 garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
| No need for regulation Once TV content producers start using the internet for direct delivery of their programs and content, bypassing the distribution gatekeepers such as cable and broadcast networks, there is no one to compete with. The internet is natural a la carte.
You can just let the cable and broadcasters "died" as such. Not dying in reality, but due to revenue losses being forced to restructure their business models. | |
|
 | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
edit:
December 2nd, @01:03PM
| Re: No need for regulation I'm sure the broadband providers won't allow this to happen.
Remember those usage caps? Well, I'm sure right about the time people start using the Internet to get a lot of video channels will be the time that they start using usage caps to cut you off for "Hogging".... or use their "network management applications" to basically hose your connection for such services.
Basically, they will block said competition from being allowed to exist. | |
|
| | 
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: No need for regulation"network management applications" aka Sandvine, only kills seeding(upload).
Caps... I already download several "items" per month and I rarely go over 30GB per month.
30GB is not going to get(Comcast) my ISP's attention.
So, unless you are trying to create a library of DVD rips, caps(on Comcast at least) should NOT be an issue.
Remember, we are talking programs - shows.
Not entire days worth of programming.
30 minutes to 1 hour each(20 minutes to 40 minutes if they kill commercials for you).
1 hour of avi(XviD?) is what? 360MB?
HD @ 1080p WMV, 30 minutes ~ 1.7GB?
*I* wouldn't worry about caps. ;)
YMMV.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA
| Actually quite the opposite. ISPs will have the ability to go straight to content creators and access them directly. If you're on a fully IP environment the idea of channels is a holdover from broadcast days. You don't need to have channels as you could pipe the content directly across on demand.
It's really the end result and I think we'll be seeing it emerge popularly within the next decade. | |
|
| | |
|
|
dadkins
Land of Confusion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: Even TVoIP while depend on cable companies said by TK Junk Mail  :» blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehran···ble.htmlMoreover it should be clear that soon, an Internet television revolution will take place allowing consumers to view programming over the internet and subsequently rely less on cable for distribution. He seems to have overlooked the fact that cable supplies broadband to more than 50% of those who have broadband in the US and will for the next 10 years at least. Yes, but... using the HSI part of the cable to pick and choose what I watch & when - vs - paying for Standard/Digital/HD/Premium... something is going to give!
If TVoIP was to take off, *WE* could cancel Cable TV and just use the cable HSI to get what we want without 30-??? channels we never watch anyways.
I think there are 3-4 programs(not channels) that I actually want to watch.
TV is on for a background drone.
Robot Chicken
Stargate Atlantis
Eureka(if they ever continue it - 2008?) 
AFV
The rest? Meh!
Currently, if I didn't mind waiting until the next day, I can just download the episodes and save myself $55.99 per month.
Use OTA for the Networks and as background noise(FREE!!!).
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
December 2nd, @12:50PM
| They should worry about Net Neutrality Lack of net neutrality will kill TVoIP before it starts.
Telco and cable will just traffic shape it into the ground citing "reasonable network management".
And before the whining shills get all fired up to defend their poor oppressed profit-ridden masters...
CUSTOMERS are already paying for their connection regardless of what is being delivered and ISPs have no business double dipping with bandwidth extortion or giving preferential treatment to their own services while degrading competitors' services. We've already seen this future with Shaw and their $10 "How dare you want someone else's VoIP service" QoS surcharge.
If cable and telcos can't deliver on their advertising promises, that's their problem. They shouldn't promise speeds and services they can't deliver. If it's a matter of usage, then they should define monthly caps like Cox does and then let them battle it out for caps as well as speed in their "bandwidth hog" style counter-advertising campaigns.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! | |
|
| 
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| Re: They should worry about Net Neutrality said by DotMac :If cable and telcos can't deliver on their advertising promises, that's their problem. They shouldn't promise speeds and services they can't deliver. If it's a matter of usage, then they should define monthly caps like Cox does and then let them battle it out for caps as well as speed in their "bandwidth hog" style counter-advertising campaigns. I think the above statement is key and where this will end up. The advertised speeds can be delivered for the majority of the user base today. However, it cannot be delivered under the same cost model with 7x24 high bandwidth services in the future. This is not a net neutrality issue, it is bandwidth economics or "cost neutrality"
The reality is that "flat fee" Broadband ISPs charge based on average usage. If average usage dramatically changes they will have to move to usage based billing to address the cost changes in service delivery. | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: They should worry about Net Neutrality 'However, it cannot be delivered under the same cost model with 7x24 high bandwidth services in the future.'
Don't you dare speak the truth. Everyone knows that 1000 10Mb/s customers can easily draw their full bandwidth of of a 155Mb/s link. | |
|
| | |
DotMac
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
edit:
December 2nd, @10:12PM
| Re: They should worry about Net Neutrality Then instead of lying to customers about traffic shaping and packet forging (among other nonsense), they should clearly state what the limitations on their services are (eg ditch the phantom caps).
No one is expecting an ISP to be a charity...only completely honest and forthcoming in their advertising. Don't promise customers "crazy-fast" speed, then throttle the living crap out of the 'killer apps' like Usenet and P2P that attract those looking for crazy-fast speed.
If ISPs were honest they would say, "crazy-fast" so long as you're only surfing the net and using POP3...otherwise it's "dog-slow". "Download Music and movies, so long as it's from OUR industry partners, otherwise we'll traffic shape your downloads to a grinding halt."
If ISPs had to compete based on their capacity, you would see a lot quicker DOCSIS 3 deployments. But right now some are selling based on speed claims they can't deliver without intensive network "management". | |
|
| | grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| Except when you have things like on demand TV programming peering costs will be almost non existant so they can just offer you a huge download pipe, with local catching to eliminate the bottlenecks of the general internet. There will be no excuse for not offering full download bandwidth. | |
|
| | |
telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | Re: They should worry about Net Neutrality OK.... if you say so. | |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| It'll Start For real time programming, the shift will be slow. Very very slow since the bandwidth to the home is still pretty low. But what will start the shift is the fact that you don't need a lot of bandwidth if you have a lot of time.
I think there will be an emergence of Tivo like boxes that pull content from a variety of sources throughout the day at a rather low speed. When the shows you want show up, you watch them.
AppleTV isn't dead yet, and I think it's the first incarnation of the non-linear viewing of television. | |
|
| UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: It'll Start All the shift that is ever going to take place already has. TVoIP is a niche product at best. There are always some small group of people who are willing to spend money and invest time with products that offer a minimal improvement but the reality is that when you tell people that replacing a shockingly simple concept as turning on a tv and flipping through channels requires software installs, hardware hook ups to their existing TV, leaving their computers running 24/7 to download content from providers that require subscriptions, signups and credit card charges...
You've just lost 97% of current "cable" TV subscribers. | |
|
UncleDirtNap
join:2006-08-26
Pittsburgh, PA
·Verizon FIOS
| TVoIP is a fantasy. Unless there's a dramatic development in the not to distant future TVoIP is never going to materialize.
Until someone figures out a cheap method of getting the content to the 50 inch plasma is a little as two step: 1. turn on TV with remote 2. channel up channel down - no significant number of people are going to be watching TVoIP.
Just because a couple scruffy faced sprout munchers want to spend hundreds of dollars on junk equipment like AppleTV just to be tortured by the sm/bd inspired Itunes software doesn't mean others are going to be willing to jump through those million and one hoops to get less than what they already have.
TVoIP is a pipe-dream. | |
|
|
|
|
|
Should FCC Worry about TVoIP?
·
Even TVoIP while depend on cable companies
