nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
1 edit | that's his mantra and he's sticking to it
I guess Mark is going to have to keep repeating "Broadband is Old News" if he is throwing his lot in with the cablecos.
As far as the internet not being capable, maybe in the U.S. with our crappy download and upload speeds, but other countries have broadband that is more than capable of distributing HD content.
Mark just wants to be in on the internet as the incumbents see it: just another pipe they control to shove their crap down our throats.
You know, the TV is on a fair amount at our house (in the evening), but there is not always someone watching it. When I watch video on the internet, it's because I have chosen to watch it and I watch it intently because of that. There are very few shows on TV that I really pay attention to, but a lot that I "watch". |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Cable Sucks for HDTV
Perhaps the cable industry needs to focus more on getting more of its content providers to do HD before they can claim to be the way to go for distributing such content. If the new television services provided by the Bells jump on the HDTV bandwagon immediately, they have the potential to corner this market as it starts to become mainstream.
--
Tancredo 2008! |
|
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
1 edit | Sucking up....
and Kissing A$$. It's called brown nosing. What better way to ensure that your products content is secure by securing the means to it's delivery. Two tiered internet yeah that's the way to improve our countries world broadband ranking. Consumers will love paying twice or at least the higher fees that will result from all the cost passed along on to us.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | My question is, if we all pay for the "higher" QOS tier, would it matter if there was a second "lower" one? Further, could they really QOS that "higher" tier under those circumstances. |
|
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
3 edits | The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them.
As for your question think about it what does a QOS consist of? What's it's definitions and what are the standards for meeting them. That can be easily answered by asking this question. Who determines what the companies QOS standards and requirements are? Federal, State and local government have some say. But guess who has the biggest? Hint, it ain't you or me.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | reply to nasadude
Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it
My personal opinion is that IPTV of any kind isn't going to take off until more ISP's provide a bigger pipe to our homes, plain and simple. At least cable is at an advantage to roll out faster speeds, but most won't exceed 768Kbps upload. The Bells don't want to spend the money to do that, so instead they want to choose which packets they can degrade to push their own content and deprioritize others, thus providing a bad user experience.
Granted, I understand that these companies are in business to make money, as all businesses are but the Bells pissed away Millions of dollars given to them by the Gov't to get fiber to our homes (I know this has nothing to do with cable, sorry for leaning OT) and Verizon is the only one really doing anything about it. Will I ever see Verizon fiber? No, because I live in a market where the Bells do not compete with one another.
Also, in my opinion Mark Cuban is a technological idiot. The same can also be said for 95% of Congress though...afterall with all of these "internets" that are being passed around here at BBR are more than enough to bring down the whole "internet".
*edit* added more text
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to Varlik
Re: Sucking up....
Well, the bigger question I had was, if everybody uses the QOS service, is it still QOS? |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to Varlik
said by Varlik  :The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them. Question for you then: How much extra do you think cable companies charge for HD content? Is $10/mo or more extra for a HD STB too much of a "hit to they're [sic] wallet"? Would you pay that same $10/mo extra to get a QoS'd IPTV HD stream path from your ISP?
The cable companies are perfectly content to hold HD hostage for higher fees. Without getting into the silly ideological or political debate (which is as sensible as debating religion at this point) what would you be willing to pay?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Cuban, meet AOL...
They also thought that Broadband was nothing more than a passing fad. And now they're bleeding subscribers like crazy and trying to find any possible way to stay afloat.
The Internet wasn't built to directly accommodate half of the stuff floating about it. What it was built for, however, was to transport bits from here to there rather effectively. And that has translated into an ability to carry types of data that the designers probably never even dreamed of. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Varlik
Re: Sucking up....
said by Varlik :The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them. My guess is that fees will go up anyway and we will all (both consumers and Google) have to pay for these supposed upgrades if the incumbents get their way. |
|
razambon
join:2000-09-18
Laurel, MD
| Torrent+RSS?
So...Torrents+RSS feeds now...and the increasing number of 'simplifcation' programs that are coming out to essentially program your own tv channels...they aren't viable right?
The fact that, as of now, I have a better selection of content via my internet connection then via any cable or satellite service I can get doesn't mean a thing.
Lets go over the history real fast...
- Tech geeks start with MP3s. Kind of confusing initially, to get, share, play, etc.
- Applications arise that make it so easy anyone can get and use MP3s.
- MP3s are now ubiquitous (or at least digital music).
Time to face facts, even if IMMEDIATE/LIVE video isnt present, distribution is already here and the numbers of people using it daily are only increasing.
Now I just need to convince my wife of this.  |
|
Varlik
Without Honor You Will Never Be Free
Premium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Re: Sucking up....
said by RadioDoc :Question for you then: How much extra do you think cable companies charge for HD content? Is $10/mo or more extra for a HD STB too much of a "hit to they're [sic] wallet"? Would you pay that same $10/mo extra to get a QoS'd IPTV HD stream path from your ISP? The cable companies are perfectly content to hold HD hostage for higher fees. Without getting into the silly ideological or political debate (which is as sensible as debating religion at this point) what would you be willing to pay? I'd be willing to pay the price the cable company wants. Because in the long run it will be cheaper IMO. It's my affirm belief that many of the companies providing HSI long to make it per the byte for the consumer.
And charge companies more for their connection and bandwidth via the two tiered system to ensure QOS. Companies who buy into the HSI providers system will just pass those fees onto all their consumers. If I support HDnet I end up supporting the two tiered system.
I do agree with you on the hostage part by the cable companies though. But I suspect this will change suddenly in a few years.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to pnh102
Re: Cable Sucks for HDTV
said by pnh102 :Perhaps the cable industry needs to focus more on getting more of its content providers to do HD before they can claim to be the way to go for distributing such content. If the new television services provided by the Bells jump on the HDTV bandwagon immediately, they have the potential to corner this market as it starts to become mainstream. I agree. Cable sux BIG TIME when it comes to HD - though I have to admit Dish downrezzing everything as well.
I have yet to see anything to at least come close to the quality of my old, now defunct (as DBS provider) VOOM service... |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Disruptive Technology
What he said is both true and at the same time totally false.
There are currently many limitations with delivering IPTV. Low bandwidth Internet radio is doing well and will get better as first-mile speed improves and it becomes possible to multicast and/or cache streams locally.
The "IPTV will never happen" mantra is reminiscence of all disruptive technology. PCs did not dominate the market because they were better computers then mainframes and minis, they did it because they created a new market that had not been served before. Once PCs were accepted technology improved and ultimately they began to displace legacy systems.
The same thing will likely happen with IPTV. A few innovative "TV stations" will pioneer the service. Quality will be lower then over the air or Cable but customers will be willing to make the trade-off because there is no other way to obtain the service. Over time quality will improve an one day legacy players will wake up and find their customers have migrated to the new technology.
Ramp up tends to take years and moves very slowly. Once critical mass is reached the change happens with astounding speed. I've worked at companies that missed important technology changes and the result has not been pretty. At the same time new technology is risky. One always needs to balance moving too soon vs too late.
Andrew Odlyzko wrote an interesting paper several years ago about: Internet TV: Implication for the long distance network.
All in all the next decade will be interesting forcing many business models to change.
/Tom
|
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to King P
Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it
said by King P :My personal opinion is that IPTV of any kind isn't going to take off until more ISP's provide a bigger pipe to our homes, plain and simple. Yes, and since these same broadband ISP's have (or will soon have) TV businesses they'll want to protect, those bigger pipes won't happen. Oh, the pipe might be there, but most of it will be used to deliver "TV service", and only a small portion will be use to deliver "internet access". That's exactly what the cable MSO's have been doing all along, and is what Verizon is rolling out with FIOS.
Now Internet Protocol may be used to deliver that TV over that "private" portion of the pipe, but that doesn't mean it will be available for generic internet access. And with this viewpoint, Cuban is right. Maybe if the concept of "net neutrality" gets defeated, and the ISP's are allowed to charge content providers extra for high QoS, then the ISP's would increase the speed of the "internet access" portion of their pipes. But if "net neutrality" holds sway, they'll simply respond by keeping the 'net slow. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| Broadcast.com: "Boradband is Old News"
It's hilarious... is this really the same guy who made his fortune by selling the now worthless broadcast.com?
Oh, sweet irony... 
Mark, congrat: you've just became a real businessman - a pathetic @sshole, a ready-to-lie-anything mouthpiece of your interests, without making any sense. |
|
SDKiwi
VIP
join:2002-05-27
El Cajon, CA | reply to tschmidt
Re: Disruptive Technology
Very perceptive post. |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| reply to kamm
Re: Broadcast.com: "Boradband is Old News"
His blog actually appears to make more sense than your contribution to the debate.
It is well written and makes some relevant points. What part of it do you not comprehend?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson |
|
DarkSyde
join:2006-06-07
Akron, OH |  clueless twit
...and heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Maybe this guys real name is Lord Kelvin? |
|
