Every since the Google acquisition, many times when I go to play video clips on YouTube they don’t load as fast as they use to or they have to stop half-way through to re-buffer. For me, this is happening more and more. Yesterday, it took nearly 2 minutes for a 30 second video to start to play and it was a video that had only been viewed 6 times. There has been a lot of speculation on how Google was going to
integrate YouTube’s videos into the Google delivery network and I have
to believe that they are clearly having some performance issues.Has anyone else seen a drop in performance in the playback of videos since the acquisition?

With all that has been going on with JetBlue the past week, it’s great to see their CEO David Neeleman use video to talk to his customers by posting an embedded YouTube clip directly on the JetBlue.com website. With all of the services that are out on the market today, making it so easy for anyone to quick post and deliver their message, you have to wonder why more companies don’t use the medium to reach out to customers.
Usually you see only technology companies like Cisco, Dell and others use video like this to deliver a message from an executive, but I can’t recall the last time I saw a company use video on it’s website to explain why something happened and how they were going to fix it. Seems like a no-brainer to do, but it does not seem to be done often. Have you seen other companies using video this way?

I’ve been debating this for a long time with lots of people and it seems everyone has a different opinion. Many vendors have been describing their services as being that of "Internet TV". But is that really the right term to be using? For years now, many of us online video folks have been explaining over and over how the TV and video on the Internet are not the same. We’re always giving examples of how different the user experience is, the way content is distributed etc…. but still, Internet TV seems to be the phrase put forth by many.

Personally, I think it’s incorrect. We are so many years away from being able to truly think of the video we see on the computer as being compared to the video we see today on TV. Some of this is a good thing as we don’t want the video we see on TV to be the same via the Internet. The whole point is that online video is changing the way the TV industry thinks about content, advertising and eyeballs, which is a good thing. But I still think combining the words Internet and TV together, at this stage in the game, just sets expectations incorrectly.

I’d love to hear your take on this subject in the comments section.

Last week, Magnify Networks (www.magnify.net) announced that it has closed on an investment of $1.2 million to accelerate the growth of its search-and-sort platform for Internet based, user-generated video channels.

Founded by industry veteran Steve Rosenbaum, who some say is widely regarded as the "Father of User-Generated Video" from his ground-breaking work with MTV Unfiltered, Magnify.net enables publishers to create their own video channel featuring targeted content for their niche communities.

Magnify.net was one of the companies featured at the Demo 2007 Conference and Steve will be doing a demo of the Magnify platform at the Streaming Media East show in May along with demos from VideoEgg, and Motionbox among others for the "User-Generated Content Tools" session.

You haven’t heard a whole lot lately about the network neutrality debate that was widely covered in the press months ago. Aside from the FTC conference discussing the topic last week, in which nothing new was really talked about, the topic seems to have disappeared from people’s minds that I speak to.

Someone gave me a call the other day and asked why StreamingMedia.com has not delivered a strong opinion on the matter on our website aside from the articles we have written about the subject. While I have always had a strong opinion on it and feel that neutrality is crucial, it’s also important for our readers to know that nearly no one will talk to us on record about it. To me, this is a big mistake. Too many companies are willing to tell me off-the-record about how it will hurt them but they won’t make that info public. If you think this is really bad for your business, which is would be, then stand up and make that clear in a public forum. Better yet, get together all of the other vendors in the industry and pool your press and media resources to get the word out to the media and tell them just how bad this is for your business and for consumers.

Many network companies are all working together to try and make this idea sound rationale and so far, only the big guys like Google, Yahoo! etc… are the only ones publicly opposing this. The smaller guys have just as much say in this if not more. To the vendors I say, how long are you going to wait before you start to really fight this? There is strength in numbers and the time is now.

We have some great sessions at the Streaming Media East show in May talking about Internet TV.

One of the sessions, moderated by Jose Castillo (who has a great blog at thinkjose.com) will discuss how AppleTV, TiVo, Slingbox, and a host of other hardware and software products are starting to deliver new media content from the Web to TVs. The session will discuss what latest devices are being used to deliver consumer content and how content creators big and small are utilizing these new tools. Also discussed will be how online content is being treated differently from traditional broadcast content and what potential business models are being created for the monetization of consumer content. The panelists include:

– Tara Maitra, VP, GM, Programming, TiVo
– Bijan Sabet, General Partner, Spark Capital
– Jim Funk, VP, Marketing, Akimbo
– Fred McIntyre, SVP, AOL Video

What topics or points would you like to see discussed at this session? Please include them in the comments section.

That’s the question that’s answered in an MSNBC.com article by Michael Rogers. There’s nothing new in the article we haven’t heard before in regards to the factors that stop the progress in the U.S., but the article is a good read none the less. Some of the factors Michael talks about are:

• "Early on, most of the world decided to all use the same technical standard — GSM — for their mobile phones.  In many countries, the government actually enforced that decision. In the U.S., on the other hand, free enterprise ruled and multiple standards competed, with GSM initially only a small part of the market."

• "…high-speed cell phone networks — generically called 3G — are finally rolling out across the U.S., with Web surfing at speeds approaching that of home DSL (assuming customers are willing to pony up for the new services).  But there may also be some price competition to keep those services affordable: this year, a new technology service called WiMAX will appear, initially from Sprint and a start-up called Clearwire."

• "Another kind of new signal is coming to U.S. cell phones this year: direct broadcast television. In the U.S., Verizon will be the first to introduce this new television service later this year, and in Barcelona AT&T announced they will do the same. The good news is that unlike the early days of the U.S. cell phone market, both carriers will actually use the same technology, which should make a bigger market for cool handsets.  The bad news is that, once again, the Americans have chosen a form of mobile TV broadcast that’s different than the one most of the rest of the world has adopted, so it could be a bit like the GSM situation revisited."

Michael sums it all up by saying "While choice is generally a good thing, it has unquestionably slowed progress."

I think I have to agree. What I wish the carriers in the U.S. would tell us is real numbers for video usage on their networks. If they are not going to share them, then stop trying to tell us how successful your service is. Because every time I ask for real data and numbers, the response I always get back from them is a response like "it’s wildly successful".