930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: kosmo vinyl on January 05, 2006, 10:41:00 am
-
Am considering switching from Earthlink to Verizon for the lower price and an upgrade to FIOS when they get around to adding it for us less well heeled customers in PG county. But I see nothing but horror stores about it and was wondering if it really is all that bad or whether people just like to complain..
-
judging from my neighbors its pretty bad.....we use RCN
-
Mine is great. It did take a long time to get it set up, but snce then it has been flawless.
-
I've got Fios....it was sort of a nightmare at setup...typical administrative foul-up type stuff with Verizon which resulted in some downtime. Actually though the problem was possibly due to confusion caused by my wife and I both calling them during the order process.
Since then though it's been totally solid and I don't remember one outage in the last 8 months or so (since the intitial hassles). I work from home so I'm on it all day so I'd notice if it was dropping on me.
Plus it is super fast.....I get about 4.7 mb down and 1.5 up.....that's a lot of porno! And still much cheaper than cable....
-
Fine on my end. The set up was no sweat.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
Mine is great.
FiOS or DSL?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
Mine is great.
FiOS or DSL? [/b]
From the title of the topic I thought that was clear......
DSL.
They were useless at setting it up. It took an age then it started to work about a week before they bothered notifying me that it was working.
All the complaints I see for verizon DSL are about set up. When and if you get set up the service seems great.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
From the title of the topic I thought that was clear......
Thanks.
We're doing an independent study here about the penetration of Fiber Optic connections to the home. I was pretty certain that FiOs was not yet available in the District and just wanted to make sure.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
We're doing an independent study here about the penetration of Fiber Optic connections to the home. I was pretty certain that FiOs was not yet available in the District and just wanted to make sure.
What about Portland? And who would provide it? Verizon doesnt recognize my address.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
What about Portland? And who would provide it? Verizon doesnt recognize my address.
You're a Qwest territory. Don't hold your breath for Fiber Optic.
Right now it's only SBC/AT&T and Verizon that are rolling out Fiber Optic to the home, unless you live in a very smart municipality that set up Municipal fiber like Utah and a few others has done because the local phone company is taking it's own sweet time.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
You're a Qwest territory. Don't hold your breath for Fiber Optic.
guess i'll have to stay with comcast :(
-
Yeah, I went through the phone number search and it is "not currently available".
I dont see how it would be much better for me right now....
If T.V. channels started streaming their shows than that would be a different story.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
If T.V. channels started streaming their shows than that would be a different story.
You mean when, not if.
And the only reason why they don't is because there is not market for it due to lack of connection to the home. South Korea, Japan, most of Scandanvia, Singapore etc. already have it...
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
You mean when, not if.
[/b][/QUOTE]
How do you pay for content in those countries?
-
How about FiOS vs. Comcast High Speed?
-
Originally posted by amnesiac:
How about FiOS vs. Comcast High Speed?
Well going by the numbers Chaz listed above I would say FiOS if you can get it. Comcast says I should get up to 6mbps down, but it is normally between 2 and 3. Although I have had no problems with it.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
How do you pay for content in those countries?
It's mostly subscription based, using models like Netflix for movies, and deals with your cable and satellite company for On-demand.
The Netflix example is a good one because the IPTV quality is high def, which you can't get from a current DVD. It's cheaper to operate on the business side, and at 20 Mbps, you can get higher quality video over the Fiber then you can get from the DVD that gets delivered to your door.
The only live TV over IP that is making any money in Korea is from the gaming industry. They watch people play computer and video games like old men spend sundays watching golf - except they watch there broadcasts over the fiber and 7 dasy a week. The rest are currently losing money, as one would expect in the first few years as it starts to take off. However, the on-demand over IP is taking off. Think of it as personal TiVo over the fiber, with no space limitations. These are also subscription based at about $25 a month, set to mirror your cable/satellite plan (in terms of channels offered).
I haven't seen the individual show model (that seems to be taking off here in the states) overseas. It's a lousy idea modeling the iTunes music model, but here's the difference: nobody wants to keep these TV shows forever, so why the 99 cent per episode price tag? It's completely different from music. The subscription fee is the way to go here, but alas, nobody is talking about it.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I haven't seen the individual show model (that seems to be taking off here in the states) overseas. It's a lousy idea modeling the iTunes music model, but here's the difference: nobody wants to keep these TV shows forever, so why the 99 cent per episode price tag? It's completely different from music. The subscription fee is the way to go here, but alas, nobody is talking about it.
Well somebody wants to keep shows forever, or else tv on dvd would not be so popular. But I agree that paying per episode is stupid.
-
I wonder what BBC will eventually do. In the UK you pay a license fee, which is essentilly a subscription payment. It would be great to watch good T.V. again.
-
Originally posted by amnesiac:
How about FiOS vs. Comcast High Speed?
It's not even close. Cable is still shared bandwidth maxing out at 10 Mbps.
Fiber, while currently slowed by the phone companies intentionally, can max out at 1 Gbps. In the labs, we've been able to split one strand on Fiber Cable 40 times (Dense wavedivision Mulitplexing for the geeks out there), so essentially one strand can carry up to 40 Gbps. Cable will never be close to reaching those speeds.
And the more hi-def channels a a cable provider is offering over the co-axial cable, the less internet bandwidth is going to be available for the consumer.
As soon as there's more competition in the market for Fiber, the sooner will be talking about speeds of 20Mbps-50Mbps and nobody will be talking about Cable internet providers, unless you live in rural America and cable is all you can get.
-
I have verizon dsl and, fortunately, had a little (non-verizon) problem with the set-up and have had no problems with the service so far (almost two years) (knock on wood).
FIOS is a different story. Received a note that I was eligible for FIOS, made an appointment, and they never showed. It became an administrative nightmare for a couple weeks until Verizon finally determined that my "multi-unit dwelling" could not accommodate FIOS at this time. This was after two missed appointments for installation and untold hours on the phone working through their customer service reps (and convincing them that I was not a new FIOS customer).
From what I have been told, Verizon usually suffers from total incompetence when they launch a new product. From my experience, I tend to agree.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Well somebody wants to keep shows forever, or else tv on dvd would not be so popular. But I agree that paying per episode is stupid.
Yes, this has always been perplexing to me, but I think that the best selling TV shows on DVD are old series that aren't on any longer and older series of shows that are currently on. Coming in third are shows that aren't on network television (HBO and Showtime, for example). Then the most recent Series of shows that are currently on. 24, oddly, is the exception to this rule, and I admit to renting it, but not buying it.
But let's be clear. iTunes is not selling DVD quality downloads for $1.99. 320?240 is not even close to wide screen.
-
I wager you have had your grubby paws on a simpsons Box-Set, too?
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
I wonder what BBC will eventually do. In the UK you pay a license fee, which is essentilly a subscription payment. It would be great to watch good T.V. again.
Yeah, it's a good point. I admit to having a bleak idea of the license structure that exists in the UK, and I've read that it's the main hinderance of US carriers getting BBC programming. I don't know if this is correct, but I read that BBC World is coming stateside because it's advertisement based, not licensure based, but don't hold your breath for much else. Maybe the internet will be the answer.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
I wager you have had your grubby paws on a simpsons Box-Set, too?
who me? I have 7 of them in fact, but not sure what that has to do with anything
I think paying per episode is a stupid way to watch tv and would never work as the main way to watch tv
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
I wager you have had your grubby paws on a simpsons Box-Set, too?
who me? I have 7 of them in fact, but not sure what that has to do with anything
I think paying per episode is a stupid way to watch tv and would never work as the main way to watch tv [/b]
No! Him.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
No! Him.
our lord and savior?
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
I wager you have had your grubby paws on a simpsons Box-Set, too?
Sorry, can't say that I do.
And why bother? They're constantly on syndication on 15 different channels and with TiVo I can find and record every episode I want to watch.
I burn a lot of TV shows to DVD-RW to share with friends who don't have TiVo, but I erase them when they're done. Only a few things have I ever burned to DVD for permament archive:
- Man U's 1999 Champions League Final
- The Austin City Limits Music Series
- A collection of late night talk show performances by bands that I enjoyed
- A few other live music shows/performances that I enjoyed over the past 2 years
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
No! Him.
our lord and savior? [/b]
No not that him. (http://www.heartagram.com/)
-
Kosmo, sorry your thread was hijacked.
I'm in the concensus. Verizon is fine once you get it installed (expect delays). Make sure you live close enough to the switch (they should be able to tell you), and as soon as FiOS is available jump on it (expect more installation delays). Then enjoy.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
I wager you have had your grubby paws on a simpsons Box-Set, too?
Sorry, can't say that I do.
[/b]
'twas worth a shot. It seems that most American guys in a certain age group have 7 simpsons box sets.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
No not that him. (http://www.heartagram.com/)
thanks, i hope to never hear that music again
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
No not that him. (http://www.heartagram.com/)
thanks, i hope to never hear that music again [/b]
You used to listen to it all the time?
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
'twas worth a shot. It seems that most American guys in a certain age group have 7 simpsons box sets.
bet not, the 7th one just came out, so there
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
I have 7 of them in fact
What was that about then?
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
What was that about then?
hello slow, it just came out, meaning in the last couple of weeks, I have bought it, most have probably not yet
-
Hello'er slower, it was a joker.
Should I explain it some more to make it funnier?
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
Hello'er slower, it was a joker.
Should I explain it some more to make it funnier?
which part, or were they all funny
-
You guys need to start using [funny] tags.
-
<img src="http://www.alexross.com/4F06.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Yay. It's like 1999 in here. :)
-
space: 1999 (http://www.space1999.net/~catacombs/cybermuseum/) ?
-
Google hits high on reports of video service
Google Inc. continued its New Year's stock run-up on Thursday, hitting a new high amid reports that it is about to take on Apple Computer Inc. with an Internet video service.
The Mountain View-based Internet search giant hasn't confirmed the reports that first surfaced in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday.
The Journal and others say Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) will unveil a pay-per-download video service on Friday, to be known as the Google Video Store.
Initial content on the service reportedly will include CBS shows, Sony BMG music videos and content from the National Basketball Association.
The company will also reportedly announce Google Pack, downloadable software from Google and other companies.
The Journal quoted unnamed sources saying the software will include the open-source Firefox Web browser, a version of Norton AntiVirus software from Symantec Corp. (NASDAQ: SYMC), Adobe Systems Inc.'s (NASDAQ: ADBE) Reader software, RealNetworks Inc.'s (NASDAQ: RNWK) RealPlayer multimedia software, Trillian instant-messaging software from Cerulean Studios and Lavasoft AB's Ad-Aware antispyware software.
Google stock finished Thursday up $6, or 1.35 percent, to $451.24.
-
BUSINESS
Mobile TV
A fuzzy picture
Jan 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Mobile TV is coming??but how the market will develop is still unclear
??THIS is a really exciting time??a new era is starting,? says Peter Bazalgette, the chief creative officer of Endemol, the television company behind ??Big Brother? and other popular shows. He is referring to the upsurge of interest in mobile television, a nascent industry at the intersection of telecoms and media which offers new opportunities to device-makers, content producers and mobile-network operators. And he is far from alone in his enthusiasm.
Already, many mobile operators offer a selection of television channels or individual shows, which are ??streamed? across their third-generation (3G) networks. In South Korea, television is also sent to mobile phones via satellite and terrestrial broadcast networks, which is far more efficient than sending video across mobile networks; similar broadcasts will begin in Japan in April. In Europe, the Italian arm of 3, a mobile operator, recently acquired Canale 7, a television channel, with a view to launching mobile-TV broadcasts in Italy in the second half of 2006. Similar mobile-TV networks will also be built in Finland and America, and are being tested in many other countries.
Meanwhile, Apple Computer, which launched a video-capable version of its iPod portable music-player in October, is striking deals with television networks to expand the range of shows that can be purchased for viewing on the device, including ??Lost?, ??Desperate Housewives? and ??Law & Order?. TiVo, maker of the pioneering personal video recorder (PVR), says it plans to enable subscribers to download recorded shows on to iPods and other portable devices for viewing on the move. And mobile TV was one of the big trends at the world's largest technology fair, the Consumer Electronics Show, which took place in Las Vegas this week.
Despite all this activity, however, the prospects for mobile TV are unclear. For a start, nobody really knows if consumers will pay for it, though surveys suggest they like the idea. Informa, a consultancy, says there will be 125m mobile-TV users by 2010. But many other mobile technologies inspired high hopes and then failed to live up to expectations. And even if people do want TV on the move, there is further uncertainty in three areas: technology, business models and the content itself.
Tuning in
At the moment, mobile TV is mostly streamed over 3G networks. But sending an individual data stream to each viewer is inefficient and will be unsustainable in the long run if mobile TV takes off. So the general consensus is that 3G streaming is a prelude to the construction of dedicated mobile-TV broadcast networks, which transmit digital TV signals on entirely different frequencies to those used for voice and data. There are three main standards: DVB-H, favoured in Europe; DMB, which has been adopted in South Korea and Japan; and MediaFLO, which is being rolled out in America. Watching TV using any of these technologies requires a TV-capable handset, of course. Although several new models were unveiled in Las Vegas this week, no such handsets are yet available in Europe or America, and few in Asia.
In contrast, watching downloaded TV programmes on an iPod or other portable video player is already possible today. And unlike a programme streamed over 3G or broadcast via a dedicated mobile-TV network, shows stored on an iPod can be watched on an underground train or in regions with patchy network coverage. That suggests that some shows (such as drama) better suit the download model, while others (such as live news, sports or reality shows) are better suited to real-time transmission, notes Michelle de Lussanet of Forrester, a consultancy. The two approaches will probably co-exist. Future iPods may be able to receive real-time broadcasts, while mobile handsets will be able to store broadcast content or download it from PCs or PVRs for later viewing.
Just as there are several competing mobile-TV technologies, there are also many possible business models. Mobile operators might choose to build their own mobile-TV broadcast networks; or they could form a consortium and build a shared network; or existing broadcasters could build such networks. Some channels will be given away for free, while others are for paying subscribers only. The outcome will vary from country to country, depending on the regulatory environment and the availability of spectrum. In Italy, 3 bought Canale 7 to get its hands on its spectrum and its broadcaster's licence; in Britain, Finland and America, the scarcity of spectrum makes shared networks most likely.
The big question is whether the broadcasters and mobile operators can agree how to divide the spoils, assuming there are any. Broadcasters own the content, but mobile operators generally control the handsets, and they do not always see eye to eye. In South Korea, a consortium of broadcasters launched a free-to-air DMB network last month, but the country's mobile operators were reluctant to provide their users with handsets able to receive the broadcasts, since they were unwilling to undermine the prospects for their own subscription-based mobile-TV services.
Then there is the question of who will fund the production of mobile-TV content: broadcasters, operators or advertisers? Again, the answer is probably ??all of the above?. Endemol's new mobile-TV division is talking to both operators and broadcasters about the commissioning of new shows, says Mr Bazalgette. But operators are newcomers to the world of television. Existing broadcasters have the advantage that they can use traditional TV to promote mobile content. But for operators, building mobile-only TV franchises will not be easy. Another problem is that mobile operators have yet to work out how to deal with advertisers. When Anheuser-Busch, a big drinks company, approached British operators about placing mobile-TV advertising, says Ms de Lussanet, it was passed back and forth between their technical and marketing departments.
Assuming the technology and the business models can be sorted out, there is still the tricky matter of content. At the moment most mobile-TV content is simply re-broadcasts of traditional channels, though in some cases programmes have been re-edited for mobile transmission. But the medium opens up many new possibilities, such as live streaming of raw material (as Endemol has successfully done with ??Big Brother?), mobile-only ??behind the scenes? content that complements traditional broadcasts, and entirely new, short-form programmes designed specifically for mobile transmission.
Since mobile phones are two-way, interactive devices, other possibilities include quiz shows in which the viewers are also the contestants, and programmes based on ??viewer-generated? content. 3, for example, has a popular service called ??See Me TV? which allows subscribers to upload short video clips. The author of the clip receives a small payment (1p in Britain, for example) each time the clip is viewed.
The potential for mobile TV is vast, in short??but so is the degree of uncertainty over how it should actually be put into practice. Most observers do not expect widespread adoption of mobile TV, if it comes at all, until 2008 at the earliest, since building the required ecosystem of technology, partnerships and content will take some time. Stay tuned.
-
i'm currently pounding my head on my desk... apparently verizon cannot even start the switch without me first cancelling my existing DSL, meaning it could be 7-10 business days for them to get their act together. plus, i've heard cancelling DSL can be a real nightmare thus putting me in limbo even longer. bleech!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I burn a lot of TV shows to DVD-RW to share with friends who don't have TiVo, but I erase them when they're done. Only a few things have I ever burned to DVD for permament archive:
- Man U's 1999 Champions League Final
- The Austin City Limits Music Series
- A collection of late night talk show performances by bands that I enjoyed
- A few other live music shows/performances that I enjoyed over the past 2 years
I added Journey - Live in Houston 1981: Escape Tour to my list of permanent burns.
Thank you VH1 Classic.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
i'm currently pounding my head on my desk... apparently verizon cannot even start the switch without me first cancelling my existing DSL, meaning it could be 7-10 business days for them to get their act together. plus, i've heard cancelling DSL can be a real nightmare thus putting me in limbo even longer. bleech!
who are you with now? I had speakeasy dsl in dc and cancellation was a simple phone call
-
I'm with Earthlink which justs resells Covad same as Speakeasy, elsewhere I've see that there can be miscommunication about removing DSL from a phoneline, i.e. orders set-in and not followed up on, or orders only partially completed, etc.
-
i want fios so badly. apparently a school 5 blocks east of here has it and there's a verizon central office 2 blocks west of here. according to the check on verizon's website, though, it's not available here!?
hopefully that'll change very soon.
the speed/cost ratio for fios is much better than comcast and i've had really crappy service from comcast (previously at&t, and before that mediaone -- through all the mergers/buyouts), so i'm looking forward to something new.
-
i want fios too, which is partly why i'm considering the switch, because i can switch from dsl to fios without cancellation. however, if it means pulling my remaining hairs out waiting for two behemoth co's to get thier collective acts together...
-
i'm a moron at the computer, and i was really amazed by how fast and easy the installation went.
also, haveing just spent a year paying almost 24/month for dial-up from AOL, i find the 14.99 verizon deal heavenly.
and fairly reliable.
that's not to say there aren't moments when it's sloggy, but it's a good deal.
i was almost motivated to write to verizon and commend them on it, actually.
-
January 15, 2006
Digital Domain
Hey, Baby Bells: Information Still Wants to Be Free
By RANDALL STROSS
AT the top of my wish list for next year's Consumer Electronics Show is this: the introduction of broadband service across the country that is as up to date as that 103-inch flat-screen monitor just introduced by Panasonic. The digital lifestyle I see portrayed so alluringly in ads is not possible when the Internet plumbing in our homes is as pitiful as it is. The broadband carriers that we have today provide service that attains negative perfection: low speeds at high prices.
It gets worse. Now these same carriers - led by Verizon Communications and BellSouth - want to create entirely new categories of fees that risk destroying the anyone-can-publish culture of the Internet. And they are lobbying for legislative protection of their meddling with the Internet content that runs through their pipes. These are not good ideas.
Slow broadband seems to be our cursed lot. Until we get an upgrade - or rather an upgrade to an upgrade - the only Americans who will enjoy truly fast and inexpensive service will be those who leave the country. In California, Comcast cable broadband provides top download speeds of 6 megabits a second for a little more than $50 a month. That falls well short, however, of Verizon's 15-megabit fiber-based service offered on the East Coast at about the same price. But what about the 100-megabit service in Japan for $25 month? And better, much better: Stockholm's one-gigabit service - that is, 1,000 megabits, or more than 1,300 times faster than Verizon's entry-level DSL service - for less than 100 euros, or $120, a month.
One-gigabit service is not in the offing in the United States. What the network carriers seem most determined to sell is a premium form of Internet service that offers a tantalizing prospect of faster, more reliable delivery - but only if providers like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft pay a new charge for special delivery of their content. (That charge, by the way, would be in addition to the regular bandwidth-based Internet connection charges that their carriers already levy.)
An executive vice president of Verizon, for example, said last week that the proliferation of video programs offered via the Internet opens a new opportunity for his company: a new class of premium online delivery for Web sites wishing to pay extra to give smooth video streams to their customers in the Verizon service area. The executive, Thomas J. Tauke, said that a fast lane for premium content providers would not reduce the quality of regular service for everyone else, and that sites could choose not to sign up without suffering retribution. "To the best of my knowledge," he said, "there's no negative."
From the consumer's perspective, given the dismal state of the status quo, shouldn't any service improvement be welcomed? The short answer is: not necessarily.
For one thing, the occasional need for a preferential fast lane for streaming video - that is, moving pictures displayed as fast as they arrive, rather than downloaded first and played from memory - exists in the United States only because our standard broadband speeds are so slow. Were we ever to become a nation with networks supporting gigabit service, streaming video would not require special handling.
Perhaps more important, the superabundance of content in the Internet's ecosystem is best explained by its organizing principle of "network neutrality." The phrase refers to the way the Internet welcomes everyone who wishes to post content. Consumers, in turn, enjoy limitless choices. Rather than having network operators select content providers on our behalf - the philosophy of the local cable company - the Internet allows all of us to act as our own network programmers, serving a demographic of just one person.
Today, the network carrier has a minor, entirely neutral role in this system - providing the pipe for the bits that move the last miles to the home. It has no say about where those bits happened to have originated. Any proposed change in its role should be examined carefully, especially if the change entails expanding the carrier's power to pick and choose where bits come from - a power that has the potential to abrogate network neutrality.
This should be taken into account when Baby Bells say they need to extract more revenue from their networks in order to finance service improvements. Consumers will pay one way or the other, whether directly, as Internet access fees, or indirectly, as charges when a content company opts for special delivery and passes along its increased costs to its customers. It would be better for the network carriers to continue to do as they have, by charging higher rates for higher bandwidth. (Sign me up for that one-gigabit service.)
Left unmentioned in Verizon's pitch is the concentration of power that it enjoys in its service area, which would allow it to ignore the equal-access principle whenever it wishes. We are asked to take on faith that it and the other telephone companies with similar plans will handle ordinary network traffic with the same care they would show if they had not begun parallel businesses for the carriage trade. How likely is that?
Vinton G. Cerf has as good a claim as anyone to being the "father" of the Internet - he was the co-author in the 1970's of key protocols that define it. He worked for many years at MCI and joined Google last year. After hearing a description of Verizon's contemplated offering of a premium delivery service for video, he was skeptical that Verizon and other broadband carriers, would adhere to promises to keep their networks open.
Mr. Cerf said that back in the 1990's, when the Web arrived, consumers could choose from among hundreds of dial-up service providers, without geographical constraints. But "as broadband developed," he added, "the set of choices telescoped to zero, one or two," and the lack of choice means that "we now have a serious issue on our hands."
Woe to us all if the Internet's content is limited by the companies who also handle the plumbing. "The Future of Ideas," by Lawrence Lessig (Random House, 2001), shows how innovation and creativity associated with the Internet are the byproducts of its openness, its role as a commons that is accessible, by design, to all. Professor Lessig, who teaches law at Stanford, said last week that even now, broadband carriers have failed to demonstrate their commitment to the principle of network neutrality. "They've fought it at each stage," he said, "and they have never embraced the principle."
An illustration of his point popped up the same day. In an interview, William L. Smith, the chief technology officer at BellSouth, described to me his company's trial offering in West Palm Beach, Fla., last year of a speedy download service for Movielink content. When asked whether BellSouth would offer its special service on an exclusive basis to a particular content site and agree to exclude the sponsor's rivals, he did not hesitate in treating the question as a matter of simply settling on the right price. The N.F.L. and Nascar strike exclusive distribution deals, he said. Why not network carriers?
The largest Internet companies are the ones that could easily afford whatever terms the carriers demand for exclusive deals that would lock out smaller rivals and new entrants. But they have not done special deals with the carriers and instead have joined together to try to persuade Congress to protect the principle of network neutrality and prevent the Bells from striking exclusive deals with anyone. Last November, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft and Google, among others, formally registered their concern with a House committee that is revising the basic telecommunications law; they noted that a draft version of the bill failed to make network neutrality a matter of policy without exception. Whether the committee has responded positively to the suggestions from the Internet players should be known soon.
IN his debut keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show two weeks ago, one of Google's founders, Larry Page, credited the "dreamers in universities" who had had the foresight to create a network system without gatekeepers, which made it "maximally flexible" to permit the unplanned appearance of the World Wide Web. That, in turn, had made possible the unplanned appearance of Google.
More unplanned appearances will follow - but only if the ecosystem is protected from tromping telephone companies that are genetically incapable of understanding "maximally flexible."
Randall Stross is a historian and author based in Silicon Valley. E-mail:ddomain@nytimes.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/business/yourmoney/15digi.html?ex=1294981200&en=70e576508126d648&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/business/yourmoney/15digi.html?ex=1294981200&en=70e576508126d648&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
-
Scratch what I said. It's gone down quite a few times since Dec. Also, seems to time out.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
I wonder what BBC will eventually do. In the UK you pay a license fee, which is essentilly a subscription payment. It would be great to watch good T.V. again.
Markie, doesn't look good for folks in the US, if Sky is any indication:
If you??re a Sky digital customer already subscribing to Sky Sports 1&2 or Sky Movies 1&2 you can now get an amazing new service called ??Sky by broadband?? at no additional cost.
Sky Movies on your PC
On ??Sky by broadband?? there??s a choice of hundreds of films available to download, ranging from classics like The Hustler to recent Hollywood blockbusters including I, Robot, Layer Cake, The Girl Next Door and Garfield.
The best of Sky Sports
With ??Sky by broadband?? you can also enjoy highlights from every Barclays Premiership and UEFA Champions League match as well as rugby, golf, cricket, and even our ever popular Soccer AM show.
Click here to register for ??Sky by broadband?? then and within a few minutes you??ll be able to access hours of quality entertainment, all at no extra charge. Then just sit back, relax and enjoy some of the best of Sky on your PC.
Please have your viewing card number handy when registering.
Sky Sports on Sky by broadband is available at no extra charge to Sky digital customers subscribing to Sky Sports 1 and 2. Sky Movies on Sky by broadband is available at no extra charge to Sky digital residential customers subscribing to Sky Movies 1 and 2. To view Sky by broadband you??ll need a home PC with Microsoft Windows XP and we recommend a minimum 1MB broadband. UK and ROI residents only and for use within the UK and ROI only. Further terms apply. See www.skybybroadband.com (http://www.skybybroadband.com) for full system specifications and terms and conditions
-
So nothing stops me from getting someone in the UK with Sky to sign up for me?
There are plenty of people in mainland Europe who watch sky. You just need someone in the UK to set up a sham account.
-
Oh, FTS:
To register for and download Sky by broadband, you will need:
A PC with Windows XP
Windows Media Player version 10 or above
A fast internet connection such as broadband (recommended)
To subscribe to a package which includes Sky Sports 1 & 2 and/or Sky Movies 1 & 2
To be based in the UK or ROI
You can only download Sky by broadband to one PC in your household and you must be the Sky digital account holder to download it
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
To be based in the UK or ROI
Enforcement may be tough here. I have a UK subscriber log-in to listen to United matches on UK radio, and it hasn't been blocked once stateside.
-
Yeah based in the UK for billing, but the whole point of the broadband service is that you can use it when you are away from home....
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
Yeah based in the UK for billing, but the whole point of the broadband service is that you can use it when you are away from home....
I would argue "one point", not "the whole point" - most folks would use Broadband service for video on demand (essentially to watch shows they missed or to see repeats). Travellers, on the other hand, would use it more often when they are away from home, but the last two hotels I stayed at in London did not offer broadband services, and most wi-fi spots can't handle high quality video.
Now for the illegal market (those of us without UK addresses), I'm certain they are not taking our wishes into consideration.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I would argue "one point", not "the whole point" - most folks would use Broadband service for video on demand (essentially to watch shows they missed or to see repeats).
You have sky you have broadband, but you do not have a DVR.... I wonder what penetrance DVRs have in the UK and here.
It's ages since I have stayed in a hotel with broadband, but then its ages since I left US of A.
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
I wonder what penetrance DVRs have in the UK and here.
USA Currently: 110.2 mln of US households have a television, and 7% of them have DVRs (~7.7 Million) ( Neilsen (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/business/media/13adcol.html?ex=1297486800&en=563788a125c684db&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss) )
USA Projected DVR penetration to reach 27 Million by 2008. ( Linkage (http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2004/03/23/dvr_penetration_to_hit_27_million_in_2008/))
No complete numbers for the UK, but the guess is between 2.5% and 5%. 10% of Sky subscribers have the Sky+ box (770K). PDF linkage (http://simonandrews.typepad.com/big_picture/files/big_picture_viewpoint_pvr_updated_may_2005.pdf)
5 Million expected in UK by 2008.
DVR service penetration will also increase to 20% of Western European Digital TV Homes by 2008, says Yankee Group.
Global Penetration: The number of installed digital video recorders (DVRs) is forecast to rocket from 9 million at end 2004 to 120 million by end-2010 ?? to reach 11% of global TV households ( More Linkage (http://shop.telecoms.com/marlin/30000000861/MARKT_EFFORT/marketingid/20001229819?proceed=true&MarEntityId=1140446382733&entHash=10277b7de13))
-
Originally posted by MTB-Markie:
You have sky you have broadband, but you do not have a DVR....
Don't confuse the purpose of Broadband (Video on Demand) vs. what a DVR does for you. The DVR only records what I tell it to record, and allows me to play it back. VoD will eventually allow me to playback nearly all shows, including those which I have not necessarily asked to record with my DVR.
-
and Comcast continues to behind the times with DVRs literally... our DVR is once again running a minute slow so the beginning of shows get cutoff... :mad: system wide problem apparently... morons