Slashdot Mirror
Free Net TV Threatens Telecoms
An anonymous reader writes "C|Net's running an article about the threat free television on the internet poses to traditional telecoms and cable companies." From the article: "No one is expecting Internet television to cannibalize traditional TV models overnight. Despite advancements in streaming technology, video delivered on the Web can still be choppy, with frequent interruptions as data packets buffer and reload on the screen. In fact many viewers who watched the NCAA tournament aired by CBS on the Internet last month complained about the network being overloaded."
A new technology comes along that threatens their iron grip on said media's distribution.
The archaic dinosaurs do not know what to do so they spread FUD everywhere and turn to the law and lobbying for protection of their source of infinite wealth. They refuse to change to their environment and instead force the environment to change to them--a fatalistic attitude that hinders innovation and growth among other things.
After all the dust settles, the end consumer (99.9% of the populace) is the one that misses out on what might have been.
This story could be applied all the way back to printed text that was held from the commoners and slaves to hinder knowledge and understanding.
It happened with music. It happened with videos. It's happening with television. And it will happen with everything because the people running the industries refuse to lose their power or adapt their production methods. How about we wake up and change the headline from to or We're eating out of the hands of a few select companies and with television over the internet, the fact is that we might not have to.
My work here is dung.
Why would I want to get that for free, when I already pay for it from Comcast?
Walt Disney's bold move to let people download TV shows for free could spell trouble for cable and satellite providers
.swf wrapper like youtube/Google video/etc. to guard against easy ripping.
If I understand correctly (which has been known to happen occasionally) shows will just be offered as a stream, not readily downloadable. My guess is they'll also use an
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
The guy presenting this lecture has the right idea.
In short, he thinks small icon advertisements (eg. "drink coke") should be put in the corner of a TV show, and then the TV show should be freely distributed on bittorrent. Everyone wins.
As telecoms develops, any and all 'archaeic technologies' will eventually be replaced. This includes T.V. in its current form.
This will not happen for a long time though, not until the connection speeds and data compression/quality manage to provide an equal to what is currently available.
We can see slight shifts of emphasis now [in the U.K.] with legislation going about switching OFF analogue signals [soon-ish]. This leave just the digital environment. And as more and more of our entertainment goods goes to digital, we will find that the distinction between 'Telly' and 'computer' and 'phone' and 'dvd player'will dissolve till we have the grail of home medai management.
>>>Scanning for I.D.I.O.T.S. >>>
>>>I.D.I.O.T.S. FOUND! >>>
As a slashdotter who is stuck on dial up due to my unfortunate location, I think I'll be sticking to older forms of TV for a while. I'm not exactly sure what they mean by internet video or why its so popular, so far it only seems to "buffer" and slow my blazing fast 56k connection...
lol: You see no door there!
so why can't it get here already??
ONE pipe to each home. Pure fiber. Multi gigabit standard.
All data to and from the home, be it voice, audio, video, text, &c &c &c flow through that pipe.
Airwaves free to use for mobile applications.
GUH! Why can't the future just be here?
[/rant]
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
I've been looking for advice and opinions on a "dream" of mine on the verge of coming true -- an idea I call No Copyright Studios. Basically the idea was initially to sponsor bands who dropped all their music into the public domain in exchange for all the free marketing that could drive more fans to their shows. Now we're looking at enticing another group of artists to work to build a digital library of free programming in exchange for driving people to see them live: the theatre group.
I've been thinking about all the great actors I personally know (I love SOME local theatre) and how they could record some of their skits as mini-TV-shows to broadcast freely online. I've also thought that we could get a few different groups throughout the country to work on similar vignettes, creating interest not just in my local Chicago area.
The more I look at the quality increases of amateur performers online, the more I realize that the big cartels that controlled distribution for nearly 70 year ARE in trouble. No, we aren't there yet, but we're getting there. I just picked up 3 3-chip DV cams for under US$4000 total, brand new, 16:9. Amazing what competition can do to drive prices down so that amateurs can start competing with the big guys. Even HD cams are dropping in price.
I think the big issue right now is forgoing "protection" of the medium or the data and just letting it go wherever it can go. In the long run, people seem to be willing to pay for a la carte entertainment, so I believe that we can see a return to the old days when artists were sponsored by the masses solely to create. No Copyright Studios has numerous ways for artists to make money without copyright, including charging for fans to watch the band in the studio live (via the web). As more people embrace the idea of letting your digital product become your marketing sysetem, the quality will go up. Competition still exists even when a product is given away.
The question is: what will the cartels do to stop it? The big print media outlets are forming blogs, which are succeeding within reason (Slate?). The big radio outlets are jumping beyond their pre-set formats, bringing some people back to the radio, and some are even podcasting.
Can big media hold on when the prices are quickly dropping to zero and advertising can be bypassed with the press of a button? What is the next step for them?
Of course network tv is threatened by this. It's old technology and hasn't changed much to adapt to younger generations. TIVO started the push towards controlling your tv, but thats not enough. People want to watch whatever they want, whenever they want it with little interuption. Some may say this is unrealistic, but if the public demands it long enough, someone will provide it. ABC is already starting to offer some shows.
http://religiousfreaks.com/In every colour there's the light. In every stone sleeps a crystal.
Let's Tear Down the Boundaries of Connectivity!
There will be no more free TV
It would seem Disney is confused about what it want, or who its friends are. Back in November of 2002, Disney sent a letter to the FCC asking "transmission network operators do not encumber relationships between their customers and destinations on the network."
Recently: "Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger weighed in on the network neutrality debate Monday with an opinion guaranteed to please his hosts here at the TelecomNext show -- in that he doesn't think any new legislation is needed."
Now, Disney wants to be a content provider, yet is siding with the telecoms in an endeavor that will ultimatly hurt content providers by trying in vain to prioritize selected traffic for selected content providers and consumers. Whoever it was at Disney that understood that trying to guarantee that a class of traffic gets prioritized fairly throughout all routers running the internet was virtually impossible must have left.
It would seem Disney want to feed them selves with one hand, and stab themselves with the other. What a Mickey Mouse operation.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Try nightmare.
Ze dark side has won. Get over it! We'll rebuild ze boundaries of connectivity.
...how the data is delivered, unless they come up with something worth watching it won't mean a damn.
We see how the broadcast stations are trying to maintain revenue by just redoubling their efforts to do all the kind of stuff that drives away audiences (longer, more frequent ad break, screen covered with DOGs, truncated credits, entire storylines cut out of programs to force them into ever shorter time slots.)
Treat the audience with some respect.
Watch what happens to satelite radio...it will be a pre-cursor to what happens with video.
I can already take my phone/PDA, load a streaming media player and stream virgin atlantic classic radio through my cell companies unlimited data services at 160Kbs. Take the audio mini-jack out of my PDA, add a power adapter so it does not drain the juice and I can plug that directly into my car stereo system. Presto! The collection of radio stations at broadband speeds are available via my car. On top of that, with 768Kb/s upstream from my cable modem I'm able to access via teh web my ENTIRE music collection at home and have it streamed to my car.
I predict within 3 years (probably MUCH sooner) you will be able to buy a head unit for your car with either A) cell phone electronics on it or B) a cradle for your phone so the head unit can receive streaming audio from the internet.
Unless they limit the stream rate server side, it's trivial to rip any stream out of it's wrapper and download it at full speed.
I always wondered why most sites don't take that basic precaution when they're providing non-downloadable streaming video. It really isn't a problem unless I'm forced to download the thing in real time... that's a bit painful, though not a showstopper.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I just posted last week IIRC that
Internet is going to overtake all froms of media due networking being superior to any distribution(Not in speed right now,but it possible when infrastructure changes) was moderated as funny.
Well, you don't get straming video from 56K,
But i don't need it "streaming/Buffering" I just download the torrents and watch it later.
And you (technically) would be able to download any video torrent with dialup.
It just will take too much time.
56kbit=
7KBs=604 MB day(or about 300 MB day at half-max speed).I can download about 17GB daily (about 25 video CDs) at max speed.
" Despite advancements in streaming technology, video delivered on the Web can still be choppy, with frequent interruptions as data packets buffer and reload on the screen."
That must be RealTV.
Seriously while the delivery chain may be threatened (a favorite "/." meme). The content producers aren't, as long as they continue to get funded.
Its not really a threat, well unless you consider watching the profits go from big name studios to triple and quadruple play carriers a threat.
Did we forget that tiered internet thingy? Yep. as soon as media shifts to all digital, we have a new set of pipers to pay. Instead of the old cable companies and commercials, it will be digital network providers and commercials PLUS the overhead of tiered network costs if you want to watch that with fewer commercials and in real time streaming.
All of this posturing and lobbying is about capturing market, ensuring that investors will be happy in the future.
Digital content is simply a different medium, and the big players, even the new ones, are not going to let it go for free. If they can't get advertising dollars for it, they will try to charge premium costs for access to it.
One thing is for certain, you can bet that Hollywood, television networks, and other media content providers will be vying to pick consumer's pockets for a very long time indeed.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
When we finally get decent broadband when the upload is same as download, it will be over.
Why doesn't some savy media house have a few servers with pipes and seed shows with bittorrent. You could place the seeds around the world, like mirrors. Then you produce and release show with a few ads. I know everyone says, well people will delete the ads - but if they are tiny and clever - aka people watch the ads in the superbowl because they are interesting.
But seeing as the time consuming part of bittorrent is encoding and seeding, which the media house does - they retain some control of the content. If I knew I could go to site X and get shows, no problems with copyright, people might be too lazy to encode shows. Combine your media releases in a rss feed to a set top media box with bittorrent on a tv.
It will only take one company to do it with a quality production, before the avalanch starts.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
You mean you don't normally leave your computer on all the time?
Ever watch HK films? Product placements all over the damn place, and I could not care less. You gotta get money to produce and distribute things, and you gotta get that money from somewhere. I'd much rather have someone pull out a particular brand of cell phone to make a call that was in the script, than have to sit through a fucking completely unrelated ad - that only interrupts my viewing experience - about said cell phone.
There's nothing I hate more than the stupid animations that pop up in the middle of a show to advertise other shows, or just tell you what network you're watching. On MTV2 they've gone so far as to cover the MIDDLE of the screen with animation in the middle of a show @#$@$!$#! I definitely don't trust anyone to put non-obtrusive ads overlayed in the corner of a show. Pop-up ads and flash overlays are REALLY annoying.
The US is headed toward being a third-world telecommunications country because the American public is being dumbed down about what is really high speed Internet. Megabit speeds are legacy technology, regardless of what the cable and DSL providers say. Other countries are going to gigabit technology -- to the home and at reasonably low cost (say $50 per month for Internet, telephone, and cable TV combined).
/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf
Take a look at the white paper at:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip
However, we must have net neutrality to do it, which means that bandwidth providers can't also be content/applications/services providers. Under such a gigabit Internet concept, you would separately negotiate for content, applications, and services. That blows away the business models of present cable providers and what the telcos are lobbying to get.
This is where we need to head, and the FCC and Congress need to stop listening to incumbent providers and start thinking about what is best for everyone.
There is nothing wrong with new technology displacing old technology.
I don't understand why in many supposedly free market economy countries this is portrayed in a negative light and some governments even try to protect old, uncompetitive technologies by laws. Why is the innovation a bad thing?
It's still in beta, and it runs slowly on my Mac, but the way you can subscribe to channels or just download individual shows/clips is pretty cool. Could this be the future of TV? It's not really on-demand; it's more like demand-then-wait-for-download, but you get better video quality than most streaming solutions. I'd be curious to know what people think of this idea.
Electric Monkey Pants
It all boils down to isochronous delivery: broadcasters have us trained to think that entertainment is event driven, like "Survivor" or another scheduled event. In fact, few shows need be delivered this way.
The telcos that would prioritize their own isochronous/realtime delivery system only get an advantage there. We can still download movies, sports, or whatever for use at our convenience. This means that the NCAA Final Four is probably hot property for QoS throttling, where downloads of Star Wars movies or even Buster Keaton aren't affected by a time domain.
Bottom line: only event-driven, realtime entertainment that isn't available for time delay consumption matters. The on-air broadcasters already know this.... and the telcos are just trying to find a way to shave (or add) a piece from the deals we make. They'll likely win, because they're thoroughly bribed the congress for years into doing it 'their way' vis-a-vis their ability to get the FCC to play along, and for net-neutrality legislation to be handily squashed.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
... because you'll have a choice. You can either watch low-res, grainy video with commercials over an Internet connection, or grab a torrent and watch full-quality video with no commercials right off your hard drive. When you can wake up Monday morning and find an hours-old HR-HDTV copy of the Sopranos with 5.1 audio sitting on your desktop, that you can watch whenever you want, you get spoiled.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
Web can still be choppy, with frequent interruptions as data packets buffer and reload on the screen
Some broadcasters seem to get it much better than others:
http://delicast.com/tv/Ministry_of_Sound
or
http://delicast.com/tv/NASA_TV
The bitrates are not impressive, but I can't recall a single pause/buffering issue with them (adsl2+, UK).
Basic cable costs around $25 a month.
My cable internet connection costs around $45.
And my cable company is worried... why? Unless the cost of running their cable internet operation is significantly higher, they're actually making more money off me than they would were I merely a cable subscriber. It seems to me that if they adapt to the times, and focus on become one of the primary providers of high-bandwidth internet connections to people's homes, they'll be in good shape. Much of the infrastructure they'd need is already in place. They already have lines going into everyone's homes capable of providing much of the bandwidth people need. In the future it will simply be cable vs. DSL, as opposed to cable vs. sattelite.
In fact many viewers who watched the NCAA tournament aired by CBS on the Internet last month complained about the network being overloaded.
In other news... no-one goes to the beach any more because it's always overcrowded.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I know there are some other reasons books are less popular than tv shows, but I have to wonder what effect the ability to download shows at your leisure will have on the social aspects of television. I'm not really opposed to the idea of DVRs or TV downloads, I just wonder what unintended consequences it may have.
Free net tv isn't free, they may not charge for the stream but for many it still counts against bandwidth limits. When I turn on my tv connected only to an antenna ... that is free tv. Except of course for the brain burn causesd by advertising but that is a whole different story.
It's not like having a choppy picture is anything new. Back before cable was very popular, and 95% of consumers used only antennaes, static was everywhere. Reception was horrible at times, and yet still people used the technology. One of the major issues was that watching national stations was free while cable was very expensive. It's a trade off that people make between quality and cost, and they know that.
Where that tradeoff comes in now is in time and attention. People like watching tv on the internet because it's the only thing they have to do, and the few sites that actually try commercials probably don't get as much viewer attention as a tv. People just minimize it and go do something else until the commercials are over. This is different than walking away from a TV, namely because there is no walking involved. People are lazy, yes, but they aren't lazy enough to not minimize a window.
So in general, I would agree that free internet video will likely bring down the major broadcasters. It will take time of course, and things like poor bandwidth or resolution are definitely a hinderance right now, it's nothing we haven't seen before.
unless they have made a breakthrough in mass psychic transference, you get Internet connectivity through wires or waves... that means telcos, cablecos, and wirelesscos... in addition to television the way God created it, by modulated broadcast radio waves.
so I-TV kills the carriers? boGUSSSSS. the writer is channeling Ralph Kramden.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Sounds kinda like, "These 'video disks' will never overtake our VHS format. Look at how big and expensive they are!"
Ignoring the ground during the fall, eh TV execs?
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
There is an increasing number of industry leaders talking against free services.
Namely VoIP, free internet TV and the likes.
The real fear is for users (of course) because someday some smart guy could be able to have internet traffic filtered out (or hindered) in order to block those protocols/applications.
Some alre already doing this against VoIP!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
To stop DoS attacks, cause mass consumption of the same media just will not work well in a request/response infrastructure vs. a data casting infrastructure. Hence, TFA is another FUD ploy.
The evening news should not go unquestioned. Think of all the mischievous, world-changing possibilities that open when TV and the net converge even closer. Video streams from two (or multiple) sources could be synchronized and composited together according to instructions on a control channel. The video sources could be DVD's, or video streams from the net. The compositing logic could be on an HDTV, or set-top box. You could watch TV with friends anywhere in cyberspace. You could syndicate and rebroadcast your own channel, intended to be merged and watched with "mainstream media". Think MST3K, Third Voice, or Wayne's World. Real-time critiques of old-style TV. Just you wait till Howard Stern starts ripping on the evening news. In low-bandwidth conditions, TV becomes like "pop-up video", as you IM with friends who are watching the same TV show, at the same time, on your TV set. Imagine special DVD players into which two DVD's are loaded simultaneously. One DVD can make a live mash-up of the other DVD. So you pop in "The Phantom Menace", and a "remixer" DVD that carries control data, and additional audio-video data to show you a special edit of George Lucas' film.
-- Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
Television is so bad, especially network television, that I don't see why anyone would want to watch it at all. The real question isn't where and how you're going to watch TV. The question is why you want to watch TV in the first place. Go read a book, or go outside and do something. Use your mind. Life's too short to spend it sucking at the glass teat.
If this content was distruted as multicast streams rather than unicast traffic there would be much less load on the backbone.
Multicast streams wouldn't be completely on-demand, but there's ways around that.
-carl
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
To be honest, I signed up for the NCAA webcast, but couldn't figure out how in the hell to actually watch a game. I couldn't find the links to the actual broadcasts anywhere. I ended up just getting my info from ESPN and such.
I do security
Not to mention Dish and their "HD Lite" pseudo HD, which is utter garbage.
As far as the original topic, people will claim that it's not forward thinking enough to say that the natural progression of free TV isn't high quality free TV on the net. The reality is, it isn't. Getting the video to your living room, which will always be the setting of choice for watching TV, will never be something that is easily accessible. Tie that in with the fact that even though people think we're going to magically pull bandwidth out of our asses in the future, and it's just not going to happen.
Fiber optic into homes doesn't change that the backend bandwidth doesn't exist to support it in widespread delivery.
Ironicly, I just canceled service and sent the box back this morning, but if you want to see a current IPTV provider who seems to be headed in the right direction, check out www.itvn.com (might not be work safe). The bulk of their 100+ chennels is porn right now but they are expanding to movies and other TV content.
The cool thing with them is they use a small Set top box that connectes to ethernet and your TV. It isn't quite as refined as your cable / satellite box but it's pretty good. It's worth checking out. No, it isn't free.
Not exactly apples to apples for what the article is talking about, but it is an Internet TV solution that looks to be the future of TV.
The dark side and the light side are both evil. The one true path is the edge of the coin. Wide is the path, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction. The dark and light sides are both wide.
>>Isochronous can be contrasted with asynchronous, which refers to processes in which data streams can be broken by random intervals, and synchronous processes, in which data streams can be delivered only at specific intervals. Isochronous service is not as rigid as synchronous service, but not as lenient as asynchronous service.>> this is the citation from your link, and it's not quite correct.
Asynchronous data means literally without clock. Sender and receiver use timed or externally clocked framing.
Synchronous data sends the clock, hence the 'synch' prefix. Most modems, and many serial links use asynch. Synch links are largely seen in older IBM terminals. There are no framing bytes/bits/nibbles in synchronous data, where these are present in asynch data to help frame packets by creating gaps. This helps electrically/optically to frame-out the data portions from signalling and control. There is a variation, bi-synch, where each side can send their own clock autonomously of the other, allowing different rates or clocks to be applied to each side of the conversation.
In isochronous transmission, the data are timed within their own time domain, although that time domain may be represented by a standard framing context over a-, bi-, or sychronous transports. Isochronous data becomes broken, by a quality metric, when sufficient jitter or latency prevents correct interpretation of the data as perceived by the recipient. This means, jaggies, pixelation, drop-outs, and the other uglies of audio/video reception. A lot of this is older than dirt, but completely relevant when it comes to the realtime vs time-delayed content arguments. Realtime means NOW. Otherwise, it's your favorite version of download now, play later. Realtime then connotes isochronicity and all of the crap necessary to ensure a pleasant viewing experience. So, the dolts are trying to herd cats, as far as I'm concerned. Hence the post.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
i've canceled my cable tv in favor of just buying whole seasons (on dvd) of whatever shows i'm actually interested in.
also recently, (as of last night) i finally decided to connect my computer and the tv. it about as easy as connecting a vcr. i'm on a mac, albeit a 3+ year old titanium powerbook, it does seem particularly well suited to this purpose.
the dvd's combined with whatever i have on my computer (podcasts, adult swim fix), make for a much more satisfying 'tv' experience. i am however, paying a lot more for it, considering.
for a minute there, i lost myself...
There is absolutely ZERO reason for network congestion during the broadcast of sports and here is why. When that show first becomes available, it should be made available first only as a multicast stream. This of course means that someone dropping in on the show in the middle will catch it mid-stream, but this is no different than it is now with sports. In fact you can do the same with TV. Heck, you could even stagger several multicasts starting every minute, one after the other so that the viewer doesn't have to wait long if at all for it. 60 multicasts is a LOT less than 20 million viewers.
Cacheing isn't a good idea, unless it is used in conjunction with multicast.
The thing is, most TV ain't sports or anything else where viewers have realtime needs. Sure, maybe some fraction of the market cares about streaming. The rest of us are happy -- no, actually prefer -- time-shifting.
Forget your streaming "technology" and just make your stuff available on a web or ftp server, and you'll still get millions of people to come to you. If Verizon ain't scared of that..
And that's ignoring the fact that things are generally getting faster, so streaming will eventually become viable (assuming it isn't viable already).
Screw "broadband" and "services". Just sell me "band" and I'll decide how "broad"ly to use it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Or do what the rest of the world has been increasingly doing since the early 80's--play video games. Mind-numbing entertainment vs. INTERACTIVE entertainment. I'm still wondering what's taking so long for the rest of the sheeple of the world to catch on. Slowly but surely. And yet all these media/content companies STILL cannot figure out what the hell is going on (decline in music sales, radio listening, tv watching, movie theater attendance--it's all related if you look)--"it must be piracy!!!" Yeah, right. The interactive entertainment industry has already surpassed the movie industry in sales (look at Halo 2 or GTA:SA for some recent examples) and nothing can reverse the trend. Even if they completely stopped producing video games, music and movies today, there's an immense existing catalog with which to entertain yourself until the end of your happy life. The only thing that cannot be truly replaced (yet) is the experience of going to see live bands or sporting events. That may never be fully replaced but if the second best thing is good enough (or better to some--see home theater vs. movie theater), bye bye massive sports salaries.
We're almost at the zenith of entertainment (finally): average user goes on the Internet and hears a clip/sees an article/visits a site about a band or song, downloads the song(s) in minutes (or less), transfers the song(s) using their $30 1 GB USB memory stick to the back of their Xbox 360 and proceeds to play interactive entertainment in HD while listening to their own music in 5.1 surround sound. User is in a blissful state of entertainment happiness, life rocks. Change a few variables and the fun never stops--pop in a movie DVD or music/concert DVD or TV show on DVD, burn the music as a music CD or data CD (or DVD), listen to it in your car, on your stereo, cell phone, etc. Take your DVD's on the go with a portable DVD player, burn a backup so you never have to re-buy the same thing (HD discs are a flop). The possibilities are limitless: you have the power to create an optimal entertainment experience. It's over for the media/content companies, they just don't realise it yet. Mark my words, as soon as this is an average experience for the average person (it seems to be just the techs these days thus far that GET it (although Napster and its ilk was a preview of the reaction of the masses)), you will witness a shift in society like never before. It's like when I was a kid and couldn't imagine my parents as Grandpa and Grandma listening to the Rolling Stones (still can't) but it's coming. And it will be a trip.
Old methods fade away to new methods. They stick around for a while as 'fun' things to do, like hunting or sailing, but new tech replace them for practical business or military uses.
Hunting was replaced by farming, the stable replaced by the garage, the blacksmith replaced by the machinist, the crossbow replaced by the gun, sails replaced by motors, hemp was replaced by nylon, the royal page replaced by newspapers, the scribe replaced by the printing press, the passenger boat replaced by airplanes, and so on. Try to stop this and progress will work around the damage in other parts of the world.
It turns out internet tv is download lot's of content, watch it when I want. The TiVo proved this type of viewing appeals to users. And protocols such as bittorrent make it possible. Like democracy player. That does mean it is hard for the content industry to control distribution, cause distribution is p2p. So they will oppose it.
The reality is that terrestial broadcasting is doomed, and telecom will just become a utility like electricity.
No, I will not work for your startup
Feature Film Released on Internet; Does End Run Around Major Movie Houses
I love it!
Pat
Perfect Sales Career