dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
24
share rss forum feed


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to ISurfTooMuch

Re: Lets face it

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Oh, I don't doubt that they will, but I don't see them going up to the same levels that are now being charged for Internet and cable.

Changing from broadcast TV to unicast delivery over IP will vastly increase the costs. The only way to get this done in any kind of efficient manner with IP is to leverage multicast, and that requires engineering by the ISPs to accomplish that. It could be something simple like making encrypted multicast feeds available from all the various channel providers, but again -- that's going to be realtime video (no timeshifting), and by the time you work out all the agreements with the content producers to handle the distribution it's going to be back to the same setup you have now with channelized video services... only you will have invested billions of dollars just to arrive at the same point.

said by ISurfTooMuch:

I'm still waiting for broadband from the sewer. Actually, a company proposed doing just that a few years ago, and it makes lots of sense. You've got a pre-built series of conduits that reach every location in a city, often with shorter routes than utility poles. All you need is the equipment to pull the fiber through the pipes.

You know that was an April Fools site from Google, right? »www.google.com/onceuponatime/tis···all.html

ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

Yes, but there was a real company that proposed it as well. I can't remember the name.

I do understand your point about the cost of outfitting networks for multicast video. Still, I wonder if a mix of OTA and Internet video may still work. TV stations are rolling out digital subchannels, and they seem to offer some interesting choices. Also, many areas have several unbuilt construction permits for LPTV or Class A digital stations, and, if OTA viewership continues to rise, I could see those being profitable enough to build. Many stations are running an HD feed and maybe one or two SD subchannels, so, if you dropped HD, I think you might be able to fit in three or four SD channels total. If they offered what people wanted to see, I think maybe you could see OTA being attractive enough for more people to switch. Cable came in promising more choice, but it's recently turned out to be a false promise, since 250 channels of crap isn't really that much choice.


jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to espaeth

Agreed. This is a pretty well understood problem. The technology may be there to do this, but the business processes and multi-company agreements are NOT.