 |  | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Just a matter of time.. I think he's right. look at how microsofts servers were brought to their knees on the vista beta download. TV *can* be done over broadband but nothing thats going to have viewership like the super bowl, and dont even think of a popular show in HD over the internet (I'm talking live streaming TV, not just a prepared file)
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | | deepblackmag
join:2004-12-27
00000
| Re: Just a matter of time.. Better technology exists than the outdated crap client server platform. The future is entirely in the hands of multicast video systems (see cisco) or peer to peer protocols to deliver distributed file transfers.
The author didnt do his research. Ciscos massive multicast video network is quite impressive. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I agree with you... however, there's also the fact that I doubt that MILLIONS of people could be streaming SD and HD streams of the superbowl, a live event at the same time.. it just won't happen and like he said.. not in our life time.
There are MANY shows that are live events that people want to see together, sporting events being one of them.
Sure, video downloads are nice for some people and it does change the face of video viewing, FOR A FEW, but those video downloads are done at varying times, not clogging up the pipes at the same time.
I am, however, still a believer that TV is delivered perfectly fine the way it is right now for our time. We just aren't that important or special to need video on our own terms like 'some' people want. The RF and satellite delivery of TV, IMHO is just fine.. combine that with an "UNINHIBITED" DVR service or device and TV is JUST fine today.
Again, we as Americans need to stop feeling so "me" centric and deal with making time for things important to us in our life. | |
| | | | netengnr
join:2006-07-15
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Just a matter of time.. Video is happening today over DSL. Technical and Market trails by telcos are in place and close to a full scale launch.
The FUD that it can't happen and will clog pipes is just that... FUD
Millions of households watching a single sporting event is much less of a strain on a network than Millions of households watching millions of channels if you understand how the technology works.
IPTV is here today and will compete head-to-head with the Cable in the VERY near future. IPTV scares the heck out of the Cable Companies because they understand it is possible.
SD Channel today 2.5Mbs and HD Channel 7-9Mbs. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Just a matter of time.. Sorry, I don't use or speak with words like FUD.. can you translate that?
Second.. there is a HUGE difference between last mile broadband and the internet itself. The last mile options such as IPTV that phone and cable have wanted to do, and some are doing, has a much greater throughput and is designed for the application.
However, when you put video over the intenet direct from the providers, well, you will have a bottleneck. There are companies, providers, and vendors that want to become cable companies/video providers over the internet... again,.. isn't going to happen anytime soon other than the usual video clip on your CNN site, or the ABC streamings, etc. Lower quality, short and to the point clips.
There is no way I'd want to see people getting into the video market over the internet to compete with the traditional devliery systems of cable, satellite and fiber providers. The internet is not large enough, strong enough, or simply capable of becoming everything for anyone that wants to get through. Again, it's the one argument that the anti-net nutrality people out there have in their pocket and one that I would have to side with them on. (Be it the ONLY one, but it's a big one)
And actually, IPTV doens't really scare cable as cable is looking into embracing IPTV as well. It's been brought up in company wide meetings for years as a solution for cable as well. But still, IPTV may be on the horizon as an option for telco, they aren't being too serious about rolling it out. It's a project that could also put telco into the trash at the same time.
But, it's not about telco and cable.. it's about streanming content direct. | |
| | | | | | netengnr
join:2006-07-15
Atlanta, GA
| Re: Just a matter of time.. '»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD'
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
FUD was used to describe IBM's sales tactics during the 80's with explosion and competition of the PC market.
Providers are in the process of positioning themselves to exchange encoded content. Not streaming video like CNN, but real traditional switched video content. The same stuff they would pull off a bird.
As far as the telcos not being serious about IPTV. AT&T (which is really just SBC if you want to get down to it) has bet the bank on IPTV. It is a recurring question from Wall Street analysts that is seriously affecting their stock price. The question to them is not if, but WHEN will they deliver. They must deliver or they will be screwed. Significant investments by the telcos doesn't put the projects in the disposable category. They must find a way to deliver video over wireline service.
Entire provider infrastructures are being overhauled at this moment to handle video. I'm not talking about the last mile either.
If the telcos can't deliver IPTV they will continue to lose market share at a rapid rate.
The lines are rapidly blurring between what is an MSO and what is an ILEC/CLEC/RLEC and don't expect it to get any clearer anytime soon.
The MSO are, again in my opinion, far better positioned to deliver IPTV over their networks. The point is they don't need to at the moment because the competition hasn't started to take away any market share.
1. The Internet is used to deliver some broadcast video content today and the magnitude will only grow with time. I would bet packet delivery networks will be the method of choice in the near future based on what is happening today in the background.
2. One of the top MSOs today uses IP for video delivery. Their video is in a IP data payload for a period of time on their infrastructure before it hits an edge QAM. AFAIK 100% of their video is encoded into an IP stream for a portion of it's life before it hits the customer.
3. Content providers will be using packet based networks to exchange content between super headends for delivery to their customers over national networks. Those packet based networks are the Internet.
These are my opinions and assessments based on what I'm seeing in the industry today and what I've been working on for the past couple of years. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Just a matter of time.. When it comes to IPTV, there are various reason as to who and why they want it.
Telephone NEEDS it over copper because that's the only way they can deliver a video feed... data.
Cable WANTS it becuase it's the way of getting more capacity virtually over night for content. Cable, having a limited number of useable frequency could turn their pipeline from a limited resource to an unlimited resource. (Telco can too) But instead of saying "we can only deliver 250 channels" it's now endless channels.
(By the way, once you mention MSO, you are no longer talking about cable, so it's best to simply say cable... telephones are also becoming "mso's" as well. MSO originally was knows for Multi SYSTEM operator and now is also used to deonote a Multi SERVICE operator)
1) The problem is the internet becoming the delivery pipe for television content is that EVERYONE is going to want to put their video content down the same line. It will soon become a sea of everyone and their mothers wanting to be a "cable company"... it's not going to work at-all the way our internet is today. Again, it's an argument AGAINST net nutrality, once in which I agree. (the only one actually)
2) "One of the top MSO's" (cable operators) is Time Warner. It's still in a test phase and not their standard, yet. But like I said before. The reason telco is being given more of the press on IPTV is because it's all they have. Cable has been talking about it, as far as I can remember, back in 1998.. again, it's comcast and it's as far as "*I*" first heard of it.
3) "Content providers will be using packet based networks to exchange content between super headends " it's already happening.. it's called OnDemand.. and those networks are usually leased private lines such as the way Comcast is leasing dark lines from Level 3.
You are largly correct in what you are saying. Many people, however, are loosing sight of the history of things because stuff is changing so quickly that they forget certain events in the past. (Such as associating IPTV as a telephone technology) | |
| 
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL
| What he says isn't wrong. quote:
Want to deliver the SuperBowl or American Idol in HD in realtime to 10s of millions of simultaneous viewers ? Not in this lifetime without some breakthrough technology that hasnt been invented yet.
There is nothing here, said by him, that is incorrect. If it was possible to be doing this, we'd be doing it.
We aren't...
The guy is a pompous ass, and usually so full of himself it stinks, but he's not wrong on this one. | |
| | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: What he says isn't wrong. He's not wrong, but he didn't say anything. All he said was that if there was no new technological innovation (which is, I guess what we'll get if the telco's get their way) then with today's technology you can't stream HD video to 10's of millions at the same time. Well, maybe with I2, but it's a dumb discussion because there will be technological advances, and there already are piles of improvements yet to be implemented. Of course if you let the duopoly restrict innovators from being able to do this, then yes he would be absolutely correct. | |
| | | bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: What he says isn't wrong. I have the idea on how to broadcast the Superbowl without clogging the entire internet with everyone trying to connect to server banks streaming but I have yet to find someone to work with. Ironically I emailed Mr. Cuban two days ago and now it appears in a blog....
I can get it to work if I had three smart people and a bucket of cash. Instead I would prefer to get a utility patent and probably have some big oligopoly buy it up (like Network television).
It is simple solution too.
Just my 2 cents...Flame Lightly | |
| | | | markopoleo
join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO | Re: What he says isn't wrong. But its not possible because the internet is made of "tubes", and you try to cram lots of stuff in these "tubes" its gonna slow down..:P | |
| | | | | | | 
SandShark
So it goes
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX
clubs:
1 edit | He's a self-made pompous ass that can put his money where his mouth is. That makes him different than most other pompous asses. | |
| | | gwba
join:2006-02-09
Barling, AR | Re: What he says isn't wrong. But he couldn't buy an NBA championship or intimidate himself one either. Considering the source, who cares. | |
| | | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | Re: What he says isn't wrong. It's not purchasable when you have money-wielding superstars like Wade who just so happens to be a foul-magnet.  | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Want to deliver the SuperBowl or American Idol in HD in realtime to 10s of millions of simultaneous viewers ? Not in this lifetime without some breakthrough technology that hasnt been invented yet.
Bold is the part I find likely incorrect. And if live American Idol broadcasts are all broadband video needs to be on par with traditional cable television, consider me unimpressed with the argument. | |
| | | | | | | 
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
| Re: What he says isn't wrong. said by Nightfall  :said by Karl Bode : quote:
Want to deliver the SuperBowl or American Idol in HD in realtime to 10s of millions of simultaneous viewers ? Not in this lifetime without some breakthrough technology that hasnt been invented yet.
Bold is the part I find likely incorrect. And if live American Idol broadcasts are all broadband video needs to be on par with traditional cable television, consider me unimpressed with the argument. I agree Karl Broadband is a very young technology when you think about it. The first homes were being outfitted with broadband back in 1995. In 1996 is when @Home really started deploying to home in major cities. Gee, thats only 10 years ago. Who knows what will come in the next 10 years or 50 years for that matter. and 3 years before that in the early 90's... 56k was groundbreaking to the average home user.
For Cuban to say that this is impossible is just to focus attention on his company. I remember when they said that CD's wouldn't replace cassettes, and if you had talked about something like the 'iPod' back then that would allow you to hold 10k songs in your pocket, you would have been locked up in the technoasylum.
There are different kinds of vision and Cuban obviously is short or narrow sighted. | |
| | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Anyone besides me see irony in the technical quality increasing while the program quality decreases at an even faster rate? If I want "reality" I'll look out my window.
Cuban's a tool, but until someone figures out how to efficiently broadcast real HD content to millions of Internet receivers at a time at a cost comparable to current television he's right. Even cable companies have come to this realization, pushing their digital distribution deeper into the network to save bandwidth. Broadcast technology (yeah, even good old OTA) is far superior to individual connections to each receiver since it costs the same to transmit to one viewer as it costs for ten million. Imagine HBO having to run a separate cable to every subscriber. That's essentially what we've got now for Internet video. It is grossly inefficient.
True multicast would help. Where'd that end up anyway?
edit: word order
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | |
wwdubbia
join:2002-06-03
Clinton, NY
| Re: What he says isn't wrong. said by RadioDoc :Anyone besides me see irony in the technical quality increasing while the program quality decreases at an even faster rate? If I want "reality" I'll look out my window. I think it's a natural byproduct. You have to produce more content faster... quality is bound to suffer. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Karl Bode : quote:
Want to deliver the SuperBowl or American Idol in HD in realtime to 10s of millions of simultaneous viewers ? Not in this lifetime without some breakthrough technology that hasnt been invented yet.
Bold is the part I find likely incorrect. And if live American Idol broadcasts are all broadband video needs to be on par with traditional cable television, consider me unimpressed with the argument. We went from barely being able to control flight to going into outer space and out own moon in under 100 years.
We humans can do things if we try hard enough. | |
| | | | 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC | Re: What he says isn't wrong. Unless you believe the argument that we didn't really go to the moon and that it was all a publicity stunt done in hollywood...  | |
| | | | | | | 
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
2 edits | Well the part of "Not in this lifetime without some breakthrough technology that hasn't been invented yet" pretty much covers all his bases. He will be right in all cases but he obviously is saying it WON'T happen. And like the original posting says, he is kissing up to cable companies.
The problem is that this breakthrough will probably come some time in the future... My personal opinion is that we will see it in this life time.
He probably just wants something from the big cable companies and just needs to sound credible to them. Has nothing to do with being technically right or wrong. Too bad he is arrogant about it. | |
| | GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK
| we don't need breathrough technology to deploy video to tens of millions of customers. We just need the last mile providers to get off their asses and implement a minimum of XX (double digit) MB download speeds.
If were talking HD streams then yes, we need signifcantly more investment. If we can get away with standard resolution video we could implement quite literally now in several markets.
The only one's even remotely capable of doing this is Verizon. | |
| | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | Re: What he says isn't wrong. agreed...
most people don't have high def sets yet so why do they need to stream high def? normal would be fine thanks | |
| | Primis1
join:2005-06-13
Coldwater, MI
| said by Wills : quote:
Want to deliver the SuperBowl or American Idol in HD in realtime to 10s of millions of simultaneous viewers ? Not in this lifetime without some breakthrough technology that hasnt been invented yet.
There is nothing here, said by him, that is incorrect. If it was possible to be doing this, we'd be doing it. We aren't... The guy is a pompous ass, and usually so full of himself it stinks, but he's not wrong on this one. I couldn't agree more. He's not stupid (which is why he's a gazillionare, owns a pro sports team, and can rant on his blog and people will listen), and he's spot-on. We can't do this. We're not even close to being able to handle this.
That doesn't mean there isn't still a place for the technology though. | |
| | | | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| First, I think he is just performing cooperative PR with those he is doing business in in terms of the traditional HD providers, especially those he has agreements with for his own personal HD channels.
But I have to say, I have lost a lot of respect for this individual. In one hand he preaches high-definition, but in the other hand he allows those partners to reduce the definition of the channels he brings to them for rebroadcast.
Now, he acts like things evolve 'overnight', but they do not. I remember the 2400-baud days and the days in which T1's were the 'top of the hill' in bandwidth. Not we have 10-100 GigE in our cores and >10Mbps home connectivity solutions rolling out. Its not beyond anyone's lifetime reading this today.
The future is simple. Either the broadband market will fail, or it will continue to evolve to a point that HD streams in real-time will be a delivered product. He should look forward to that so Mr. Cuban's business can skip the middlemen and deliver his sermon directly to the HD-followers. | |
| chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
1 edit | Wrong Audince Cuban!!
People that see broadband video are not looking to see Idol Live or the Super Ball. This is a whole new different way to see video and a new and diff audience. I probably see 70% of my news online. I’m not interested in sticking to my TV at 6pm/7pm. When I’m ready and at any time during the day I will go to MSNBC or CNN … for my news… There is limited programming offering (comedy, music video, some shows) but it just keeps increasing.
He is right, but he is completing loosing sight or NOT??, as many other exec, of the dynamics and audience of broadband video. Many of broadband video/tv seekers are not interested in HDTV or PPV programming… they just one simple and free entertainment and that is what they DO NOT WANT???? | |
| Seaboogers
join:2004-11-01
Sarasota, FL
| Broadcast.com Isn't he the one that sold broadcast.com to yahoo (for $5 billion)...maybe I'm wrong...but wasn't that streaming video over the internet...even before "broadband" made it to the big time so to speak not to mention about 8 years before even 2Mb was the "fastest" pipe available to consumers? | |
| | 
LBDSL
Lightning Bolt
VIP
join:2002-01-07
Auburn Hills, MI
| Re: Broadcast.com said by Seaboogers :Isn't he the one that sold broadcast.com to yahoo (for $5 billion)...maybe I'm wrong...but wasn't that streaming video over the internet...even before "broadband" made it to the big time so to speak not to mention about 8 years before even 2Mb was the "fastest" pipe available to consumers? Broadcast.com was the first/leader in broadcasting live AUDIO over the net, and yes he and a partner (David Wagner) sold it to yahoo, for 5-6 Billion
--
Lightning Bolt Technologies | |
| | | 
nitishsingh
@comcast.net
| Re: Broadcast.com the victoria secret fashion show hosted by broadcast.com
was the first big video event on the internet
»www.ugeek.com/techupdate/feb99/victbust.htm
when he needed to make money with internet video, it was good enough....
now that he's trying to make money through cable, it is not
cuban may be correct, but he used to sing a different tune | |
| | | op
join:2005-07-16
Smyrna, DE
| Bit the hand that feeds you Well at least he's being smart to get cozy with the cable companies to ride on there backs to get his product out untill he bits them in there ass. I can't beleave Roberts with all that business experience can't see that Cuban is going to turn on him.  | |
| RodTag
join:2003-02-05
Kaufman, TX
| Wrong! People want to watch what they want and when. Cuban is trying to put the padddles to a corpse. He has a business plan to be the purveyor of content and litter the content with ads to beef his pocket.
We want content how, when and where with as little cost. The American spirit - if money can be made, it will be created. We will have good live IPTV and soon. Cuban is a fool for posting his comments on the vehicle he condemns. | |
| | GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK
| Re: Wrong! said by RodTag :Cuban is a fool for posting his comments on the vehicle he condemns. This is a great post right here. Cheers to you for summing up his BS in a single sentence...  | |
| grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Who is this idiot? And why does he have a pulpit. | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| dude has a point but this quote is a bit misguided:
"The reward for connecting a PC to an HDTV isnt worth the hassle and that wont change for years. Dare i say, not even in 10 years, if ever."
...one word: Gamers. I think it'd be worth it to game on a huge high def screen. Sure most don't want to see lo-fi video on a hi-fi screen.. like youtube, well no kidding.
...what about a downloaded netflix type movie though? I would hook up an HTPC in a second if I could rent super hi-fi movies for playback on a home theater setup.
Video across the net, in realtime, is a problem. It is still clunky on current technology. 350kbps isn't "Dvd quality" though... it's barely equal to VHS IMO...
Hate to say it, but analog broadcast is still one of the best solutions, hands down, for video. Even with a high def signal, it is still entirely possible to do in analog form. Granted, it fell flat because all the computer geeks came along and wanted to digitize it (HDTV), compress the ever living life out of it, and then glean a few more channels out of the available (analog) bandwidth. It's 2006 and besides a few channels on cable, a few on sat's, it's still taking awhile to transistion to an all digital signal, let alone high def channels.
Sadly, sometimes re-MPEG-ing video does terrible things to it, and when it finally gets to cable, gets re-MPEG'd again, the color shifting, jitter, and resolution are worse than a 10 year old VHS that's been rented a thousand times...
The other problem with video online, is the notion of "streaming" ...well no kidding, you cant put a cruise ship (high def) on a stream (a few megabits of current avg. cable modem speed...).
If everyone had 100 Megabit fiber, or faster, it might be possible. As it is now, we already have solutions in place for real time delivery of smooth motion, full screen, wide screen, digitized or analog, high definition television... Satellites, and cable tv. Unless you have guaranteed links in place, real time high def is a joke. Video conferencing is tricky enough on the 'net, Internet2 solved some of those problems. ...Gee I wonder why.
So, this guy might be right about a couple things, but he has totally ignored internet2's accomplishments in the world of realtime video through IP networking. | |
| 
drslash
Goya Asma
Premium
join:2002-02-18
Marion, IA
| Cuban is selling Cuban is selling. He is looking for buyers. I guess he has HDNet. Looks like another cable channel to me. What have his recent published comments said? I can't tell, they are all over the board. He speaks and acts like he is a regular guy. However, a regular guy does not own HD equipment because the HD content is a monthly charge that he does not want to pay for. Does he really think his tiny blog audience is at all interested in watching Dan Rather do news stories in HD? That's a joke.
--
Save water...drink beer! | |
| russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| We have the technology.... ...for Cuban's specific examples, anyway. Delivering the Superbowl or American Idol in HD in realtime requires two things, both of which we have today
1) IP Multicast. The technology exists, though it's not currently implemented in a manner which makes this possible. No breakthrough is necessary, merely grunt work. With multicast, you have one path between the source node and any given subscriber node, not multiple.
2) Pipes big enough to get one HD stream through every link in the system. Again, this doesn't require any breakthroughs.
Of course, this would be a pretty silly use of the internet. The other technology we have which does this (satellites, cable, and TV broadcasting) is optimized for this sort of thing. | |
| | 
daniyel
join:2001-05-10
Tucson, AZ
| Re: We have the technology.... This should go into the bucket with bill gates and the maximum of 640k of memory, and al gore saying he invented the internet. I do not agree with Mark on this, as the rate at which technology improves will only come to realization sooner in the future. Maybe 10 years, and this will be laughable.. | |
| 
BodyBumper
join:2004-06-21
Beverly Hills, CA | Hate to break it to him but HD really isnt live, its delayed compared to analog broadcasts.
--
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL | We don't want another TV.. we want OTHER content on OUR time | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| For where things stand today.... he's not wrong.
For the most part and particularly with the telco industry, they simply are not ready at all for what is to come with HDTV.
But, I think that because they're not, that's why he is wrong for what will happen in the future. The telco industry simply can NOT afford to let this be the way it is when HDTV becomes really widespread.
Already, they're losing their core landline business to the cable co's and other voip providers and the cell industry, plus overall, failing miserably with many of their DSL offerings versus most cable connections.
This is an absolute recipe for DISASTER for the telco's if they don't change things.
Verizon, to their credit, is doing just that. FIOS is the answer and they have to spend the billions to make it a reality if they want to compete.
Sadly, I don't really see AT&T's solution though as being a winning one with Uverse, particularly when it comes to offering hdtv plus the highest levels of HSI.
While some may get good service with it, it will be a case all over again like DSL with the haves and have nots.
Some can get 6MB elite DSL service now, while many can't.
I think that longer term, Mark Cuban is wrong. Verizon and probably other telco's will rise to the occassion.
And AT&T will have to if they want to be at all relevant in this race to the finish line.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Re: For where things stand today.... Well I disagree with you totally and here is why.
Telcos landlines are not eroding as fast as people think. Their churn is high people are going back to land lines they don't show those numbers at all.
They are slowly eroding to a loss and it's not as fast as people are claiming.
Dsl is not failing. It is adding more subscribers per quarter then cable so far for past year or more. That is not failing!
The world is changing and verizon is going with it and are going to become a major player in telco soon. If Ivans plans take affect then it will be free for you to call your verizon home phone from your verizon cell. A true concept that is made to save people money.
In short Cuban is wrong. Verizons cable system is a multicast technology and it shuts down cubans whole argument.
On demand content is a huge take off market and will become very important.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | 
COMMAN
Plug Me In
join:2000-07-17
Mount Juliet, TN
·Embarq
 ·Vonage
| MULTICAST "We just need the last mile providers to get off their asses and implement a minimum of XX (double digit) MB download speeds."
No, we need the last mile providers to enable multicast - most major backbone routers already support this, it is only a minor investment to make the ISP's compliant. I've been using multicast inside a LAN for a couple of years - it works great, but it might HURT THE ESTABLISHED MEGA-CORP content providers; so little, innovative companies who have been preaching this technology for years have been "swept under the rug". Innovations in technology are always disruptive to existing business, but in our current political state, God help anybody who might damage some major political contributors corporation's bottom line. | |
| | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | MPEG 4 Internet Video is viable with MPEG 4 compression. With MPEG 4 you can stream DVD quality (480P) programming at 24 fps on a 1.5 megabits per second pipe with enough room left over to surf the Internet and operate your VOIP phone. | |
| peerimpact
join:2005-11-07
Londonderry, VT
| Mark is Right ....Sort Of Mark Cuban is a major investor in Red Swoosh a P2P content distribution company and Travis Kalinick Red Swooshes CEO agrees with Mark that live p2p streaming is not ready for primetime and I agree also 'but most TV is not live so there still is hope .Travis expanins what Mark is talking about in more detail .
quote:
"How much of the TV you watch is truly ;live
Don't look at me funny, its a serious question. What fraction of the TV you watch is only a few seconds old, straight from some camera to your TV without editing?
"Let's break it down:
- Is anything on Must-See-TV live? No
- How about Saturday morning cartoons? No
- Leno?, Letterman? Nope
- The Sopranos, Everybody Loves Raymond, Soaps, Opera Winfrey? Nada
How about the national news? If youre on the east coast, maybe its live, not on the west coast though. If youre watching a 24 hour news channel, the *vast* majority of play time is pre-recorded segments. How about 24? That clock doesn't make it so
Now isn't the holy trinity of media distribution - broadcast, cable, satellite - perfectly designed and suited for live distribution of Television? Of course it is.
So why isn&'t most of TV live? Here are a couple reasons:
- Editing makes TV better.
- For 95%+ of the TV people watch, live doesn't matter, NOBODY CARES
Even the notion of linear programming seems to be dwindling in every direction I look. Comcast and their MSO brethren have launched and are aggressively expanding their on-demand offerings. 99% of what is distributed on the Net is non-live content (the 1% is made up of the few radio stations that still do live streams online - the most popular radio services are simply playing pre-recorded songs in a pre-set playlist).
So, why the heck is everybody knocking down my door about live P2P streaming? Usually they’re frenetic, intense and on a mission, like Indiana Jones about to get the holy graille or something. Cheap, live, high-performance video distribution online. Previously, only in the sci-fi books. Does it make me feel kind of special to be the guy, behind the guy, behind the guy, that can make their dreams come true? Of course it does, and I bask in their praise every chance I get.
But then reality sets in:
How much of Headline News is Live? I’m going to guess less than 10%
How much of ESPN is Live? Less than 50% for sure.
Now dont get me wrong, if you're going to want live, it&'s going to be in one of 3 categories: sports, news, events (like concerts). But even in these categories, sports is the only one where a majority of its viewed content is Live. Long-term customers probably range only at 15-20 max. My point isn’t that Live doesn't exist or that there’s no business there, but it's not even in the same order of magnitude as the big business of pre-recorded content delivery.
So how come all the hub-ub, the frothy mouths, and the Venture Capitalists circling around like vultures?
The REAL reason for this recent move toward live online P2P is licensing.
Content owners are scared of losing ad revenues in an on-demand world (Tivo on the Net is worse than the Second Coming for these guys) especially one that’s online. Cable companies are scared that the pipes they built to double up for Internet access will be used to get around their $80/month/subscriber cash cow. Content companies are scared that their cable deals will get screwed if they try to ;go around; the cable companies by doing on-demand on the Net.
Bottom line is that for the next couple years, on-demand, ad-supported TV licensing for the Net is a non-starter.
And so with all those 100 million people on the Net but no way to get them on-demand programming online, some brilliant guy trying to make his numbers came up with a genius holding pattern:
Why don&t we take pre-recorded TV content, and broadcast it Live over the Internet?
Dont even get me started on the technical lameness of the proposition, but this is the world we live in for a couple years, until online, on-demand licensing makes the world better for consumers everywhere.
In the meantime, ll bask in the temporal sunny rays of the Live P2P streaming spotlight.
- chief swoosher "
| |
| 
winterforge
Premium
join:2000-07-23
Roanoke, TX
clubs: | ... Newsflash:
Mark Cuban has given up his other jobs to focus on his true occupation, Master of the Obvious.
--
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect." - Steven Wright | |
| 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | fiber will change your life bene-fiber ;P optic fiber may have mark cuban changing his tune | |
| | ctaul
join:2004-03-09
Dallas, TX | Re: fiber will change your life yes he was the creator of broadcast.com and sold it to yahoo for over 6 billion, and baught the mavs lol hes a great owner...funny as hell | |
| | | 
longstreet
join:2004-11-14
Plano, TX | Re: fiber will change your life I think short term he is correct. | |
| | | | | |
|
|
Mark Cuban Laughs at Internet Video
·
·