. If people were able to use the site to also air the content from their own websites, social networking pages, etc., I think it would catch on. But for now, just looks like another product that is about 3 or 4 years late.

My Thoughts Exactly...

Jonathan Eig: Games belong on free TV

By Jonathan Eig

October 3, 2007

As baseball's postseason gets under way, there are many wonderful story lines to follow. Will our miserably beloved Cubs at last end their losing ways? Will Alex Rodriguez cap his Ruthian season with a flourish or fade again under October's bright lights? Can the Phillies, having emasculated the Mets, continue their thrilling march?

Unfortunately, many Americans will be unable to follow the action this month because the division series and National League Championship Series will be broadcast exclusively on cable television. No one seems too worked up about this new development, and I suppose I understand why; nearly 90 percent of all American households have cable TV. The remaining 10 percent is a minority group without representation, and the assumption is that its members will somehow cope. There's the radio. There's the Internet. And in my case, as a member of the lonely 10-percent club, there's Jake's Pub on North Clark Street.

Yet season by season, baseball, once the most democratic of all games, grows more elitist. Tickets for Yankee games have become not only expensive but increasingly difficult to obtain, a trend likely to continue when the team moves to its smaller, more luxurious new ballpark in 2009. At Wrigley Field, where I've been a season-ticket holder for the last decade, business executives and bachelor party revelers have crowded out two demographic groups: children and the sort of fan who packs his own lunch.

Baseball set another attendance record this year, proof that much is going right for the national pastime. Labor battles have been settled. Questions about steroid use are less often raised now that testing is at last in place. The violent crime rate among the game's players remains low, at least compared with football and basketball. Somehow, despite its ridiculous salaries, baseball continues to give us players who seem human to us. It remains a game that welcomes immigrants, farm boys and oddballs (although more so on the field than in the grandstand).

The folks in the front offices at Major League Baseball did a nice job earlier this season celebrating Jackie Robinson, baseball's greatest force for equal rights and fairness, who played his first big-league game on April 15, 1947. But Commissioner Bud Selig and other officials at Major League Baseball should have taken notice of another date from Robinson's glorious rookie season: Oct. 2. On that date 60 years ago the World Series was broadcast for the first time across network television. It wasn't much of a network. It reached only New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Schenectady, N.Y. Nearly 4 million people watched in bars, through appliance store windows, and in a few well-to-do homes. But the screen was big enough and Robinson's presence vivid enough to carry the day, signaling as never before in the nation's history that a new era had begun.

Since then, television has helped to make baseball a big business. It has stolen some of the game's innocence. It has put an end to World Series games played in sunshine and in slanted shadows at an hour when the kids are still awake. But it has also helped make the game feel like a part of the public domain, something in the air among us.

Let cable TV have the overhyped drama of "Monday Night Football." Let it have the back and forth of basketball's eternal season. But baseball should belong to the people -- all of them.

----------

Jonathan Eig is the author of "Opening Day: The First Season of Jackie Robinson" and "Luckiest Man: The Life and Death of Lou Gehrig."

Copyright © 2007, The Chicago Tribune