Duo Maxwell
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | Lay FTTH
and then do streaming TV instead of broadcasting it offer the cables, problem solved. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| Are you suggesting IPTV? If so I do not think they would do that as they would no longer be able to have caps, it would violate net neutrality. A costumer could only watch like 100GB of hulu or youtube, but could watch all the TW internet video they wanted so IF they went all IPTV and had a cap they would be crushed under lawsuits. |
|
sapo
I eat meat
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA | reply to Duo Maxwell
How does that address the issue of the rising costs of TV programs? Having the hardware is the easy part. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to Duo Maxwell
Unicast-based streaming video actually creates a whole new set of distribution problems.
Existing broadcast TV options are a single feed with many viewers, so your efficiency improves with every additional viewer.
Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations.
Verizon is using FiOS to push traditional broadcast video, delivering QAM signaling on copper coax at the subscriber household fed from the ONT. You can hook up as many TVs as you want, and install DVRs like TiVo or Moxi. There is no limitation on the number of channels you can tune.
ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. |
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
·Suddenlink
| Offer channels a la carte
Instead of making us pay for those we don't watch. This could work with any set top box where you pick which channels to show in your schedule lineup. Choose a channel, increase your bill; drop one, you save.
--
Every Kurt has his Courtney. You need a Yoko to do it right.
|
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | If every TV provide did that I think the TV industry would be un MUCH better shape. |
|
dffg
@comcast.net
| reply to espaeth
Re: Lay FTTH
said by espaeth  :ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. Correct, U-Verse is nothing but a Fancy'd up DSL Line...
And just for heads up, AT&T actually trained their salespeoples to lie to customers to tell them AT&T's infrastructure is pure FIBER. |
|
davey
@rcn.com
| reply to DataDoc
Re: Offer channels a la carte
That's the obvious and rational way to go, but it will take regulators to force it on the cablecos. The more we have to pay for the 90 percent of stuff we never watch, the more free money they get.
I've started wondering if the whole concept of cable TV was one of those big mistakes we'll pay for for lifetimes. I've yet to find an explanation as to why we're paying so much just to have a cable coming to our house when digital broadcast still manages to do it for free. I mean, it sure ain't like we're not deluged with ads on cable, so where does all that money go? |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | reply to dffg
Re: Lay FTTH
if you don't include the last mile, then it's true that their infrastructure is fiber.
Time Warner Cable has been doing this kind of advertising (on tv and radio no less) for years. |
|
DannyZ
Gentoo Fanboy
Premium
join:2003-01-29
Erie, PA | reply to DataDoc
Re: Offer channels a la carte
But see, they want us to subsidize all of our neighbors' viewing habits, but not their internet habits... |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to DataDoc
Assuming the content providers went through with that, your price per channel would be about 2$+. To equal what cable typically costs today, you would only get 25 channels before you hit the $50/mo price mark for basic. Depending on how big your family is and their viewing habits, that's not a bargain at all.
A la carte is not going to happen anyways, though.
Networks like NBCU aren't going to give up a dedicated contract with guaranteed revenues in favor of highly variable revenues, and a decrease in ad revenue from lost subscribers that a la carte would offer.
Of all of the below networks that NBC currently sells as part of a contract to cable and satellite companies, they'd lose MY revenue and viewership on all but 3 stations:
A&E Television Networks
Bravo
Chiller
CNBC
MSNBC
Mun2
NBC
Oxygen
SCI FI
ShopNBC
Sleuth
Telemundo Internacional
The Weather Channel
Universal HD
USA Network
Universal Sports
Really, who would *pay* for ShopNBC?
NBC uses their leverage of their strong stations to negotiate contracts which include their smaller stations. The more stations NBC can sell to cable and satellite, the more advertising revenue they can sell. They're not going to let that bargaining chip go easily into the night.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to DannyZ
said by DannyZ :But see, they want us to subsidize all of our neighbors' viewing habits, but not their internet habits... LMAO. Nobody is "subsidizing" anyone else's habits, Internet or otherwise. The 1,000 pound elephant in the room that you apparently don't want to acknowledge is that jacking the price for Internet is a naked cash grab by TWC that will result in two things: (1) Bigger bottom line and (2) Ensuring that VOD services like Hulu do not compete with cable TV services. Period.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to davey
said by davey :
That's the obvious and rational way to go, but it will take regulators to force it on the cablecos. The more we have to pay for the 90 percent of stuff we never watch, the more free money they get.
I've started wondering if the whole concept of cable TV was one of those big mistakes we'll pay for for lifetimes. I've yet to find an explanation as to why we're paying so much just to have a cable coming to our house when digital broadcast still manages to do it for free. I mean, it sure ain't like we're not deluged with ads on cable, so where does all that money go?
But you are blaming the wrong industry for not having a la carte. It isn't cable or telco that causes the problem, but the Hollywood TV & Movie studios. If the FCC wants to solve this make Hollywood give up bundled offerings of networks. Disney is the worst abuser with their ABC, Disney, A&E, Lifetime, SOAPnet, Family, & 1/2 dozen ESPN channels, etc all bundled together. »corporate.disney.go.com/news/med···rks.html
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| precisely.
If cable companies complain that no one watches Lifetime and Family, then ABC responds by threatening to withhold ESPN - one of the biggest selling networks on cable. So the cable co's pay up for Lifetime because they can't not have ESPN.
for a PERFECT example of how viewers turn on a company when they withhold a channel because of EXTREMELY high pricing and absurd disparities between contracts, see: NFL NETWORK vs TIME WARNER CABLE.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
Time
Premium
join:2003-07-05 | reply to tiger72
ShopNBC would get more viewers than MSNBC does.
Ha! |
|
DataDoc
My avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.
Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | reply to tiger72
Not all channels would cost the same, like HBO, but using your $2 each, I could easily get by with 25 channels. I just don't want to help pay for ESPN (for example) so everyone else gets it cheaper. Let them pay $10/mo for sports. |
|
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| costs
I think cable TV needs to go back to the old Model.. the one where the cable network PAID the MSO to offer their channel.
This ever increasing 'cost' of programming is going to (if it hasn't already) reach the breaking point and make cable an overly expensive option that no one will be willing to use.
If you can't sell your commercial spots, stay out of the TV business. (IOW, don't make US pay for your bad channels or inability to get sponsors)
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com |
|
DannyZ
Gentoo Fanboy
Premium
join:2003-01-29
Erie, PA
| reply to major marco
Re: Offer channels a la carte
Subsidizing internet usage is Time Warner's own words in an attempt to justify a move to usage based billing. I was merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of TW.
I know their attempt at caps is to eliminate the threat of online video. That should be obvious to anyone.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to espaeth
Re: Lay FTTH
quote:
Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations.
U-verse TV is not unicast IP. It's multicast IP via IGMPv3. So if every subscriber on the node is watching CBS, CBS only needs to be fed to the node once.
U-verse is currently limited to 2HD and mediocre quality HD video, but we can thank weakly deployed FTTN for that. If they had deployed nodes a little closer for 40mbps per home, they could go up to 4HD easily. Aside from the FTTN induced bandwidth crunch, the IPTV part of the system works brilliantly. One DVR easily records 4 channels at once. Channel changes are lightning fast. And adding HD channels is a non-issue for them.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
DannyZ
Gentoo Fanboy
Premium
join:2003-01-29
Erie, PA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Offer channels a la carte
The cable companies have indeed assisted the content creators in making sure this system continues. They want me to pay for Disney on expanded basic even if I don't watch it because it makes them money.
You can bet the execs have looked at a la carte and if it were to be more profitable, they would fight for it. The current arrangement of forced bundling is simply more profitable to the cable companies and that is the real reason we will never see a la carte without regulation.
Seriously, if Comcast and Time Warner stood strong, they would break the content creators in no time. They simply have no incentive to.
--
Out the 10BaseT, through the modem, down the co-ax, over the fiber, across the backhaul, past the edge router, off the network...nothing but net |
|
