 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to Linklist
Re: hmm said by Linklist:Maybe, if things work that way, you drop your TV bill from $60 to $0, but your internet bill will go up $40 or $50/mo. Right! That's worth doing. The cable network is being shoehorned into a digital mode. It would be so much better if we designed the network for digital data from the ground up.
The cable companies don't need to marry themselves to cable. Every city, town, and village ought to be laying fiber and open the market to all ISPs that wants to serve it.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
|
|
 aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to davidl
said by davidl:We don't have to pay for YouTube...it's called 'Advertising' YouTube?! the quality is crap on YouTube. |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | Maybe it'd get better if it was served up on a Gbps connection? |
|
boast
join:2005-09-03
Miami, FL | reply to davidl
Well, there is one company for the backbone, and another company wiring the city. With a company trying to do it all in every city, we end up with what we have. When a city tries to do it themselves, the companies bitch-n-moan.
Of course the whole USA having 100mbps would be difficult, but why wouldn't major cities have it? |
|
| reply to battleop
said by battleop:In our current economy you try and sell your neighbors on spending $2-3k plus monthly recurring for a connection that they will not even use 10% of. LMAO - nice attempt at a specious argument there, but the Japanese aren't paying the Yen equivalent for their BB service. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:That is a nice dream. But then the cost of internet access rises because someone has to pay to develop those shows. And if it isn't the cable companies TV arms, then the internet arms will pay for it. Maybe, if things work that way, you drop your TV bill from $60 to $0, but your internet bill will go up $40 or $50/mo. Boo hoo hoo... me and my profits... waaaaah...
What does that have to do with the fact that people don't like capped services? You just outlined the agenda. If users can get network access from someone other than cable, and programming shifts to the network because more and more television sucks, then the poor cable companies are going to lose profits. And you will lose your stock dividends. Cry me a river, and welcome to a real free market.
Just keep trying to squeeze your quarterly profits. Eventually the bubble will pop...
cw |
|
| reply to Linklist
said by Linklist:That is a nice dream. But then the cost of internet access rises because someone has to pay to develop those shows. And if it isn't the cable companies TV arms, then the internet arms will pay for it. Maybe, if things work that way, you drop your TV bill from $60 to $0, but your internet bill will go up $40 or $50/mo. No. My TV bill is only there because I need cable to my house for my internet. That is the only reason it is there.
And I highly doubt the bill would have to go up. Why? Because those shows are already developed and paid for by advertising. ABC, NBC, CBS... all those shows are broadcast for free because they are paid for by advertising. |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | reply to james1
Also, they'll know exactly how many people are watching their shows and not have to rely on 'Neilson' ratings and other systems to demonstrate accurately to advertisers how much exposure their ads have gotten. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:Please. That's like saying if I ditch cable for a rooftop antenna the cost of antennas will have to go up to compensate for the decreased revenues to the networks. That's not an accurate analogy at all. A better comparison is replacing your cable TV feed with DVDs shipped through the USPS.
Every major Internet video option today is done using unicast IP. Every stream is unique per viewer, and bandwidth grows linearly with the number of viewers. |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | reply to Desdinova
That's exactly what I want...a computer network that enables indie publishers of video content the same way web enables indie publishers of print.
I want to be able to run my own TV station in my living room  |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to thevorpal
said by thevorpal:And I highly doubt the bill would have to go up. Why? Because those shows are already developed and paid for by advertising. ABC, NBC, CBS... all those shows are broadcast for free because they are paid for by advertising. You don't have a $60 cable bill from over-the-air public broadcast networks -- you have that bill from the hundreds of other channels that are not completely subsidized by advertising and require non-public distribution.
If you replaced your public and private broadcast TV with unicast feeds over a network, the cost of delivery is higher. With cable you send one feed, and everybody attached to that segment of the cable plant can view the feed at the same time. The infrastructure utilization is the same whether 1 person or 500 people are watching the same channel. When you replace that with unicast IP feeds, every single viewer needs their own unique stream. So if your video feed is 3mbps, with 1 person you need to supply 3mbps of video server capacity, and for 500 people you need 1500mbps of video server capacity. |
|
| reply to davidl
You could take it one step further, they could see if someone actually expressed interest in an ad and bought something. |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | yeah, and also if you're a guy, it only shows you guy stuff so you don't need to see tampon and shampoo commercials |
|
| Yay! All the commercials I see will be big breasted women jumping up and down, saying the name of the product being sold!
Choco Party!
GOOD GOOD!
Choco Party!
GOOD GOOD! |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | I think we have a believer |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | reply to boast
From what I gather, the biggest barrier to it is 'the last mile' of fibre to your house...it's there where the telcos and cablecos get you. |
|
| reply to BF69
Actually, you can. I watch every tv show I want, cancelled cable, and use OTA with an HD recorder. And for shows I don't get OTA, well, that's what torrents are for. Trust me, cutting $65.00 a month out of my budget is a BIG deal in these times.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
| reply to thevorpal
I've done the math. 2 Years ago, before I left, I was paying over $213.00/month for cell phone, cable tv, cable internet (6/768), and land line.
Since I got back, I ditched cable tv, cable internet, and land line, went to prepaid cell phone, and fios internet(30/30). My new monthly bill is less that $73.00/month
That's a savings of almost $1700.00/year. Not too shabby, and I STILL get everything I want.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | And that is a fine example of "what the market will bear". If you can get everything for less money elsewhere, then the market prices are too high. See how the free market really works!
cw |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to davidl
said by davidl:I'd pay $2,000/$3,000 up front for gigabit access to an internet connected network that's not interfered with by the telcos/cablecos and their ulterior motives of trying to charge me by the byte like minutes on a cell phone. Theres seedboxes that are that fast for waaaaay less money.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
