Unlike TV's 30-second standard for ads, Facebook's would be capped at 15 seconds. The ads will be "autoplay," meaning they'll play without any action by the user.
While 15 seconds is short compared with TV, it's long compared with online users' tolerance levels.
The ads would show up in your Facebook news feed in desktop browsers, as well as on mobile phones and tablets.
Auto-play, in-stream advertising is going to annoy users, big-time.
As I mentioned in this space previously, Facebook can get away abusing users more than other social networks because of what I call their "monopoly on everybody."
However, in this case, the advertising feature will probably create a very stark contrast to Facebook's rival Google+, which by the time Facebook rolls out the video advertising next spring I expect to have more active users than Twitter.
Google+ has zero advertising -- they don't even let their users advertise.
But that doesn't mean Google+ isn't supported by advertising indirectly, and video advertising, too.
Google+ is tightly integrated with many other Google services, including Google+'s three biggest sources of online advertising revenue: Search, YouTube and Gmail.
Google has tapped into a brilliant formula for competing with other social networks, especially Facebook.
Google uses its fast-growing social network to drive usage of the other properties, and harvests user data to be used as "signals" for those other services, both for serving up relevant content and also for relevant advertising.
Yet the social network itself doesn't have -- doesn't need to have -- any advertising at all.
I think there's a real possibility that Google+ will never have advertising, while Facebook increasingly pushes big, noisy, intrusive ads into the streams of users.
Why Video Advertising?
Facebook is apparently aware of the fact that only about 12% of the biggest spenders on TV commercials also buy online video ads, according to a study by Kantar Media.
Facebook is thinking big here. A certain class of advertiser spends billions on big-ticket, prime-time TV commercials, and does not spend anything on online advertising.
Online sites want a piece of that revenue, and Facebook thinks they've got a way to get some.
Meanwhile, a different class of advertiser embraces online advertising for two reasons. First, it's much cheaper. Second, you can segment your audience, especially on the social networks.
For example, if a company sells make-up, they can advertise exclusively to women, and even target them based on age, income level and how much they travel.
Facebook's plan, no doubt, is to use its massive user network to create the best of both worlds for big-ticket advertising. They'll want to attract the reluctant TV advertisers to pay big bucks to reach targeted segments of the Facebook user base.
It's a great strategy from a business perspective. By keeping ads expensive, they'll create artificial scarcity and incentivize the big advertisers who will know they won't be shuffled in with and drowned out by the regular flood of online video advertising.
And Facebook will no doubt manage the balance between gaining maximum video ad dollars on the one hand and user defections on the other.
Facebook is very adept at the Silicon Valley approach to iterative tweaking, which replaces the normal business approach of "ready, aim, fire" with the Silicon Valley way of "fire, aim, fire, aim, fire, aim" and so on.