dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Wednesday Evening Links
by Revcb 07:39PM Wednesday Jan 09 2013

view:
topics flat nest 

NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

US Patent Office...

made its own bed. Now we all have to sleep in it--nightmares included.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"

Dominokat
"Hi"
Premium
join:2002-08-06
Boothbay, ME
kudos:2

Broadband a utility?

It pretty much already is, although not "technically" defined as such.
I'm pretty sure the cable/telco lobbyists don't want it defined as such. That would mean being regulated, and having to prove their usage meters work properly.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Re: Broadband a utility?

Hopefully they'll break up the broadband monopolies like they broke up the telephone monopoly. Hopefully it won't take 83 years like Bell System.

It would be nice if they would separate content from distribution. And only allow broadband providers control up to the demarc.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Broadband a utility?

said by IowaCowboy:

Hopefully they'll break up the broadband monopolies like they broke up the telephone monopoly. Hopefully it won't take 83 years like Bell System.

It would be nice if they would separate content from distribution. And only allow broadband providers control up to the demarc.

It would be nice.

I was watching history channel and at one point the studios owned the theaters. The government stepped in and broke that up.

Now its almost as if we have come full circle with the FTC allowing Comcast to own NBC/Universal.

breaking content from distro would also end these stupid carry disputes like Cablevision not wanting to even talk to Verizon about carriage of the MSG sports networks.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 edit
I agree it is a utility but I disagree with the article that only a select few have it. From a geographic perspective, it's true that there are a many large rural areas that are not served well or at all. However, from a population percentage, most of us (I'd think well over 90%) have access to high speed Internet. Of course if we talk about competitive access to the Internet, that number is much, much lower but I also don't have a choice in electric, water, sewer or gas providers either.

Perhaps it's time for a hybrid approach. By that I mean socializing the last mile with fiber. (I'm still torn with how to bring that to rural areas where we might be spending a lot of money running a 10 mile fiber optic run to a single customer but that's a different discussion). If we all had fiber to our homes that terminated in regional "central office" locations, then multiple providers could compete for access to their respective backbones.

The problem is what do we do with FIOS and all the cable company coax? There's no need for them to have this infrastructure. Perhaps FIOS can be socialized with appropriate compensation to Verizon but the cable plant is a different story. We don't really want it unless it's fiber.

Complex for sure but until/unless new wireless technology renders consumer-grade, last-mile access obsolete, it sure seems inefficient and in the long run much more expensive (a bill the public end up funding one way or the other) for multiple carriers to eventually duplicate fiber to the home.

Regarding meters, I think they will eventually go away because they cannot be justified. Eventually bandwidth capacity will make it a non-event to watch a dozen video streams in every home. When we get there, the meter won't matter, will it?

Of course this assumes we won't come up with something new that requires 1Gpbs (some 3D, virtual reality, MMO "holodeck" experience) and we all suddenly crave 100Gpbs in our homes. However, given today's needs, if every home had Google Fiber and its 1Gbps speed (or even Verizon's hints at 1Gbps FIOS), a very large family would never, ever come close to stressing such a connection regardless of what they do.
zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw

Is 4K going to catch on any better than 3D?

I was all over HD when it came out because SD looks horrible on bigger TV's.

The article states the 3D is pretty much a niche product and not being focused on very much and now the push is to 4k (ultra hd).

How often to TV makers expect people to replace their TV's? Color SD TV's reigned supreme for the 70s to the early 00s. Often replaced only upon death or a significant size upgrade.

I'm not sure 4k will be any more successfull. There's not too much content. It only benefits really big TV's. Even at 70" the quality gain over 1080p is minimal.

Unless people dedicate a whole wall in their living rooms I think 4k will be a niche product too?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Is 4K going to catch on any better than 3D?

said by zod5000:

How often to TV makers expect people to replace their TV's? Color SD TV's reigned supreme for the 70s to the early 00s. Often replaced only upon death or a significant size upgrade.

Today's LED/LCD displays have a much shorter life expectancy than yesterday's CRTs. So, I'm sure manufacturers are hoping for a ~5-7 year replacement cycle.
said by zod5000:

I'm not sure 4k will be any more successfull. There's not too much content. It only benefits really big TV's. Even at 70" the quality gain over 1080p is minimal.

Just like HD, a majority of the 4k content will come after a huge marketing push and consumers starts purchasing the equipment. And yes, 4k will be overkill for most consumers, but never underestimate the marketing power of determined companies
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Is 4K going to catch on any better than 3D?

4k is pretty awesome but yea at the typical home screen size which I am guessing is 40-50" in the average home, I doubt someone can tell 4k from say the original Blu-Ray release of Avatar which was effectively as uncompressed as possible on BDROM.

I do not think until you break 80" one will be able to tell 4k from 1080p.

However you are very right about marketing. "UltraHD" will have sets flying off the amazon loading docks.(I would say out the doors but by the time 4k is affordable, Best Buy will likely be gone.)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

elios

join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO
gaming will be there real driver of 4K as said for live action stuff 1080p looks fine 99% of the time but for gaming PC or console 4K means needing less AA to make things look good

jimk
Premium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
Content will be a big issue for 4K Ultra HD. Cable and Satellite have had enough trouble delivering standard HD resolutions, and the current codecs they are using aren't capable of pushing even higher resolutions with a reasonable amount of bandwidth. They already have HD so compressed in many situations that any motion at all causes noticeable pixelation, especially if you are too close to the TV.

Newer codecs will help, but the bandwidth requirements will still be very high. Also, this will require infrastructure upgrades which takes time and money, and will increase service costs even more during a time where people are dropping pay TV service.

People are moving away from physical media distribution, and aren't likely to give up on the convenience of streaming for a better picture when what they have now is good enough.

Streaming will also be an issue for many people for obvious reasons. Streaming this content would destroy any capped Internet plans, and a huge number of connections aren't fast enough even with some of the most aggressive compression.