dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to fiberguy

Re: The most SILLY part of this blog..

said by fiberguy:

WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this?

Ummmm let me see here.

Could it THE BILL?
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3

1 recommendation

said by KrK:

said by fiberguy:

WHY in the world would anyone crave internet video BECAUSE of this?

Ummmm let me see here.

Could it THE BILL?

It costs MORE in the bandwidth required to deliver video than it costs cable or satellite companies. Therefore if everyone eliminates a $40 TV bill and streams all that content over the internet, they should expect their internet bill to go up at $40.

All internet video will do is push ISP's to metered billing, caps, or both. Consumers are shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating the more efficient delivery methods and replacing it with the internet. It may be saving money now, but the days are numbered for "all you can eat" bandwidth.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

What KrK fails to realize or understand is that it all comes from the same source.. and to think that the content providers are going to make it any cheaper is ignorance to the facts.

So I'm still kinda trying to understand why he would say "Could it THE BILL?" when all it means is that people would go to the internet to pay MORE for less, only get it direct from the source who'd be willing to sell you piece rate at a higher price than you're paying the cable or satellite companies already.

Yea.. makes sense.

I DO get the overall amount of the check every month for the entire bill, but still, people running direct to the internet for content is the same is being half dead and running TOWARDS the light, and not away from it.

The content providers don't care if you get it from cable or direct.. if you go online and buy from smaller middle-men, you're going to pay a higher price as well.

In the end, the content provider wins anyway..


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to jcremin
Only because of the lack of competition, and the resulting profit "opportunities."


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to fiberguy
I don't fail to realize anything. The Internet allows users to watch only what they choose... and therefore, pay less if they choose to.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

Only because of the lack of competition, and the resulting profit "opportunities."

Since you didn't quote what I said that you were responding to, I'm assuming it is the part about internet video pushing rates higher or caps lower...

If that is the case, no, you are wrong. It does simply cost more to deliver independent streams of video than it does using a broadcast method like satellite or cable. It isn't "only because of lack of competition" and other totally money hungry purposes. Yes, those do sometimes play a roll, but that isn't the main reason that replacing your TV delivery with the internet will cause your ISP to raise rates.

If a TV provider offers 100 channels, it can simply push those 100 channels out through the wire and every house can receive them. Other than the cost of the physical wire or receivers (and obvious things like support), it costs virtually the same to deliver those channels to 100 households as it does for 1000 homes.

Now internet streaming on the other hand would cost over 10 times as much to push 1000 streams vs 100. As I said, it is a horribly inefficient deliver method compared to the technologies that are built for it. You can think of it like a city bus vs individual cars. If you put a 100 cars on the road, you'll have a lot more traffic problems than if those 100 people all hop onto one bus.

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to KrK
said by KrK:

I don't fail to realize anything. The Internet allows users to watch only what they choose... and therefore, pay less if they choose to.

Yes, but the internet doesn't "care" which channel you are watching. The bandwidth still costs the same. It will cost as much (or more) in bandwidth fees to stream one channel as it does to have 100 channels multicast to you over cable. If you have 2 TV's, it will now cost you twice as much (even if both are streaming the same channel).