Vudu does Wikipedia

Microsoft's WebTV service proved pretty conclusively that the masses don't want to surf the Web on their TVs. They want to watch videos, not browse for bargains on Craigslist. Technologies that integrate Web content into TV programming, on the other hand, seem much more promising. Vudu, which delivers movies on demand through the Internet to TV sets, is launching one example today, adding content streamed from Wikipedia to its program guide. 

It's a pretty simple idea. When Vudu users steer their TV sets to one of Vudu's "movie details" screens, they see a brief description of the film in question along with links to more information about the cast, reviews and similar titles. Today, Vudu is adding a new link that will take viewers to the relevant page in Wikipedia. 

There's some technological niftiness involved -- for example, the links inside the Wikipedia pages will be live, enabling people to navigate around the site as if they were using a browser. And any reference in Wikipedia to an actor, director or movie that's in Vudu's database will include links to movies in the Vudu service.

The addition of Wikipedia content is a baby step in the direction of integrated Web content, but it shows off one of the advantages of Vudu streaming its user interface to devices, rather than having it baked into the set-top box. That approach enables the company to update the features of its software in a way that's consistent across all devices, whether they are dedicated Vudu set-tops or multi-purpose devices running Vudu's software. Umm, but there's a catch -- this feature will reach the multi-purpose devices today, but the Vudu set-tops will have to wait for it.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Follow him on Twitter: @jcahealey

Roku's open TV platform

Roku's $99 set-top box made its debut last year as a tool for watching Netflix's online movie streams on a television set. It later added access to Amazon's video-on-demand service and Major League Baseball's online game broadcasts. Today it announced the latest step in its evolution into a more versatile device: a "channel store" of optional video sources for users to add to their boxes.

The store is an open platform, Roku says, providing a route to the TV set for any online video programmer willing to use Roku's software development kit. That's a promising development for content providers looking to bypass cable and satellite operators. Unfortunately, the first 10 channels available through the Roku store do not include Hulu, TV.com, Sling.com or any other source of network TV shows. Instead, they consist of a handful of sites with original online video, such as Revision3; Pandora's customized music webcasts; and sites for posting and sharing photos and home videos, such as Flickr. All are free to use and easy to add to the box's regular channel lineup, although some require viewers to register.

The biggest shortcoming is the lack of a search engine or program guide that would make it easy to browse across all the channels simultaneously. Users have to scroll through what's available channel by channel, which can be tedious.

Viewers looking for something to replace their cable TV won't find it from Roku -- at least not yet. What they'll find is a broader selection of content, a convenient way to display on TV the personal photos and videos they've stored online, and the promise of more to come.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division.

The darker side of California's new TV wattage limits

The California Energy Commission unanimously approved a regulation today capping the power consumption of televisions sold in California starting in 2011. Although the Consumer Electronics Assn., which represents the world's largest TV makers, was apoplectic about the action, The Times' Marc Lifsher reports that one faction -- the LCD TV Assn. -- was all smiles. The reason? LCD sets are less power-hungry than plasma TVs. In other words, as so often happens when the government regulates products, it favors one technology over another -- and manufacturers know it, even if the regulators insist otherwise.

One other interesting sidelight: Seth Greenstein, outside counsel for the CEA, said the rules would bar many hotels and hospitals from buying televisions because such centrally controlled sets can't meet the new limits on power consumption when they're turned off. Philips Electronics warned the commission about this issue, to no apparent avail.

Read more about the possible unintended consequences of the new rule at the Times' opinion blog, Opinion L.A.

Corrected, 4:31 p.m.: In my haste, I incorrectly identified Seth Greenstein as Seth Greenspan in the original version of this post.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Follow him on Twitter: @jcahealey

Guvera, a place for advertisers to give away music

After SpiralFrog's collapse and Qtrax's repeated misfires, I'm skeptical about any online music service that says it will give away advertiser-supported downloads. But Guvera, an Australian start-up launched by former advertising executive Claes Loberg, is different enough to make me think it might actually work.

Admittedly, I also liked Uplister, Echo and dozens of other ill-fated online music services. But Guvera, which is expected to announce a licensing deal this morning with Universal Music Group, has at least one thing going for it that SpiralFrog didn't and Qtrax has yet to demonstrate: a model that's friendly not just to consumers, but also to advertisers.

Radio and TV broadcasters on the defensive in D.C.

The Consumer Electronics Assn. and the CTIA (the main trade group for the mobile phone industry) urged the Federal Communications Commission today to consider reclaiming some digital TV airwaves and dedicating them to use with wireless devices. The chief executives of the CEA and CTIA sent a joint letter to members of the FCC, reminding them that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the commission to review how the digital TV airwaves were being used within 10 years of the first licenses being granted for DTV channels. Those licenses were issued nearly 11 years ago, so a review is technically overdue (not that deadlines seem to matter much in Washington). Said review is supposed to determine whether broadcasters could get by with less spectrum as well as evaluate alternative uses. According to the CEA-CTIA letter:

This spectrum is uniquely suited for mobile broadband applications, devices and services –
it has highly favorable propagation characteristics and is directly adjacent to the 700 and
800 MHz spectrum utilized by the commercial wireless industry. We therefore urge the
commission to take immediate action to initiate the congressionally-mandated evaluation
of broadcast television spectrum usage.

The DTV channels are extremely valuable, and broadcasters have tried for several years to find ways to use them for more than just high-definition TV signals -- for example, by transmitting a version of their programs that's customized for mobile devices, or leasing part of their channel to data service providers. They've also fiercely resisted the high-tech industry's push to allow unlicensed uses of empty TV channels -- the so-called white spaces -- in areas where it might interfere with local broadcasts. (The FCC sided with the tech firms last year, but the decision is under appeal.) But the FCC is under orders from Congress to develop a national plan for increasing the supply of broadband connectivity, and Chairman Julius Genachowski has said that the demand for wireless broadband will soon be an order of magnitude greater than the supply (a situation that Genachowski has called the "looming spectrum crisis"). So the commission may be unusually receptive to the idea of forcing TV stations to share more of their spectrum wealth.

But then, the National Assn. of Broadcasters has some powerful friends on Capitol Hill. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and still a formidable player, sent a letter to the FCC yesterday expressing concern about any move to devote digital TV airwaves to other uses. Quoth Dingell: "I believe that a further loss of spectrum by broadcasters may have an adverse effect on consumers by limiting their choice in available broadcast television."

Meanwhile, NAB officials started meeting in the Capitol today with representatives of the Recording Industry Assn. of America and musicians' unions to discuss a compromise approach to performance royalties -- which the NAB refers to as a performance tax on radio stations -- under the auspices of the chairmen and senior members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees. Members of the Democratic leadership are expected to drop by the sessions, raising the heat on the NAB to capitulate. Although the broadcasters' lobby has lined up 252 House members and 27 senators behind resolutions opposing new royalties for performing music publicly (on the air or at a business, such as a bar), both Judiciary committees have passed bills that would have a federal arbitration panel set royalties that local radio stations would have to pay. The bills also would set limits on the annual royalty payments for smaller businesses, public and religious broadcasters.

Looks like the broadcasters' lobbyists will be stuck playing defense for a while.

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Follow him on Twitter: @jcahealey

Sezmi says hello to Los Angeles

Angelenos unhappy with the cable or satellite TV offerings in their neighborhoods will have a new, much less expensive option today: Sezmi, a novel combination of over-the-air broadcasting and broadband programming. The company is launching a trial run here in anticipation of a much broader rollout by March, providing free equipment and service for about three months to those who participate. (You can sign up at Sezmi's website.) Even after the free trial ends, the price will be far below competing pay TV services: just under $5 a month for local broadcasts, Internet channels and access to pay-per-view services, and an additional $20 a month for more than 100 cable TV networks. Sezmi has some issues -- some popular cable networks aren't on board, at least not yet, and its selection of Web programming is far too limited -- but it also offers some innovations that push TV service in the direction viewers want it to go.

Clicker's guide to the unlimited-channel universe

One testament to the popularity of online video is the growing number of sites that serve as Internet program guides, helping people sort through the billions of available items to find something they might like to watch. The latest, Clicker, has its official launch at 10:30 this morning (it had been conducting an invitation-only trial since mid-September). Unlike most of the other guides, which direct users to videos available on their own sites, Clicker exists to help people find programming around the Web, including such sources as Hulu, YouTube or Revision3. And it directs users to legal content only, eschewing bootlegs and snippets posted on user-generated sites in favor of full-length content from the most convenient source. The goal, said CEO Jim Lanzone, is to be "the TV Guide for the next generation of television, whatever that evolves into."

More on Google music search

After I wrote about Google's new music search feature last week, several readers pointed out that Google already offered searchers an easy way to stream songs: YouTube. Clips from YouTube have been featured prominently among the search results on Google and Yahoo for some time. If Lala, MySpace Music and Google's other partners in the new search feature are going to see much benefit, they'll have to offer a more compelling experience at the top of the search results than YouTube does nearby.

With that in mind, Google is rolling out the first upgrade to music search today: semi-exclusive content. I say "semi" because the content is actually being made available by Lala and MySpace and can be found by going to those sites directly. Anyway, the booty includes new material and free MP3s available for a limited time only. Among the artists contributing MP3s are Phoenix, Tim McGraw and Mos Def; exclusive tracks will be available from Snoop Dogg, Kings of Leon, Lady Gaga and Linkin Park. It's not clear whether this will be a regular feature or just a gimmick to get people to try out the new search feature. But if artists and labels really want to draw people into the experiences provided by services such as Lala and MySpace Music, they'll need to keep the freebies and/or extra features coming. Otherwise, what's to keep Google users from clicking on the links from YouTube in lieu of the ones at the top of the page?

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Follow him on Twitter: @jcahealey

Does more broadband mean more piracy?

In the $787-billion economic stimulus package enacted in February, Congress told the Federal Communications Commission to create a plan for extending broadband service to all Americans and increasing broadband speeds. It's an apple-pie, chicken-in-every-pot goal -- at least until people see the price tag. Nevertheless, there are plenty of disagreements over the details of the plan. One is a battle between copyright holders and consumer advocates over what to do about all the content that broadband users download or stream illegally. The former want Internet service providers to use technology to filter out unauthorized content flowing over their networks; the latter argue that filters won't work as advertised and will inflict an unacceptable amount of collateral damage on lawful Internet uses. I sympathize with the copyright holders' concerns about rampant unauthorized copying, but I'm not persuaded that filtering is the solution -- or that this proceeding is the place to have that debate.

Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, laid out the case against filters ...

Google's bid to save the music industry, one search at a time [UPDATED]

Google's new "music search feature" -- that's the official name, although some folks have been calling it "OneBox" -- is like a relief pitcher arriving in the middle of a game with his team trailing. It can help expose millions of people to legitimate Internet music outlets, which will help those companies compete with free (and, in many cases, unauthorized) sources of music online. Whether consumers will actually spend more on music than they've been doing, however, is a whole 'nother question.

The rap against Google from label executives and online music companies has been that its search results seem indifferent to legality. For example, searching for a legitimate site often yields sponsored results for unlicensed ones; Googling an MP3 will call up dozens of free download sites and probably some unauthorized lyrics outlets, too. The new music search initiative won't scrub the unlicensed sites from the search results, but at least it tries to steer people to sites that compensate copyright holders. The hope, according to Thomas Hesse, president of Sony Music Entertainment's global digital business, is that music fans will have a significantly better experience on a MySpace or a Lala than they would on an illegitimate site.

No doubt they will. Three of the five music services that Google is working with initially -- Lala, Rhapsody and Pandora -- are far easier to use and are much more entertaining than BitTorrent or LimeWire. I'm not a huge fan of the user interfaces at the two others -- MySpace Music and imeem -- but they're far better tools for sampling music and discovering bands than the illegal downloading sites are. And it's certainly true that with the exception of iTunes, which is notably absent from this initiative, legitimate online music services have been woefully undermarketed and underexposed. So the considerable traffic Google is likely to send their way should be a tremendous boon.

Having said that, I think it's still an open question whether the new search function leads the masses to buy more music. It's likely to lead people to listen to more songs -- Google and its streaming partners will enable searchers to play any given song once, in full and for free, right from the search results page. And if they follow up a sample by diving further into MySpace Music or Lala, they'll certainly discover more artists that they like. But if they're accustomed to acquiring music for free online, it's not clear to me why they wouldn't continue to do so after sampling to their heart's content on MySpace or Lala. Alternatively, they may be happy to stick with the free ad-supported streams on MySpace or imeem, or the 10-cent "web songs" on Lala, instead of plunking down 89 cents or more for an MP3. That's fine only if there's enough volume to make up for the lower margins.

At least Google's pushing people in the right direction, or at least some of the right directions. The search sovereign needs to learn how to work more subscription-music services into the mix, too, for the sake of eMusic, Napster and Microsoft's Zune Pass. And you have to wonder how innovative new services will find a way to get a piece of the traffic that Google's search initiative will generate for its short list of partners. R.J. Pittman, who led Google's efforts to develop the new search function, said the company would consider adding partners to the list, but they'll have to be "online, Web-based, easily accessible and offer some interesting approaches to music discovery." Lots of companies fit that bill, so it will be interesting to see how Google decides who's in and who's out.

Updated at 4:43 p.m.: Now that I've played with it a bit, I see that Google still has some work to do on the new feature. The intelligence it applies to search results -- for example, guessing the right band or song name despite errors in the search -- haven't been integrated into music searches. So if, for example, if you search for "Martha Muffins," Google will guess that you were looking for Martha and the Muffins, and return a bunch of links to the band and its work. But it won't trigger a chance to stream songs from the band via MySpace or Lala. Similarly, if you go looking for "the angels want to wear my red shoes," you won't get the chance to stream the song on the search page. But you will get lots of links to the song on other sites. Searching for the song by its correct title -- "Red Shoes" -- won't help, 'cause the new feature doesn't recognize that as a search for a song. It's similarly befuddled by searches for songs covered by multiple artists, such as "Moon River."

-- Jon Healey

Healey writes editorials for The Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Follow him on Twitter: @jcahealey