how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to funchords
Re: Who wastes $22 million on this stuff? said by funchords:While not unicast exactly, Cable companies are moving to switched video. SDV is analogous to multicast streams. The current VoD system *IS* unicast streams, but the engineering of the distribution system provides many times more bandwidth to that front than to HSI.
said by funchords:This whole article proves to me that the day of Cable's reckoning is coming -- they can either embrace it or resist it, but one of those choices is futile. If the day of reckoning is coming, it's not from the technology discussed in this article. Nor will it come from Vuze, or NetFlix, or XBL, or the PS3 store, or Amazon Unbox. An extreme minority of video content is currently being delivered on-demand (maybe less than 10%), and these Internet-based unicast delivery solutions are only going to capitalize on a small percentage of that. Even if you ignore the fact that broadband doesn't have the same reach as existing video distribution options, and that the majority of people with TVs don't have computers or other intelligent video widgets hooked up to them, and that broadband networks would need to be scaled about 10,000% to support this solution, you're still left with glaring holes of logic in pricing.
Are you seriously suggesting that an external company will be able to pay the various media companies for content, pay for servers, pay for Internet bandwidth, to be distributed to ISPs who also pay for head-end Internet bandwidth as well as their own local network infrastructure, and that solution will be cheaper than the cable companies buying from the media companies directly and distributing over their networks?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry that people can't see the blatantly obvious flaws in these "Internet video will take over the world" proposals. | |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Once upon a time, people never thought that -- in the future -- Americans would prefer to pay a company to watch TV even though it was free over the rabbit ears. | |
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | said by funchords:Once upon a time, people never thought that -- in the future -- Americans would prefer to pay a company to watch TV even though it was free over the rabbit ears. .. and even after that service was introduced, people continued to watch TV for free over rabbit ears. The advent of cable and satellite TV didn't make local broadcast TV irrelevant; in fact, they need to incorporate local broadcast TV into their service so people will even buy it. Moreover, there are still a lot of people to this day that only get their TV content over rabbit ears, which is why the DTV transition and the coupons are a big deal.
At least with cable and satellite TV people got extra channels for their money. What these researchers are talking about is using a more expensive solution to deliver people the same content they are getting today. The proposal is so ridiculously stupid that I'm amazed it got funding in the first place. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | $22 million in R&D is huge, I've gotta agree there. | |
|
