As the cost of delivering video continues to get cheaper every year and video syndication to devices and platforms continues to grow, it seems more and more people are under the impression that access to premium video content should be free. Frankly, I don't see where this idea of "free" comes from. Video content costs money to produce, to distribute and to consume. Yet even with those costs, many seem hell-bent on the idea that business models can somehow survive based on the consumption of free video content supported solely by an ad model. But in reality, that simply can't happen.

If people are not willing to pay a content owner for their content, then it's not worth anything. That's the bottom line. Non premium content and some niche focused video might be able to survive on an ad only model, but even that would be rare. YouTube is a great example of this. While there's been a lot of talk over the past 24 hours surrounding the details being released from their lawsuit with Viacom, we've always known that since the beginning, YouTube built a large portion of their business from displaying premium content from third parties, without permission. But years later, even with all the insane amount of eyeballs YouTube has, the business is not profitable based solely on an ad model. Not to mention, YouTube is only monetizing about 20% of all their video views. It's no wonder that they along with Hulu are trying to move to a model where consumers pay for access to premium content.

Another topic that seems to be confusing some folks is the price of bandwidth and the rapid pricing declines we're seeing each year. While it's true that the cost of distributing video over the web is getting cheaper by the day, it will never be free. I'm now hearing some people in the industry saying that one day soon, delivering video will be so cheap that content owners won't even think about the costs. What world are these people living in? It cannot be debated or even argued that there are no fixed distribution costs when it comes to online video. Cable and satellite distribution methods have fixed delivery costs, video over the Internet never will. Any video business model that relies on generating revenue only from ads is fooling themselves if they think they can sell enough ads to keep up with their skyrocketing distribution costs every time their traffic grows. That's simply not the way distributing video outside a closed network works.

Why so many in the industry are so quick to bash subscription based video models makes no sense to me. When HBO came out with their HBOGO service, too many folks were quick to point out that it was behind a walled garden and that as a non-HBO subscriber, they would not be able to get it. That's exactly the point. Why should HBO simply give away their content for free, knowing that ad revenue alone won't make it a profitable business? HBO is smart not to offer a service that they know will lose money yet some chide them for it. Why do so many people seem to think they have the right to get all of their video content for free simply because the Internet is an open platform?

Of course many times, the argument that comes up is that people won't pay for something once it's been given away for free. That may be true, but if we look at some of the most successful content models on the web today, like MLB.com, they are from companies that never gave away their content to begin with. And why should they? Their content is worth money, the experience they provide is compelling and as we have seen for years, consumers think the content is worth paying for. While it's good that the Internet has opened up video distribution to anyone, it's also created the false assumption that all content is worth something and that all content owners will one day make money simply by running some ads with the content. For most content owners, even the big ones, that day simply won't come.

While the industry argues over what TV Everywhere should look like, consumers like me who have a Slingbox already have a true TV Everywhere solution. With Slingbox, you can access your full linear TV lineup wherever you go from your computer or mobile device. Simply put, for TV Everywhere, nothing beats a Slingbox.

And thanks to the very generous folks at Sling Media I have six Slingbox PRO-HD units to give away to some lucky readers of my blog. I’m going to raffle off the units one at a time over the next few months so here’s your chance to win the first one. Just leave one comment on this post with a valid email address saying how you will use it and I’ll pick one lucky winner at random on April 1st. You must have a U.S. postal address as I will not ship these overseas. HUGE thanks to Sling Media for the boxes!

Back in October, Abobe announced a really long list of new functionality that would be supported in Flash Player 10.1, due out sometime this year. One of those features would be the long awaited support for multicasting that is essential to the way many enterprise organizations deliver video. While music, movies and game content delivered over CDNs in a unicast model still gets all the press, many Fortune 500 corporations delivering video inside their firewall have been relying on multicasting for years to support really large audiences.

One of the main reasons Microsoft still dominates the enterprise and government markets is due to their long history of having multicasting functionality. Two years ago I wrote a post talking about how I was seeing Adobe trying to push into the enterprise market to displace Microsoft, but without multicasting support in Flash, their success in the enterprise market has been limited.

Last week, I had the chance to speak to a few content owners who have been testing the multicasting capabilities in Flash and from other industry people I have spoken to, Adobe pretty much has it ready to go. The exact date Adobe plans to announce multicasting support is still unknown, but since Flash Player 10.1 is expected to be out in the first half of this year, we should expect to see multicasting support available sometime in the next three months.

Once that happens, it will be interesting to see how Adobe targets the enterprise vertical and if they can take any share away from Microsoft. Multicasting support will be a big step for Adobe, but their success is also going to come to down to their server licensing model and whether or not they make it cheap enough for a company to deploy. If Adobe thinks they can keep the licensing costs high just because they are selling into a "enterprise" company, that would be a big mistake since all Fortune 500 corporations are trying to do more with less. Functionality and features are important, but Flash will only just be catching up to Microsoft, no surpassing them with multicasting, so customers won't pay more for functionality they have already had.

On Monday May 10th, we'll be teaming up with the NY Video Meetup group
to once again host their monthly event at the Hilton Hotel in midtown,
the night before the Streaming Media East show
opens. Last year we had over 500 attendees watch six promising
local online video startups demo their products followed by networking at the Bridges Bar in the lobby of the Hilton hotel. This will be a packed event and we'll open up the website for RSVP and give out more details closer to the event.

There's been a lot of discussion on the blogsphere over the last few weeks due to Steve Jobs being quoted as saying one of the reasons Apple won't support Flash video on the upcoming iPad was due to Flash being a "CPU Hog". Apple's workaround to Flash video is to use HTML5 and that encouraged some to even suggest that HTML5 would kill off Flash, which couldn't be further from the truth.

But rather than debate this topic, Jan Ozer, a technical writer for StreamingMedia.com and encoding guru, decided to spend the time to actually test Flash versus HTML5 and published all of his testing methodology and results on his blog. While you should check out his entire post to see all the details, here are some of the highlights of what he says.

When it comes to efficient video playback, the ability to access hardware acceleration is the single most important factor in the overall CPU load. On Windows, where Flash can access hardware acceleration, the CPU requirements drop to negligible levels. It seems reasonable to assume that if the Flash Player could access GPU-based hardware acceleration on the Mac (or iPod/iPhone/iPad), the difference between the CPU required for HTML5 playback and Flash playback would be very much narrowed, if not eliminated.

Overall, it's inaccurate to conclude that Flash is inherently inefficient. Rather, Flash is efficient on platforms where it can access hardware acceleration and less efficient where it can't. With Flash Player 10.1, Flash has the opportunity for a true leap in video playback performance on all platforms that enable hardware acceleration.

Apple complaining about Flash being a CPU Hog while not exposing "the appropriate hooks" to enable Adobe to access hardware acceleration seems disingenuous at best. To be fair to Apple, though, the iPad related timing was unfortunate, with the bulk of the development work done under the shadow of Flash Player 10.0, which didn't offer hardware acceleration other than full screen on any platform and was clearly less efficient than the HTML5-based approach Apple adopted. Now that Adobe has proven the concept on Windows, perhaps Apple will cooperate with Adobe to make hardware acceleration on the Mac, iPad and future devices happen. If they choose not to, however, they should quit pointing fingers at Flash.

You can see all of the testing results and numbers on Jan's blog here.

Last week someone sent me specs for new Flip cameras Cisco is preparing to launch around the NAB time frame. While I've been able to confirm that new cameras are in fact on the way, I have not been able to verify that the specs I have been sent are completely accurate, so I'm not going to publish them. But keep an eye out on my blog over the coming weeks as I'll make sure to do a review of the new units as soon as I can get my hands on them.

(Updated Below) Sony just announced that 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Pictures, and Warner Bros have all agreed to allow Sony to stream their movies over the PlayStation Network to users of the PS3. The service, which launched today, is only available in the U.S. but will be expanded to consumers in U.K., France, Germany, and Spain.

The PlayStation Network is the first gaming console to offer high definition movies from all of the major movie studios and consumers will have the option to either buy or rent HD titles. There's no word as to how many titles the studios will be make available or how quickly they will be added, but Sony did list 18 new movie releases in the press release from all six studios that are available today. (Updated: Sony says they currently have more than 1,200 titles in HD for rent and or purchase and are constantly adding new titles.)

I've had the chance to jump on my PS3 system and rent some of the movies and they quality looks really good. While I can't tell the bitrates they are encoded at and am waiting for Sony to get back to me with a lot of the technical details, so far, I don't see anything here that consumers won't like. (Updated: Sony says the videos are encoded in MPEG4 with SD being at 2Mbps and HD at 8Mbps.) Pricing on the new titles I saw (see below) were $3.99 to rent in SD or $5.99 to rent in HD and $14.99 to own in SD or $19.99 to own in HD. I still think the price to own movies on all devices is too expensive and that most consumers will rent movies anyway and I expect that even rental prices will come down over time.

I'll post more details on the technical side of the streaming offering as soon as I get them from Sony.