Unstoppable Domains โ€” Expired Auctions

.tv The idea of a ".TV Consortium"

SpaceshipSpaceship
Watch

waqarsh

Established Member
Impact
1
With the business model thread now locked, I had to post this here.

I sense a sort of anticipation or dependency upon me.tv. I think maybe we should try to develop a consortium of firms/individuals (most of us here) for .tv, that would work somewhat independently of Demand Media in order to promote our own common interests. This would also cover the areas of market research, technology research, lobbying with different stakeholders (including hardware manufacturers), and of course developing new business models and helping .tv domain owners develop theirs.

A consortium along these lines should have its own website with an official sounding name and theme obviously. We could have a great looking forum on it and put all sorts of cool stuff on it. In a year or so it should have an air/credibility of its own, and it would put all of us in a much stronger position instead of looking up to Demand Media to tell us where to go next.

Think special interest group/lobby/industrial association/business association.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
AfternicAfternic
Wagarsh,

It is a good idea. I am working on exactly that concept with a few folks.

Give me a couple of weeks.

I don't think it should be a forum, or have domain sales or a blog. Those things are well-covered already.

I view it more as an "industry group" that can promote the extension.

I think it is good that DemandMedia is doing some things, but there is no reason why we shouldn't be also promoting .tv

Thanks

Antonis
 
0
•••
I'm on board with this. This idea has been hit upon indirectly here and there I've been trying to encourage it, but you stated it nicely here.

I'll talk to my team but I'm sure everyone will agree with this.

Obviously the site should be an off-ME.TV site and there should be public and restricted areas.

Some way has to be found to keep Demand media out the "ranks" as much as possible (if they would even do that, I hope/trust not) due to conflict of interests.

"Known" members of namepros could form the core cadre and some vetting process for anyone who want to join restrict. areas (the "inner circle"), but open access and encouragement of participation of ALL me.tv site owners.

These are my thoughts.

~KC
 
0
•••
a lot of .tv sites were around even before demand media started promoting the .tv extension. example http://www.geo.tv http://www.indus.tv and http://www.five.tv

television channels are using the extension to market their existing cable networks, however we should impress upon them the (perceived) need to move over to actually broadcasting their content over .tv domains, and then using influence with television hardware manufacturers to start including Internet support for seamless .TV integration.

we must start thinking of it as more than just another domain extension. like i mentioned in an earlier thread, we should aim toward an eventual replacement of the cable tv industry, and this isn't going to come about without some serious unity and lobbying at various levels.

right now, we should form a consortium immediately and start projecting ourselves as serious interest group. perception is everything, and the sooner we start the stronger a position we're going to be in.
 
0
•••
Yes. We should try to bring in everyone with significant interests in .TV.
but we can't bring in everyone at once.

We should form more narrowly defined groups first that have as much common interest as possible so they can easily form policy that is consistent and closely aligned with their common interests.

We need a working group of ME.TVers and possibly one for domainers, or the same group with domainers being a subset (inner cadre) to deal w/DM, now.


Broadcasters are a whole 'nother can of worms. They have very different interests for the most part, but some common interests with ME.TV and domainers (promotion of the extension, e.g.). They should have a serperate working group that addresses their interests and works with the other groups (ME.TV group) where the groups have common ground.

Having all these disparate members in one working group would not result in much getting done (IMHO). First lets get a group from np/me.tv for people in essentially the same situation.

I'm sure there are local stations and production companies that would like to have to freedom to broadcast over other networks than they have access to now. Once we formed a group of our own we should find these people/entities and experiment with the possibilities. THEY should take this issue to their industries' working/interest group as a member and explain to other members the situation and get them onboard in a cooperative way of pushing the extension.
 
0
•••
i must say that beside being rather late here in Greece(almost 4 am)
i m reading this carefully and with great interest.

In my eyes that consortium should take the role of promoting and marketing tv domains as a whole.
 
0
•••
Good thread here!

Just because Demand Media has some control over the premiums doesn't make them my boss and it doesn't mean they are right in the direction they are taking their involvement in .TV...

We may (actaully we do) have better and more lucrative ideas amongst us, we are the people thinking 24/7 about this extension.

Its a new concept .TV and video on the web. Working together we can have a say in the direction .TV takes.
 
0
•••
brainstormTV said:
Yes. We should try to bring in everyone with significant interests in .TV.
but we can't bring in everyone at once.

We should form more narrowly defined groups first that have as much common interest as possible so they can easily form policy that is consistent and closely aligned with their common interests.

We need a working group of ME.TVers and possibly one for domainers, or the same group with domainers being a subset (inner cadre) to deal w/DM, now.


Broadcasters are a whole 'nother can of worms. They have very different interests for the most part, but some common interests with ME.TV and domainers (promotion of the extension, e.g.). They should have a serperate working group that addresses their interests and works with the other groups (ME.TV group) where the groups have common ground.

Having all these disparate members in one working group would not result in much getting done (IMHO). First lets get a group from np/me.tv for people in essentially the same situation.

Brainstorm, I have a slightly different view of things. I am interested in doing something that focuses on .tv as a whole and that can promote the extension as a whole.

Splitting the group into me.tv, domaineers, broadcasters, etc could start to get unwieldy in my opinion.

That is not to say that a me.tv group doesn't make sense. It is just something that I will probably not focus on so much in the industry-wide group.
 
0
•••
exactly my point
 
0
•••
If you are trying to get a group together that could help promote .tv as a whole or try come to some decisions on how we should act as a group with the way we use, advertise or market our .tv's then i would be interested.

BUT

I am not interested in anything to do with me.tv
I know many of you guys have high hopes for me.tv and what it could become or how it could help attract younger users to the .tv extension but i think it is flawed from the start and cannot see it ever making an impact in attracting the you tube, facebook, my space crowd.

Sorry to rant a little but i dont like me.tv and im worried that if me.tv is most browsers 1st impression of .tv then they will think me.tv IS what the whole .tv extension is all about rather than all the many other exciting, new, dynamic .tv sites that are popping up.

As i sais b4 if you are thinking of putting together some kind of .tv consortium then please keep me informed as i feel this is a very important time for .tv and if we dont get it right now then this extension could struggle.

Thats me off my high horse and rant over, im away to watch some Boxing :kickass:
 
0
•••
waqarsh said:
and then using influence with television hardware manufacturers to start including Internet support for seamless .TV integration.

this is one of the crucial breakpoints ,which brings the common interest in TV ext. in wide range ,to the masses

I have found that toshiba was trying do something like this here
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,112322-page,1/article.html
but it didnt catch ,probably too soon on market
here another try with opera
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/5348/opera_customizes_browser_for_tv_displays
oregan
http://www.oregan.com/tv_web_browser_and_ui.html

most recent article:

Consumer Electronics
Firms Race To Bring Web Video To TV
BY BRIAN DEAGON

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 6/5/2007

Philip Wiser, former chief technology officer of Sony Corp. of America, these days toils quietly as chairman of Building B, a self described "secretive home media startup."

Whatever Building B is building โ€” the company won't specifically say โ€” its target is the TV viewing room of U.S. homes. And it's no secret that Building B's products will bring streaming video from the Internet to TV sets, a field many observers call the next big thing in technology. Instead of the long talked about 500-channel universe, it seems the multithousand-channel universe is coming.

"It's a fascinating time for video," Wiser said.

And what about his product? "We have a solution that addresses the needs for a mass-market, TV consuming population built around the living room," he said. Building B, in a statement, says it's developing "a breakthrough on-demand video entertainment service that enables delivery of video content from broadcast and cable television, movie studios and the Internet directly to the living room TV." It also says the content can be personalized for each household member. Wiser and company won't say more in part because they don't want to tip rivals.

Building B, based in Belmont, Calif., is just one of many companies building products that aim to bring more content to TV sets.

SlingCatcher In Works

The onslaught of new products includes Apple's (AAPL) Apple TV, released in March. It hooks up to your TV set and home network to play movies and songs you buy from Apple's iTunes store.

Sling Media, the privately held company that makes the SlingBox, which lets you watch TV shows from an Internet-connected computer, later this year plans to unveil SlingCatcher, a PC-to-TV system.

Digital video recorder pioneer TiVo (TIVO) has a product, the Series2 DT DVR, that streams video content from some select Web sites. Sony (SNE) plans to start selling Bravia TV sets that come with built-in ports to connect the set to a home network. Netgear (NTGR) in March started selling the Digital Entertainer HD, a $350 device that streams Internet content to the TV.

"There's a lot going on," said Joe Laszlo, a Jupiter Research analyst. "PC-to-TV devices have been around awhile, but what's changing this year is there's a lot more video on the Internet that consumers are interested in."

That content includes fresh video made expressly for the Internet โ€” by amateurs as well as media companies. It also includes TV shows that anyone already can watch โ€” when they air on TV. But with a TV-to-Internet connection, you can watch those Internet videos when you want โ€” and you can watch them on your big-screen TV instead of your small PC monitor.

PC-to-TV "is the Holy Grail for a lot of people," said Brian Jaquet, a Sling Media spokesman. "Only very recently have the networks started to bring compelling content to the Internet. We think we can bring a compelling solution to the market."

Apple and Netgear, though, haven't said how sales of their respective products are going. Some analysts have said Apple TV isn't selling well. On May 30, Apple signed a deal to bring YouTube videos to TV sets via Apple TV devices. Google (GOOG) -owned YouTube is the most visited online video site.

More than half of the 70%-plus of U.S. residents with Internet connections already watch video online. Media companies, independent producers and amateurs are flooding the Net with video. But once people are able to easily connect their Internet content to their TV sets, the amount of online content is expected to explode.

What Do Viewers Want?

While many people like viewing video on their PCs, they seem to prefer shorter clips rather than full-length shows. Time Warner Cable (TWC) pulled the plug in February on a trial in San Diego that streamed its cable TV channels for viewing on PCs. Fewer than 1% of the 9,000 customers in the test used the service on any given day. The PC turned out to be the TV set of last resort, Time Warner said.

It's also true, though, that even PC-to-TV viewing has received a tepid response. A Forrester Research poll in late 2006 found just 20% of consumers saying they'd pay for a device that brings Internet video to the TV. That low figure, Forrester says, is largely because few consumers were aware that the technology to do this is here, and is easy to use. New wares are changing attitudes.

"Apple TV has been the most prominent among the (PC-to-TV) devices," Laszlo said.

But Apple TV and other such products have their limitations. The fare available via Apple TV is limited to what Apple sells at iTunes. That will also be true with Sony's Bravia TV. It will only provide an Internet link to companies it strikes deals with. It has agreements with Yahoo (YHOO) and Time Warner's (TWX) AOL for video distribution.

"There now are many limitations in trying to route video content through a PC to a TV," Wiser said. He says Building B won't have such shortcomings.

Yet, even when PC-to-TV technology is perfected, providers and content owners must agree on ways to distribute the content and share the proceeds.

"The obstacles are not technology related, they are also business- and revenue-model-related," said Ben Mendelson, president of the Interactive Television Alliance, an association whose members include content providers, advertisers and distribution companies.

Media companies will need to walk a fine line, Mendelson says. The arrival of Web-to-TV, he said, "changes all the rules of the game."
 
0
•••
Dynadot โ€” .com TransferDynadot โ€” .com Transfer
Appraise.net
Escrow.com
Spaceship
Rexus Domain
CryptoExchange.com
Domain Recover
CatchDoms
DomainEasy โ€” Live Options
DomDB
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back