Talk:Internet television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Television (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Linux and other platforms[edit]

Added linux section to table. These articles need to include other operating systems and devices other than mac or windows —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fan site[edit]

From the article. I am sure this is not a fan site, but a very important site for people that cannot see TV (i.e from his/her origin country) in the terrestrial TV. --Mac 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This article does not resemble a fan site and the tag will be removed 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


IPTV should remain alone. Its implications are more than iTV. It's quite possible, for example, that some will use IPTV in a "broadcast" mode with no interactivity at all. We do not know in the U.S. how television viewers will react to iTV because we're not there yet except for PPV, DVRs, etc. The assumption that IPTV will demand interactive television from its users is questionable at the very least.

+1 i have internet but cant watch iptv, that means that it is available on other network. Internet is known network. Expertjohn (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IPTV is a technology, Internet TV is one implementation of this technology[edit]

IPTV is actually a wide technology, of transporting television content (e.g. video) over IP networks. It has several implementations.

In the past 3-4 years, many telephone companies worldwide launched IPTV commercial services, with the goal to provide digital TV for residential consumers, competing with satellite and cable digital TV. In some countries, this application of the IPTV technology is known as TVoDSL. Most of these services relies on a set top box directly connected to a TV (no computer required).

Internet Television, is another application of IPTV technology, which exists for many years through several TV companies broadcasting their shows over the web using various technologies. Most of these services are computer based.

Both applications are strongly different, both in terms of service (computer based vs. set top box), and in term of implementation and technology. Typically, Internet TV is based on unicast streaming using media players applications. IPTV is usually in a closed environment, and relies on multicast streaming (using IGMP and/or PIM SSM network protocols).

In that regard, Internet Television could actually be a sub-article of IPTV.

Kindmartin 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) I agree in general, but I really think that the main difference comes from the fact IPTV is now a telco's service for his customers only and Internet TV is more applicable for content distribution across several Telcos, ISP (as is Internet...). Services as Zattoo may be not allow access from diferents areas / countries but is in essential Internet TV, as they not own the last mile (to home) access network.

Regarding with IP multicast, there are Internet backbonnes that already support it, and in the future this tecnology will be deployed in more ISP.

Is not difficult imagine in 5 years standard definition, near DVD quality TV channels Multicasting from origin servers using Source Specific Multicast (SSM) trough Internet, as the same way you get now a web page. But as this channels will consume more than the 20 - 50 kb/s per broadband access the problem to solve will translate to the access network, not the IP Multicast backbonne.

The name that has been adopted by the media[edit]


Reading the news availabe about recent Internet TV developments I've noticed the media already chose the term "IPTV" to refer to Internet TV services. I don't see much point in keeping them separated here when to the general audience IPTV already "means" TV services distributed over the internet.

So one hypothesis is to merge both articles and explain that IPTV doesn't mean "only" Internet TV.

The other hypothesis is to rename the Internet television article to IPTV and rename the IPTV article maybe to Internet Protocol Video Distribution (IPVD). I noticed many so-called IPTV websites are essencially a library of VoD. Is there any sense in calling them TV, when for the average person Tv means a different thing, it's more like the service they are used to get from regular cable / satellite / terrestrial TV providers.

Technical versus general understanding[edit]

Cliff Konsbruck

I think we should keep IPTV and Internet TV as separate articles, because both reflect different approaches in the general understaning:

  • Internet TV is understood as TV channels delivered over the public Internet
  • IPTV is understood as a TV service (including broadcast TV, PayTV, VoD) delivered over a closed network (generally a telco operator's network)

but definately reference them together

Technically , indeed both are TV content transported within the IP protocol, but that is about all that is common. In fact, some of the differentiating aspects are:

  • Quality of service which cannot be guaranteed on the public Internet
  • Codecs: MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 for IPTV versus Microsoft VC-1 for Internet TV
  • Decoders: SetTopBoxes for IPTV versus Microsoft Media Player for Internet TV
  • Digital rights management: propriatary for IPTV versus Microsoft DRM for Internet TV
  • Contractual relationship: consumer to telco for IPTV versus consumer to content owner/ content retailer for Internet TV

I agree with Stefano's view on the long term, all content will in the future be available everywhere over the Internet... but this is not the case today and this will not be the case tomorrow.

This has to deal with the future organisation of the net[edit]

StefanoQuintarelli See debate in Italy on these issues coordinated by Leonardo Chiariglione (leader of the MPEG group) in the forum.

Indeed IPTV is to Internet TV as IP is to the Internet. (and as IPRadio is to the Internet Radio, and as IPWeb is to the Internet Web).

Would you think of an IPradio on a network different than the Internet ?

10 years ago, when web pages had just gray backgrounds, and bandwidth was scarce for audio transmission, it would have made sense.

Moore's law has brought down the cost of devices which in turn have become more powerful and from the 300bps back in 1987, DSL2 reaches 20Mbps on the same wire with similar investment costs (for telco companies and users on their respective sides).

Would you think of an IPTV on a network different than the Internet ? As today, yes, because we are told that in order to pay for network upgrades, operators must increase revenues by selling content.

So they want to keep the two issues separated.

But the Internet has evolved and now we have radio (everywhere) and (if we don't close it) will evolve and we will have video (everywhere).

This is the key part.

must increase revenues BY selling content

My take (and Andrew Odlyzko's as well, see Telecom Dogmas) is that they can increase revenue by selling more capacity to users that demand it.

So my position is that

  • IPTV without the Internet is a Paradigm supported by (some) majors and telco operators in order to define a separate network from the internet where video content provision and fruition are strictly controlled limiting the possibility of Internet interoperability and
  • Internet Television is a paradigm of transporting video content over the internet and that
  • Internet Television and IPTV rely on base technology which (may eventually) include streaming, QoS management, set-top boxes, accounting and billing systems, interactivity support, video servers, network caches, etc.


I think it is a mistake to merge subjects. IPTV does not necessarily mean that you are using the Internet to deliver your TV content.

Good Point , my home securety is IPTV but not internetTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

BBC iMP link[edit]

I have removed this link because the BBC iMP is only available to people located in the UK, and we are an international encyclopedia, SqueakBox 17:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


"the trend is clear until people lose their appetite for faster internet connections."

Shouldn't this be "the trend is clear UNLESS people lose their appetite for..."?


Charles Iliya Krempeaux, the author of IPTV Needs a New Name - How about "NewTube" (October 2005) has added the term "NewTube" into this article by introducing the sentence "Alternative names include: Vlogging, Vodcasting, Vodcatching and the Newtube." However, I modified the sentence because there were problems:

  • Vodcatching - gets less than 10 unique Google hits. Not really used.
  • NewTube - this term gets less than 150 Google hits, compared to vlog (5,760,000), vcast (87,900), vidcast (566,000), vodcast (1,810,000). It seems to stem mostly from Charles' article, mirrors, and unrelated hits. However, advocating neologisms is not encouraged by Wikipedia policy ("Wikipedia is not a soapbox" -WP:NOT, WP:NEO).
  • Vodcasting, Vlogging: I think Internet TV is different, while vodcasting and vlogging are the same thing. Whether vodcasting, vlogging, and internet tv refer to the same thing or not is being debated at the bottom of Talk:Vlog.

Tokek 15:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging IPTV & Internet Television[edit]

This is such a fledgling area, so we need to be really clear on what Internet TV is. And the 2 are almost synonymous - any slight differences in usage could be clearly explained.

I'd prefer it to go under Internet Television as I think it will be the popular name for it.. but that's just guess work on my part. I'm basing that on "SDTV" being pretty unpopular, and people calling it "Digital TV". Though perhaps "HDTV" is a better example, which is a name many people do use.

What do you think of merging? Support? Objections? Greg 04:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IPTV and Internet TV should be kept separate. IPTV can delivered over (and is mostly associated with) a closed network while Internet TV is obviously delivered over the public Internet. One describes the protocol while the other the delivery method. A very clear distinction in my mind. —Unsigned comment by
Makes sense to me - IPTV is to Internet TV as IP is to the Internet. Perhaps the articles need re-writing with this distinction in mind. For example, the section on "Technologies used for Internet television" would go under IPTV. I vote to keep the articles separate. Alf Boggis 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the votes guys, and I'm tending to agree. The 2 articles should go hand-in-hand though I think. Also, the differences between IPTV and Internet TV are not made clear in the article at the moment. Greg 12:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, the more I write on either of these articles, the more uncertain I am of WHICH article to put something in. For instance - everything about interactivity & video-on-demand is true of IPTV, so it belongs there. But it's a major factor in Internet TV. I still consider it a grey area - but I'm wondering if a single article on both is better, yet still making very clear the differences between the 2. Hmmm. Greg 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a clear distinction between IPTV and Internet Television.

IPTV is used in the telecommunications sector for delivering TV services over a service provider network using the IP protocol. It is used by DSL providers and Mobile (UMTS) providers to provide video based services to their subscribers for a fee. They are geographically constraint by the footprint of the service provider, because it is thightly linked to infrastructure to provide QOS in the access network. It is a way to compete with cable and satellite TV providers and wants to offer comparable or better image quality.

Internet TV is a way to provide video to users worldwide by content owners that don't own telecommunication infrastructure. Services are offered over the public Internet often free. Image quality is currently often weaker and no QoS is provided.--KoenPeeters 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding (which many be wrong) is that:

  • IP TV is a stream/signal designed to be transferred from broadcaster to end user over the internet
  • Broadband TV is a service from, usually, a commercial operator to broadcast TV signals/stations to the end user using IP TV technology. e.g. NOW Broadband TV in Hong Kong, which broadcasts channels that, in North America, would usually be broadcast via Cable TV. The technology is such that there is usually a decoder which decodes the signal and outputs a data stream that enables watching of the programmes on a television set (although people can hook things up to watch on their computer if they so wish). Broadband TV subscriptions usually (and indeed usually must include, for TV output quality purposes) a 'high-speed' broadband connection, such as 10mbs - hence broadband TV providers, where they exist in the world, are usually heavily involved in broadband connectivity as well - e.g. NOW Broadband TV in Hong Kong is an operating unit of the local telephone company PCCW.
  • Internet television is the subset of IP TV broadcasting that is not Broadband TV. i.e. it's everything else, and signals are not usually encoded, and programmes are generally designed to be watched on a computer screen (although people can hook things up to their TV set via a computer if they so wish).

--Ordew 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with above definitions from Ordew. Within the broadcast industry the term IPTV is being used to describe TV stream/signal from Broadcaster to end user using Internet Protocol. It does not necessarily travel over the Internet. So Broadband TV and Internet TV, together with "IPTV" in the common usage by the broadcast industry, are all subsets of IPTV with its true meaning of Internet Protocol Televsion.

The technical term IPTV should be distinct from the various flavours of IPTV that the technology has produced.

--[J M Rackowe] 21:14, 27 Oct 2006

Related topics, but not the same[edit]

IPTV is different from Internet TV, This would be an incorrect statement if considered in totality. Internet TV is one way of implementing IPTV (or is it the other way round? :-) ). So the topics are definitely related, overlapping, but lets keep a more broader vision in perspective. IPTV is not Internet TV. My 2 cents.

IPTV is a general term. The use of IP (Internet Protocol) as a delivery medium for television or audio-visual media does NOT restrict IPTV to transmission over the Internet. Check for non-Internet examples. Internet Television is what it says it is. Internet Television may be regraded as a sub-set of IPTV. The two terms have to be clearly differentiated.


They are 2 seperate types of viewing media, i work in this business. Thanks,

Not quite the same[edit]

IPTV and iTV are not the same. While they both use the IP for their delivery, an IPTV network can be setup using the same protocols, yet be completely disjoint from the Internet, and having proprietary DRM mechanisms plugged into it to realize the business models of the provider. It is possible to have an IPTV broadband connection which is employed only for providing TV content and not capable of browsing the Internet in general

Alternative Distinction[edit]

Despite the mis-use of the term IPTV to describe closed networks, I think internet TV still counts within IPTV as internet TV uses internet protocol.

I propose that within IPTV, a ditinction be made between "closed network" IPTV (such as with cable, satellite) and "public internet" TV (such as YouTube). Both are IPTV, but they are fundamentally different concepts as far as broadcast of content goes. Andrew Drake 12:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep the definitions separate[edit]

I think the useage models are very distinct between Internet TV and IPTV. Where as Internet TV is about using the public Internet to deliver TV like media content, the IPTV is a technology that vendors and carriers deploy to provide a replacement for Cable TV, often using a "Broadcasting model" (watch it when being broadcast). The business model for each definition is so different, the names should be kept in separate articles on Wikipedia, even if the technology appears similar.

While you can provide Video on demand over an IPTV system, it is still restricted to the content a Network provider may offer in a closed system. The Internet TV also supports Video on demand, but the content is open to any members of the public Internet.

The use of the term for IPTV seems to generally imply the use of a set top box, similar to the usage model the cable TV companies deploy. This fits the closed network model. Internet TV at the moment is most likely to be displayed on a PC.

Also an IPTV output is a deterministic stream. Internet Television has a conotation of streaming video to a computer. These will likely be short form content such as a news video clip. (M. Mifflin).

Closed system versus Open system is quite a difference, so please keep the articles unique, but with cross links.

Internet TV definition needed - IPTV should be kept separate[edit]

I propose that we tighten the discussion into a definition of Internet TV that effectively describes the category. IPTV can be then differentiated accordingly. I have been developing IPTV and Internet-based television technology solutions for almost 9 years, and these two terms have inexplicable differentiation in the industry.

Internet TV is used broadly to encompass digital video on the internet in the form of channels or shows. Podcasts, Youtube channels, googlevideo, and even websites that display video segments or "episodes" have been called and classified as "internet tv". There needs to be constraints around how to classify something as just video on the internet versus internet television. If I make a video for a product daily and put it on Cnet, and call it a dialy show, is it internet tv? How about my home video that I upload to youtube, is that internet tv? What about watching Zee TV on a website based service like Planetvu or JumpTV that streams the video from a head end in the middle east to a content delivery network like vitalstream for delivery to end users? The phrase "Internet TV" is clearly broadly used and has many connotations. It should be defined as such, and agreed upon by not only professionals in the industry, but by laymen and users of these services, hopefully here on wikipedia.

In my opinion, IPTV is the deliverance of broadcast television via video streaming technology from a central head-end location to a user or group of users through the use of the internet or by using either TCP/IP or UDP/IP technology. I believe that the IPTV section on Wikipedia is an accurate definition and represents specific details to define IPTV's boundaries and scope. It should be kept separate from Internet TV because they cover two similar concepts, but IPTV isn't internet TV, and internet TV isn't IPTV.

-- nviusguy

NBC Rewind[edit]

Recently, NBC has been uploading episodes of some of their shows to their website. They have even uploaded entire half seasons of Heroes and Friday Night Lights after they went on hiatus. Does this count as internet TV? - INH 8: 28 PM 12/6/2006

No that's not really internet tv. They're just internet videos, like youtube type videos. FredZygle 8: 08 AM 12/18/2006

IPTV and Internet TV are different but may merge[edit]

I agree with all the previous comments about the difference between IPTV and Internet TV. In general, IPTV offerings are offered on discrete service provider networks. This is usually not specifically (or not just) to maintain a walled garden of content, but to be able to manage QoS and maintain a known end-to-end environment. For Service Providers aiming at high quality broadband content, delivering over an unknown network is just not practical. At the moment.

However, in time we may see end-to-end QoS, managed home networks, universal DRM. It may become more practical to achieve a managed quality over the open Internet. Then the difference between IPTV and Internet TV might largely disappear. (Although Service Providers will still look to bundle triple/quad-play packages.) In my view the most of the technologies (codecs, applications etc) are similar.

My vote: keep separate topics - for now at any rate - but cross reference.

Simongarrett 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an official Definition by ITU[edit]

Anyhow I see no value to discuss wheather its good or bad, but there already put some people brain into, and i think it states quite cleary a position that no one needs to discuss any longer. So Checkout ITU-ORganisation and lets use brain for endless set of undiscussed topics

Dieter Huelskamp 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between IP and Internet[edit]

It doesn't matter wether you are talking about IP based Radio, TV, or any other service, just because it is IP based, doesn't make it Internet Based. For example, you can run an IPTV server on a DSL network, you can run it on a Cable Network, or you can run it on a WAN (such as the internet). DTVB could also be sent over an ethernet network via UDP, but this wouldn't make it internet TV either.

Yes, IPTV can be run over the internet, but it is definately not the same thing as 'internet tv'. The internet is merely the infrastructure that the service is operating under. In my opinion - the two topics should most definately be kept seperate.

It was the smart TV[edit]

It was the new technology for everyone. Smart Tv is the one product you will choose from other product. Smart TV are include with TV and PC. So everbody can download internet from Smart Tv. Everyone will love it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:54, 14 March 2007.

What is the diffence between Internet and Internet Protocol?[edit]

I still don't see the difference between the terms Internet and Internet Protocol. IP is simply the way that you access the internet. Therefore the terms IPTV and Internet TV have no difference from one another.

Even if people think Internet and Internet Protocol are different, I'll quote from the two articles: "The playback of IPTV requires either a personal computer or a "set-top box" connected to a TV." and "...IPTV is more general than Internet TV. ... in that case, IPTV in just a part of Internet television."

Obviously the second quote, coming from Internet TV is contradictory, showing they should be merged, or at least edited.

That's my two cents.

XPMaster 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)XPMaster

Internet TV vs IPTV[edit]

Internet TV is the same as what the industry is calling Broadband TV this differs from IPTV (TelcoTV) as follows

  • Broadband TV represents a horizontal market, where typically devices are sold, which connect to any ISP and access video based entertainment over the Internet
    • These are typcially PCs as access devices and Web Sites as servers, but some "players" such as Joost, Win Amp and others access entertainment direct
    • broadband TV therefore represents the "free to air" model of traditional TV broadcasting
    • The quality of Broadband TV is variable, depending on bandwidth available, client technology and server loads.
  • IPTV represents a vertical market, where a single operator will acquire content rights, have a deployment network and supply a consumer device in the home, often based on a PAY TV or subscription model
    • This is akin to satellite and cable pay TV operations, where an explicit network is used as a distribution mechanism for TV
    • Investments in network infrastructure for IPTV operators make them different from Internet (or broadband) TV:
      • Often IPTV video will be delivered using dedicated hardware in the Telco exchanges and network
      • Bandwidth assigned to IPTV may not actually be visible to the end user as "internet" bandwidth
      • IPTV operators offer a QOS (Quality of Service) akin to broadcast TV services

Ian Valentine 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Why is a large chunk of this article *still* a listing of providers, many of which are so tiny they are completely insignificant? I'm going to cut this list down to the popular ones unless someone can come up with a reason why every tiny Chinese company looking to make a buck streaming American TV should have a listing here. SHARD 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned the article and tagged it for further cleanup. -SHARD 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've completely removed the "History" section, because it had only one entry of actual history. Hopefully I won't have to edit war for too long to keep it out.--Boffob 03:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I have created a site around Internet TV I was wondering if i could add this to the external links section i am fully aware that i dont get ant SEO for this or any PR or anything like that (i am not trying to do that i know the wiki is not simply a link dumping ground), mysite isnt selling anything its a comprehensive well put together collection of free stream channels from around the world url currently showing over 1000 channels from broadcasters all of the world, Thanks for taking the time to review my site. --ozjames

IPTV is a specific technology, Internet TV is totally different[edit]

IPTV operates within walled gardens, employing point-to-point delivery, eg Fios, BT Vision, Imagenio. Specifically, it always involves a set top box (STB).

Internet TV is video content that is openly available on any internet connection and should be browsable via a web browser and viewable using a media player object.

Internet TV largely uses the Flash (Sorensen/On2) and Windows Media (VC1) codecs, with some H.264/MPEG4 content, whereas IPTV almost exclusively uses MPEG2 content, with some MPEG4 now coming online.

The terms 'TV over IP' or 'TV on IP' is the catch all, covering packet based delivery to mobiles, IPTV, internet tv (broadband tv), etc.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Inconsistent Deletion policy[edit]

Babalooey 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Babalooey Babalooey 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC) This listing has recently been butchered removing the history and showing a great deal of bias in allowing links to specific sites and obviously a lot of biased editing as to Internet TV sites that get acknowledgement. If this is listed as a fan site, then shouldn't the fans be allowed to list links that represent the topic?

I deleted the history section on the ground that there was no history to speak of. One notable event, the first full service internet TV, then four or five badly listed local launches of little to no notability. Most of the section was just a long list of companies, company specific technology or websites. That's not history, it's nothing more than commercial promotion, and as such has no place on Wikipedia.--Boffob 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Babalooey 19:56, 2 May 2007 Boffob - you should also remove the following from the page as they are similar if not the same. You are showing incredible bias in your deletions. In violation if the no1 rule of Wikipedia,... that "A Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]". SO if you remove one listing that points to a provider of tlevision service from this page then you should equally point to all or point to none. How about removal of the ones below from ==See also== :

Web TV For more about moving regular pay-tv channels to internet-based delivery

P2PTV For more about Peer to Peer () internet TV

Joost Skype's founders new IPTV venture

Zattoo Free Peer to Peer internet TV with licensed European and international channels

Finally, you state "'s nothing more than commercial promotion, and as such has no place on Wikipedia.." There are a multitude of pages in Wikipedia that are long lists of "commercial promotion". For exampe look at

and as just one of many such pages it shows tremendous inconsistency in your statement and as such makes it indefensible. It just seems that there are enough inconsistent Wikipedia guidelines that can be pulled out of the broad editing guidelines so there can be any number of justifications used by any editor for defending a biased editorial action where you've rather blatantly removed some commercial references and left others. Will you delete them all? Babalooey 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Babalooey

The list of television stations in Thailand happens to be what it says it is, unlike the removed "history" section of this article. As far as I know it also conforms to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, just like the "See also" section of this article.--Boffob 15:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

p2p technology[edit]

I'm not so fussed about the use of acronyms. To me internet TV means simply TV delivered over the internet. This could be streaming or on demand, and could be delivered by unicast or multicast or via a peer to peer network. Regarding p2p networks there are several p2p based systems emerging - e.g Joost, and also the BBC iPlayer and the Channel 4 offering. I'm concerned that some of these are a bit dubious in their software offerings - several based on Kontiki software seem to generate significant problems for end users. Also the specifications of some of these systems seem to leave a lot to be desired right now. Apart from situations where one has actually missed a broadcast, some of the systems (e.g 4OD) take longer to download a programme than it takes to watch it. Lastly, in some sense Internet TV has been around for more years than many think. Some commercial digital TV operators use internet protocols and dedicated networks, as do some network providers. For example, Telia in Sweden has been using dedicated networks for TV distribution since before 2000. It may be that some clarification should be made between the use of internet protocols and the use of the public internet for TV distribution.

Regarding networks, earlier use of dedicated networks provided better guarantees of reliability, and better quality control (shorter delays, low jitter etc.), but gradually what we consider to be the public network will acquire many of these characteristics.

Regarding TV, it may be important not to get too hung up on particular standards, or on who provides the services. I see no reason why in the long term that the display standards should dictate what we call TV. There will be convergence between computer displays and TV devices, and it'll take some time before these are seen as essentially the same.

I'm sure that some of the big media providers would like to claim a monopoly on TV distribution, but I see that it's perfectly possible that small TV operators will emerge, and these should also be considered to be providing internet TV.

The article could reflect some of these issues. David Martland 10:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

As internet television is in its infancy, it is important for readers to look at various services under development. Innovation will come from private companies trying to capitalize on new technologies. Please do not delete these important external links. (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No its WP:NOT. this is an encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Broadband TV and Internet TV?[edit]

my vote is YES. they are one in the same.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My vote is "No."

Internet TV is not the same as Broadband TV.

Loosely speaking, "Internet TV" is a product, the "broadband TV" is a technology.

More accurately, "broadband TV" is TV technology that is "broadband," and "Internet TV" is a class of services that is currently being offered at various web sites on the Internet. The "Internet TV" article has (in my opinion) an excellent and approprioately concise description of this class of service.

"Broadband TV" is the same thing as "high bandwidth TV." In the early days of video over the Internet, the pictures came through frame by frame; one picture every .5 to 2 seconds. It was almost more like watching a series of still shots that watching a moving picture. When AT&T calls their product "Broadband TV" what they mean is that the experience is more like watching a high resolution color movie with high quality synchronized audio than like watching the early moving picture (video) technology on the Internet. In other words, "Broadband," in the popular, non-technical understanding of the word, is synonymous with "high quality."

There are notes at the top of the Wikipedia "Intelnet TV" and "Broadband TV" web pages saying that these pages are considered being merged and inviting comments. I could not find a section on this topic so I started this section. Maybe the decision has already been made NOT to merge the two articles. That would be nice. I would not mind if the misleading article on "Broadband TV" were deleted.

So what does everybody else think? You don't have to start a new section if you don't want to. You can put your comments right here in this section.

DeaconJohnFairfax (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

the TERMS Broadband TV, Web Television, and Internet Television, have all evolved into the term Internet TV. just as the original word "Television" has evolved into TV etc... although I do associate web TV more with web cams etc. The Term Internet TV best describes current day Live video streaming websites, (as opposed to down-loadable videos etc) like YouTube ......

TheRaven opened  (Daytona Beach's  First (Internet TV station) 
in   the year  2000,  and has  been calling it  just that,   ever since then... Internet TV.

Internet TV...... is the correct term....for live streaming sites on the Internet.....

in my opinion web Television should be noted as an EARLY Internet Term, for current day Internet TV stations, and websites. Example: is an actual Internet TV station etc. not just a website with a webcam. or down-loadable videos. They have been LIVE Streaming / Broadcasting.....since the year, 2000 NON-stop.

there are MANY other Internet TV station websites popping up now-days as well. it sounds FUNNY to call them web TV stations, or Broadband TV stations etc..... because the actual word "WEB" has been preceded by the word Internet..... and dial-up is almost a thing of the past etc... web TV and broadband TV, are both dinosaur terminology in my opinion.... for the term Internet TV...(which is the current day accepted term)for Live streaming websites..and Internet TV stations........ everyone and their brother calls it Internet TV these days. The wiki seems to be the only ones confused.....grin. (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Broadband TV Pioneers[edit]

In 1999 most people did not watch video online. A company called Teveo used a high speed Internet connection to connect thousands of dial up users using player less video technology. The evolution of Broadband connections made it possible for Internet users to become real time video broadcasters using Teveo. Teveo produced technology that was ahead of its time and did not survive the Internet bubble burst of 2000, as a result Teveo software can still be downloaded free on the Internet. You got Broadband? became common question around year the 2000, many Broadband TV pioneers began streaming music videos online using a Broadband Internet connection. In 2003 a little known Internet Pioneer named Enas E. Ragland launched one of America's first Broadband Broadcasting Networks and called the technology Broadband TV (BE TV) in part because of the platforms ability to emulate old style Television via Broadband Internet connection.

Currently Broadband pioneers use the explict generic mark "Broadband TV" to define evolving video Technologies. Unlike Internet TV or IPTV, advanced Broadband TV technologies like "Broadband Messaging" allow users to engage in real time using cams, pictures, voice, video, text and more. When the Broadband Broadcasting market mature in a few years, Internet TV will be defined as it is exist now, Broadband TV is expected to be defined as an interactive Broadband Broadcasting format. Advanced Broadband Broadcasting formats allow users to access Broadband TV, Radio with images, Voice, Video, cams, text, record, pictures and media downloading in a user controlled Broadband Messaging environment. Broadband TV is without question competing with traditional Television and Internet TV. Broadband media programming is one of the fasting growing sources of revenue online. The word Broadband allow search engines to identify the underlying product as Broadband Media. "Broadband" identification help provide more accurate search results when compared to the search phrase Internet TV. On behalf on the Internet pioneers who are developing the generic term Broadband TV, it is our opinion that Broadband TV should not be merged with Internet TV. -- (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TheRaven has been Live Streaming on the Internet since the year 1997, he is a True Broadband TV Pioneer (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Internet and Web Television?[edit]

I don't really see the distinction between web television and internet television. Should one be merged into the other? I am adding merge templates for the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Opposed. Based on the content in web television, and as the name would imply, this appears a subset of Internet television, which is not just web based. Kbrose (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Web television is a distinct form of the medium which refers to programming made originally for distribution on the world wide web. Internet television refers to a distribution method, and serves content made originally for cable television, broadcast (terrestrial) television, as well as web television. Bradybd (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the concepts are similar enough, iptv should also be merged. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    IPTV is an entirely different concept. Just like http and the World Wide Web are separate (but related) ideas. Billbowery (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    They are different concepts but is that actually an argument against merging? Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No, but there needs to be a really good reason FOR merging them. The premise for the request was that they were conceived to be identical, which they are not. However, a general overview article covering all these IP-based technologies would be nice, if it doesn't exist already. Kbrose (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I certainly do not agree that we need a really good reason to merge, as if somehow what is is sacred; that is a bad argument anywhere on wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (as it was my proposal) or possibly Re-write this page. The Internet Television article seems a little confused about its subject. The lead only mentions iplayer/hulu style "catch up TV". However the Concept (and Other names for Internet television) subheading includes Web Television, not to mention other internet based televisual content. Depending on which part is accurate, something needs to change. Given the size of the articles, putting all possible concepts of internet/web television into one article seems to me to be the best course. Alternatively, a partial merger coulf make this article the parent of the Web Television article, with a summary on this page and a link to the other article. If there is no merger at all, then I would suggest a separate parent article of some kind to cover all the different varieties of internet-based video. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    I agree that Internet television should be rewritten. The article isn't very clear about what internet television is. Billbowery (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable content[edit]

Much content of this page can be found on other websites. It is highly probable that the content added by anonymous users (e.g. IP was copied from elsewhere. This particular IP has been blocked from editing WP. Kbrose (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems kinda like an advertisement for BBC Iplayer[edit]


For example the BBC iPlayer brings in users which stream more than one million videos per week, with one of the BBC's headline shows "The Apprentice" taking over 3 - 5% of the UK's internet traffic due to people watching the first episode on the BBC iPlayer.
During Peak times the BBC iPlayer transmits 12 GB (gigabytes) of information per second.[2] Over the course of a month the iPlayer sends 7 PB (petabytes) of information.

Examples include the BBC, which introduced the BBC iPlayer on 25 June 2008 as an extension to its "RadioPlayer" and already existing streamed video clip content, and Channel 4 that launched 4oD ("4 on Demand") in November 2006 allowing users to watch recently shown content

For example, or . If the user has no select preference of streaming service, the name of a chosen television programme can be inputted into a search engine followed by a phrase such as "online streaming" or "watch on the net". Accessing television on the internet has never been so simple, due to this usability of streaming services has had to be improved to maintain the simplicity of the process. Upon selection of a programme and website, the user may have to wait a few seconds or minutes to allow their desired programme to stream. A process called buffering allows the programme to run in one smooth showing as opposed to stopping and starting to allow the programme to stream.

An example of programmes only being aired in certain countries is BBC iPlayer. Users can only stream content from the BBC iPlayer from Britain because the BBC only allows free use of their product for users within the United Kingdom because those users pay a TV license to fund part of the BBC.

In the UK, the BBC iPlayer deals with the largest amount of traffic yet it offers HD content along with SD content. As more people get internet connections which can deal with streaming HD video over the internet the BBC iPlayer has tried to keep up with demand and pace. However, as streaming HD video takes around 1.5gb of data per hour of video it took a lot of investment by the BBC to implement this on such a large scale.[10]

Editing needed? (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

24 hour television news services delivered to everyone everywhere via the internet should be included.[edit]

24 hour television news services delivered to everyone everywhere via the internet should be included; possibly in a separate section. I am referring to services requiring no registration or payment like RT, CCTV, and France24. The television delivered over the internet to only those living in specific countries such as the UK needs to be covered in a separate section, possibly different sections for different countries.1archie99 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Overview of Platforms and availability[edit]

The article section could me more reader friendly. How about explaining what android and console application has to do with internet televison. To me android is "Data" on "Star Trek" and a console is a televison built into a bulky piece of furniture.1archie99 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

External links to legitimate Internet Television top sites[edit]

Why do the editors of this section keep removing links to legitimate very popular Internet Television sites?

I have added a link to Internet Television popular siteand it has been removed.

Why is that? isn't this section about Internet television? Why do the editors always think that external links are added as spam? This site is the number one site on Bing for the term "Free TV" and does not need the link from Wikipedia For traffic!

The link to this site was added because the readers of this section - Internet Television - are interested in sites like that and the content they provide.

I urge everyone who agree with me to back me up on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarituk (talkcontribs) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Online-TV.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Online-TV.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Internet - Television.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Internet - Television.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


there has been a dispute in the History section of this wiki page.... Internet Television/History the guy from greece, that claims to have started the first Internet TV station in 2005, is incorrect...

TheRaven preceeded him by 5 years in 2000, with the Internet TV station >> we need to correct the info in this (History section) and get it re-instated.... (it has been deleted)

I am TheRaven and I have all the correct History Info and Links to proove these facts...located on my HD, in a wordpad format....but cannot seem to get it entered into the History section correctly.... the corect info can be requested from me, via my alt email addy >>

I would like to get this info entered into the Internet Television/History section wiki correctly, and then get it LOCKED somehow, so no one can CHANGE the correct history,,,, unless they can PROOVE that they proceeded me, etc.

this is a FAIR request. and the history record needs to be corrected etc... I just cannot do this myself, can someone please assist me in correcting this info and mishap?

thankyou for your time.


PS I just checked also went on-line in 2005.... just for the record... still beats them by 5 whole years...... just for the record.

and this also >> 29 October 2002 UK's first Internet TV channel launched

The UK's first broadband television station, Worldart Media Television , has launched on the Internet.....we still proceed them by 2 years etc........the wiki is incomplete........


Frank810z (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank810z (talkcontribs) 19:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I can find no mention of "Greece" or "2005". As for your claims, they must be "proved" by mentions in reliable sources (magazines, newspapers, etc.), not your personal documents. Basically, you need something like the NY Times or Wired magazine saying you were the first Internet TV station. Also, I have left a note about WP:COI on your talk page. --NeilN talk to me 20:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The Greek mention was there originally, but when I removed the material by User:Frank810z, I also removed the original Greek mention. The addition was contradictory to the original text, and resulted in a confusing mess that didn't make sense. As a result, I removed the section entirely until this can be better sorted out on the talk page.
There were two newspaper links attached to the Greek mention - but someone who can read Greek is needed to interpret and verify those sources. From what I could see, most of the newly added content mentioning an older origin was self-referenced. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Note, buried in the advert-wall-of-text that had been added by User:Frank810z was one reliable third-party source at
There's still a problem here though ... the link confirms a date that it existed, but any interpretation of being "first" is still original research. Given that issue, I think we should omit the section entirely (leave out both this site and the Greek site) until a reliable source can be found that identifies a "first". --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree with that. --NeilN talk to me 21:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the Internet TV (HISTORY) section should be reinstated.... Taliesynz (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you want to use? --NeilN talk to me 03:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The first internet tv created in 1998 in Greece from Angelos Diamantoulakis. This man created the first online tv station in the world (2004) with name "TVONLINE". Sorry but this is the real history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwpress (talkcontribs) 12:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK KIDS.. I JUST CORRECTED the Internet TV/HISTORY section.... again. correctly.

now, lets SEE if you all EDITORS can manage "SOMEHOW" to KEEP the correct info in THERE for the world to see CORRECTLY.... can you do this.. you seem to SPOT everything ELSE wrong, except THIS...ONgoing mess. I fixed it AGAIN. can you make it STICK this time?

Im getting TIRED of the guy from Greece that KEEPS trying to say he is the FIRST Internet TV station in the world... it is NOT true. and the dam wiki people/POLICE SHOULD correct this ON GOING problem with that dam dude always deleting the correct history. MY Name is TheRaven and I freaking PROCEED the GREEK GATOR boy by 4 whole years with go check your own wiki history info.

NOW that being said....WHY does the almighty wiki editors even LET this greek guy get away with this time and time and time again, for over a YEAR now.............

you seem to spot everything ELSE wrong with the dang WHY cannot you spot that this greek dude has NOT built the FIRST Internet TV station........ but that TheRaven DID that in 2000..... go check the deleted history.... read his verification for yourselves......his own verification says he did his TV station in 2004.

Im getting TIRED of the greek guy saying he did the first Internet TV station in 2004 and then deleting my INFO......... when I already did this in 2000 in Daytona. your wiki POLICE need to shut him DOWN NOW. I dont care if his info is there...(if it is correct) he is the one that seems to have a problem with me being there.. tough luck for him. he is 4 years BEHIND me with his TV station. facts are facts... I PROCEED him. I BUILT, and STILL RUN,

you go tell greek boy to piss-OFF with his claim that he built the first Internet TV station... I DID THAT. 4 years BEFORE him baby.

feel free to email me anytime.

I can back up all my claims and have done so here in the wiki ONCE AGAIN. lets see if you all can manage to KEEP the correct info online this time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi wiki, first internet tv show created in 1998. ( Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

the editor Barrak will be famous soon.....grin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Restoring consensus version[edit]

I've restored again the above consensus of removing the history material. The only established consensus in the above discussion is to leave it out, with the only dissenters being a pair of editors whose only real interest is self promotion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

you need to put the history section back. the wiki is incomplete without that section. correct factual history data needs to be there. not excluded from the wiki. as is currently the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The community consensus above has been to omit this material - the only two users who repeatedly argue for inclusion have been users whose real purpose is advertising and self-promotion (and those two disagree with each other on the history, using low-quality refs). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

PS barrak..... I am not trying to SELF promote. I HAVE made Internet TV HISTORY. In the year 2000.

and you are just to dense to see that. or acknowledge it. and so is the WIKI. QUESTION for you.... WHO is the incorrect editor now.... the one that IGNORES the correct historical data. thats who. not me.

we are also FILMING all of this for a new movie about YOU and the wiki.....good day to you. you will be FAMOUS soon.

Raven .

then the WIKI will be incomplete if you leave the section out. for anyone ELSE that wants to look up Internet TV history.I think you should leave the history section out too. then the greek guy cannot try to change history. and the wiki cannot allow this to happen. (like they have before) in the past. leave the section OUT. hahahahah good wiki. signed TheRaven .— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 15:49, 20 November 2012‎

You have a conflict of interest with the subject, that in itself is problematic; then you add poorly sourced content whose only true benefit is your self-promotion. You also seem to have a incorrect impression that the purpose of Wikipedia is to include every poorly sourced bit of inconsequential trivia. That is not correct, particularly when the obvious true goal is to self-promote. Move along - add your advertisements to your own website, not here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

the history section should be reinstated. history is history. unless it is incomplete. and this section is incomplete without a history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we know your opinion. Consensus above does not support it. Re-re-re-restating your opinion does not change the consensus. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

we are filming NOW and figure Mr Barek will also DELETE this info, as he does EVERY time he sees something that he does not like. even if it is the TRUTH and correct historical data ...

we are currently making a movie about HOW the wiki and the editor named Barek......suppress the correct historical data from the wiki.

we are going to release the movie soon. Barek will soon be FAMOUS....and look to the public exactly as he is.....grin

want to see some REAL self promotion?

here it is >>> the wiki begs for money.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as you claim to like facts; be sure to mention that the Wikipedia works through community consensus, and that reliable third-party sources are needed to support claims (and those sources must unambiguously state the claims, not requiring interpretation or analysis which would be original research). As you have failed to supply such sources, the community consensus above was to leave out the data until and unless such sources can be found.
As to the link: that's not a Wikipedia article, it's not even on the domain. You'll note the Wikipedia article about itself at Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view - containing both positive and negative material that is sourced to reliable third parties. As you claim to be serious about facts, I'm sure you'll want to include all of these in your movie. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Throwing my support behind the consensus above that this information should not be posted without high-quality reliable sources to support it. As an aside, the Web Archive link provided above seems to explicitly counter the claim that Daytona Beach Live was running in 2000 - the domain may well have existed, but the service was listed as 'coming soon' until between December 2001 and June 2002, so the claim it was running in 2000 appears to be false. In any case, the source is primary (an archive of a primary source is still a primary source) and there's no evidence the RealMedia link even worked at the time, so it's unusable. We need reliable third-party coverage to include a claim about that site. Until then, information about it doesn't belong in the article. NULL talk
00:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

the Internet TV/HISTORY material should be reinstated. the wiki is incomplete without it. (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been more than adequately addressed above. No need to discuss this non-issue any further. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

History Again[edit]

The person who created the concept of Internet TV and developed produced and launched on the US market the first Internet TV thin client set box units in 1995,was myself (John Bentley a UK citizen and serial entrepreneur and inventor) through my then company Viewcall America Inc. The launch of the Viewcall STB product was made before that of the NetTV of Microsoft in 1996 and so was the first on the market anywhere in the world. Viecall used a stripped down Acorn PC with ARM chips and software created in Holland to produce a unit for under $200.00. At that time a feat that was rewarded by PC World magazine for the first PC to fall below the $500 price. The business of Viewcall was sold to Net Channel Inc, a part owned subsidiary of Larry Ellison's Oracle Corporation, in May 1996, where it finally died a death due to the slow data speeds which were not acceptable to consumers. In short the Viewcall product was before its time but its concept was that now seen in Internet TV's worldwide. The above material is a matter of record as attributed by Montreal University in a paper entitled L'Etat d'Internet in 1999 and access to further information can be found on including an interview with Charles Metcalfe, the Internet guru, at Comedex in late 1995 when he acclaimed it as having seen the first "intervision" as he then called it. There is also a long interview with the then Ruel online magazine discussing my views on the future of the Internet and television, which have so far been proved true by the events of Internet TV today. I created Internet TV as much for its ability to permit citizens of a free democracy to vote electronically or in any event to bring weight of opinion on to politics. This capability has still to be used as I conceived it with the force that I intended, and believe it will achieve in time. John Bentley— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:49, 28 May 2013‎

Another service[edit]

A service I know is, which does not use a software but displays live television in the browser instead. It only operates in and for Switzerland and has been online since 2005 About the service Saemikneu (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)