 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Cuban is right quote:
"Cable guys" like HDNet CEO Mark Cuban frequently argue that Internet video will simply never replace cable TV
Internet-based video delivery is about 4 legitimate and 1 questionable thing:
1) Time shifting (watch what I want, when I want it)
2) Place shifting (same as #1, but not primary viewing location)
3) Archived Content (watch past episodes / missed recordings)
4) Niche content (Limited distribution, ie: Revision3)
Questionable) "Free" programming
Tme shifting is by far the largest driver towards Internet-based delivery, and it also represents the most inefficient use of network resources. You're taking content that is already being digitally delivered to your house via OTA ATSC feeds, cable QAM feeds, and satellite QPSK/8PSK feeds.... and transferring yet another copy of the same content over the network. Time shifting is better accomplished through local capture and playback using an already established stream as the source.
As for "free" programming -- Disney currently gets approximately $3.65/mo in subscriber fees from 100.7 million viewers thanks to forced channel subscription packages that won't let viewers opt-out of channels. Is anyone really naive enough to believe that ESPN is going to make a move that threatens their $4.4 billion a year money train? The executives that run these companies are stupid, but not that stupid. Expect to see services like this as a companion offering to already existing subscription packages.
Internet-based video has a huge future, but not as a replacement technology. |
