 
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC | Why? Because it just makes too much sense. | |
|
 | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| Re: Why? said by King P  :Because it just makes too much sense. Pretty much. If I could pay ~$50 month for point-and-click TV I'd pay for it. Hell, I'd even be willing to $`-$2 per channel for a stream. So I could just stream Cartoon Network, Sci-Fi, or whatever channels. A-la-cart over the internet would be awesome! It couldn't fully compete with Cable yet because stream, even over a 3M connection wouldn't compare in quality to that with cable. When pipes are fat enough I'd be willing to pay more then $1-$2 per channel. But this all makes too much sense, and if suggested at a meeting someone would say, "Let me just play devil's advocate..." and it would be shot down that fast.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
|
|
| silica
join:2004-05-20
Duluth, GA | Re: It will be a hard sell I agree completely. I have only one program per week that I really want to see. Otherwise, I just want to channel surf to see what's on and stay on what strikes my fancy. | |
|
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be a hard sell What if you could see a breakdown of every program being watched internet wide, it's popularity, a vivid description, and watch a quick preview with a few clicks of a living room keyboard or remote?
There are ways to implement a system like this that I think would appeal to the channel surfer segment. | |
|
| | | older dog
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Norwich, NY | Re: It will be a hard sell I had questions, on how the channel surfer segment would be accommodated.
I also had a concern on how a new show would get noticed.
Your system would work for both of these
Your method would be a step up, from the system we have now. | |
|
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: It will be a hard sell I think to see a real-time view of what everyone else is watching, ranked by popularity, would revolutionize TV (kind of what already exists via Bit Torrent). Users would dictate quality, not marketing departments. | |
|
| | | | | older dog
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Norwich, NY
| Re: It will be a hard sell I have this image of Edith Bunker, asking Archie whats on, since we can get, all the best shows now.
Archie replies: Its all crap, always has been, always will be, dingbat.
This could make enterainment production explode around the world.
I can see where big media has a reason to be scared. | |
|
| | | 
chaser7016
@comcast.net
| Monthly Bandwidth Allotment could be the solution! Consumers pay for X amount of bandwidth per month(various plans would be offerred) and any overage consumer would pay a la cell phone bills.
P2P could become legal n profitable as any n ALL copyrighters would get paid for each download from consumers bills. The net neutrality issue would be null n void, as the ISPs make their dough off consumer monthly bandwidth activities and dont care what IP service run on their network, the more the better! This scheme would create a new and more profitable free market for the US economy and in turn the global economy as other countries follow our lead!
Channel surfing will evolve where it will go from channel to channel to surfing categories that are webpage like with thumbnails that come to life when the remote puts them in focus. Viewer then clicks thumbnail to go full screen.
Could this be the future? | |
|
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: It will be a hard sell quote:
Channel surfing will evolve where it will go from channel to channel to surfing categories that are webpage like with thumbnails that come to life when the remote puts them in focus. Viewer then clicks thumbnail to go full screen.
Could this be the future?
I really think you've nailed it. If the incumbents don't develop this system, someone else will. I know they're terrified of being "dumb pipe" providers and nothing more, and frankly I think they should be. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | 
Kxpuc
join:2004-05-04
Houston, TX | could easly even make promo commericals for shows by genre you can stream, then aftewards, or even below the stream, have links to the shows | |
|
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| point is there should be both honestly, with what people pay nowdays for video/data and phone services you should not only have your normal TV and its channel surfing, but On-Demand and the ability to download the show onto your computer.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |
| | nozzer
join:2004-06-25
Waltham, MA
| Re: It will be a hard sell Hmm - the only reason this model has taken root in the first place is the abundance of commercials (which occupy almost 50% of the time), and the rather hopeless "Nielsen" ratings model which, because it has such a small sample audience (5000), is utterly useless for many of the smaller channels. Despite this, advertisers still use it - so what you see on the smaller channels is now a preponderance of shows designed to catch the surfers, rather than anything of any depth or substance.
I think if something different is offered, many will take it. Look at the success of HBO's shows. In the long term the major networks will be safe, but the small channels that rely on surfers will eventually wither away and die. | |
|
| |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Obvious. No more price bundles Isn't it obvious? | |
|
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Obvious. You'd be surprised. | |
|
malvado6
I pee on Bushes.
join:2003-09-13
00001
| it's the pay to play, stupid If the average cable/satellite subscriber had their monthly bill broken down to the day and that translated into a cost per show , i think most would seriously cut back on their tv viewing (maybe not such a bad idea).
in other words, i'll drop $45/month for cable, but at $1.50 a day, suddenly, $1 for a primetime show or $.25 for an I Love Lucy re-run gets really expensive.
with the average home watching 3-4 hours of tv a day, most would take a bundle, me thinks. | |
|
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: it's the pay to play, stupid Could still be subscription, like Xbox live, where you got unlimited downloads for $X dollars. Programs could be downloaded a la carte, but you still paid a flat fee.
There's a billion ways to price it out that make sense, without paying a buck for some boring FoodTV program. | |
|
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | This would almost literally kill the sports channels since they cost more per subscriber than others. | |
|
| |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: it's the pay to play, stupid I find it hard to believe that ESPN would cease to exist. They've got deep pockets and creative minds, I'm sure they'd soon find profitability by offering individual HD broadcasts of top NFL games for $10 a pop, which millions upon millions of people would pay for....probably with ads included.... | |
|
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: it's the pay to play, stupid I tend to disagree Karl.
ESPN is heavily subsidized by it's packaging with ABC/Disney channels. Hoe many people in New Jersey were complaining about paying for YES (Yankees channel) and losing SciFi to digital because the cable companies wanted to force people into the digital tiers (and get more money.)
Not everyone likes sports and, given the choice, I believe many people would opt out of ESPN if it would save them a few bucks.
As for $10 per HD NFL game, I'll take standard broadcast thank you. No sense in seeing a bad call in HD.   | |
|
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: it's the pay to play, stupid quote:
ESPN is heavily subsidized by it's packaging with ABC/Disney channels. Hoe many people in New Jersey were complaining about paying for YES (Yankees channel) and losing SciFi to digital because the cable companies wanted to force people into the digital tiers (and get more money.)
There are a billion ways to bundle, package and price this kind of system. I doubt they'd completely dissolve, simply because demand remains in place for their content.
The worst case scenario is they have to work harder to make a little profit.
I think this kind of system is inevitable, and if telcos and cable-co's want to stick to the old "300 channels for $70" system, someone else will develop it and drain those customers anyway. | |
|
| | |
| | | disc
join:2005-12-31
Raleigh, NC | Re: it's the pay to play, stupid At the end of the day, it all comes down to two things: advertisers trying to reach eyeballs, and content owners looking for the cheapest distribution channel to those eyeballs. | |
|
jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
| Finally Some companies finally get a clue...
I rarely watch TV, just a few shows.
Quick download and watch on the computer while I work is better than channel surfing and waiting for a good show to come on.
Now if we could just convince them that DRM is bad...
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
eco
Premium
join:2001-11-28
Wilmington, DE
| ... While I certainly am a big user of OnDemand with my cable provider, and will be if and when I switch to FiOS TV, I for one wouldn't like having my only option for television watching be OnDemand. Sometimes you just want to put the TV on and not have to pick and choose everything you watch and let the network run the programming for you. This is especially true when you have some friends over and you like having the TV in the backround. | |
|
bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Everything's Eventual IPTV is just a platform for a huge change in the status quo. Give it time and you'll see it evolve. Analog RF is on the way out. IP based TV is great fr this tye of stuff. | |
|
MudWhistle
join:2003-08-11
Saint Charles, MO
| I'll stick with my rabbit ears I had the full package with charter at one time which was over
100$. I watched about 2-channels regularly (not counting locals) and VOD. Like a previous poster said it was good for HBO original series, and I got into a few of those, but that was all it was good for. The movie library was like a gas station video store with nothing but overplayed or old B movies. How many times can you watch the Lethal Weapon series? I currently have no cable or satellite provider, just dsl and a 5$ phone line. I would be willing to pay for a couple channels if available ala carte via broadband. | |
|
|
|
|
Why IPTV?
·
·
·
·