 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Not Again Hopefully the content/delivery entities will not attack the consumer in the same manner that the music industry giants did (and still do) when they saw their own mafia-like control of the music services migrate to bigger and better things. | |
|
MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
 ·Comcast
| I am going that direction I just had DirecTV raise their rates on me and I'm tired of paying $80/month. Granted, the service has been great and I love their high def, but it's just too much to be paying right now.
I made the decision a few weeks ago to build an HTPC with dual ATSC tuners for OTA high def recording. Mix that with the small monthly charge for Netflix streaming and free software line Zinc from Zeevee that streams video sources from all over teh internet, I will have essentially the same selection for programming.
Total cost? About $400 in PC parts plus the ~$10/month for Netflix. After 6 months I will recoup the cost of the PC in what I save on DirecTV. | |
|
 | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
1 edit | Re: I am going that direction I did something similar, but I used an HDHomerun to stream the TV feeds to the network and the HTPC records off that. Works great, and I can watch TV (live or recorded) on any PC or TV with a media extender or Xbox, two channels simultaneously. | |
|
| |
| | MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| Re: I am going that direction I've already decided on Windows Media Center. I get an academic license for Vista Ultimate so it's no cost to me. i really like MCE's interface and there is very good custom software that will re-encode recorded video to remove commercials from it.
I did go for the x4850e CPu though. low power and plenty of horse power. The AMD 780g chipset also includes a built in HD3200 with DVI out. very cool and saves money on a video card. | |
|
| | | |
| |
| 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| I've been thinking of doing something along those lines to save $66 a month on Time Warner Cable. My main problems are:
1. I like watching Mythbusters and there is no (legal) online source for Mythbusters except for Amazon where you need to pay per episode. So my setup would need to support Amazon paid VOD. I haven't found a setup that supports this.
2. I'd need a box for the living room and a box for our bedroom.
3. There seems to be virtually no kids programming online. My kids like watching Disney channel, Noggin, Sesame Street, etc. None of these are available online. (Yes, Netflix can alleviate this, but that's an added pain.)
So ditching cable doesn't seem like it is doable for me just yet, but it's getting there pretty rapidly. | |
|
| | 
odinb
join:2001-11-26
Frisco, TX
| Re: I am going that direction PBS has Sesame street, Curious George, Arthur, Clifford and many more kids shows, and it is available OTA in HD.
Then you also have qubo for lots of other kids shows OTA.
For me the choice was easy, a HTPC running XBMC and MythTV combined with a TV tuner and OTA.
No more outrageous cable bills or box rental fees for me...
--
"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." - Benjamin Franklin | |
|
| | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| IPTV isn't strategic for broadcast video In the long term, IP Video doesn't really have a play to replace broadcast TV. Unicast feeds don't scale, as the amount of infrastructure required has a linear relationship to the number of viewers. If you have 10 million viewers, you need 10 million times the bandwidth of a single viewer and all of the supporting server hardware to facilitate that delivery. Of course, there is an IP based solution to this problem with multicast, but the multicast argument is simply one of using a bigger hammer to drive a square peg into a round hole. Once you implement a multicast solution, you're left with the same real-time streaming solution you have with existing QAM / QPSK / 8PSK / etc delivery options, only with the added bonus of IP overhead and more expensive intermediate delivery hardware.
When people talk about IPTV today they like to reference things like Hulu. If you look at the top viewed content it is programs that have been aired on network TV, which is ridiculous from an efficiency standpoint. So you take a program that has already been digitally delivered to your house over the air in a 19.2mbps MPEG2 ATSC feed by public broadcast TV stations, probably over a cable line into your house on clear QAM, and from at least a half dozen different satellites that you could pick up with the appropriate hardware. Rather than investing in a more clever / cost effective way to capture one of those existing delivered feeds, we're focusing on network-based delivery? This is pure absurdity.
When it comes to one-off content like a massive library of movies (ala NetFlix), smaller audience material (ala Youtube), and backfilling lost/missing content the IP distribution model makes sense. For primary delivery of mass media content, we already have highly cost effective delivery solutions in place today. | |
|
| 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: IPTV isn't strategic for broadcast video said by espaeth  :When people talk about IPTV today they like to reference things like Hulu. If you look at the top viewed content it is programs that have been aired on network TV, which is ridiculous from an efficiency standpoint. So you take a program that has already been digitally delivered to your house over the air in a 19.2mbps MPEG2 ATSC feed by public broadcast TV stations, probably over a cable line into your house on clear QAM, and from at least a half dozen different satellites that you could pick up with the appropriate hardware. Rather than investing in a more clever / cost effective way to capture one of those existing delivered feeds, we're focusing on network-based delivery? This is pure absurdity. When it comes to one-off content like a massive library of movies (ala NetFlix), smaller audience material (ala Youtube), and backfilling lost/missing content the IP distribution model makes sense. For primary delivery of mass media content, we already have highly cost effective delivery solutions in place today. What cable has to do and be allowed to do legally is what TWC tried - Storing of broadcast shows on servers(remote DVR) that can be accessed locally thru OnDemand connections.
Either that or have STBs with TerraByte drives that can record and store more shows for longer periods of time.
Either of the above lets the more efficient broadcast model thrive while adjusting to viewers need to time shift TV watching.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| |
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
·VOIPo
1 edit | I don't think it will lats at this rate. Cablecos(and other ISPS) are capping like there is no tomorrow. They say it is because of network congestion, but most of us here know it is just to protect their TV money. A story of the front page today said the cost of bandwidth is dropping and the cablecos still have not given us ANY data supporting their claim, IF they would give us REAL data supporting their claim I would be ok with caps until they upgraded their network. I hope more FTTH ISPs like verizon un do the capping trend. Then again I think internet is verizons biggest money maker(and their ace for when they moving into an area where the cablecos have caped) so y would they make it look bad(plus I hear they own something that makes them make money when you UL/DL on their network so y would they stop that)? Cablevision has un-caped and will be offering 101m soon, I hope that makes other cablecos look VERY bad to the point where they uncap and offer 100m or 101m for a similar price. If cablevision AND verizon FiOS can do it y can't other ISPs?
At least it is not as bad as ATT u-verse, which from what I hear is doing nothing but flipping off net neutrality.
I hope the new congress/ administration does something about this it would get them a few more votes. | |
|
|
| 
anony1
@comcast.net | Re: Why are most reports using 2013? If the flu does not get us first.  | |
|
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Price will just increase "Imposing metered billing overages on broadband connections are how many cable industry executives plan to soften the inevitable blow to TV revenues."
My opinion is that if metered billing doesn't happen then you will most likely start seeing areas of the county where a low level speed internet connection will cost you double what it cost today. Instead of seeing 3-5% video rate increases a year you will see 5-10% internet rate increases.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: Price will just increase If thee have to impose metered billing on us it should at least be a true pay as you go plan. | |
|
| |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Won't grow for crap without content Web-to-TV needs more content if it is to ever challenge CATV. Then on the other end you have cable providers and telcos like AT&T moving toward draconian caps with overage fees designed to price web-to-tv out of the market.
Web-to-TV had a lot of hurdles to overcome before it is mainstream. | |
|
jmac
@zoominternet.net
| Does Consolidated offer efficient Cable TV and internet ? Greetings! My husband and I wonder, is a service offerd by Consolidated similiar to that of Armstrong or perhaps other satellite TV providers? we need to know if using the phone lines to get internt and Cable TV (This is what their website indicates) has the same result and efficient result. Thanks from Jmac | |
|
TwoCpus4me
join:2003-10-16 | Just wait long enough And google or Amazon will come out with the TV streaming solution. | |
|
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Edmonton, AB
·TELUS
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Who needs cable tv Cable is just a delivery system to get the tv channel from the tv broadcaster to us. They're an unneccessary middleman. The internet will expand, and people will be able to use the internet to watch tv, without need to pay for the middle man.
TV channels will get to have an expanded view base, because anyone can watch it, and consumers won't have hefty cable bills. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| no vested interest timing seems to be the key here.. consumer sentiment is approaching backlash.. don't forget both wires into the home have a vested interest in $elling tv content. the cable companies have more interest than telco due to the lob sided market share they have in cable-tv. given enough time, if verizon was making $$ million$ $$ off of tv revenue, they might have a differnt position on metered biling then.. the same way they have their position on POTS phone service.. dont' kill the cash cow at ANY COST!!! the solution may include a 3rd ISP to keep the duopoly honest (particularly useful in Comcast/AT&T land).
ultimately, these (protectionist strategies) will fail.. in NOT giving the consumer what they want at an affordable price (once you squeeze the consumer too much, they will unsubscribe from cable-tv and look for free/cheaper alternatives). right now.. video over the internet is still a niche market.. and they don't want to make broadband easier to stream HD content into the home... so tiers over 15mbit will be crippled in some ways (no doubt).
then, the question becomes.. are cable companies willing to sell a Vi(deo) over Ip Vioip service that's $40-150 over coax/fttx/satellite via broadband for $4.95 to $19.95 ?? So that consumers dont' go out and use $50+ worth of bandwidth to stream/download whatever they want?
you don't have to be too tech saavy to RSS bit torrent tv & cable shows and watch them on YOUR time schedule. who wants to be tied down to a broadcast schedule and commercials? bleh..
the future is coming... now it'll be interesting to see a country based rss feed:
usa.tv.rss
canada.tv.rss
uk.tv.rss
upon which you mark your favorites for download.. children growing up will learn how to do this eventually & have sweet looking interfaces that put cable-tv set-tops to shame. | |
|
|
|
|
24 Million Web-To-TV Viewers By 2013
·
