Cable Companies Want Bigger Share of Online TV Market 175
commodore64_love writes with news that a number of cable companies, such as Time-Warner, Comcast, and Cox, are trying to establish themselves as content providers on the web in addition to television. They are currently negotiating with HBO, TNT, CNN, and a number of other channels to bring their programming online exclusively for cable TV subscribers. They say they're not trying to develop "some enormous new revenue opportunity," but rather trying to compete with sites like Hulu, which provide shows for free.
"They pay networks a per-subscriber fee each month for the right to carry channels. But the cable companies have groused that they are paying for content that programmers are giving away for free on the Web. ... People aren't yet cutting the cord en masse - the Leichtman survey found that people who watch recent TV shows online every week are not more likely to give up TV service than other people. But the industry is heading off what could end up as a troubling trend. After all, the availability of free content online has befuddled other media industries, from music to newspapers. ... The cable companies and others involved in the talks for a TV service said their goal isn't to kill the online video goose, but to work out a plan that keeps everyone's business intact."
Eliminate the middle man (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. The internet is the middle man, we're seeing it with record companies already who are having to retool a bit back into more production and less distribution. The internet is going to make telcos who want to double as media providers obsolete. We still need the telco side but the media provider side can be done directly be the content creator/owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All they have to do is look at the referer in the HTTP request, if your refered from the ISP's portal your good to go, it's a lot easier for the ISP to tell if your a subscriber than the content provider.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been waiting for some time now to see a company offering "season sets" or subscriptions to web broadcasts. It's only logical in such a scenario to go straight to the studio for the downloads or streams, rather than going through a "middle man" cable company.
In fact I don't see how the cable companies think they're owed the opportunity to take on web broadcasting. That should be done by the producing studio, not by some arbitrary winner of exclusive rights.
And... (Score:3, Insightful)
A bigger share of the pie.
(with pie being money)
Time Warner is horrible.... (Score:5, Interesting)
During LOST on ABC this week my cable cut out five times....in the first fifteen minutes of the show.
I instead just waited for the show to be over, then downloaded the HD scene release from one of those internet sets that let's you do that, instead of watching the choppy version from my digital cable box that I pay a lot for per month.
Time Warner customer service is terrible also. They had no idea what was wrong with my box. Replaced it. And the same thing happened this morning when I watching the news....so I just listened to news radio this morning instead of local TV news.
If Time Warner and these other companies expand into the online realm of audio video media entertainment are they going to carry the baggage and problems that they have on cable already? Are we going to have to pay for 1,000 internet channels when we only watch at most ten of them? Is the digital cable guide never going to be available? When will they start upping the subscription rates and not telling anyone? Will they force the user to purchase a CD from Time Warner with the software installed to watch the online videos so that they can charge an installation fee?
I pay for cable but I almost download everything I watch now besides live sports events, and even then with the reliability of my cable box, I've been turning to radio more often than ever.
Maybe people have other experiences with different cable and satellite TV providers, but Time Warner is tremendously horrible. And why do I keep Time Warner? They are the only cable and internet provider around me, for real. Ugh.
Re:Time Warner is horrible.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Solution: Stop paying for cable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How was this modded insightful? OP clearly addressed this point in his closing sentence!
And why do I keep Time Warner? They are the only cable and internet provider around me, for real. Ugh.
If it were possible for him, OP clearly states that he would prefer to view shows on his television, rather than having to resort to downloading them. He merely says that downloading has become his only option to view them at all, not his preference.
As for the second part of OP's statement, that you conveniently ignored, he explains the other reason why he still sends them money every month: he has no other ISP. If he w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Worked for me. In the last few months, I cut my cable bill quite dramatically.
By dropping the television and phone service, my bill went from $180 to $50.
I don't miss TV at all. What little I watch tends to be baseball, and I can get every MLB game legally on my computer through a paid service offered by the league.
Additionally, Netflix's streaming and DVD-by-mail service fill in the remainder of what time I have to watch TV.
I can't believe that I was paying $1560 per year for cable TV. What a waste.
Re:Time Warner is horrible.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Are they going to make you pay for 1000 channels, when you only watch 10... and STILL show adverts?
And I presume it'll all be DRM'd up to the hilt and only playable on Windows?
Or will they release it in a various formats (flv,mpeg etc.) without DRM and all downloadable on a per-show basis without any adverts, like BBC iPlayer does?
Only time will tell
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the RIAA all over again. The cable companies see new technology as a threat to their existing business model, and are trying to block competitors by inking exclusive deals with content providers.
I also believe this is why they are going crazy about Bittorrent and the bandwidth "problem."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One of the biggest problems with TWC - at least in the NYC area - is line degradation. Customer service will insist that the box is malfunctioning, but if you do some basic line noise tests you'll probably notice a significant noise problem.
TWC won't do a damn thing about it. They'll claim to the heavens that it's Scientific Atlanta's problem, or that your house wiring needs to be replaced. You have to twist a managers arms for months before they admit that they don't see the need to replace/maintain the co
Re: (Score:2)
But I thought cable was so much better than satellite! At least that's what all those commercials proclaim!
(I watched it without commercials on my DirecTV DVR, with no cut-outs)
OTA? (Score:2)
Can you get over the air (OTA) or are you stuck? It is more reliable IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly if you have a supported OS, and a sufficiently fast internet connection, it may be worth trying ABC's streaming service for Lost.
I was shocked to find that if you choose the HD stream and have a sufficent bandwidth the quality is really at true DVD level. Sure thats not really HD, but for web streaming services that is unheard of. The quality definitely exceeds the 350 MB per episode divx torrents, and I find is still better than the 700 MB divx torrents.
It is not always at quite DVD quality,
Re: (Score:2)
> Interestingly if you have a supported OS, and a sufficiently fast internet connection, it may be worth trying ABC's streaming service for Lost.
This is a broadcast network show!
Why bother with their "streaming service"?
Just put a bloody antenna up and buy a $30 ATSC usb stick, or splurge and by a HDHomeRun.
Re:Time Warner is horrible.... (Score:5, Interesting)
An open standard using a torrent like system would allow a hybrid between broadcast and full video on demand.
Right now while my TV is turned off my cable company is broadcasting several digital HD channels at my house, and I don't even have a digital converter box yet. Total waste of bandwidth to broadcast all this data at people who aren't even watching that channel.
How peer to peer could work:
Show creators release this week's episodes as an open standard binary with tags in for downstream commercial addition, (or not for pay per view).
All licensed digital providers (ISP, Cable, Telco) then pick up the torrent seed from the source and fetch it to their local hard drives.
I pay a (REASONABLE) fee for the show, more for commercial free, and my home media adaptor (PS3, XBOX360, Linux box, AppleTV whatever) torrents it from my local provider to my place on to my drive for me to watch.
Yes, you could then implement QOS to allow streaming services like telephones etc to operate while my media box torrents in my selected content.
No I don't want a closed box Motorola PVR, they are crud, too buggy, and I have no control over feature removal at the whim of megacorp incorporated.
This should be open so there is competition, so the quality of the whole thing is reasonable.
Make it easy and cheap enough and you won't have to worry about DRM screwing up the paying customers (and not preventing pirates) See: Nine Inch Nails free music giveaway scheme for evidence.
Miro plus Torrents plus RSS almost offers this now, but is piracy (someone's got to pay the media providers!!) and too technogeeky for Grandma.
No, you giant media conglomerates don't get to push us back on the couch to watch broadcast. You lost. Get out of the way. There's a good reason people spend more time on the web than TV in the western world.
Torrent-ial waste of bandwidth (Score:3, Interesting)
Why isn't this multicast? You send the multicast stream once from the source, ISP/CableCos get it, insert commercials, then they can multicast it to the end users to save to hdd.
Torrents should only kick in when your primary disribution isn't running, the end users or the cable co do not need to upload for normal distrubtion. In fact, I really don't see any reason why they should ever kick in. Direct download would be more efficient since the distribution point is at the ISP/CableCo, not over the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now while my TV is turned off my cable company is broadcasting several digital HD channels at my house, and I don't even have a digital converter box yet. Total waste of bandwidth to broadcast all this data at people who aren't even watching that channel.
False. It's being broadcast over one wire, which splits off to each house in your neighborhood.
ABC, CBS, and NBC are broadcasting television over the air. I'm not watching either one right now. It's not wasting any bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
> HD video is horribly bandwidth intensive
People have gotten so used to crappy SD cable that they think that HD is the
answer to a false problem. Good digital SD can actually be quite suitable for
a great many things. The focus should be on a good quality stream rather than
any particular set of marketing buzzwords.
Of course "high definition" is something that's going to be seen as inherently
more valuable and a higher margin product.
There is a reason that the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is a reason that the FCC (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. The vertical integration of Time Warner is a bit disturbing. They own the studio that makes the show. They own the TV channel that carries the show. They own the cable network that carries the channel. They own the ISP that competes with that cable network as a method of distribution. They own the infrastructure that carries both the ISP and the cable network to your home. Am I missing anything?
Personally, I think that the split should be between the people who provide infrastructure and everything else. If you're the company that actually runs the cable to people's homes, then you shouldn't be allowed to provide any kind of service over that network. It presents too many conflicts of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I missing anything?
They (probably) don't yet own the utilities that provide the power to their equipment!
Spot on, MOD UP PLEASE (Score:2)
Exactly what I came in here to say. If you make money from providing the medium, you shouldn't also be in the message business -- and vice versa.
(Way past) Time to start enforcing anti-trust legislation again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, to explain a bit more (maybe this is unnecessary, but I'll explain anyway), I think Verizon and TWC, as companies who own/maintain the infrastructure, should be barred from even being ISPs. To people who don't understand what an ISP does, that may seem like a silly idea, but Verizon already allows other ISPs to operate over their infrastructure. Whenever you get DSL (or a T1, T3) in my area, it's going through Verizon.
So what I would propose is that anyone running cable must allow that sort of acce
To Flamebait: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, no one (certainly not Pelosi, Reid, or Obama) is trying to reinstate the fairness doctrine anyway. Apparently it's not enough to misrepresent the fairness doctrine's purpose and effect; they have to misrepresent its status as a political issue, too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who decides what the 'opposing view' is - while we love to simplify things to the left and right dynamic, most issues are not (at least at a depth beyond sound bite) bipolar. For a talk by a 'supply side' economist, is the opposing view that of a Keynesian? How about a Marxist? Austrian School?
How does one handle Global Warming - Al Gore would have us believe that it is a one sided issue, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would argue vehemently that there are two sides to it. Same story for evolution vs i
Missing the point. (Score:2)
While the radio stations are to some degree competitiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, dude, but it can't work both ways.
If the liberals owned most of the networks, but they were unprofitable, then they would sell them. That's what sane people do. If the liberals owned the networks that ran the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are contradicting yourself. First you say that they want to force the conservative stations (which have the majority of money-making talk shows, according to you), then in the next sentence you say that most of the networks are liberal... therefore the liberals own most of the stations.
Most of the television networks are liberal. Talk radio is the only area that's dominated by conservatives.
Sorry, dude, but it can't work both ways.
No shit.
If the liberals owned most of the networks, but they were unprofitable, then they would sell them. That's what sane people do. If the liberals owned the networks that ran the conservative talk shows, and they were the only ones that made money, then the liberals probably would not want to shut them down. But if they did want to shut them down, they could do so without a fairness doctrine... after all, if they own the network they don't have to run the show.
They have. Liberal talk radio has never really taken off, so there are very few stations compared to conservative talk radio. Because the libs are unable to compete, in the interest of "fairness" they would force the stations that have conservative shows to dedicated the same amount of time to liberal shows in comparable time slots, which is essentially impossible since there isn't any money
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, it might have been nice if you has stated that in the beginning, rather than pretty solidly implying otherwise. The only "stations" or "networks" you mentioned were, apparently, in the context of radio. Now you bring a new factor into the equation.
"They have. Liberal talk radio has never really taken off, so there are very few stations compared to conservative talk radio. Because the libs
Re: (Score:2)
So what? You don't seem to be getting the point.
Your entire argument is that the conservatives might lose some money under the fairness doctrine. And that may be a legitimate point. However, MY argument is that a fairness doctrine allows freedom of speech and discussion -- especially political discussion -- over the public airwaves. And I am sorry, dude, but my right to freedom of speech very clearly trumps your right to make a profit. Further, you have NO logical basis to argue that conservative speech would be curtailed in the process. So, since your argument is one of corporate profit vs. free speech... guess what? THAT argument is ended. You lose.
You're either very naive, or an idiot. You can't make a free speech argument about something that's designed to restrict and force speech. Indeed, when the FCC began to repeal the doctrine in the 80s, the reason given was "that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment". I'm sure you don't understand how that could be, so I'll go ahead and explain it to you.
Radio stations setup their programing to maximize their profitability. Their profitabi
Re: (Score:2)
The radio spectrum is NOT private property, it is PUBLIC!
So your companies, no matter how successful they are, do NOT have the right to present only their own favorite political opinions, REGARDLESS of how much money they make! JESUS! Can't you get that simple concept through your head? I even spelled it out earlier: what you are saying is like saying that whatever company figured
Re: (Score:2)
The radio spectrum is NOT private property, it is PUBLIC!
And the public has already decided what it wants to listen to. If the public isn't interested in liberal radio, perhaps it isn't in the public interest to force radio stations to carry content that almost nobody cares about.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no priority given to any group in deciding who gets a lease on a particular chunk of broadcast spectrum in a particular market. It is a simple highest-bidder-wins scenario. So there is NOTHING keeping liberal talk radio off the air other than their lack of popularity resulting in a lack of funds to buy a broadcast license and run the station. Nothing.
The "fairness doctrine" is exactly the same as Hunt's demanding air time on a TV network to refute a Heinz ketchup ad that Heinz paid for. It sounds p
Re: (Score:2)
To use your analogy, you are saying that Heinz should be able to air a political message, over a public resource, simply because they have more money.
You don't see a problem with political speech being bought???
I say again: without the fairness doctrine, you end up with a situation like we had in the last election: valid political speech being excluded from the public eye (ear). And fixing that
Re: (Score:2)
Quite simply, you're wrong. If Rush airs three hours / day that leaves 21 hours of void that has to be filled. If the stations are forced to put some liberal bloviator on the air for 3 hours to clear the air of Limbaugh's flatulence, then that still leaves eighteen hours.
Morning and afternoon drive dayparts in radio are 4 hours each (6a-10a, 3p-7p) and even if you include the five hours of non-prime midday airtime in between, you're still looking at a 13 hour window, not even half of which is filled up wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Morning and afternoon drive dayparts in radio are 4 hours each (6a-10a, 3p-7p) and even if you include the five hours of non-prime midday airtime in between, you're still looking at a 13 hour window, not even half of which is filled up with Limbaugh + Anti Limbaugh.
So lets do the math then. Limbaugh has the most popular talk radio show in the country, with 14 million weekly listeners, compared to the 1.5 million attracted by the most popular liberal show. Since Limbaugh airs from 3-6 on the west coast, 6-9 would have to be given to the liberal show in the same area. Suppose that the advertising on the 6-9 slot now sells for $750k/week, and the Limbaugh show goes for $1M/week. Given that the liberal show is only about 10% as popular, we'll assume that advertising w
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of whether some stations make more money that others, the airwaves are public property that is merely leased to companies. This is not about who makes the most bucks, it is about whether the people with the money get to dominate political speech over PUBLIC airwaves!
And the answer is NO. Do you find that hard to comprehend?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about money or political speech. It's about conservative talk radio. How do you explain the growth in talk radio stations from 400 to over 1,400 after the repeal of the fairness doctrine? If the programs aren't economically viable, they won't be on the air at all. That restricts speech.
Re: (Score:2)
You have made no logical argument at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You say: "Since Limbaugh airs from 3-6 on the west coast, 6-9 would have to be given to the liberal show in the same area."
Actually, can you point me to where you find the requirement that any Fairness Doctrine type directive requires strict adjacency in programming? And if so, why does that adjacency requirement not consider average cume listener by daypart? Because any program in the 3-6 slot is gonna outperform the 6-9 slot unless the PMD show totally sucks. It's just a fact of life in radio.
You say:
Re: (Score:2)
You liberals are incredible. If you actually believe that a show that in the free market can only attract 10% of the audience of another will draw comparable advertising rates, you must be high. Forced bundling will only dilute the value of the conservative show, which will most definitely affect broadcast decisions. Back of the envelope calculations don't need to be that accurate, in this case the difference in popularity is massive enough the results should be plainly obvious.
And there absolutely was a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See, you think you're making an empirical point, but you simply refuse to ground it in reality and empirical evidence. It's very hard to refute your facts when you bring nothing but speculation to the table. Have a nice day!
Here is a bullet-proof plan (Score:2)
Infect your subscribers PC with DRM and Spyware. Hey, it worked for Sony.
if it's "free"... (Score:3, Interesting)
I travel a lot, so in lieu of a slingbox, I'd appreciate the added feature of being able to watch the service I pay for when I'm on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that this is exactly what Comcast is planning on doing.
I'm sure that the cable companies'... (Score:4, Insightful)
...growing implementation of data-per-month caps has nothing to do with free-and-legal streaming video, right? It's all about those bandwidth-hogging criminals, most assuredly!
This was my first submission to slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
I don't recognize a single word. Nice editing. LOL. :-) - The key point of my submission is that YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO WATCH SHOWS FOR FREE on sites like tnt.com, abcfamily.com, et cetera because the shows will be placed behind a wall, and only cable subscribers will be able to access them. Non-cable homes (such as myself) will no longer be able to watch ad-supported online shows like the Closer, Kyle XY, or Monk.
The cable companies argue that, because they pay subscriber fees (25-90 cents per home per channel), they should be able to control who does, and does not, have access to online TV shows.
Aside -
Frankly, when I read this in my hometown paper, it made me rather angry. It's bad enough Comcast has a monopoly over cable lines, but now they want a monopoly over internet TV watching too? I've been watching Monk and Kyle XY on usanetwork.com and abcfamily.com for awhile now, but it appears I won't be doing that after Fall 2009 arrives. They will be sealed behind subscriber-only access.
Re:This was my first submission to slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry this will fail.
If done right, they'll just abandon this silly notion and nothig will change.
If they really fight this, they will stop in a few year after throwing billion of dollars.
In the mean time just use bitorrent.
I consider it a form of civil disobediance.
P prefer not to, but if they are locking my out of content I want to see, I'll use it.
All I want to do is ahve my machine automatically download the shows I select. I have no problem with them inserting ads, I do understand that's where they get there money.
In fact, they could insert local ads based on your location, which could be based on your billing address.
That is the future of television.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, they could insert local ads based on your location, which could be based on your billing address.
Exactly, they should actually put some thought into creative thinking about where they would like to see the industry go and revenue come from, rather than their usual protectionist actions that deprive users of access to content in order to keep life support going on an outdated business model.
It's just plain laziness and a very wrong idea about "deserved" revenues. They don't deserve to make any money if they don't keep their customers happy and actually provide people with what they want.
It actually
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I have no problem with them inserting ads
Me neither. Ads pay to allow me to watch the shows for free. I'm happy with that arrangement. But this Comcast/Cox/TW proposal means I'd have to subscribe to Comcast at $65 a month (basic access), in order to watch Kyle XY or Monk online. Otherwise I'll be blocked. Cute.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be even better if they could take some advice from Google and show you relevant ads.
I have no use for Viagra, tampons, a new car after I just bought one, or almost anything else that's advertised on TV.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No that's a little different:
- ESPN360.com and Disneyconnection.com are charging Verizon ISP to pay for the websites. It's a business-to-business deal.
- This proposal is charging customers directly. They will move streaming TV shows on tnt.tv, abcfamily.com, usanetwork.com, etcetera, and lock them behind a wall. Only people who subscribe to Comcast or Cox or Time-Warner will be allowed past the wall. People who don't have cable get nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the ticker symbol for ESPN?
DIS - Walt Disney Company
Re: (Score:2)
The cable companies argue that, because they pay subscriber fees (25-90 cents per home per channel), they should be able to control who does, and does not, have access to online TV shows.
I'm not sure that you'll see this sort of "exclusive" licensing, where you won't be able to see Monk anywhere except on Comcast's website. That would be really silly for the producers of Monk. I'm sure they'd be more than willing to license it to any website that wants to pay what they the producers are asking.
The issue, of course, is that Comcast already pays USA Network 25-90 cents for each home that gets USA Network. So if Comcast offers this to their customers, they shouldn't have to pay any more mon
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. It explains that, yes, they will exclusively license the shows to the cable companies because the cable conglomerates are the ones paying the bill (subscriber fees) that support the shows.
As for USA Network, they are already giving away their shows online. You just have to be willing to watch the ads. USA is happy with that deal since it's profitable for them, but Comcast/Cox/Time-warner is not happy because they're afraid people will say, "Why pay for cable when I can get the shows free on the net
Re: (Score:2)
Non-cable homes (such as myself) will no longer be able to watch ad-supported online shows like the Closer, Kyle XY, or Monk.
I guess you'll just have to get a torrent and watch them without ads. What a shame!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Until Comcast implements their 3-strike rule, and I find myself without internet access because I've been banned.
Give people what the want, for Pete's sake! (Score:2)
People have wants that aren't being met. Cable companies have the power to grant those wants. Why aren't they doing something about it!?
Here's #1: People want to watch their favorite shows on their own schedule. Sure, DVRs are a partial solution, but they only work if the customer remembers to set it up properly. Cable companies have had 'on demand' for years now, but instead of using it to keep their customers happy, they throw a few crappy programs on it and charge. Why!? That would totally stop a
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If they would make CableTV fun and reliable, I would probably stop watching online and start paying for a cable line again.
Go read the article. You will no longer be able to watch your favorite cable shows online, because Comcast/Cox/et cetera will be sealing them behind a subscriber-only website. So if for example your favorite show is the Closer, instead of watching it for free at tnt.tv, you'll have to pay Comcast to gain access to the show.
Fun eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Part of that re-vamp to make it more reliable could be a cableco push for a minimum quality for a TV feed to be considered "HD".
right now it's only pixel width and height.
I can take a postage stamp sized ASF file from the 2001 filesharing networks, change a few tags on it, and it would be considered "HD" despite being nothing but 15 huge macroblocks with some sound.
Half the channels on comcast's network look exactly like my hypothetical description.
When there's no difference between your tv and youtube, peo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Traditionally video is measured in how many lines (|||||) can be seen, counting left to right, inside a square. The sharper the image, the more lines you see. So you have:
VHS - approximately 250 ||||| lines
analog TV-330 ||||| lines
S-VHS- 420 ||||| lines
DVD - 480 ||||| lines
720p- 700 ||||| lines
1080i-1000 ||||| lines
All values are approximate, since the measurement is performed using analog means (the human eye). A heavily-compressed HD channel might deteriorate to only 500 lines horizontal resolution - n
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but you're wildly off base with your resolution figures.
What you're quoting as horizontal resolution is, in fact, the vertical resolution, and even then, only approximations.
Real numbers (from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-VHS [wikipedia.org])
* 350Ã--240 (250 lines): Video CD
* 330Ã--480 (250 lines): Umatic, Betamax, VHS, Video8
* 400Ã--480 (300 lines): Super Betamax, Betacam (professional)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish to sincerely thank you for quoting me.
*I* was the one who wrote that article (that portion anyhow). :-)
And no I was not wildly off. There's no significant difference between saying DVD has 520 versus 480 lines resolution. We're talking about an analog measurement here (done by a technician's human eye), and it varies depending upon a number of factors, such as the quality of the source material, the amount of compression used, and so on. Also I used the word "approximately" in my posting. And I
Re: (Score:2)
>>>scanlines go top to bottom, moron
Here is the test chart used for measuring lines of resolution, per picture height. http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/eia1956-small.jpg [bealecorner.com] - Look at the center square and below the center square. The lines go up-and-down (||||) and the technician reports how many distinct lines he can see. If he is using a primitive source like broadcast television, he will only be able to see ~330 lines. Laserdisc has about 400. DVD is around 500. And so on.
Does th
Cable industry incompatible with 'net streaming (Score:3, Insightful)
The cable companies' business model is to charge for a connection to content. In the up-and-coming age of Internet streaming, that isn't going to happen. They need a paradigm shift if they're going to survive. The CBS and NBC sites are good examples of what can survive (although they're done quite poorly, IMO).
At this rate, cable co.s are going to become ISPs, and nothing more. If they can set up their own streaming sites, (with competitive offerings and commercials) some of them can survive as content providers. The Internet has a tendency to cut out the middlemen. The middlemen must now add value to persist.
Besides, the cable model is inherently unfair anyway. One both pays the cable co. and must sit through commercials. Most people won't admit that they're getting double billed, but they can feel it. They will migrate to better models as they become available.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, the cable model is inherently unfair anyway. One both pays the cable co. and must sit through commercials. Most people won't admit that they're getting double billed, but they can feel it. They will migrate to better models as they become available.
Yes, and they still charge an arm and a leg for their premium offerings... I know people who pay between $150 - $200 a month for cable - that is insane!
I don't mind sitting through commercials when I watch online because it's mostly free (besides the cost of internet), but commercials on cable TV are aggravating. Its little wonder DVRs are so popular.
The only reason I can see where the cost of cable is worth it is to be provided with your shows in hi-def if you own a nice LCD or Plasma display, which yo
Netflix (Score:3, Informative)
I don't use Netflix just for streaming, but I moved my plan up a notch just to have access to it.
I can't say I'm burning up the tubes streaming stuff, but I like it when I do.
I feel the price I pay is a fair price, so I can see a business model that does charge for a connection to content.
What isn't going to happen is someone paying 69.95 a month for low quality video just to stream it to a laptop.
This is where they will miss the boat. It doesn't have to be free. People will pay for things if the price is r
They just don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also amazing how broke some of this shit is. Hulu's movie selection is abysmal at best and they rarely add new things. Television shows are rotated, so you could see, say, Monk Season 4 episodes 5, 6, and 7. If you wanted to watch 8, 9, and 10, you'd have to wait for them to rotate them in.
Are we in some sort of bandwidth or storage crisis that they can't put the whole series online? No. Someone in the background is pulling strings and saying shit like, "If you put the whole series online people won't
Good luck! Meanwhile enjoy some real competition (Score:4, Insightful)
Cable retained users by offering more channels with fewer commercial interruptions.
As adoption skyrocketed, cable companies began tossing more and more commercials into the mix.
In 1986 the average cable show had 2 commercials in it; today popular shows have 6 minutes of commercials for every 5 minutes of content.
Do that in today's market and leaner, meaner companies with less legacy issues to tie them down will come eat your lunch!
Cable providers have already shown they don't have the spine to risk losing that programming, so they can't threaten to shut these studios out. They'll have to take a huge cut in profits by either paying them higher fees for exclusivity or lowering their commercials on live and offering more dependable, consumer friendly service.
If they try to up their bills satellite will eat their lunch, even if they manage to lock out hulu and netflix, and the higher their bills go -- especially with their bundling with internet service, the more customers they will lose.
There are those who consider the TV just superfluous and buy only net. if the cable company jacks up the tv portion of their bill they'll switch ISP's
For those whose primary purpose is TV, people, especially in this economy, might save their pennies for food/gas/mortgage and start giving pirate bay more patronage (and flowers : ] )
Re:Good luck! Meanwhile enjoy some real competitio (Score:5, Informative)
today popular shows have 6 minutes of commercials for every 5 minutes of content.
That is bullshit. The typical prime-time hour long show has 39-42 minutes of content,leaving only 18-21 minutes for commercials. That is a ratio of 1 minute commercial for every 2 minutes of content. I know this because I edit the commercials out before watching and I use the "time remaining" counter in my video editor as a sanity check that I got all of the commercials.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For
Re: (Score:2)
I know this because I edit the commercials out before watching
Could you maybe, you know on your last day before layoff or retirement, "forget" to edit the commercials back in. It feels good to break a rule know and again, wouldn't you agree?
Tiered Internet, v2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that we are almost all on metered internet, they will offer 'reduced bandwidth rates' for local content, relative to their competition.
EVERYBODY? (Score:2)
to work out a plan that keeps everyone's business intact.
Well, I'm sure that's close to what he meant to say...
BitTorrent. (Score:3, Interesting)
I just download TV episodes from BitTorrent. Much more convenient, I don't have to install some shitty Windows only software filled with security holes, no commercials, and I have full control over the files I download.
I usually download a ~349Mb TV episode, and copy it to a flash drive. I then bring the flash drive downstairs, plug it into my PlayStation 3, and enjoy watching the shows in HD.
Or sometimes, if I know I won't have time to watch the show because I know I'll be busy all day, I'll run the video file through a converter and copy it to my MP3/Video player, and watch the TV show when I have a bit of free time.
And the legitimate, legal customer is limited to watching a video that's interrupted by commercials, confined to a small Flash window, etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused how you can consider the 350 MB releases HD. The 700 MB releases are the ones usually labeled HD, and even they often don't reach the quality of regular DVDs.
(I'm assuming of course, that you are talking about standard 42 minute programs, rather than 21 minute programs like sitcoms, and old programming.)
P!ss the f&@k off cable! (Score:2)
Honestly. My cable company just raised my bill per month by $10, so I canceled my cable all together. If they're complaining about internet stealing all their business they should take a look at the sort of terrible programming they're offering. I wanted 3 extra channels on my cable package, but I couldn't just get just those channels, I had to get an additional 200 channels I didn't want and an additional $30 on my bill. The internet's rightly stealing their business because when you go online you can watc
Switched to Netflix and will never go back (Score:5, Informative)
My wife and I recently bought our first HD flat screen TV. We were about to call Comcast to add HD to our cable plan. Then we stopped and asked ourselves a question, "How much more enjoyment will we get from watching shows we already watch but now in HD?" The answer, for us, turned out to be almost nothing. So now we were stuck with stretched and obviously pixelated non HD programming on our new HD TV.
So we asked ourselves another question, "How many of the shows that we watch aren't available online as full episodes (many in HD)?" The answer again, for us, turned out to be almost none.
So we dropped all cable TV (cable package, DVR, and on-demand) and only kept internet. We then signed up for Netflix 3 DVDs with Blu-Ray and on-demand for only $17 a month. We then bought an LG Blu-Ray player that hooks into your Netflix account and allows you to stream any Netflix on-demand show to your TV. LG even recently released an upgrade where now we can browse YouTube and watch any video.
Looking back, we would never go back to cable. We're perfectly happy with the selection of entertainment Netflix and online sites give us and very much enjoy watching TV on our terms with almost no commercials (most network TV websites use commercials... though Netflix doesn't, of course). Plus, we went from almost paying ~$80 for HD cable with a DVR and an on-demand box to only $17 a month (plus the Blu-Ray player we bought) and are much happier with our TV.
What's poetic justice in all this is that Comcast is providing the bandwidth for us to stream all of their competitor's content. Makes me realize why cable companies are vehemently against net neutrality. I hope they never win that battle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It will get more expensive when you hit Comcast's 250 GB/Month cap, then your rates increase $10 for each 15GB you go over the limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, should be $15 for each 10GB over the limit, switched the numbers by mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Savings? $45/month. That's a lot of beer.
That depends upon your definition of "a lot".
They'll suck the money out of us one way or... (Score:2, Insightful)
Internet tv wont be a panacea to tv watching customers. You'll be able to have a streaming box like a Roku or a store and play box like a tivo that will get free or nearly free tv shows with re-play or re-download abilities if you dont get the show the first time, but then your cable internet bandwidth will jump through the roof and the cable companies will charge you double for the extra usage.
So instead of paying comcast $50 for cable tv and $50 for cable internet, you'll end up paying them $100 for high
I cancelled cable 8 months ago.... (Score:2)
I had one of the bundles with TV, internet, and phone service. I cancelled it all back in August. I was getting ready to take on a project at work that was going to eat most of my time. And I got to looking. I was spending about $140 per month for all of it and really only watch 3 TV's show that I could purchase for $40 per season at iTunes. I had internet at work, and much faster than at home, and I had my cell phone. So I just cut it all off. And I can't say that I've missed it that much.
I love wat
But? (Score:2)
I'm part of the trend. I axed able. (Score:2)
I just wanted to mention that I'm part of the trend.
I got tired of paying $63 a month for cable when most of the "live TV" I watch are major network shows. I download South Park and a few other cable only shows, and don't even watch them on their normal cable channels.
So I went to Radio Shack and got a nice VHF/UHF yagi. I put it in the attic pointing in the direction of the antenna farms.
The result? Beautiful HD picture from all the local stations and national networks. And it costs $0.
I canceled cable the
They think very highly of themselves ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... work out a plan that keeps everyone's business intact.
Sound familiar? The problem is, the consumer is not usually a part of such plans. Well, other than as a cash cow to be milked for all it's worth.
So now the truth comes out (Score:4, Informative)
Now they're finally admitting the real reason for the bandwidth caps: they do not want to lose their cable TV monopolies.
Is there a network neutrality conflict here? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what is the value prop from the cable companies? I wonder if it is quality of service while trampling other internet traffic like P2P, gaming, VPN, music streaming, etc. These guys are your ISP and they are going to prioritize your traffic to their gain. And to think that cable companies try to play that network shapi
Another Net Neutrality supporter in the making (Score:3, Insightful)
They pay networks a per-subscriber fee each month for the right to carry channels. But the cable companies have groused that they are paying for content that programmers are giving away for free on the Web.
Hey Comcast (and AT&T, Verizon, Cox, etc). Turn around is fair play. You guys have been trying to figure out how to squeeze a few extra bucks out of content providers. But now it looks like you are going to become their bitches. I'm ROTFLMAO.
Re: (Score:2)
Hulu is a joint venture between NBC Universal (NBC) and News Corporation (Fox), although other "content providers" can make their shows available on the service if they so desire (this is mostly the case where the production company of the executive producer owns the rights, as opposed to a network or the network owned production company. (Almost all shows have two or more production companies these days.))
NBC and Fox will make some money on the advertisements no matter whose show is being watched (Although