Mark Cuban: 'Broadband is Old News'Says broadband video is going nowhere ( old news - 10:43AM Wednesday Jul 12 2006) tags: Video · cable · content · net-neutralityWhile privately well aware of the threat posed by thousands of companies suddenly entering the video space, cable executives and those with a vested interest in traditional video distribution are publicly putting on a brave face. "The Internet really isnt built to distribute mass-market video," recently opined Cablevision's COO. "If you really want to do video you have to be partnered with the cable industry," he insisted. "Its all about QOS," recently proclaimed Cox Communications president Pat Esser. Hoping to strike lucrative deals with the MSOs, HDNet chief and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has been agreeing with this premise at every turn, apparently promising the cable giants his company won't use the "open internet" to distribute his company's high-def content. He's also been championing the incumbent position in the net-neutrality debate. Cuban was sharply criticized for recent commentary on his blog last January that laughed at the concept of an open Internet. In it, he compared the open Internet to a traffic clogged Los Angeles freeway, while suggesting the incumbent two-tier approach would create a speedy "HOV lane." (Note this is the exact same misleading analogy used in this industry PR cartoon) "Maybe, there are multiple-tiers of Mark Cuban, and maybe this blog posting came from one of the lower tiers," joked VoIP guru Jeff Pulver in response. At an HDNet presentation yesterday to announce the signing of former CBS News anchor Dan Rather, Cuban continued chanting the incumbent mantra, downplaying the importance of broadband video, and scoffing at the idea of non-cable original programming. "Broadband is old news," Cuban told the gathered reporters. "It'll be a little bit faster, a little bit prettier and there will be a few more features. But there's never going to be a hugely successful broadband program," predicts Cuban. We're going to guess that the dozens (if not hundreds) of companies cooking up new non-incumbent broadband video offerings would disagree. Related:- Roadrunner Scraps Video Mail
- Broadband National Geographic
- Comcast Offers VOD Same Day DVD Release
- Time Warner Launches HD 'Start Over'
- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- Cable Channels Creating Original Content for Web
- Rogers Uses Deep Packet Inspection for DNS Redirection
- IPTV / Cable to Launch Personalized Video Services
|
 nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD
·Comcast
edit: July 12th, @10:47AM
| that's his mantra and he's sticking to it I guess Mark is going to have to keep repeating "Broadband is Old News" if he is throwing his lot in with the cablecos.
As far as the internet not being capable, maybe in the U.S. with our crappy download and upload speeds, but other countries have broadband that is more than capable of distributing HD content.
Mark just wants to be in on the internet as the incumbents see it: just another pipe they control to shove their crap down our throats.
You know, the TV is on a fair amount at our house (in the evening), but there is not always someone watching it. When I watch video on the internet, it's because I have chosen to watch it and I watch it intently because of that. There are very few shows on TV that I really pay attention to, but a lot that I "watch". | |
|  |   King P Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul Premium join:2004-11-17 Inman, SC
·Windstream
·Charter Pipeline
·Speakeasy
·Vonage
edit: July 12th, @11:14AM
| Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it My personal opinion is that IPTV of any kind isn't going to take off until more ISP's provide a bigger pipe to our homes, plain and simple. At least cable is at an advantage to roll out faster speeds, but most won't exceed 768Kbps upload. The Bells don't want to spend the money to do that, so instead they want to choose which packets they can degrade to push their own content and deprioritize others, thus providing a bad user experience.
Granted, I understand that these companies are in business to make money, as all businesses are but the Bells pissed away Millions of dollars given to them by the Gov't to get fiber to our homes (I know this has nothing to do with cable, sorry for leaning OT) and Verizon is the only one really doing anything about it. Will I ever see Verizon fiber? No, because I live in a market where the Bells do not compete with one another.
Also, in my opinion Mark Cuban is a technological idiot. The same can also be said for 95% of Congress though...afterall with all of these "internets" that are being passed around here at BBR are more than enough to bring down the whole "internet".
*edit* added more text -- Forget 'em, Support the Indies. »www.ind-music.com | |
|  |  |  PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR
| Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it said by King P :My personal opinion is that IPTV of any kind isn't going to take off until more ISP's provide a bigger pipe to our homes, plain and simple. Yes, and since these same broadband ISP's have (or will soon have) TV businesses they'll want to protect, those bigger pipes won't happen. Oh, the pipe might be there, but most of it will be used to deliver "TV service", and only a small portion will be use to deliver "internet access". That's exactly what the cable MSO's have been doing all along, and is what Verizon is rolling out with FIOS.
Now Internet Protocol may be used to deliver that TV over that "private" portion of the pipe, but that doesn't mean it will be available for generic internet access. And with this viewpoint, Cuban is right. Maybe if the concept of "net neutrality" gets defeated, and the ISP's are allowed to charge content providers extra for high QoS, then the ISP's would increase the speed of the "internet access" portion of their pipes. But if "net neutrality" holds sway, they'll simply respond by keeping the 'net slow. | |
|  |  |  |   Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
| Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it
The IPTV is what will, in the end, pay for the fiber being laid. It is the driving force behind it. There is simply not enough demand for more upload speed or we would have it by now. The incumbents learned their lessons well from the "good old days" of people running servers on their residential connections. Which is why many of the original small ISP's were gobbled up after they had financial troubles. The one Comcast gobbled up comes to mind. It sure is profitable for them now, isn't it? After they ditched the servers and leeches.
And, the good old days will NEVER return. IF they EVER offer higher uploads, you WILL pay for it, either in cash, or, restrictions that WILL be enforced, or, BOTH (most likely).
I'm not interested in paying more for a connection I dont need/use so a relative few can have more upload speed and, as far as download goes, you hit a practical limit of what you can use at one time.
This current speed marketing scheme being used by the cable companies, etc is EXACTLY the same marketing gimmick Intel, etc, used to drive computer sales and it will, inevitably, stall just like computer speeds have. And, the prices will come down, just like they have with computers.
The only reason many want ever faster speeds in the first place is that they want instant gratification and are to impatient to wait a second or two. I'm not impatient. I dont mind waiting a second or two as I suspect most people aren't. Cost talks and other crap walks. | |
|  |  |  |  |   KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Speakeasy
| Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it Horsepuckies. I find it hard to believe that the only reason we don't have more upload speed is because the demand is not there. Maybe 'the demand' needs a qualifier. Going through this site, there certainly IS demand, but perhaps it's just not at the critical level where ISPs are essentially forced to listen.
The smaller ISPs were gobbled-up because they allowed people to run servers on their broadband connections? That's a pretty big leap. Any evidence to convince me? I'd think it would be either the ISP happily cashing out or the ISP not being able to get cash-flow positive...of which folks running servers is surely a tiny component. I've had broadband (DSL) since it was offered here and my upload has never been over 768k, and that's just recent. In the past, it was never over 384k, and I've been with three different DSL providers (Rhythms, DSL Extreme, SpeakEasy).
ISPs offer tiers now. Why would they not continue? Why would you have to pay more for a connection you don't need/use so others can. Stick with your slower connection...why does that negate ISPs able to offer faster ones to those who want them?
The only reason many want faster speeds is the need for instant gratification? Mmmm, maybe in some cases. In mine, I do a lot of multimedia work and constantly need to up and download large files to clients. Just because your habits don't demand large files being up/downloaded in minutes instead of hours does not mean everyone elses' habits are somehow whacked...
Have some perspective. KM -- War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it said by KoolMoe :Horsepuckies. I find it hard to believe that the only reason we don't have more upload speed is because the demand is not there. Maybe 'the demand' needs a qualifier. The real reason is that providers dont want to lose their lucrative overpriced BUSINESS packages. there would be churn there if 3mbit or more was offered on residential packages. -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26
edit: July 12th, @07:49PM
| "Horsepuckies. I find it hard to believe that the only reason we don't have more upload speed is because the demand is not there. Maybe 'the demand' needs a qualifier. Going through this site, there certainly IS demand, but perhaps it's just not at the critical level where ISPs are essentially forced to listen.
The smaller ISPs were gobbled-up because they allowed people to run servers on their broadband connections? That's a pretty big leap. Any evidence to convince me? I'd think it would be either the ISP happily cashing out or the ISP not being able to get cash-flow positive...of which folks running servers is surely a tiny component. I've had broadband (DSL) since it was offered here and my upload has never been over 768k, and that's just recent. In the past, it was never over 384k, and I've been with three different DSL providers (Rhythms, DSL Extreme, SpeakEasy).
ISPs offer tiers now. Why would they not continue? Why would you have to pay more for a connection you don't need/use so others can. Stick with your slower connection...why does that negate ISPs able to offer faster ones to those who want them?
The only reason many want faster speeds is the need for instant gratification? Mmmm, maybe in some cases. In mine, I do a lot of multimedia work and constantly need to up and download large files to clients. Just because your habits don't demand large files being up/downloaded in minutes instead of hours does not mean everyone elses' habits are somehow whacked...
Have some perspective." KM ============================================================ There simply is not the demand for upstream speed from Joe box of rocks, who is the majority of users on the internet. The demand is seen on boards like this where a lot of such users hang out and are in the majority, therefore presenting a distorted viewpoint.
Many of the smaller ISP's early on ran into financial trouble because they were offering true unlimited service for a monthly fee and users took advantage by running servers and commercial sites on their connections. That is why upload speed is restricted now, so such people would have to pay more for business service.
Sure, they offer tiers and they will continue to do so. I'm also sure that, as time goes on, the price of those tiers will go up and up, once the flood of dialup users switching is over. The telcos will find a way. They allways have.
And, ESPECIALLY if Ma Bell gets back together.
I didn't say that it would "Negate" anything. I simply stated I'm not interested in paying more for a connection I dont need/use
For that matter, from what I've seen here and around the net, the only people who are willing to paty for uber connections are gamers, those running servers and those having business needs for one. Once again we run into the distorted viewpoint here on this topic because most who hang here want such connections for whatever reason, it doesn't matter, really, why they want them.
And, as far as it goes, perhaps it's you that should have some perspective. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   KoolMoe Aw Man Premium join:2001-02-14 Annapolis, MD clubs:
·Speakeasy
| Re: that's his mantra and he's sticking to it There simply is not the demand for upstream speed from Joe box of rocks, who is the majority of users on the internet. The demand is seen on boards like this where a lot of such users hang out and are in the majority, therefore presenting a distorted viewpoint. Agreed, that's why I suggested 'the demand' needs a qualifier. There surely IS demand, it's just not at critical mass yet (apparently?).
Many of the smaller ISP's early on ran into financial trouble because they were offering true unlimited service for a monthly fee and users took advantage by running servers and commercial sites on their connections. That is why upload speed is restricted now, so such people would have to pay more for business service.
I have a hard time believing this. I did not read about any such widescale abuses. I guess it could be a factor but I think a minute factor if any. The traffic of 5 years ago is nothing compared to today, though increased broadband access/subscription surely has a big role. I just never saw that as an issue in any forums, news, etc. Did you?
I didn't say that it would "Negate" anything. I simply stated I'm not interested in paying more for a connection I dont need/use
Why would you have to?
For that matter, from what I've seen here and around the net, the only people who are willing to paty for uber connections are gamers, those running servers and those having business needs for one. Once again we run into the distorted viewpoint here on this topic because most who hang here want such connections for whatever reason, it doesn't matter, really, why they want them.
But that was my point. You said,
The only reason many want ever faster speeds in the first place is that they want instant gratification and are to impatient to wait a second or two.
And I countered that was likely not true. Now your saying the reason doesn't matter...but that reason was the basis for your premise that faster speeds are unnecessary.
So if the reason people want faster connections is irrelevent, then why are faster connections not needed?
Because you don't want to pay for it? I don't see why you would need to - cheaper/slower tiers exist and will continue to.
Because people don't need it? Well, if you discount any reason people give for wanting a faster connection, then all that's left is a matter of perspective...right? KM -- War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God? | |
|  |   Vodka
join:2005-12-20 Sacramento, CA
| And the Europeans laugh at our third-world-connectivity again.
We don't have really have broadband here in the States. It's been documented, reviewed, ranked and debated. If we had real broadband here, this opinion WOULD have taken a different turn. If Cuban is sane. | |
|   pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
| Cable Sucks for HDTV Perhaps the cable industry needs to focus more on getting more of its content providers to do HD before they can claim to be the way to go for distributing such content. If the new television services provided by the Bells jump on the HDTV bandwagon immediately, they have the potential to corner this market as it starts to become mainstream. -- Tancredo 2008! | |
|  |   kamm
join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Re: Cable Sucks for HDTV said by pnh102 :Perhaps the cable industry needs to focus more on getting more of its content providers to do HD before they can claim to be the way to go for distributing such content. If the new television services provided by the Bells jump on the HDTV bandwagon immediately, they have the potential to corner this market as it starts to become mainstream. I agree. Cable sux BIG TIME when it comes to HD - though I have to admit Dish downrezzing everything as well. I have yet to see anything to at least come close to the quality of my old, now defunct (as DBS provider) VOOM service... | |
|  |  |   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Cable Sucks for HDTV Providers DO offer it, the cablecos just dont want to give it to you. LOOK this is coxs offerings - HBO - 9channels and one offered in HD Cinemax - 10channels and 0 offered in HD Showtime - 7channels and one in HD Starz - 7channels and one in HD and thats only the premium channels All those discovery channels and only one offered in HD I believe these should all be offered in HD. -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|   Varlik Without Honor You Will Never Be Free Premium join:2002-01-06 Anderson, SC
·Charter Pipeline
edit: July 12th, @10:56AM
| Sucking up.... and Kissing A$$. It's called brown nosing. What better way to ensure that your products content is secure by securing the means to it's delivery. Two tiered internet yeah that's the way to improve our countries world broadband ranking. Consumers will love paying twice or at least the higher fees that will result from all the cost passed along on to us. -- "Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. | |
|  |   tsu
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | Re: Sucking up.... My question is, if we all pay for the "higher" QOS tier, would it matter if there was a second "lower" one? Further, could they really QOS that "higher" tier under those circumstances. | |
|  |  |   Varlik Without Honor You Will Never Be Free Premium join:2002-01-06 Anderson, SC
·Charter Pipeline
edit: July 12th, @11:08AM
| Re: Sucking up.... The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them.
As for your question think about it what does a QOS consist of? What's it's definitions and what are the standards for meeting them. That can be easily answered by asking this question. Who determines what the companies QOS standards and requirements are? Federal, State and local government have some say. But guess who has the biggest? Hint, it ain't you or me. -- "Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. | |
|  |  |  |   tsu
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | Re: Sucking up.... Well, the bigger question I had was, if everybody uses the QOS service, is it still QOS? | |
|  |  |  |  |   Jigsaw Stardust We Are Premium join:2000-10-21 Cleveland, OH
·Cox HSI
| Re: Sucking up.... said by tsu :Well, the bigger question I had was, if everybody uses the QOS service, is it still QOS? I sort of see what your saying if everyone uses it then in essence the lines will be the same as when they dint have it.Sort of like the Fastpass at amusement parks there fast till everyone uses it then your still waiting in line. -- »www.auralmoon.com/html/ Stimulating ears for 6 years | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   tsu
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | Re: Sucking up.... Yep. It starts becoming less "hQOS" (high-tier QOS) and more "lQOS" (lower-tier QOS), which is effectively a downgrade. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |   Varlik Without Honor You Will Never Be Free Premium join:2002-01-06 Anderson, SC
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Sucking up.... said by tsu :Yep. It starts becoming less "hQOS" (high-tier QOS) and more "lQOS" (lower-tier QOS), which is effectively a downgrade. I can agree with that and who will ultimately bear the costs the end consumer. And many businesses who don't buy in whether because of price point or principle will be financially hurt maybe even forced to close. -- "Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. | |
|  |  |  |  |   csspaa
join:2004-12-08 Belleville, MI
| Another question would be why dont they sell cheaper lower tiers with less bandwidth. Instead of implementing QoS. That way the people that wanted less bandwidth could get it. Therefore freeing up more bandwidth on the pipe. My Grandmother is not going to watching IPTV anytime soon. I for one am not media intense surfer. I dont use P2P or watch videos on a regular basis. I check my email, myspace, bank account and a couple a boards. I dont want to be sent to the end of line because someone else wants to make a Voip call, I pay the same amount as they do.
First in first out, it can be done. | |
|  |  |  |   RadioDoc Sortofadog Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit: July 12th, @11:30AM
| said by Varlik :The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them. Question for you then: How much extra do you think cable companies charge for HD content? Is $10/mo or more extra for a HD STB too much of a "hit to they're [sic] wallet"? Would you pay that same $10/mo extra to get a QoS'd IPTV HD stream path from your ISP?
The cable companies are perfectly content to hold HD hostage for higher fees. Without getting into the silly ideological or political debate (which is as sensible as debating religion at this point) what would you be willing to pay? -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   Varlik Without Honor You Will Never Be Free Premium join:2002-01-06 Anderson, SC
·Charter Pipeline
edit: July 12th, @11:56AM
| Re: Sucking up.... said by RadioDoc :Question for you then: How much extra do you think cable companies charge for HD content? Is $10/mo or more extra for a HD STB too much of a "hit to they're [sic] wallet"? Would you pay that same $10/mo extra to get a QoS'd IPTV HD stream path from your ISP? The cable companies are perfectly content to hold HD hostage for higher fees. Without getting into the silly ideological or political debate (which is as sensible as debating religion at this point) what would you be willing to pay? I'd be willing to pay the price the cable company wants. Because in the long run it will be cheaper IMO. It's my affirm belief that many of the companies providing HSI long to make it per the byte for the consumer.
And charge companies more for their connection and bandwidth via the two tiered system to ensure QOS. Companies who buy into the HSI providers system will just pass those fees onto all their consumers. If I support HDnet I end up supporting the two tiered system.
I do agree with you on the hostage part by the cable companies though. But I suspect this will change suddenly in a few years. -- "Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |   Dryvlyne Far Beyond Driven Premium join:2004-08-30 Newark, OH
| Re: Sucking up.... Good point about companies longing to charge consumers on a per byte basis. I can see Internet access being metered in the future just like water, gas and electric. If consumer A spends 1,000 hours online in one month then his/her bill will be proportionate to that amount of usage. Unfortunately, I imagine this kind of situation would be utopian for cableco and telco ISPs, I just hope I don't see it in my lifetime. | |
|  |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Varlik :The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them. My guess is that fees will go up anyway and we will all (both consumers and Google) have to pay for these supposed upgrades if the incumbents get their way. | |
|   Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 Albany, NY
| Cuban, meet AOL... They also thought that Broadband was nothing more than a passing fad. And now they're bleeding subscribers like crazy and trying to find any possible way to stay afloat.
The Internet wasn't built to directly accommodate half of the stuff floating about it. What it was built for, however, was to transport bits from here to there rather effectively. And that has translated into an ability to carry types of data that the designers probably never even dreamed of. | |
|  |  tarpon
join:2004-01-07 San Jose, CA
| Re: Cuban, meet AOL... Yep they sure makes good company.
Eventually even the slowest figure out they are paying for nothing. Why do you need cable, when a DVR is capable of downloading all the shows you need. Personally I use the DirecTIVO downloading service.
If it weren't for the Internet I wouldn't have Comcast cable, it's all I use of their whole service.
Directivo and Comcast Internet, works for me. | |
|  razambon
join:2000-09-18 Laurel, MD
| Torrent+RSS? So...Torrents+RSS feeds now...and the increasing number of 'simplifcation' programs that are coming out to essentially program your own tv channels...they aren't viable right?
The fact that, as of now, I have a better selection of content via my internet connection then via any cable or satellite service I can get doesn't mean a thing.
Lets go over the history real fast... - Tech geeks start with MP3s. Kind of confusing initially, to get, share, play, etc. - Applications arise that make it so easy anyone can get and use MP3s. - MP3s are now ubiquitous (or at least digital music).
Time to face facts, even if IMMEDIATE/LIVE video isnt present, distribution is already here and the numbers of people using it daily are only increasing.
Now I just need to convince my wife of this.  | |
|   tschmidt Premium,MVM join:2000-11-12 Milford, NH
·Verizon Online DSL
| Disruptive Technology What he said is both true and at the same time totally false.
There are currently many limitations with delivering IPTV. Low bandwidth Internet radio is doing well and will get better as first-mile speed improves and it becomes possible to multicast and/or cache streams locally.
The "IPTV will never happen" mantra is reminiscence of all disruptive technology. PCs did not dominate the market because they were better computers then mainframes and minis, they did it because they created a new market that had not been served before. Once PCs were accepted technology improved and ultimately they began to displace legacy systems.
The same thing will likely happen with IPTV. A few innovative "TV stations" will pioneer the service. Quality will be lower then over the air or Cable but customers will be willing to make the trade-off because there is no other way to obtain the service. Over time quality will improve an one day legacy players will wake up and find their customers have migrated to the new technology.
Ramp up tends to take years and moves very slowly. Once critical mass is reached the change happens with astounding speed. I've worked at companies that missed important technology changes and the result has not been pretty. At the same time new technology is risky. One always needs to balance moving too soon vs too late.
Andrew Odlyzko wrote an interesting paper several years ago about: Internet TV: Implication for the long distance network.
All in all the next decade will be interesting forcing many business models to change.
/Tom
| |
|  |   SDKiwi VIP join:2002-05-27 El Cajon, CA | Re: Disruptive Technology Very perceptive post. | |
|  |  Ogy101
join:2004-05-09 Austin, TX clubs: | Here is something I came across which could be the next step in IPTV evolution: »www.kulabyte.com | |
|   kamm
join:2001-02-14 Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| Broadcast.com: "Boradband is Old News" It's hilarious... is this really the same guy who made his fortune by selling the now worthless broadcast.com?
Oh, sweet irony... 
Mark, congrat: you've just became a real businessman - a pathetic @sshole, a ready-to-lie-anything mouthpiece of your interests, without making any sense. | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 DarkSyde
join:2006-06-07 Akron, OH | clueless twit
...and heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Maybe this guys real name is Lord Kelvin? | |
|   insomniac84
join:2002-01-03 Schererville, IN
| Good for neutrality? Isn't good for neutrality if the industry acknowledges transferring video over the internet and over a private cable signal are different. If the max bandwidth of a cable line is 30mbps and only 15mbps is used for the internet, just make a separate connection that uses the other 15mbit. Granted this only works if you have enough spare bandwidth after whatever the internet connection takes what it needs. Like with dsl, where the internet usually maxes out the max line speed, so no way to get video across it without sharing internet bandwidth which is stupid for a dedicated video service. | |
|  peerimpact
join:2005-11-07 Londonderry, VT | Cuban owns a p2p network Mark Cuban is a major Investor in Red Swoosh who plans to distribute video content around the web via their p2p content distribution platform.
»www.redswoosh.com | |
|   richardpor Fur it up
join:2003-04-19 Portland, OR
| Brash but on Target. The Internet is not capable of distributing HD or mass market video. The Internet a almost 40 year old technology that was design to transmit 8 bit ASCII data between university research centers and DOD installations on robust network that can survive a nuclear strike. The problem I see with video over IP latency cause by the need to chop the video frame into packets, then are sent across multiple networks nodes, then reassembled at the customer end. This includes time used to correct errors cause when the data packet not arriving at the same time in the same order, or have been dropped and resent. So far most Video over IP can be best seen on a 4 in window on my computer, forget about to fit the video on my 17in monitor less on the 32in LCD screen I am looking at. As much as internet technology speed improved, I still have to deal with frequent video hiccups. If that was not bad enough think what would happen if Google tried to offer live streaming of American Idol. Think of the bottle neck that would cause. To me the solution is some type of dedicated network that bypasses the internet and connect ISP POP to ISP POP. The concept of a dedicated video network has long existed before the Internet took off. Corporate office used fractional T1 or T3 to transmit video conferencing or other video feed across campuses. This is what the Telcos were trying to tell us before the net neutrality fanatics start screaming neutrality. | |
|  Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19 66308
| Mark Cuban will say anything for $$$ He's a typical business whore.
HD downloads work PERFECTLY over the net.
IT has been proven they work. The net will obliterate Cuban's HD business.
The only weakness is ondemand which is about QOS. I would rather download and burn anyways. | |
|  |   M_fan
@airproducts.com
| Re: Mark Cuban will say anything for $$$ Where do you think a lot of that HD content came from? It was transmitted originally via cable (as M Cuban recommends) and captured by someone. Sure there's some content available OTA, but for the most part, no cable = almost no captured HD.
Until a viable on-demand/QOS delivery method is offered, the net will not obliterate anything. The fact that people like you (and me, for that matter) are willing to wait and download HD content doesn't mean that Jane Sixpack will.
Lastly, of course he's a business whore - just like everyone else in business. Capitalism is what drove the internet to what it is now and will continue to do so. If you think your socialist "the net must be free" model will ever work, you're kidding yourself. | |
|  |  |  Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19 66308 | Re: Mark Cuban will say anything for $$$ Nice to see you chat on this board Cuban.
With higher speeds the net will compete just fine.
With more HD cameras in the average consumers hands , you will see the results yourself. | |
|  |   p riley
@sbcglobal.net | Pat Esser was just whistled for a foul on Dwayne Wade.  | |
|   morbo Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs: | his real mantra: His real mantra = I LOVE MONEY | |
|  |   RadioDoc Sortofadog Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 Chicago, IL | Re: his real mantra: That's everyone's mantra... -- Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|  |  |   morbo Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs: | Re: his real mantra: uh, not really. -- no sig | |
|  |  |  |   RadioDoc Sortofadog Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11 Chicago, IL | Re: his real mantra: You don't love money? | |
|   FiL Premium join:2005-08-16 Silver Spring, MD
edit: July 12th, @06:04PM
| Old News? As in Nowitski's not an AllStar old news or old as in the geriatric NBA team hes got?
Dude needs to suck a .....
oh and Fatal, why's it everytime I see a Kamm post, your right behind em telling him to "calm down" or some otha shit? lol stop stalking em for christ' sake! | |
|  LordBritish
join:2003-08-02 Marina Del Rey, CA
| . I forsee one day that we'll have ONE skinny fiber optic cable going into our homes. It'll be the phone, internet, and IPTV.
I think the internet can eventually deliver streaming HD video but it'll require some technological changes and business model changes from content providers. But I believe it can happen eventually. | |
|  | |  |
|
|