| |KearnstdSpace ElfPremium
Mullica Hill, NJ
Re: Broadband a utility?
said by IowaCowboy:It would be nice.
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.
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
| 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.
Re: Is 4K going to catch on any better than 3D?
said by zod5000: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.
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.
said by zod5000: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
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.