Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Dark?

Expand Messages
  • Richard Swank
    Have any of you actually looked at the streamed video on a 63 HD display. These streamed formats are for content only and in no way compete quality wise to
    Message 1 of 74 , Mar 31, 2010

      Have any of you actually looked at the streamed video on a 63" HD display.  These streamed formats are for content only and in no way compete quality wise to real broadcast television.  Any argument that the streamed version of today television is a real replacement for it cannot be serious.  Yea NBC offers internet versions. Delayed and in no way does the video and audio compare.  You get the content but if you want quality forget it.


      I must be getting old and am set in my ways but I refuse to watch internet television on my Blackberry, laptop or 24" desktop.


      If the advertising revenue goes away because of loss of over the air so will the costly productions the free networks produce.   There will be plenty of reality programs if that is what you want.


      I personally do not watch over the air television as I live in the country and it isn't available.  I pay $100/month for satellite programming without any pay per month channels so this wouldn't impact me much.  I'm too old for the demographic of today's network television and if it isn't football, golf, Olympics or a special news event I have no use for the programming and watch cable channels.


      From: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com [mailto:HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Neutrino78x
      Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:44 PM
      To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Dark?



      --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, Don Hackler <donh@...> wrote:

      > NBC only has the content available on hulu.com, NBC.com, or iTunes >because
      the production was funded by the advertisements in the over >the air broadcast. It wouldn't have been produced in the first >place if the web advertising or the iTunes revenue was the only >income.

      Yeah, but if free TV went away, TV shows would be funded by subscriptions, just as movies are funded by ticket sales. If it all goes to IPTV, that doesn't mean there won't be advertiser supported shows. They will just be on IPTV instead of broadcast. I don't know why you would think otherwise. The business model for IPTV is basically the same as cable, except there is a lot more competition in a given market.

      Again, the free streams on NBC.com are advertiser supported. That is no different from free broadcast TV. If you want a video file free of advertising, that you can play back anytime, you buy it on iTunes.

      In any case, no one is suggesting that all broadcast TV is going to be eliminated by the government with the National Broadband Initiative. Some channels may be eliminated. I imagine it wouldn't be many, as Wi-Fi and WiMAX generally use microwave frequencies, or higher frequencies anyway.

      Eventually, though, broadcast TV will go away, voluntarily, for market reasons. It is an obsolete communication method, like radio broadcast, but worse, because it is even more expensive. General Colin Powell's son said a while back that broadcast TV is on life support, and if something is not done, the patient will die.

      > That camera doesn't record video that can be used professionally . >It
      uses a lossy compression that is fine for home movies and >youtube, but it's not suitable for broadcast.
      > Only a slight portion of the real cost of production for the >shows you
      would watch on network tv (or hulu.com) is the equipment. >It's the writers, actors, crew, sets, logistics, etc. An hour >episode of an evening network drama costs a million or two (maybe >more) to produce.

      I know that, my point is that many, many more people are now making their own content, and the free market selects what is best.

      Here are examples of good quality TV that does not cost a million dollars per hour to produce:


      (my favorite is star trek new voyages)

      Admittedly, most involved are volunteers. They have writers from the original Star Trek as well as TNG volunteering their content, and professional actors who have starred in ST also have volunteered for that show, including Mr. Sulu (George Takei). You should watch World Enough and Time, produced in HD, with George Takei playing Mr. Sulu and the original Yeoman Rand playing her.

      The world has changed, man. It isn't the 60s or even the 80s anymore...TV needs to change with it.

      > > I think that's a good thing, some of the best TV shows are >>produced without those restrictions, like Mad Men, Rescue Me, Queer >>As Folk and The "L" Word.
      > ...and none of those shows would be produced without the >advertising
      (and cable) revenues to fund the initial production.

      I don't see how that detracts from my point, sir. Regardless of how they were funded, some of the best content available was produced for a medium not subject to the censorship on broadcast TV.

      > > Well, with the Internet, you have 10,000 channels just for >>children's programming. The government has its own video channels.
      > I'm not sure where you would find 10,000 channels of kids >programming.

      YouTube has more than that, right now. 90% of channels on YouTube are appropriate for children, what is not is flagged by the users as such.

      > Richard wasn't opposed to the idea, but he just was pointing out >what
      would happen if there is no more over the air television. It >has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics.

      Yes, it does. He is opposed to the idea, that was the point of the post to which I responded, and he clearly stated that "the attitude in Washington right now" was part of his problem.

      > OK, now you are proving my point. Last time I checked, television >is a
      wireless service.

      It is a wireless communication method which is not very efficient compared to a 100 Mbps wireless IP connection, which is what the National Broadband Initiative is designed to advance.

      >My guess is that most of the wireless internet providers would not >appreciate
      you doing that with their signals.

      In most cases you would pay a monthly fee, just like you do now. It is possible to have a free wireless internet connection, supposed by advertising, however.

      > No wireless internet provider (or even all of them together) can >provide the aggregate bandwidth required for a large portion of the >bay
      area to watching broadcast quality television at the same time.

      You are missing the whole point! With the National Broadband Initiative, you are wrong. They intend for 90% of homes to have a 100 Mbps connection (to each home). This is more than enough bandwidth to deliver an HD IPTV stream to the home, with a lot of bandwidth left over. It is already funded and enacted, it was part of the stimulus bill. Actually you can already watch a HDTV stream on the net, but this enables a lot more also.

      btw -- in 2008 Google alone processed 184 petabytes per month (a petabyte is far larger than a terabyte). And Google only uses 16% of all consumer bandwidth. Per this study (it is a PDF file):


      (ironically, netcompetition.org is a very slow web site. at least, it is taking a long time to download the PDF from them...)

      So I would question your estimate of the bandwidth available today. The problem is, what is the bandwidth of the last mile, the consumer connection. That's what the National Broadband Initiative is trying to improve.

      >There is an incremental bandwidth cost for every additional receiver >using the internet, while there is no incremental cost for >additional
      viewers of a television signal.

      Yes, but the entity which produces content does not pay said incremental cost. Said cost is paid by the subscribers to the internet connection. It is free to post a video to YouTube, even if 1 billion people watch it.

      Granted, if you're hosting your own web site, it is a little more expensive, but still nowhere near the cost of owning a broadcast TV station.


    • Richard Swank
      Well that can be taken the wrong way.....it is just that after a week+ regarding a topic that turns out to be a political issue verses any technical issue it
      Message 74 of 74 , Apr 8 5:44 PM

        Well that can be taken the wrong way.....it is just that after a week+ regarding a topic that turns out to be a political issue verses any technical issue it is time to stop discussing it on a technical based users group.  By the way I meant either pro or con call your congressman.   I'm too old to make my life miserable either way but I am con the issue.


        From: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com [mailto:HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of toychinook
        Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:41 PM
        To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: Dark?



        --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Swank" <rswank@...> wrote:

        > So why don't those that care call a congressman and leave it off the users
        > group?

        Now I know what they mean about you.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.