| You're thinking yesterday..... With new technology,in a few years the ideas that we now have of viewing TV will be completley different-everything will be delivered over IP with thousands of choices.That is what the pipe owners know and are positioning themselves to take advantage of the situation . |
|
|
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
 ·Comcast Formerl..
| said by bamabrad:With new technology,in a few years the ideas that we now have of viewing TV will be completley different-everything will be delivered over IP with thousands of choices.That is what the pipe owners know and are positioning themselves to take advantage of the situation . How do you figure? What does delevery technology have to do with the cost of programming? If there are not enough people buying a certain "channel" for it to be profitable for the cable or telco providing the service that channel will be dropped. It does not matter if their system delivers programming by analog RF, IP, or carrier pigeion. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | The cost of providing the channel is almost nil with a system capable of a la carte. Channels are supported by advertising, who pay the content providers; they don't pay the cable companies. The cable companies make money from charging US. With a la carte, a portion of what we pay for each channel is just passed to the content providers through the cable company. It cost the cable company no additional funds.
As for channels that are no longer watched disappearing, that's how it's supposed to work. The fact that my cable is subsidizing all this crap sickens me. I pay $70's a month (for basic service) to watch a few baseball/sporting games, and couple shows on the networks. Maybe a mythbusters or two. Frankly people watching less TV can only be a good thing; maybe the obesity level will drop back down below 60% again.. |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| said by Ahrenl:The cost of providing the channel is almost nil with a system capable of a la carte. Channels are supported by advertising, who pay the content providers; they don't pay the cable companies. The cable companies make money from charging US. With a la carte, a portion of what we pay for each channel is just passed to the content providers through the cable company. It cost the cable company no additional funds. As for channels that are no longer watched disappearing, that's how it's supposed to work. The fact that my cable is subsidizing all this crap sickens me. I pay $70's a month (for basic service) to watch a few baseball/sporting games, and couple shows on the networks. Maybe a mythbusters or two. Frankly people watching less TV can only be a good thing; maybe the obesity level will drop back down below 60% again.. No, the cable companies have to buy the rights to distribute programming (channels) from the content owner. Even your local network broadcast affiliates charge the cable company to carry their channel. The real problem is the content owners have too much power over the cable companies. They force the cable company to buy a bundle of channels. If the cable company wants say MTV, they must also buy MTV2. I do not see how forcing the cable company to charge a la carte is going to change this. So the price for the 10 or so individual channels you watch will be higher than you are paying now for the 10 channel you watch plus the 85 you don't.
$70 a month for basic cable seems a little high to me, I can get basic cable for $18 here, you must have some expanded service package. |
|
| My name is not Einstien, but I personally believe in the future your video viewing will appear more like YOU-TUBE |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| said by bamabrad:My name is not Einstien, but I personally believe in the future your video viewing will appear more like YOU-TUBE Small, pxelated, chunky, poorly shot amateur video with frequent playback pauses due to network congestion?   |
|
| Most content will be consumer created with the most popular content ad supported-more than likely free to the delivery system(cable,telco,sat., etc)There still will be content to pay for like sports and holly wood generated stuff, but as technology advances,so will the average Joe's ability to create desired quality content with niche programming. Plus the bad(or not high quality) video seen on You-tube is from the poor recording,not poor delivery(on broadband that is) |
|
| reply to bamabrad
You got it...
as the transport medium becomes more and more generic then we won't be looking to limited sources of video entertainment.
That's the real awakening coming down the pike. People will start producing content and making it available via web distribution.
This will supplant the 200+ cable channels in a big way. The reality IS that we only view 20 favorites...at most. Everything else is special interest and that can be satisfied by a quality video stream coming from a website that specializes in that topic. Far better than putting up with the infomercial and shop channels cable stuffs into their packaged offerings. |
|
 qdemn7Smurf in My LoopPremium
join:2003-09-16
Fort Worth, TX | reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl: The fact that my cable is subsidizing all this crap sickens me. I pay $70's a month (for basic service) to watch a few baseball/sporting games, and couple shows on the networks. Maybe a mythbusters or two. No one is putting a gun to your head to force you to pay anything for cable. If it sickens you that much then drop your cable service.
--
“We want the Republicans out of our bedroom and the Democrats out of our wallet and both out of our First and Second Amendment rights." - Alan Nathan |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to bamabrad
said by bamabrad:but as technology advances,so will the average Joe's ability to create desired quality content with niche programming. So higher quality vids of teenagers blowing stuff up and LARPing. Bring on teh contentzorz.
Lightning Bolt!
Lightning Bolt!
--
gau gau |
|
