| reply to davidl
Re: hmm They also have an urban population density of 12,500 people per square mile where we have 2,900 people per square mile.
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. |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | Yeah, until there's some 'gottahaveit' service developed...then there'll be a stampede.
Unfortunately, the 'gottahaveit' service won't get developed because the telcos/cablecos want us to keep watching their crappy TV.
And it's not like it has to be started from scratch...a lot of the infrastructure is already there. |
|
| said by davidl:Unfortunately, the 'gottahaveit' service won't get developed because the telcos/cablecos want us to keep watching their crappy TV. And exactly what great video is developed FOR the internet that is better than that on "crappy TV"? Nothing I have seen(YouTube uploads by idiot slackers with time on their hands?). The video on the internet that people watch are the same shows that are on TV.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by davidl:Unfortunately, the 'gottahaveit' service won't get developed because the telcos/cablecos want us to keep watching their crappy TV. And exactly what great video is developed FOR the internet that is better than that on "crappy TV"? Nothing I have seen(YouTube uploads by idiot slackers with time on their hands?). The video on the internet that people watch are the same shows that are on TV. Here's the deal, if everything I could watch on TV was on the internet then I could cancel my cable and save $60+ a month. |
|
|
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | reply to fAcEtIOUs
One man's trash is another man's treasure. Maybe some of us like the YouTube videos made by the slackers...they pose a different worldview other than that of the MainstreamMedia a.k.a. MSM |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by davidl:Unfortunately, the 'gottahaveit' service won't get developed because the telcos/cablecos want us to keep watching their crappy TV. And exactly what great video is developed FOR the internet that is better than that on "crappy TV"? Nothing I have seen(YouTube uploads by idiot slackers with time on their hands?). The video on the internet that people watch are the same shows that are on TV. Here's the deal, if everything I could watch on TV was on the internet then I could cancel my cable and save $60+ a month. 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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | We don't have to pay for YouTube...it's called 'Advertising' |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: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. 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. |
|
davidl
join:2008-07-11
Vaudreuil-Dorion, QC | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Yeah, but if your Telephone, Internet, TV all come through the one connection, it's still gonna save a bundle |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to BF69
I hate to agree with TK, but if everyone did get rid of cable the networks would lose their main revenue stream.
But, the great thing is that that's the way business works. They can either adapt and find a new way to make money off of us, so they can keep making their crappy sitcoms and reality tv shows, or they can go out of business.
The tv shows that people actually like will get far more viewers now, instead of shows being shoved down our throat because they're on before/after the show we came to watch. |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Actually, web production is the new big trend with lots of production companies scrambling to create content to host on their own sites or distribute via various file sharing methods (specifically bit torrent). Product placement is paying the costs and companies are lining up to pay for placement in productions; yet another reason the ISP's are fighting to avoid becoming dumb pipes. I'm sure Comcast isn't happy supplying the pipeline for a thousand potential indie broadcasts that they (Comcast) won't see any profits on other than bandwidth-related.
Granted, the number of web productions is scant right now, but the with no restrictions or models for length or content (Disney has one such show that "airs" daily with each episode running only ninety seconds) and with high-end video gear cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the next year should prove VERY interesting for original entertainment content available exclusively online. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: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? |
|
| 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 fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: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 fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs: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 james
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
 ·Clear Wireless
| 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  |
|
