Talk:Over-the-top media services

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Networking (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Networking task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Television (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origin of name

Name Etology?

Is this an industry accepted term? Where did it come from? -- (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that, but as for etymology: So far a neologism I would say. Not sure it will stick around longer than others. Probably comes from the obvious pun: "over the top" supposedly comes from "going over the top", a World War I expression essentially meaning something really crazy. When something on television for example is really bad taste, it is called "over the top". At least this is popular in the USA. The box rented from a cable TV company or phone company to get pay television from something besides an antenna is called the set top box since it often sat on top of the television set (in the days before flat screens - now of course goes below!). But would need a source to say that. W Nowicki (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely this is nothing to do with WWI trenches ('going over the top') or excess ('that's really over the top'), but something to do with the top of a vertical hierarchy of creation and distribution, where at the bottom are the creators of content and at the top are the broadcast networks & channels. So 'over the top' means reaching the audience while by-passing the top of this hierarchy. (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, is more likely that the term relates to the diamond-shaped economic model proposed in [CREANER, Martin. Delivering the Digital Economy: How the Telco Will Survive] where service retailers are in top of the economic model hierarchy providing voice, video and chat services while in the bottom of the hierarchy stands cloud and infrastructure providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jairo.rojas.delgado (talkcontribs) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

domain specific use of term / changing definition of term

It seems as though there are two competing meanings for the term. The first seems to be consolidated network and content providers using other delivery networks to deliver their walled garden content and extend its reach. The second seems to be an delivery via IP, including 3rd party providers (eg: Netflix). (I'm avoiding Hulu because it is an overly complex example as it is partially owned by the networks.)

Is my description accurate? If so, should the structure of this article be changed for clarity? (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be cable-TV industry jargon. The definition needs to be rewritten to explain the point of view involved, the context in which the term is used, and how OTT content differs from other types of content or distribution – but in a way that can be understood by people who are not in the cable TV industry. In case there really are multiple competing definitions, they should be explained (though perhaps it is only that the term is not well enough understood to be able to show how these different interpretations actually come down to the same basic idea, or that one interpretation is an extension of sense of the other).

They use it in Variety without scare quotes or explanation, so the entertainment industry has evidently adopted the term as standard.

Justinbb (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits of this date

Responding to near to impenetrable IT self-talk. At present, even as one who knows what the term means, and has read the sources, the article is simply a case of specialists summarising material for one another (i.e., technical self-talk). It is not encyclopedic, and cannot adequately reach a general audience. (I know, I have been trying to use it to explain a further jargon-filled article that simply drops the OTT abbreviation, along with others unexplained.)

In particular, the article:

  • fails to define the title concept in layman's terms, from clearly applicable sources at each step—which requires doing so without introducing other abbreviations or other specialist language that is impenetrable at its face (i.e., that does not require leaving the article to read another article or external source to understand a sentence); e.g., see opening sentence, "involvement of…";
  • fails utterly to explain the relationship between the FCC-defined OVD entities and the title OTT content;
  • mires the lede in jargon (IPTV, ISP, IP, MSO, OTT) some defined, some not, and in this way and otherwise, creates a lede that cannot stand on its own as a summary; and
  • presents end-of-paragraph clusters of sources at a distance from actual content purportedly derived, and summarises those sources only obliquely.

This combination makes rapid understanding of the title term (and its component jargon), directly from here or through the sources, near to impossible. At the same time, the lede fails to summarise the article, even for active technology workers, but certainly not for a non-specialist audience.

For these reasons, a Lead rewrite tag was added, calling for a jargon-free lede suitable for a non-specialist audience, with fact-by-fact, sentence-by-sentence sourcing via inline citation; an Expert needed tag was added to define OTT simply, in a manner clearly consistent with the presented sources, and to explain the relationship between the FCC-defined OVD entities and the title OTT content.

Cheers. Le Prof (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What rule says every article needs to be accessible to a general audience? For example, would you also flag the Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory page? Cutelyaware (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cutelyaware: Not every article needs to be fully understandable to a general audience, but articles should be understandable to the widest possible audience. See WP:TECHNICAL for guidelines. LiberatorG (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Not a reason to tag the article. Can the person who restored the tag please explain why it is justified. In 20 months nobody has addressed this issue. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Over-the-top media services"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA