 Antonlm
join:2004-09-15
Birmingham, AL
1 edit | I noticed the Xbox 360. All it needs is a Blu Ray add-on. And it would be the ultimate. everything in one package. | |
|
 | mjmellin
join:2005-06-24
Englishtown, NJ | Re: I noticed the Xbox 360. You should try the PS3 with TVersity software on your PC this setup rocks.
»www.tversity.com | |
|
| | |
| 
RRODfanboy
@optonline.net | Till it melts down at rrod's
I had 4 die on me.. 3 in one year..
I would rather get the ps3 since it already has blu-ray. | |
|
| | RoadRunner79
join:2008-01-19
San Antonio, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I noticed the Xbox 360. said by RRODfanboy :
Till it melts down at rrod's
I had 4 die on me.. 3 in one year..
I would rather get the ps3 since it already has blu-ray.
Don't stand it up and choke the biggest area it has to take in cool air and netflix on the 360 coupled with the two disc package I have with them is perfect. | |
|
|
JasonOD
@comcast.net
| Sony will never, ever, license blu-ray to Microsoft.
Content providers need to find some way to keep it off the big screen (like Hulu is attempting to do with their desktop app). Too much ad revenue is lost when it's shown on peoples living room sets, plus it's killing ISP's who have to keep up with the demand. | |
|
| | sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
| Re: I noticed the Xbox 360. Blu Ray doesn't belong to Sony. They're only a part of the large group of companies that helped to develop it. If Microsoft wanted to they could easily employ a Blu-Ray drive into their current or next console. It's just that every Blu-Ray disc sold would provide Sony with royalties. | |
|
| | RoadRunner79
join:2008-01-19
San Antonio, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| killing ISP's? whatever... those 2.9B is leaving a empty space in their wallets so they are trying to hold onto as much as they can with caps. They can even afford to upgrade services now but they know that if they make the internet better people will turn away from there weak television line ups. | |
|
| | TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
 ·TELUS
| said by JasonOD :
Content providers need to find some way to keep it off the big screen (like Hulu is attempting to do with their desktop app). Too much ad revenue is lost when it's shown on peoples living room sets, plus it's killing ISP's who have to keep up with the demand.
Two things:
1) They can take their ads and shove them up their **** for all I care. TV is much better without ads. Time to find alternative sources of revenue.
2) Killing ISPs? It's their own fault if their networks aren't fast enough to handle the demand when customers start to actually use what they paid for. Not like the big players don't have enough money to upgrade their networks anyways. So what if their CEOs can't take home the usua $20M or whatever. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX
| Re: I noticed the Xbox 360. I do build networks for a living and I agree with TheMG's statement to a certain extent. There is a lot of money being taken away from network upgrade budgets in the industry just to pay executive salaries and other non-network related expenses.
You are naive if you don't think this is occurring at a lot of companies. It may not be as cut and dry as TheMG is painting it out to be, but it IS happening.
I need 10Gig switches desperately for a very important network I am building right now and our budget is tapped even though we have not spent anything out of the budget yet this year. Our budget bucket was not refilled this year yet our CEO just got a $41 Million dollar bonus.
Hmmmmmm...... I wonder where the money went... | |
|
| |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| Synopsis is wrong quote:
broadband-connected video game consoles remain the dominant way users video Internet video...
First of "video Internet video" is wrong. Even if it said "view Internet video" it would still be wrong since the article is excluding viewing Internet video on a PC that's not connected to a TV
Change it to "view Internet video on TV" and then it will be correct.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
| 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Re: Synopsis is wrong The game console is a basically a computer, and the TV is just a specialized (or perhaps not so specialized) monitor. It seems kind of gray to me.  | |
|
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
 ·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap Plain and simple. That $2.9B was cable and telco money and they want it back rather that see even more of it go to competitors.
So their solution to steal back that $2.9B is to abuse their market position to employ unjustifiable caps that will price competing video services out of the market.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
| 
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap bingo. they can read the writing on the walls. | |
|
| |
| |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap It is not more expensive. It does not cost any more to deliver 1GB of video vs 1GB of anything else. And as proved by Bell Canada there is no bandwidth crunch, nothing even remotely close. That was a lie.
These telcos and cable operators simply want to abuse their market position to maintain their monopoly on PPV content, plain and simple. And as innovators continue to increase their marketshare, these cable and telcos will become even more draconian in their efforts to steal that money back.
In the rare event that they have last mile capacity issues, let them take a small portion of the billions in yearly profit and improve their service instead of charging customers ever higher subscriber rates and then bitching like school girls when those customers actually use the service.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
| | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
3 edits | Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap said by Bit  :It is not more expensive. It does not cost any more to deliver 1GB of video vs 1GB of anything else. And as proved by Bell Canada there is no bandwidth crunch, nothing even remotely close. That was a lie. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying IP transport is more expensive than QAM broadcast; they are completely different distribution methodologies. For content delivered via Hulu, for each video feed there is a linear increase in the required bandwidth. If there are 10 viewers, it will drive 10x the bandwidth of 1 viewer. For QAM video delivery, the distribution of a single feed of the content will service hundreds / thousands of homes watching in real time. As the number of viewers grows, the efficiency goes up, not down.
Edit: Anyone who looked at the ATM Cell loss data from Bell's report and didn't see any issue clearly has never operated any kind of reasonable scale network... or if they did, I feel horribly sorry for their poor clients. I can drive my car on the rims if I happen to blow all the tires out -- that doesn't mean it's not a problem.
said by Bit :These telcos and cable operators simply want to abuse their market position to maintain their monopoly on PPV content, plain and simple. And as innovators continue to increase their marketshare, these cable and telcos will become even more draconian in their efforts to steal that money back. The price of transport is baked into the price of PPV from the MSOs. Anyway, PPV content is a minority share in overall TV viewing -- the caps of just about every ISP can easily accommodate average usage. I'm not talking about corner cases of full-on TV replacement -- I'm talking specifically changing from cable/satellite PPV and DVD video rental to on-line sources. (ie, sane uses of IP video)
said by Bit :In the rare event that they have last mile capacity issues, let them take a small portion of the billions in yearly profit and improve their service instead of charging customers ever higher subscriber rates and then bitching like school girls when those customers actually use the service. In the case of MSOs they are rolling DOCSIS 3.0. Once they're out of capacity there, they are stuck until Cablelabs gets around to figuring out how to do DOCSIS 4.0.
Don't get me wrong, IP video is cool, but you have to temper your view of what it will become with the limitations of reality. Doing really expensive upgrades well in advance of capacity demand is a recipe of disaster. People are quick to forget that one of the largest bankruptcies prior to the recent economic troubles was that of GlobalCrossing, who through a combination of massive fiber overexpansion and mismanagement drove the company into the ground. Part of the reason we have capacity so cheap today is that companies bought infrastructure for pennies on the dollar after the bankruptcy, and the stock owners basically ate the loss.
Watching the lust on these forums over IP video is a bit like watching investors go insane during the dot com boom. It's amazing to watch otherwise intelligent people ignore glaring issues like non-existent long-term business models and scaling issues and somehow think the Internet will make everything magically work. IP video has a great place as an augmentation technology, serving as another method in addition to traditional PPV and video rental, to get some on-demand content to homes. When it comes to delivering entire channel's worth of content (ie, Discovery, HGTV, NBC, ABC, etc) full time the cost model turns upside down very early in the adoption curve. | |
|
| | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
| Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap DOCSIS 3 does not add capacity, it only allows them to bond 2 existing channels for an existing customer. Only them dedicating additional DOCSIS channels to HSI will add capacity in the last mile.
Customers are already paying for their HSI connectivity and it is not the concern of the ISP what constitutes customer traffic.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
| | | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap said by Bit :DOCSIS 3 does not add capacity, it only allows them to bond 2 existing channels for an existing customer. Only them dedicating additional DOCSIS channels to HSI will add capacity in the last mile. But DOCSIS 3.0 will only let you bond channels to a point. They've only worked out schemes to do packet distribution and reassembly across 8 channels maximum so far. To go beyond that is still going to require further hardware development to get a packet scheduler that is able to effectively balance across more channels while not exhausting the CPE device's ability to buffer the packets and output them in sequence on the end-user facing Ethernet interface.
said by Bit :Customers are already paying for their HSI connectivity and it is not the concern of the ISP what constitutes customer traffic. Again, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Subscribers are paying for broadband in the same way that people pay for an all-you-can-eat buffet. You pay your money with the theory of getting as much as you want, but there are restrictions. You can't, for example load out plates of food and simply go throw them away. Likewise, you can't go up to a buffet and box up all the food and leave the restaurant. They sell it as an "unlimited" amount of food, but they have restrictions in both their take-out policies and the capabilities of what humans can consume.
Broadband providers have already determined the amount of bandwidth they really want to sell you when they set their price. With how the market pricing is structured right now, there's no real incentive for them to expand capacity any more than what they need to in order to maintain their customer base.
Say what you will about how things work, but that's reality. | |
|
| | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
2 edits | Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap The growth is manageable. The money is there to keep pace with the increasing demand. These guys just want more, unjustifiably more. If they were concerned about bandwidth, they would ditch their filler channels and give more channels to HSI. But alas, they aren't. These providers were not concerned with caps much at all (particularly TWC and AT&T) until their PPV video revenues are threatened.
This has nothing to do with traffic, as we saw with Bell Canada who made the same "end is nigh" claims. In fact we have been hearing the end is coming for years now »/nsearch?q=apo···87127192
And it has been covered here every time the cable and telcos try to put customers over a barrel »Cable: Let Us Experiment With Pricing Or The Internet Explodes
For years now these ISPs have looked for ways to double dip, even going as far as running bogus anti-net neutrality ads on their cablesystems.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPIYxtjLFeI
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
| | | | | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap said by Bit :The growth is manageable. The money is there to keep pace with the increasing demand. These guys just want more, unjustifiably more. Let's be realistic here -- their profits are increasing with the number of subscribers. There is another news article on the front page yet again today that shows that even in the down economy the number of subscribers continues to climb. The reason that profitability climbs with growth in subscribers is that the vast majority of subs don't use anywhere near the cap in terms of bandwidth.
said by Bit :If they were concerned about bandwidth, they would ditch their filler channels and give more channels to HSI. But alas, they aren't. Some of those "filler" channels are profit generating (ie, shopping channels) and other can't be removed because of the way that media companies like Viacom and Disney package their channels. You want ESPN? You need to carry 8 other Disney channels. You want Comedy Central? Well, you have to take LOGO and Smithsonian and other smaller audience channels so that they can maximize their advertising revenue.
said by Bit :These providers were not concerned with caps much at all (particularly TWC and AT&T) until their PPV video revenues are threatened. For as long as there have been "unlimited" Internet connections, there has been usage-related conflict. Everybody seems to forget about the golden days of dial-up where providers disconnected sessions after x minutes and would lock you out if you were accused of "line camping," or all of the LECs that were petitioning congress to allow them to implement different billing methods for flat-rate phone lines.
said by Bit :This has nothing to do with traffic, as we saw with Bell Canada who made the same "end is nigh" claims. In fact we have been hearing the end is coming for years now » /nsearch?q=apo···87127192 These stories are intentionally sensationalistic. It keeps you coming back here and reading the articles, doesn't it? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
·VOIPo
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap There is no justification for the caps. When the providers are forced to disclose their reasoning (like Bell Canada) they are proved to be full of crap.
Filler channels: Exactly, they are whores putting up channels that make them money (passing on those fees to the subscribers) whether ratings justify their existence or not. They could say no to TVG, Versus, TVGuide Channel, Fit TV, Eternal Word TV, BYU TV, and all the home shopping garbage but they don't. Evidently, bandwidth is not an issue.
This has nothing to do with bandwidth and everything to do with PPV revenue protection.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap said by Bit :There is no justification for the caps. When the providers are forced to disclose their reasoning (like Bell Canada) they are proved to be full of crap. According to people who have never built or operated a network of any appreciable capacity. Forgive me if I limit the credence I give to armchair quarterbacking.
said by Bit :Filler channels: Exactly, they are whores putting up channels that make them money (passing on those fees to the subscribers) whether ratings justify their existence or not. Let's clarify who "they" is in that context. The Cable/Satellite companies buy content from media companies like Disney and Viacom, and sell the content to subscribers. It's the media companies who strongarm what must be included because they want a wider package of channels in their broadcast portfolio when they negotiate with advertisers. (more channels = more eyeballs = more ad revenue to the media company)
said by Bit :They could say no to TVG, Versus, TVGuide Channel, Fit TV, Eternal Word TV, BYU TV, and all the home shopping garbage but they don't. Evidently, bandwidth is not an issue. It is and it isn't. Even if they could reclaim all those channels, there isn't a way for them to use all of that channel capacity for DOCSIS data using hardware available today.
said by Bit :This has nothing to do with bandwidth and everything to do with PPV revenue protection. Only if you delude yourself into thinking that this, unlike everything else in life, is a simple 2-dimensional issue. There are more factors in play here than just video. (I'm not saying that's not one of the factors, but there are a vast many more that rank much higher) | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Re: And this is why cable and telcos are moving quickly to cap If you are going to dismiss Bell Canada's own data this conversation is over. There is no point talking to someone who is going to ignore reality.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
|
chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23 | thats right they dontwant YOU having a computer they want control.
They want you ONLY to have what they give.
no more doing what you want.
buy this great product now ONLY 1999999.99 at walmart. Oh and EULA, means you dont even really own it too. | |
|
Duramax08
Oh rly?
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | Not getting none of my money because im still using dial up 
--
OM NOM NOM | |
|
|
tmh
@qwest.net
| Re: Not getting none of my money said by Duramax08 :because im still using dial up Must have taken you most of the morning to get this far in the article. | |
|
| |
Duramax08
Oh rly?
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | Re: Not getting none of my money i posted that at work so is all good. also pages like these load fast in like 5-10 seconds. lets not get started about youtube videos.......... damn you att and time warner!!!!!!!!!!!
--
OM NOM NOM | |
|
Lee GWB
Yaco
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Now not later ;) "While Cable operators aren't really sweating online video yet, increased deployment of next-gen broadband speeds and simpler home networked media devices should change that in time."
I think it is now. We have heard the whining for the last few years from the Anti Net Neutrality people. Cable networks even with DOCIS 3.0 will have issues.
I see tremendous growth in the next 12 months. Much less than the article states.
Just my .02 cents | |
|
| RoadRunner79
join:2008-01-19
San Antonio, TX | Re: Now not later ;) If I could only have all the kid shows my boys watch online the TV service part of my bundle would be done with. | |
|
MIRV
join:2000-12-01
Louisville, KY | Is there a new internet video revolution? Because I've been watching video on PC's for almost 10 years now. | |
|
| 
Laughing Man
Stand Alone Complex
Premium
join:2008-03-17
Louisville, KY
clubs:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Is there a new internet video revolution? I've been able to get every show I used watch on tv now online for the past year now. I wouldn't say revolution just yet, I only switched from OTA to online video. IMO many broadband users will switch to internet only service when their favorite shows become available online.
But 10 years though? Nice. | |
|
| |
| | 
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| Re: Is there a new internet video revolution? said by C0deZer0 :said by MIRV :Because I've been watching video on PC's for almost 10 years now. Internet video 10 years ago was an awful stutter show of crap. Now it's actually worth watching.  Actually, if anyone remembers the site icravetv.com, about ten years ago they used to stream live OTA TV out of Canada before the powers that be shut them down. Through Windows Media the broadcast was nearly flawless. Worked out perfectly in the on-campus computer lab. Off-campus, not so much.
--
"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand."
--L. van Pelt | |
|
emesv26
join:2009-06-15 | request please i want to know those who know about internal business to info me | |
|
|
|
|
Game Consoles Lead The Internet Video Revolution
(*_*)
·