Mark Cuban: Still Terrified of TV Competition When HD isn't HD, and how HDNet CEO thinks it should be fixed... One gets the feeling that if Dallas Mavericks owner and HDNet CEO Mark Cuban wasn't absolutely terrified of broadband video, he wouldn't be constantly ranting about how broadband video is going to fail. His latest blog entry laments that the high definition video you're getting online from alternative delivery sources (AppleTV, Hulu) usually is far from HD. His solution, is for upstart video delivery operators to partner with existing cable operations, move the video cloud to the node and encode and insert into the traditional video distribution systems. Rather than Hulu sending its video directly across the net to your PC, and let the end user figure out how to watch and distribute from there, it should send it to a box hosted by your cable/telco and possibly even satellite provider, which then transcodes the video and places it on the existing TV distribution system and sends it across a channel branded with your name and the name of the file to your TV. Cuban goes on to suggest that cable operators should then store all of that content via networked DVRs to eliminate redundant storage. The only problem is, someone in the cable industry should know that efforts to create a networked DVR have already been sued into oblivion by the entertainment industry, which fears a loss of control over their content -- much the same way Cuban fears broadband TV competition.
|
 | | ... ....as cuban tries to fit the right 720p compression rates into broadcast.com | |
|  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
1 edit | It's all a matter of timing and technology Internet video distribution is like hydrogen fuel cell cars; the technology is in place to make it happen, but none of the distribution infrastructure has sufficient scale to support it as a full replacement for existing options. (ie, you can buy a hydrogen car, but good luck trying to find places to fill it)
To say the major video players have something to fear from IP delivered video is misguided and wrong. It won't succeed today because the technology prevents it from scaling cost effectively. Existing options are based on unicast feeds, so bandwidth increases linearly with each viewer. Digital distribution is still more analogous to mailing DVDs than broadcast video when it comes to efficiency. Take a show like Lost that averaged 16 million viewers, it's not realistic to mail 16 million DVDs every week to everyone who wants to see that show. Likewise, it's not realistic to have 16 million downloads of the show every single week as it represents a drastic decrease in efficiency from broadcast video where a single feed is sent out and only those interested tune in. True, options like Switched Digital Video and multicast IP distribution would increase that efficiency, but overall the implementation effort is still on the broadband provider side, and it's ridiculous to invest that kind of effort in a system that would only be a half-ass facsimile of the existing video distribution infrastructure they have in place today.
Where Internet video is successful is in augmenting, not replacing existing distribution methods. | |
|  |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: It's all a matter of timing and technology said by espaeth:Internet video distribution is like hydrogen fuel cell cars; the technology is in place to make it happen, but none of the distribution infrastructure has sufficient scale to support it as a full replacement for existing options. (ie, you can buy a hydrogen car, but good luck trying to find places to fill it) To say the major video players have something to fear from IP delivered video is misguided and wrong. It won't succeed today because the technology prevents it from scaling cost effectively. Existing options are based on unicast feeds, so bandwidth increases linearly with each viewer. Digital distribution is still more analogous to mailing DVDs than broadcast video when it comes to efficiency. Take a show like Lost that averaged 16 million viewers, it's not realistic to mail 16 million DVDs every week to everyone who wants to see that show. Likewise, it's not realistic to have 16 million downloads of the show every single week as it represents a drastic decrease in efficiency from broadcast video where a single feed is sent out and only those interested tune in. True, options like Switched Digital Video and multicast IP distribution would increase that efficiency, but overall the implementation effort is still on the broadband provider side, and it's ridiculous to invest that kind of effort in a system that would only be a half-ass facsimile of the existing video distribution infrastructure they have in place today. Where Internet video is successful is in augmenting, not replacing existing distribution methods. Best explanation in a while on here about why broadband video is not yet going to replace cable TV & Sat TV.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | broadband video however could allow for faster release of lesser edited versions. because the FCC can fine you for saying Ass on the internet.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
4 edits | Paris Hilton wannabe Media-Whore! ...who doesn't deserve 2 seconds of attention.
In case he didn't notice, the biggest players in online video services already have set top boxes. Microsoft has the 360, Apple has ATV, Amazon Unbox via TiVo and Netflix has the Roku. And in terms of Hulu, the buzz is that the Roku may be adding Flash and support for Hulu streaming. No need for a rip-off middle man.
The dumbass should stick with the desperate attempts at attention via limp-wristed TV dance shows and reuns of F-Troop on his dog-shit channels.
Do the world a favor, jerkoff, STFU and set yourself on fire so we can all be rid of your endless anti - 3rd party video idiocy.
All of these sub-par programmers are scared shitless of competition because their channels suck ass and won't last 2 seconds in a truly competitive arena. | |
| |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·SureWest Internet
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Paris Hilton wannabe Media-Whore! said by Dogfather:...who doesn't deserve 2 seconds of attention. In case he didn't notice, the biggest players in online video services already have set top boxes. Microsoft has the 360, Apple has ATV, Amazon Unbox via TiVo and Netflix has the Roku. And in terms of Hulu, the buzz is that the Roku may be adding Flash and support for Hulu streaming. No need for a rip-off middle man. The dumbass should stick with the desperate attempts at attention via limp-wristed TV dance shows and reuns of F-Troop on his dog-shit channels. Do the world a favor, jerkoff, STFU and set yourself on fire so we can all be rid of your endless anti - 3rd party video idiocy. All of these sub-par programmers are scared shitless of competition because their channels suck ass and won't last 2 seconds in a truly competitive arena. I second all of that, all of it! (especially the STFU! part)
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! | |
| | Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
| With online video, my cable subscription is becoming worth less and less. About 90% of the television I watch is available online and in legal form. Cable TV would be worthless if I did not have a MythTV box hooked up to it.
When Uncle Sam mails me my $40 DTV converter box coupon next month, I'm going to see what channels I can get over the air. If it works well then I'll likely drop money on an HDHomeRun box to hook up to MythTV and ditch the cable subscription. I'm tired of paying $600+/yr for a wire that brings in nothing but advertiser supported content. | |
| | | | | Re: Paris Hilton wannabe Media-Whore! said by ElJay 
When Uncle Sam mails me my $40 DTV converter box coupon next month, I'm going to see what channels I can get over the air. If it works well then I'll likely drop money on an HDHomeRun box to hook up to MythTV and ditch the cable subscription. I'm tired of paying $600+/yr for a wire that brings in nothing but advertiser supported content.
[/BQUOTE :good luck with that federally subsidized dtv box and your HDHomeRun. i you want hd ota, you'll need a little more than the $60 cheapo. | |
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Paris Hilton wannabe Media-Whore! OTA works great. In order to get ALL the stations I did invest int a $100 outside antenna. Without it I could only get 12 stations. I have a friend with the HDHomeRun(OTA). I get shows from him that I have missed all the time. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
2 edits | technically speaking is "HD" from Apple or XBL true HD? Well no, but neither is "HD" thru cable or satelite. All HD sources are compressed to some degree. And yes while Apple and XBL "HD" is 720p with 4-6 Mbps birates, and cable/satelite is mostly 720p with some 1080i does have higher bitrates of 16-19 Mbps. That's nothing compared to blu-ray which is 1080p and has a bitrate of 40 Mbps. So perhaps he needs to be careful when making comparisons. | |
| | | | Re: technically speaking or maybe you need to check to see what encoding bit rates are used on Blu Ray Disks. Its no where near the capacity of Blu Ray | |
| | | | I would also suggest you learn that they are constantly changing these things. I know there is a website that keeps track of DirecTV and the bit rate they are sending channels at.
Can't recall what it is but I am sure a google search will produce it. | |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 |  HD =1.5Gigbit/s
| |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: HD =1.5Gigbit/s said by Anonymous_: you need at lest an 2gigabit to get uncompressed HD yeah and....??? Even blu-ray which is the best HD source you're going to find for the home market is only 40 Mbps. | |
| |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 | said by Anonymous_: you need at lest an 2gigabit to get uncompressed HD Yeah...
But, people even today, buy 720 sets and think they are getting HDTVs.
Technically, they are classified as HDTVs, but we all still get to see and hear they proclaim that upscaled DVDs look as good as Blu-ray.
Sure! Dumb down any source and it will look - less great.
Currently, the very best we consumers can get in the way of HD source material is Blu-ray @ 40mbps. Period.
Mark Cuban is a whiner.
His Shit-For-Programming is just plain gay. 
He needs to step up or shut up!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
3 edits | Re: HD =1.5Gigbit/s well they do an shitty job when encodeing it
i rented Meet the Spartans 2008 on blu-ray
50% of the movie had poor Picture Quality
fadeing in and out with white snow
btw it was visable from 6 to 7 feet away | |
| | | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | Re: HD =1.5Gigbit/s So, because one/ a few BDs are bad, or one scene on a BD looks like ass, they all do? 
Try I, Robot or Crank, maybe Live Free or Die Hard.
Get some Disney BDs or PIXAR Discs.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
 ·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | Re: HD =1.5Gigbit/s said by dadkins:So, because one/ a few BDs are bad, or one scene on a BD looks like ass, they all do? Try I, Robot or Crank, maybe Live Free or Die Hard. Get some Disney BDs or PIXAR Discs. i think it maybe the Pixel Perfect HD chip making it look bad(confirmed to have 4 HDMI ports)
philips
mest up on the specs too make it look like an low end tv
but many site are reporting that it is an
120Hz panels
Perfect Pixel HD image processing engine (for 1080P)
Four HDMI inputs with CEC support for automatic input switching
there site
60Hz panels
Philips Pixel Plus HD(v1 to 3) (Was made for SD/720)image processing engine
three HDMI inputs
| |
|
| | | |
| | | | It's gay? What are you, 12?
720P has a lot less to do with it than the quality of the set. I have one 720P LCD that shows a significant difference between upconverted DVDs from an Toshiba A20 and HD-DVDs or Blurays. | |
| | | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | Re: HD =1.5Gigbit/s said by CCNnorthcali:It's gay? What are you, 12? 720P has a lot less to do with it than the quality of the set. I have one 720P LCD that shows a significant difference between upconverted DVDs from an Toshiba A20 and HD-DVDs or Blurays. Some people have stated that *THEY* could not see a difference between upconverted DVD and Blu-ray.
When *THEY* stated that their set was 720p, there was the underlying problem.
I can shrink down a BD playback to 720. The PQ is not all that more noticable than a good upconverted DVD.
It's when they are both displayed at 1920x1080p is when you see a night vs day difference - this is assuming that the display has been setup properly, of course.
Age has nothing to do with it pal!
Cuban's POS programming *IS* gay! It looks like crap!
BTW, I'm 46 if you really must know.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: HD =1.5Gigbit/s said by dadkins:said by CCNnorthcali:It's gay? What are you, 12? 720P has a lot less to do with it than the quality of the set. I have one 720P LCD that shows a significant difference between upconverted DVDs from an Toshiba A20 and HD-DVDs or Blurays. Some people have stated that *THEY* could not see a difference between upconverted DVD and Blu-ray. When *THEY* stated that their set was 720p, there was the underlying problem. Thats because both were in effect 720P to them. to see where blu ray shines, put a blu ray and upconverted DVD on 1080P capable sets with a movie that has a fireball explosion scene, the blu will be smooth and the upconvert will be blocky/glitchy looking.
-
46 huh. 60 is the new 40 so you got a few good years left in you yet 
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Trying to decide.....
Dung Beetle | 
Donkey Dung Sea Cucumber |
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
|
approval from:
Romney2012
| Broadband TV will not erase the role of network operators It cracks me up to see how much anger Cuban inspires. In any case, the model he proposes is not unlike what the CDNs are doing - bringing content to the node and creating a form of cloud computing. (though not at the set-top) He's also absolutely right about the fact that the Internet isn't built for TV delivery. You need a managed network, not the free and clear Internet. There will always be a service provider involved, though, as someone pointed out above, non-managed Web video can continue to augment traditional TV delivery. | |
|  v35_pilotWhoops, there goes another AMUPremium
join:2005-12-12
Fayetteville, NY | Scary Eyes (o) (o) For some reason I always thought that Cuban had scary eyes. | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Scary Eyes (o) (o) said by v35_pilot:For some reason I always thought that Cuban had scary eyes. (o)(o)
These don't remind me of eyes. Something else but not eyes. | |
|
 DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC
·Suddenlink
| The average viewer just want to turn on their TV and use 1 remote. Who wants to watch TV on their computer or wire their house or set up a wireless network just to watch Lost? The internet is not the answer to everything.
Convenience is everything.
--
KEN LEEEEEEE... tulibu dibu douchoo! | |
| | | | Re: The average viewer just want to turn on their TV Speed brings convenience. And it is only a matter of time until services like hulu makes their own app or integrates into media center to be a full screen on demand service that looks just like your cable company's. If all these services integrate into media center, you could have one interface to access them all. | |
|
deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA | Hehe... Sometimes his rants are kind of funny - this is one of those times.
Just because he says it doesn't make it true. I feel bad for him in a way, because he wants so bad to believe he is right about this.
Time's are a changing, he better start recognizing this soon or he risks being left behind. | |
| | | This forum cracks me up Im full of shit, I have crazy eyes, I need to STFU, HDNet is gay. Way to state your case folks. The intelligence level on this site is astounding.
As to the actual article, let me respond by writing:
1. Nothing that happens on broadband video has anything to do with the programming or carriage of HDNet. Nothing. If anything, the only impact on decisions regarding HDNet involve whether or not we would choose to deliver our content via the net. We have chosen not to. Why ? Because there is no way to assure that viewers can get a quality signal, which is important to us ,and we dont want to compete with our customers, the distributors.
2. The link to my "constantly ranting" is 2 years old. In those 2 years, what has changed ? Nothing. You still cant deliver video reliably over broadband to consumers and there still is not a show that has become a mainstream "hit" over broadband. Anyone with any level of success does all they can to get their show off the net and onto traditional distribution.
3. As far as Network DVRs, a lot has changed in the last year, since the TWC and Cablevisions issues. Stay tuned.
4. We have been arguing about what can and will happen over the net for what, 4 years now ? The bottom line is that network engineers strive for 5 9s for the reliability of their video product. For their internet product they are trying to pull off heavy users just so they can deliver video bits without timing out. In a nation that is freaking out about losing their ability to receive TV with an antenna , you still think video over an open internet is going to be acceptable to the majority of the 108 or so TV viewing homes ?
I dont fear broadband TV competition. I LOVE IT. The more people upload and consume video on the net, the more bandwidth that distributors will have to assign to it, and the less bandwidth that will be available for linear HD channels over distributors. Thats good for HDNet.
Here is what I dont understand about all the rants you throw out on this site. bits are bits, right ? So if you have a digital video product, would you rather delivery that product on a network that is exclusively designed to deliver video with the highest possible quality (recognizing that encoding quality is a give on the part of content providers ), with engineers and network management tools applied 24x7x365 specifically to make sure that the goal of 5 nines is met ? Or would you rather put your video bits (content) on a network where delivery is best efforts ?
If your goal for your content is to reach as many viewers as possible, would you rather put your content on a network that is exclusively unicast, or one that is multicast or broadcast or a combination of the two ?
Its an easy choice for me. Given that choice, I look to see what can be done to enable those who dont understand that an open internet cant and wont deliver the quality of a network designed to deliver video and on this blog post presented some ideas to integrate internet video to the better network | |
| | | | Re: This forum cracks me up and let me apologize for the typos and such. its 108mm homes,etc. DIdnt get the chance to preview before i posted
And one last thing, if you are going to call HDNet or me gay, please always add "not that there is anything wrong with that".
m | |
| | | dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
2 edits | Re: This forum cracks me up Mr Anon Mark Cuban,
If the shoe fits, wear it!
I can download HD that will obliterate anything you have ever dreamed of sending across your pathetic excuse of a network.
My connection is rock steady - ask anyone here!
At my current sustained speeds, I can receive 17.3mbps.
Do tell, what is the bitrate of your greatest offering? 
There are people here, friends of mine, that can download several times the bitrate/bandwidth of anything you are producing.
So, if you were to put your money where your mouth is, you could be making even MORE money.
Hell! Even *I* might pay for a REAL HD show or three from you - that is if you offered semi-decent programming at a seriously higher bitrate than what you are shoveling at people and saying is great.
Why not look ahead? Be an innovator.
You keep lamenting about how HD on the net is not HD.
Well, neither is what you got pal!
EDIT: BTW, there is spell check here... even for anons. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| | | I'm confused. You say the internet can't deliver quality programming? how is that? I mean, look at it this way, a 40 minute HD tv show (compressed) is about 1.2 GB. Assuming I download at a sedate 15mb/sec (I actually go at 30mb/sec) it will take me about 10 minutes to download the entire show. AND, I can watch it whenever I want to, wherever I want to, on any device I want to, and I can burn it to DVD if I want to. AND IT LOOKS GREAT on my 780p HDTV. For all these features, I pay about $900.00 a year.
Now, if your so called HDNet can provide me with the same, or a better product, at a lower price, with all the features and rights I currently have, then by all means, I'll sign up. Don't give me that streaming crap. I do not, and will not EVER watch commercials. Thus, it will ALWAYS have to come to a computer/DVR, NOT directly to the screen. I don't watch live TV, except for sporting events. So, charge me $600.00 per year. Give me access to every tv show I want. Give me the ability to download and store them whenever I want. THEN, and only then, will I ever consider your plan. As it is, I get everything I want ALREADY. It doesn't sound like what you are planning will have anything close to the flexibility or benefits I ALREADY GET FROM THE INTERNET.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | Re: This forum cracks me up said by karlmarx:I'm confused. You say the internet can't deliver quality programming? how is that? I mean, look at it this way, a 40 minute HD tv show (compressed) is about 1.2 GB. Assuming I download at a sedate 15mb/sec (I actually go at 30mb/sec) it will take me about 10 minutes to download the entire show. AND, I can watch it whenever I want to, wherever I want to, on any device I want to, and I can burn it to DVD if I want to. AND IT LOOKS GREAT on my 780p HDTV. For all these features, I pay about $900.00 a year. No - he is saying that the internet can't deliver quality video to very many people. As long as only the slashdot crowd is getting "TV" over the internet, the ISPs can suck it up and deliver, (but not without whining).
If you do the math, the "tubes" aren't big enough and there isn't a business case for cable and the telcos to make it big enough. It just appears bigger than it actually is because most of the time most users aren't actually using it. It can't scale big enough replace cable TV delivery for everybody, even if we each only watched one or two shows.
Doc | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
1 edit | Edited--- see below. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Just allow competition. If your product is superior in every way, you'll come out a winner. If it's not, stop trying to legislate the competition out of existence. | |
|
| | You can use compression. Yes current services are not true HD, but it is possible to offer true HD today. A 10mbit connection can download 4.5gbs in just over an hour and a 4.5gb 720p x264 HD movies you can download from certain sites looks like HD on a 37in screen. Just because you compress it does not mean it's not HD. | |
|  PetDudePremium,ExMod 2001-10
join:2001-02-20
Annapolis, MD
3 edits | Mark is an Annapolis Boy? mark cuban
@arinc.net
Mark Cuban works at Arinc? Dude, after work stop by and we'll split a six pack.
--
Free your mind and your ass will follow | |
| | | Mark Cuban should stick to dancing! Mark should soend more time learning to dance and LESS time commisserating about broadband! | |
| | TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | I have an Idea for a Cuban movie How about "The March of The Dung Beetles". An epic story of Dung beetles and their struggle to roll balls of poo across the African veld.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
|
| |
|
|
