The Economist On Television Over Broadband

zxjio recommends a pair of articles in The Economist discussing television over broadband, and the effects of DVR use. "Cable-television companies make money by selling packages of channels. The average American household pays $700 a year for over 100 channels of cable television but watches no more than 15. Most would welcome the chance to buy only those channels they want to watch, rather than pay for expensive packages of programming they are largely not interested in. They would prefer greater variety, too — something the internet offers in abundance. A surprising amount of video is available free from websites like Hulu and YouTube, or for a modest fee from iTunes, Netflix Watch Instantly and Amazon Video on Demand. ... Consumers' new-found freedom to choose has struck fear into the hearts of the cable companies. They have been trying to slow internet televisions steady march into the living room by rolling out DOCSIS 3 at a snails pace and then stinging customers for its services. Another favorite trick has been to cap the amount of data that can be downloaded, or to charge extortionately by the megabyte. Yet the measures to suffocate internet television being taken by the cable companies may already be too late. A torrent of innovative start-ups, not seen since the dot-com mania of a decade ago, is flooding the market with technology for supplying internet television to the living room." And from the second article on DVR usage patterns: "Families with DVRs seem to spend 15-20% of their viewing time watching pre-recorded shows, and skip only about half of all advertisements. This means only about 5% of television is time-shifted and less than 3% of all advertisements are skipped. Mitigating that loss, people with DVRs watch more television. ... Early adopters of DVRs used them a lot — not surprisingly, since they paid so much for them. Later adopters use them much less (about two-thirds less, according to a recent study)."

Comments

I guess I'm at the far extreme

[blackjackshellac]

My television viewing is probably about 99% on DVR and I skip all commercials religiously, although if I see an image that intrigues me I will stop and rewind.

Cable television is dead in the water. Now we have to wrestle control of the network pipes from them, or at the very least have public network infrastructure installed (fibre to home anyone?). Socialism is good.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[electrosoccertux]

No, socialism is bad, it's what got us here in the first place. Gave the telcos $200B for a 46mbps pipe to the home by 2008 (? might have been 2006, I don't recall). As is typical with government, there was no oversight, or checks to make sure what needed to be done was being done...the money disappeared.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Enry]

This and this. We've been using Tivo since 2001 and I'd say our viewing is the exact opposite of what the Economist says.

I think the only reason we see ads anymore is when my daughter is watching a pre-recorded show from Disney Channel or Cartoon Network - she can't work the fast-forward yet.

It's just so great not to have to be tied to the network's idea of when I should be watching TV. Have a meeting on Monday nights? No problem, Heroes, 24, and House will be there waiting for me in full HD glory.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[John Hasler]

You already have socialism: it is government that grants these companies their exclusive monopolies. Why do you think that a bigger, more intrusive monopoly will lead to improvement? Take the monopoly away, don't strengthen it.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[morgan_greywolf]

Yep. I remember that provision. And apparently so does Robert X. Cringely. I remember thinking back then that by now we'd have 45 mbps, which was practically unheard of back then. Most of the country was on dialup, and there were a few folks on cablemodems.

So where did the $200 billion go? Read Cringely.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Doug Neal]

You already have socialism: it is government that grants these companies their exclusive monopolies. Why do you think that a bigger, more intrusive monopoly will lead to improvement? Take the monopoly away, don't strengthen it.

That's not socialism, though.

The important difference between a publicly-run network and a privately-run network is that the public network is not run with the intention of generating maximum profits for the shareholders, but rather for the public good. Financially speaking, it's fine if it breaks even. Fast fibre connections into every home would also have many secondary economic benefits to the community that are harder to quantify than a company's balance sheet. Yes it's technically a monopoly, but many of the reasons for a monopoly being a bad thing no longer exist. There would also be nothing to stop telcos from building their own private networks alongside the public one. Given the choice between a public monopoly and a private one, I'd rather have the public one every time.

I would possibly like to see such a public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages. This would completely level out the playing field and make true market competition possible. This is evident in the way that the incumbent telcos are trying to get bills passed to prevent this from happening; they are scared shitless by the possibility that the power they have to completely rape their customers for as much money as possible for as shoddy service as they can get away with, would be neutralised.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[mrsquid0]

That was not socialism. If it had been socialism the government would have put some oversight in place to make sure that the telecommunications companies actually rolled the fat pipes that they promised to. There would have been regulation and some control over the companies that received this money to make sure that the money did not just vanish into shareholders' pockets. What happened in telecommunications in the US in the 1990s and 2000s was a classic example of what happens if you just let private companies do whatever they want with public money.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[funkatron]

That is not socialism, it's incompetence. Making sure that work paid for (in this case rolling out telecoms infrastructure) is done properly is basic management and should be part of every system of government.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[jaypifer]

The important difference between a publicly-run network and a privately-run network is that the public network is not run with the intention of generating maximum profits for the shareholders, but rather for the public good.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that just because a network is public that profit isn't a motivation. Nor is everything publicly-run done for the "public good".

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Hatta]

I would possibly like to see such a public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages.

If you do that, what's the point of the service providers? Why not get your internet directly from the government and cut out the middle man?

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Anonymous Coward]

But a private network is NEVER for the public good, and ALWAYS motivated by profit. Not good odds...

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, I believe that's actually called fascism.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[fastest fascist]

QFT. Socialism as it relates to the issue at hand would require the companies that have monopolies to be owned by the people, which in a centrally led system would end up meaning state ownership of the companies. The wisdom of that can still be debated, but just throwing pork at privately owned companies is pretty far from socialism, and calling it that is a sign either of confusion or dishonesty.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[smallfries]

The BBC is a perfect example of what you are saying. Despite being funded by the taxpayer they are run along commercial lines with orders to maximise profits...

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[wealthychef]

I usually think that when the government starts merging with industry, it's called Fascism, which is more an attribute of the right than left, but both parties are moving that direction. Usually the government nationalizes corporations, but if the government is run by the corporations, it will end up being the same thing... the single party bit is true in all but name now -- neither party resists the corporatism.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[subreality]

public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it

That's more than the government needs to be involved in to fix things. All they need to do is provide *fiber* for service providers to resell. Keep it to the absolute minimum that has a natural monopoly, and let the market take care of everything where competition can be provided.

I've said more about this before.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[snaz555]

I would possibly like to see such a public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages.

The way I see it it has nothing to do with socialism or private vs government. It has to do with a division of who does what. Clearly no free market exists without a government (the fabled bazaar is very much a government creation), and corporations are communist: they're command economies strictly planned and executed from top, ultimately controlled by a small circle (the politburo/board of directors). And like any communist structure they give lip service to things like integrity and values while planning to stab each other in the back. It's not surprising that organizations like this can't meet deliverables while they enrich the most important people in the world: their senior management. (And even if they're too humble in public to express this sentiment, that's how they view themselves.)

The problem with broadband today is that the infrastructure model is that of railroads. A RR could hold a municipality hostage and make preposterous demands in return for running a line to it. Even though running the line without any incentive whatsoever from the local government would still be profitable and a very good business idea, milking the municipality was even better! Make a big public outcry about how expensive and unprofitable it is and how it needs to be supported with tax incentives and exclusive deals. And we all saw how well the RR's handled changes in infrastructure needs. Nationalizing didn't really make much difference, because the fundamental problem is in the infrastructure model itself: competing behemoths that own and manage infrastructure as property.

What we need is the interstate model. Yeah, it's not profitable. Heck, we don't even try to monetize it. Instead we recognize that it provides value greatly in excess of the tax payer cost of operating it. It's open to everyone for whatever they choose to use it for. If you want to run a trucking company, by all means, all you need is a truck! You don't have to start by building roads, or leasing rights to whatever stretch you want to run. Just do it, who knows, maybe you can grow it to compete with UPS? Yeah, there may be weight stations, gasoline taxes, and fees, but that's really not a significant issue, and it's the same for everyone. No old-boys network, no special deals, no exclusive contracts. In providing the interstate system we provide an important tool to reduce the barrier of entry for transportation. We help create a market for transportation services.

What if UPS and Fedex owned the interstate system? Would anyone in their right mind think it would be a good idea to sell it in pieces to the highest bidder? Yet, that is exactly what we've done with our communications infrastructure. Of course it's dysfunctional. Trying to regulate free access back into it really doesn't work either - because of the nature of authoritarian command economies and how the people at their top think it simply isn't in their nature to accept.

We've done the same for airports - these are paid for by taxpayers, and even though there are some usage fees, it's pretty trivial stuff. Want to start an airline? By all means; all you need is terminal space and an aircraft. Airport operations and air traffic control is provided by the tax payer.

So we should create a federal communications authority, that simply goes ahead and lays the fiber. It should contract not with telcos but with the people who actually dig the trenches and splice the ends. Then they sell access at some nominal fee, not necessarily to make a profit or even break even but to avoid the tragedy of the commons. The resulting economic growth spurred by innovation in technology and new previously impossible business models then produces a tax base which indirectly pays for the infrastructure. This is really the ONLY way to get it done. Unfortunately our

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Jawn98685]

Why do you think that the Democratic Party is fascist? Because you and the others in the ditto-head legions heard some blow-hard entertainer use the term?
Wake the hell up, man. The labels don't mean much, the actions of our elected officials do, and those actions are, largely, bought and paid for by corporate interests. The telecom lobby is arguably the most powerful in Washington. They are, without question, able to buy whatever influence they need or want. The only completely correct term for that is corruption . Our "elected" officials are elected to, ostensibly, represent the interests of their constituents. At the national level, the fund raising required to get elected and stay elected is almost a full-time job. Those interests who make that job "easier" become the new constituents. Unless/until we take away the ability of corporations (entities which, rightfully, have no votes) will wield influence that is very often at odds with the interests of the people. The term you want to remember and demand of all your elected officials is "campaign finance reform".

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Bigjeff5]

You're thinking of fascism, which is a system of government, not an economic system. Granted, fascism goes very well with socialism, but it doesn't preclude capitalism.

Any time you "share the wealth", it's socialism. More specifically, whenever the government distributes wealth, it's socialism. The more often you share the wealth the closer you get to pure socialism. The government paying for services is capitalism, but the government seems to suck at it. Right now we have a pretty strong mix of both socialism and capitalism, which annoys both socialists and capitalists.

The $200b in 2000 or so was not a payment for service. It should have been, but it wasn't. There was no contract established with the telcos to provide the service, there were no consequences for not providing it (as there are in contract law), there was nobody from the Government doign quality assurance. It was basically just congress saying "Here's $200b, do this for us". They weren't acting on behalf of the people to get something done for the good of everyone, they were just throwing money out there and hoping it was done right. It became just another handout for an industry who's entire existance has been mandated and supported by the government since the invention of the telephone.

With the telcos in general we have an odd situation of the government mandating a service (i.e. telephone service everywhere), but not wanting to be socialistic. That idea by itself is a little contradictory. So they guaranteed a monopoly to a couple telcos to get it done. That's not socialism, in a raw sense, that's just poor management. They inadvertantly took away the only effective balancing agent in a capitalist system, which is competition. With it you get maximum value possible (be it low price or high quality, or somewhere in between), but without it you get the minimum value tolerable. It's the second situation that we are in with Telcos - though not completely, as the telcos were split up once, so there is a moderate amount of competition in a national sense. Regionally though there are plenty of places with no competition.

Socialism makes everybody feel good as long as you put your blinders up and ignore how crappy your situation really is compared to what it should be. Greed, if leveraged in a capitalist system, allows for maximum effectiveness with minimum effort and oversight, and everybody can establish the best position for the. It fails in a social sense though, when you trust people with greedy fingers to "do the right thing". That's basically what Congress did with the $200b, and what they did with the telcos in the first place.

And they're doing it in the biggest way ever with this one and a half trillion dollar bailout. This "inherited deficit" that Obama, the sleezeball, tries to play off as getting stuck with when he voted for the first half and signed into law the second half. I just hope we don't regret this BS for the next 50 years like I'm afraid we will.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Invisipunk]

In the interest of splitting hairs.. this is 'state socialism' as in the money was forcefully acquired from tax payers and handed out to corporations. More than likely, the same corporations that gave campaign donations. Efficiency comes about from people managing risk and maximizing their return on investment. With government, people aren't held accountable and are often incentivized to fail since they can just come ask for more tax money. If you want real socialistic approach why not form a co-op and pool your money to achieve your goal? Ultimately relying on the government safety net instead of self reliance will just lead to more and more disappointment.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to avoid both at all costs.

We do not need government owned or operated businesses. This never ends well. We do not need a government that has its strings pulled by big business. This never ends well either.

What we need is government protecting an environment that fosters competition, and businesses competing. It IS the hard way... requiring the most work and diligence.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Dr_Barnowl]

One arm of the BBC makes profits, and all of them are reinvested in the BBC.

No one owns shares in the BBC. When the BBC makes a profit, the people who gain are the British public, through reduced license fees and an improved service. I think the world gains as well - how many BBC shows are rightly regarded as classics?

The BBC is not funded through taxation, but through a license fee. If you don't want to pay it, you do have to divest yourself of all equipment capable of recording their broadcasts.

On the other hand, for less than £12 a month you get a lot of value, not least of which is the knock-on effect of improving the general standard of broadcasting in the UK. We have a mandated maximum average of 12 minutes of commercials an hour here - it's more like 18 elsewhere.

Complaining about the license fee is like complaining that for a measly 1/4 of what the USA spends per head, we get universal health care with no co-pay and fixed prescription costs.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[siriuskase]

BBC is well run, but it isn't a private monopoly. It is a government run agency that uses "best practices" learned from being in business a long time and paying attention to other well run broadcasters. They are not in business to make a profit, but to provide a sercice to its audience at a cost that is politicaly justifiable. Their motive to keep costs in line (or to show a "profit") is political.

A real life privately owned, government granted monopoly is a business model that doesn't make sense, except for in the short term, when it is desirable to expand the business faster than possible under a freer market. Network style business (roads, pipes, buslines) have the inherent problem that early adopters might have to wait a long time before being a customer makes financial sense. An internet or a road with only a few destinations isn't worth much. Value goes up exponentially as networks are linked up and more destinations are added.

But, once the network is built out, and the network is more or less stable, then what? Profits can't so easily be increased by expanding the network. When profit margin is dicatated by regulators, customer satisfaction drops out of the equation. Since profit is supposed to be what drives the enterprise, the business model is deliriously flawed.

But, private business gotta make money. So, option one, screw the customer. This works amazingly well since the customers can't go away, and politicians are slow. Regulators have the annoying habit of being from the business regulated, and politicians would rather debate gay marriage than bandwidth. The monopoly business can argue quite truthfully that option 2, allowing a competitor to build a parallel network is more expensive than the little bit of screwage they might be guilty of.

Option 3 exists, and seems to work, but I don't have enough data to support an opinion. Here in Georgia, it was done with local telco for awhile, and now it is done with natural gas. That is, the wire or pipes, are maintained by a monopoly and the product carried through the wire/pipe is sold by competitors. Since the infrastructure is the expensive part, this might work out. Bonds could be used to finance the build out and maintenance could be paid for by the companies that use it. This is how highways get built. Truckers pay huge taxes and even individuals pay a little with the gas tax at the pump.

Television has turned into a system where cable monopoly is going away very quickly. No matter how much cable wants to keep it's monopoly, it has Dish, Internet, Netflix, and whatever we think of tomorrow to deal with. If I had the bucks, I'd buy up the cable companies and convert them to a business model where customer satisfaction actually mattered. Rather than owning the regulators and lobbying for more regulation to keep competition out, I'd try to be the best option. After all, the cable company has the best pipe in the neighborhood. They are way ahead of the phone company with fiber, and don't have the latency issues of the satellites. They just have to learn some new tricks. Like being nice.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Nyeerrmm]

It's because as Americans we have a knee-jerk reaction to fear anything that has government-controlled or socialist in the name. While I'd agree that all-out socialism isn't for us: we are a very large, diverse and divided country with a history of strong personal independence and small-government leanings, which I think is well suited to the Federalized system we're supposed to have.

However, in this case, its ridiculous, because the government-granted monopolies or duopolies don't even have to make a show of trying to provide the best service for the lowest cost, as a truly competitive company would, or doing their best for the people, as a government-run service would. Instead, we're stuck with two companies who don't even try to hide that they're ripping us off to benefit their shareholders.

Personally, the solution I'd prefer is to make the fiber and copper municipal or state property, since its infrastructure just as much as roads or sewers, and have it leased out to whichever companies seek it. Unfortunately some talking head would then talk about how we're "nationalizing" the lines, and we've got anti-socialist hysteria all over again.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[DJRumpy]

Blanket labels like that are rather shortsighted. There are many socialized services that do very well and are required for quality of life in the US. Medicaid, medicare, social security, police, fire, public schooling, etc. You post smacks of partisan politics without any real thought behind it. If you are so against social services, would you take your mother off of medicare? Would you pay for all of his or her expenses out of your own pocket since they could no longer pay for themselves without social security? Could you even afford to do so and care for your own family? Would you put out your own house fire and arrest your local neighborhood criminals yourself?

It could also be argued that the handouts that these telco's took also ushered in broadband for millions of Americans, but only where it was profitable to do so. Oversight is never as good as hindsight. It does not mean they cannot do better or be required to do better by congress. The first bank bailouts had zero controls. They now come with a substantial number of them to the point where banks are hesitant to take them or eager to pay them off early. Granted more thought could have gone into them but they are at least trying to learn from past mistakes.

It sounds like congress let out too much leash and is hopefully ready to reel them back in (hopefully a lot). I see cable companies in the same boat as the failing brick and mortar RIAA model. They will either need to adapt (and compete), or they will simply be replaced by those that can.

I for one would have been MUCH happier had the government done the work that they expected of the telcos. It would have at least been done, been more accountable than the telcos, and given some return investment to the tax payer rather than filling the telco's purses, and I'm betting I would currently be using 50MB service at home for far less than I'm paying my local cable provider.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think that the Democratic Party is fascist

Because everyone points their fingers at everyone else when it comes to fascism. It'd be the most overused hyperbolic epithet of the current decade if only it weren't so often true.

The "right" insists that they're not fascist, only the left can be fascist because the left wants to control what you think and do on a daily basis. By forcing conformity and compelling everyone to march in lockstep... this is indeed a part of fascism.

The "left" insists that they're not fascist, only the right can be fascist because the right wants to give corporations unlimited powers and money. Government and corporation marching in lockstep... this is indeed a part of fascism.

The fact that the right also wants to control what you think and do or that the left also wants powerful corporations... these facts are lost on the supporters of both sides of the argument.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[billcopc]

Giving shit-tons of money to the nation's largest corporations is not quite socialism. Socialism would have been to form a government-owned corporation to deploy and operate the network.

200 billion could have bought a LOT of fibre and routing gear, but instead it bought a bunch of hookers, yachts and bonuses.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[jaypifer]

The capitalization doesn't make your statement true.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not make it wrong, either.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[falconwolf]

My television viewing is probably about 99% on DVR

Other than CNN about all I watch is movies on DVD and tape.

Falcon

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[falconwolf]

Giving shit-tons of money to the nation's largest corporations is not quite socialism.

I call that corporate socialism.

200 billion could have bought a LOT of fibre and routing gear, but instead it bought a bunch of hookers, yachts and bonuses.

As is typical in the US government gives away billions of taxpayer dollars without any oversight.

Falcon

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Ifandbut]

Must be nice that you can pause for a few hours. My pause stops after about 10min.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Enigma2175]

I would possibly like to see such a public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages. This would completely level out the playing field and make true market competition possible. This is evident in the way that the incumbent telcos are trying to get bills passed to prevent this from happening; they are scared shitless by the possibility that the power they have to completely rape their customers for as much money as possible for as shoddy service as they can get away with, would be neutralised.

Networks like this already exist, I am on the Utopia network and I couldn't be happier. Any provider can provide data, TV or voice over the network. I currently have a 15 Mb symmetrical connection for $36/mo. with a local ISP. And it's nothing like cable or DSL, if I am doing something that requires the bandwidth it is all there, I always see full speed to anyone that provides it. Since I can choose my own ISP, I chose one that has Linux mirrors so I don't even have to hit the net to download an ISO or do an update.

The incumbent telcos (Qwest and Comcast) DID fight against it when it was being built but now that it is in place they have to up their service offerings in order to be able to compete in the areas where Utopia provides service. It has been beneficial to the consumer, even the ones that don't actually use the network.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[falconwolf]

public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it

That's more than the government needs to be involved in to fix things. All they need to do is provide *fiber* for service providers to resell. Keep it to the absolute minimum that has a natural monopoly, and let the market take care of everything where competition can be provided.

How many fibers will government provide to profit making businesses? Why should my tax money be given to businesses so they can make more money? ComCast's 4Q gross profit was more than $5 Billion and Time Warner Cable's was almost $2.5 Billion. Government or a separate entity building and owning the fiber which then has open access would be better. Best may be to have a coop own it.

Reading your previous post it looks like you're suggesting this. But in this post I'm not sure what you mean. GP says the public owns the infrastructure then wholesales it but you say "That's more than the government needs to be involved in to fix things".

Falcon

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[falconwolf]

But a private network is NEVER for the public good, and ALWAYS motivated by profit.

Not if it's a coop, specifically a subscriber coop.

Falcon

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[jaypifer]

BBC is well run, but it isn't a private monopoly. It is a government run agency that uses "best practices" learned from being in business a long time and paying attention to other well run broadcasters. They are not in business to make a profit, but to provide a sercice to its audience at a cost that is politicaly justifiable. Their motive to keep costs in line (or to show a "profit") is political.

The political justification of the multimillion pound pay packages to their executives would be interesting to hear. And to grant them 16% pay increases in the teeth of a recession....I find it hard to see how they are just doing a public good and not in it for a profit.

That said, the rest of your post is a great read and should be moderated up.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[subreality]

How many fibers will government provide to profit making businesses? Why should my tax money be given to businesses so they can make more money?

As many as they want to pay for - typically one pair each time the business signs up a new customer. I'm not suggesting giving the fiber away for free. The idea is for the city to pay for the up front costs, and then make it back leasing access to anyone for a reasonable rate.

In the GGP, the government would also own switching infrastructure, and possibly also operate the services. I oppose this, because it is easy for private companies to compete on these parts, once the last mile is provided. Government involvement in services offered would cause stagnation. The government isn't good at adapting quickly as new technologies come out. Fiber is a good enough long-term investment that this is OK, but I'd rather have a bunch of private companies trying to figure out how to connect them to faster and faster switches, and offering new and better services, as fast as they are able to figure out how to do it economically.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[shadow349]

I usually think that when the government starts merging with industry, it's called Fascism, which is more an attribute of the right than left, but both parties are moving that direction.

In the United States:

The right wing, taken to an absolute extreme, is anarchy (no government).
The left wing, taken to an absolute extreme, is tyranny (total government).

In which does fascism fit better?

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[rohrb123]

I won't address the specifics on the $200bn spending that happened as I'm sure there are many complexities. I will however argue that the issue seems to be how the companies are leveraging the infrastructure / what they're doing with it.

Sometime in the early 2000's all the below-ground cable lines in my parent's neighborhood (in southern Florida) were dug up and new ones put in. Shortly thereafter they were able to get cable internet at the blazing speed of 3mbps/128kbps. Now, 8-9 years later, with no wiring changes, they get 16mbps down. I live 250 miles away in Central Florida and I get 15mbps constant with a "power boost" to 30mbps, 2mbps up. Realistically it's closer to 10-15 down.

The point is - all that internet bandwidth is on top of all of the "on demand" features the cable companies like to push, which is also consuming bandwidth, which is of course on top of all the multi-cast content they offer (30-50 analog channels + hundreds of QAM channels with varying levels of quality & encryption). In this case, the bandwidth is making it through the last mile, and it becomes an issue of utilization / allocation. Would I be willing to give up ESPN HD in Spanish (which I don't pay for, but do receive, albeit encrypted) or 50 on-demand listings to get another 5-25 mbps out of my internet? Absolutely. Move analog channels to clear QAM? Again, sure. But since the cable company doesn't offer that I assume it's either not popular or not profitable.

Neither area is "rural" by any means, but this is definitely not a "metro" area in either case.

I think the question is after $200bn in spending (works out to about $660pp for every man woman & child in the US), why does basic cable + basic internet cost over $100 a month, with premium packages & other features easily taking it into the $200+ range?

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[Tacvek]

Really? What sort of lame DVR has a maximum 10 minute pause? Even Dishnetworks crappy offering has two hours of pause time. Sish's offering has a poor UI, small hardrive with no upgrade options, and basically in every way inferior to Tivo except that you have jump forward enabled by default (no need to use special codes to enable it, unlike the damn Tivo units).

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[jotok]

Outstanding points. I'm convinced--this is something I would pay for.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[mrsquid0]

I think that the period between 2001 and 2008 disproved the idea that the US right is the party of small government.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[shadow349]

I think that the period between 2001 and 2008 disproved the idea that the US right is the party of small government.

Republican Party != "US right"; well at least not currently.

The 2008 election would not have changed the direction this country is going to ... merely the speed of change. Both major candidates had a platform which required significantly larger federal government.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[AP31R0N]

"single party bit"

Did anyone else read that as 'single parity bit'?

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[cod3fr3ak]

Why aren't you in Obama's cabinet? This sounds pretty good to me. I'll mull it over a bit more over dinner.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[siriuskase]

Thanks. But, profit is what is left over for the shareholders, Employee compensation is a cost. (revenue-cost=profit) It is very good that they are allowed to pay enough to attract quality employees. Salary caps may save money, but they also kill quality. So, the high salaries might indicate that they don't mind paying for quality. Shortminded beancounters are more liketly to focus on reducing costs, rather than paying for quality. I'm not British, so I don't know whether they make a profit, but if they do, who do they give it to? Shareholders? Taxpayers?

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[sglines]

Behind Every Great Fortune There Is a Great Crime. - Balzac

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[smallfries]

Good point (and interesting post above). Profit is perhaps the wrong term. The business unit in the BBC that handles overseas sales of programs and DVD sales is run to maximise revenues. As you point out these are not really profits as they are not over and above their tax income, and they are not passed on the shareholders. I believe that the revenues are used to fund costs, and so reduce the size of the tax imposed on TVs in the UK.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[sakasune]

Balzac

Hey, watch the language! What would the children think if they heard you talking that way?

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[siriuskase]

I forgot something. Excess revenue (not sure if is actually profit) can be reinvested in the business by spending for something not in the original budget. This might be a bonus for employees, replacement of equipment with better or more equipment, or even a party.

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[falconwolf]

As many as they want to pay for - typically one pair each time the business signs up a new customer. I'm not suggesting giving the fiber away for free. The idea is for the city to pay for the up front costs, and then make it back leasing access to anyone for a reasonable rate.

I'm okay with cities doing this, if the people there vote for it. But I am not for the federal government doing it.

In the GGP, the government would also own switching infrastructure, and possibly also operate the services.

I don't see that in the GGGP where the government owns the switches or operates it though I do see "service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages."

Government involvement in services offered would cause stagnation.

I agree which is why I oppose government providing services. Government, local governments that is, can own the infrastructure but then they should be required to offer open access. The problem I see with this is it could block some technology. However that's how things are now, the incumbent cable and phone companies do what they can to block competition now.

What I really think would help, seeing as the last mile is a big hurdle, would be if the airwaves were freed. By allowing whoever to erect transceivers and offer wireless broadband there should be more competition. I kind of hoped the airwave auction last year would lead to that, though I'd have preferred if they had been freed and not just auctioned off.

Falcon

Re:I guess I'm at the far extreme

[subreality]

But I am not for the federal government doing it.

I agree. It should be at a city level.

I don't see that in the GGGP

Here's the whole quote: "I would possibly like to see such a public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages."

It's ambiguous, but to me it sounds like layer 2. I thought it was worth clarifying that only layer 1 needs to be provided.

I'm not as sure about airwaves being viable competition for fiber. I support doing it because I think it'd drive prices down on the mediocre services that telcos are gouging us for now, and allow for great mobile broadband. However, compared to the capabilities of dedicated fiber, it's peanuts. Wireless will bring us ~10Mb with smallish (reasonable, because it's a shared resource) caps, over relatively short distances. Fiber can do 1Gb to 5km for dirt cheap, and out to 70km with more expensive longwave transceivers. It's only limited by the ISP's backbone, which they'll be competing to provide the best caps or QOS at a given price point.

I did it.

[IANAAC]

A couple of months ago, I broke away from cable for good. And for the most part, I haven't missed it.

You really can find just about everything you want or need online.

I had a spare computer that I loaded Ubuntu on, made sure it had the latest flash and java. I also installed Boxee, although, since the Hulu problem, haven't used it.

Most of the entertainment type shows I get via Hulu. Their interface could be a bit friendlier (too much scrolling, really), but overall it's not bad. For news, CNN offers live streaming, which is really quite good quality at full screen. MSNBC offers all their shows for streaming - well at least the ones I care about - Countdown and Rachel Maddow. And I get local weather from WGN - also streamed full screen.There are a few European stations I like watching, and I use Livestation for that. The quality through that isn't the best, but I will say the streaming is steady.

The one beef I have with it all is the disparate pages I have to go to/navigate to get to the content. This is where I was really hoping Boxee would do some good. Not yet. They have a section in their UI to add apps, but it looks like it's Boxee specific, so I can't just add any program (such as Livestation. As it stands, I've created a bunch of Prism desktop shortcuts to take me directly to the content I want.

Re:I did it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long TV on the internet (for free) will work out. Right now all the cable/sat subscribers are funding this. If everyone starts viewing TV online only...it will start costing $$$.

IPTV has been ready to go for years and years...the content providers are the ones holding it back. If you think TV on the internet will be the next big thing...well... I think it will be too, but magically it will still cost the same as cable TV is today.

The content guys will always get their $$$.

Re:I did it.

[IANAAC]

The content guys will always get their $$$.

Truthfully, I have no problem with this. As long as it's the content guys (ie: the networks) and they let me choose exactly what I want to watch. Commercials don't bother me nearly as much as they used to. My life is full enough that I can look away and be amused while they run. And some of them are amusing in their own right.

Re:I did it.

[value_added]

A couple of months ago, I broke away from cable for good. And for the most part, I haven't missed it. You really can find just about everything you want or need online.

PBS and CSPAN programming are generally not available online. I couldn't (or wouldn't) do without either, so for me, the cable subscription is worth the trouble and cost.

That said, I agree with your general sentiments. If you're looking for entertainment, there are alternative sources. And if HBO's lineup (since the Sopranos ended) is any indication, Schwarzenegger movies are probably cheaper when rented from your local video store.

Re:I did it.

[Chyeld]

The real question is, what will the "real cost" when our current model of subsidizing unpopular channels under the guise of bundling them up with more popular ones, is replaced with an ala carte model.

No one, with realistic expectations, expects this to be free.

Re:I did it.

[IANAAC]

Can't speak for CSPAN, but PBS has an awesome video portal to most of their content now... http://www.pbs.org/video#

It was just launched last week.

Re:I did it.

[value_added]

Good point, but I was aware of it. PBS seems to be ahead of the curve (for both music and video), but they're a ways off from being able to provide complete coverage for their TV lineup. I mean, seriously, what's a self-respecting geek kid supposed to do with their laptop if Sesame Street isn't available online?

Re:I did it.

[Hurricane78]

Grow up, perhaps? ^^

Re:I did it.

[Carlosos]

Why not free? The broadcast channels are already free using an antenna and I'm assuming that those are even the most watched ones. Why shouldn't it be possible to get Comedy Central, Discovery Channel free by showing ads like FOX, NBC, etc. ?
There are also some countries where only free exists with the exception of HBO like channels.

I'm already getting almost everything free that I watch (or everything after dropping cable). I get the broadcast channels and with hulu I also get the things that I watch on comedy central. The only channel really missing is Discovery channel and I can live without it. (not worth the $50 cable bill for one channel)

Re:I did it.

[Xebikr]

I canceled DirecTV a month ago. I get my tv through eztv.it and Torrent Episode Downloader (TED). I have two XBOX's (original, not 360) that I've loaded XBMC onto. I get movies through thepiratebay and Netflix. I don't have the fastest internet speed in the world, just 1.5mb, but it seems to work just fine for everything I want to do.

Before I got rid of Dtv, I had paired it with ReplayTV, which we loved. We watched a reasonable mix of live and recorded tv. I might still be with Dtv and replaytv if replaytv had been allowed to continue to innovate and hadn't been litigated out of existence. I just couldn't stand the picture anymore from the replay on the new tv, couldn't bring myself to getting dtv's comparatively crippled dvr, and building two dvr's using Mythtv or whatever was just too expensive and too much trouble.

Re:I did it.

[metamatic]

PBS and CSPAN programming are generally not available online.

PBS programming is available from the iTunes store. C-SPAN is available as live streams from their web site. In addition, some PBS stations have online streams of their shows.

Re:I did it.

[Chyeld]

Broadcast TV isn't free, it's just the currency isn't one you are trained to recognize as such, advertising. Why do you think broadcasters fight so hard to prevent PVR's from cutting out commercials, why even the companies that formed Hulu fought to keep it off Boxee. Because these things hurt their ad revenue. If you aren't willing to pay for broadcasting with your time and eyeballs in 'ad dollars' then eventually it'll either not be produced or it'll be paid for some other way. For instance, by the government, and by extension, under the government's watchful eye that nothing 'offensive' is produced. Or by you directly.

Re:I did it.

[Hurricane78]

Hey moderators: Whoooosh! ^^

Re:I did it.

[RDW]

'IPTV has been ready to go for years and years...the content providers are the ones holding it back. If you think TV on the internet will be the next big thing...well... I think it will be too, but magically it will still cost the same as cable TV is today.'

Here in the UK, where Cable has much less of the market, all the major content providers (with the obvious exception of Satellite-based Sky) are pushing free to view on demand IP TV pretty hard. After a false start with a dreadfully clunky Kontiki-based system, The BBC is some way ahead of the competition with their (now very slick) iPlayer. A few days ago they started offering some HD content as 720p H.264 (nearly 1.5 Gb for an hour!), which is certainly going to upset a lot of ISPs, and seriously test the definition of 'unlimited' broadband deals. It's a shame the idiots at the BBC Trust have insisted on a 7-day DRM timebomb for downloaded programs, and that their Flash-based player is pretty resource-intensive; luckily the get_iplayer script from the linuxcentre site provides a neat cross-platform way of capturing the streamed version as an unencumbered mp4, which even a netbook can play using CoreAVC...

Re:I did it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're in Europe (and based on "local weather from WGN," the parent isn't), check out Zattoo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zattoo

This program is amazing. I'm studying in the UK right now and discovered this program, which has now given me access to the numerous, wonderful BBC channels, as well as a couple of other random ones (Al Jazeera in Arabic, anyone?).

It's basically straight, live television on your computer, all in one place. You don't have to go hunting through a brand-new website elsewhere (while interrupting your stream) when you want to change the channel--you just click the new one and it changes.

The channel selection isn't massive, i.e., supposedly as good as "free view," but the convenience of watching in my room versus having to go to the lounge down the hall is unparalleled. Quite simply, I wouldn't be watching TV without the program. I can also get television schedules of the upcoming shows (albeit it's sometimes a little buggy) and switch at a moment's notice.

It's too bad it's not available in the States yet, but the Wikipedia page says that's where they're headed in the future.

(Oh, and I have no idea if you have to pay a license fee in the UK to use Zattoo or not--I'm hoping not since I certainly haven't.)

Re:I did it.

[Cutting_Crew]

why would they want to force people to watch commercials if they arent going to watch them anyway? people that buy skipping commercial software/hardware are not the type of people that you want to be selling to.

Re:I did it.

[Chyeld]

Actually "they" could give a crap. Because "they" actually consider your eyeballs the real product, and the advertisers the actual customers. If your eyeballs are 'duds' it's not the network's problem. As long as they can say "x number of eyeballs watched your ads", they are satisfied.

Re:I did it.

[Cutting_Crew]

but they dont know what number 'x' is. its only a guess. so i wonder why the networks settle for a guessing number. chances are they are losing money.

Re:I did it.

[Kaki Nix Sain]

Very good. Thank you. Can hardly wait till all the Frontlines ever are there.

The Economist hits the nail on the head

[jeffmeden]

A torrent of innovative start-ups, not seen since the dot-com mania of a decade ago, is flooding the market with technology for supplying internet television to the living room."

Torrent was EXACTLY the word I was looking for. Thank you, The Economist!

Re:The Economist hits the nail on the head

[ionix5891]

yaaaaarrrr

Re:The Economist hits the nail on the head

[Animats]

Torrent was EXACTLY the word I was looking for. Thank you, The Economist!

If you think that happened by accident, you don't read The Economist regularly. That's exactly the sort of dry wit their writers use.

Some years ago, The Simpsons had Homer traveling by air in first class, and he says "Look at me, I'm reading The Economist. Did you know Indonesia is at a crossroads?" The Economist published an article titled "Indonesia at a Crossroads" that week.

Re:The Economist hits the nail on the head

[u38cg]

Indeed. Keep an eye on the Democracy in America blog, too - whoever writes that has a habit of trying to slip in as many Dylan lyrics as he can get away with.

Re:The Economist hits the nail on the head

[falconwolf]

Torrent was EXACTLY the word I was looking for. Thank you, The Economist!

If you think that happened by accident, you don't read The Economist regularly. That's exactly the sort of dry wit their writers use.

You read "Economist"? I thought I was about the only one on /. to read it. I think a lot of people would be surprised by some of the articles they publish. At first I thought it would be boring to me but after running across some articles I found interesting I started reading it semi-regularly. They're not all strictly about economics.

Falcon

Re:The Economist hits the nail on the head

[pdh11]

That's exactly the sort of dry wit their writers use.

My favourite The Economist moment:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/february-1-2006,1713/ (final letter)
http://www.avclub.com/articles/february-15-2006,1716/ (final letter)

Links maybe NSFW.

Peter

Re:The Economist hits the nail on the head

[jeffmeden]

If you think that happened by accident, you don't read The Economist regularly. That's exactly the sort of dry wit their writers use.

Some years ago, The Simpsons had Homer traveling by air in first class, and he says "Look at me, I'm reading The Economist. Did you know Indonesia is at a crossroads?" The Economist published an article titled "Indonesia at a Crossroads" that week.

Theres nothing like a timely satirical cartoon about a timely magazine... Incidentally, I actually started a subscription to The Economist just recently, as I have been impressed with their writing from what I have read so far. I will have to keep an eye out for more subtleties hidden in their stories, my typical magazine reading consists of Car and Driver so it's not quite what I am used to.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I watch all my shows via dvr or down load them with bittorent at my leisure. Big cable better get there act together or they will soon find themselves on the street washing car windows. :P

The model is going to change.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole model of television is starting to change, and it is going to undermine not just the cable operators who will see their bundling and channel market broken, but the channels themselves.

People are getting wise to the fact that commercials are the hook that goes with the worm that is our entertainment. TV is paid for because someone thinks they can sell us stuff. With torrents and the 'net, smart consumers can be like smart fish - and get the worm without getting the hook. When that happens, the advertisers will cut bait and the market will have to reinvent itself.

The same is happening with the web as more people adopt successful ad-blocking.

In due time, we are going to have to pay ourselves up-front for the big budget entertainment, rather than indirectly as a cost built into the products we buy, because they got advertised as a subsidy on our media.

Re:The model is going to change.

[BiggerIsBetter]

In due time, we are going to have to pay ourselves up-front for the big budget entertainment, rather than indirectly as a cost built into the products we buy, because they got advertised as a subsidy on our media.

Nah, the ads will just move into the movies in a bigger way. Along with NOS, Autometer, Nissan, Ford and Subaru... I wonder how much Castrol paid to get in to Fast & Furious this time? Even my non-car-geek friend picked up on that advertising. Or the ads become feature length movies... either way really.

Re:The model is going to change.

[Aerynvala]

I didn't notice even one product placement in TFTF 4. *grin*

ads

[Anonymous Coward]

> Cable-television companies make money by selling packages of channels

Not in Australia, where they make money by selling advertising.

I dodged the expensive DVR

[bogaboga]

Mythbuntu allowed me dodge the expensive DVR and accorded me the freedom to skip commercials from recorded programs. My Mythbuntu, connected to a wireless router, quietly runs in the basement and through a netbook connected to an LCD TV, I watch these shows. Sweet.

I just hope that folks at Mythbuntu can integrate the script that removes commercials. Right now, you must be a semi geek to set this up. The other problem too is the trouble with remote controls. It appears that there is no way of getting a remote control configured without editing some text file. This can be scary with the enormous number of options. Even with this, you will be lucky to have it working.

My experience has been rewarding. To save on power bills, I would like to use a notebook based TV card if I can find one.

For those who might be wondering whether Mythbuntu 9.04 has solved anything, I can say not much over here though boot time is faster with 9.04 as compared to 8.10.

My next task will be to grab free "Free To Air" signals in my area. I understand there are many channels around. This means folks, that I am not very happy with my cable TV company.

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[idiotnot]

And lots of cable providers are trying their best to kill off anything that doesn't require a monthly rental box. So far as I can tell, there aren't any clear QAM channels available from my provider where I live (they do have them in other places, but my city is often used as a testbed for the provider.

Sadly, I haven't found a tuner card nearly as good as even my free DTV converter box. Certainly none as good as an ATSC tuner in a modern TV.

My DSL provider pulled the plug on its IPTV service a few months ago. I could run three SD streams without too much of an effect on DSL performance (each mp4 stream seemed to eat ~1.5mpbs). But still not enough bandwidth is available to service most of their customer base for HD content, which is why I think is part of the reason they decided to ditch it (in addition to the STBs being incredibly flaky).

Overall, I think maybe people might be more amenable to a pay-for-play system if it didn't cost too much. But at $1.99 an episode from iTunes, plus the fact that I effectively only pay $25/mo for my TV signal (difference between my cable bundle pack and just the cable modem), doesn't give me much leftover to buy TV episodes.

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[antdude]

Over the air (OTA) has been around forever. You could had done that long ago. :) I haven't had cable since the mid 80s (back when the transmitters were way too far).

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[segedunum]

I just hope that folks at Mythbuntu can integrate the script that removes commercials. Right now, you must be a semi geek to set this up.

Really? I have Mythbuntu installed and this stuff is built in. You can set up the auto detection methods and there is a commercial flagging job. Sometimes it doesn't always detect commercial breaks, but it's been impressive on the ones it has detected.

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[Anonymous Coward]

I ditched cable last year when I realized I was paying $60 a month and barely watching anything that was not also available over the air for free. I installed an antenna capable of picking up all of the channels in my area, called up comcast and canceled my service, and saved myself over $700 a year. The best part, I get network channels in 720p and 1080i; they all look better than they ever have.

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[bogaboga]

Oh really? What you have is a setup that will skip commercials if the recordings are played on the recording system. If they are streamed as is the casein my setup, the videos will play as if no commercials were detected at all.

This is when commercial removal is necessary. I agree that not all commercials will be detected and therefore removed as one would want but that script works pretty well over 98% of the time.

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[Big Boss]

If you want a good tuner for ATSC and now, DVB, look no further than the HDHomeRun. It tunes as well as my built-in tuners in recently purchased TVs and works very well. Linux support out of the box, fully open source.

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[digitalaudiorock]

I just hope that folks at Mythbuntu can integrate the script that removes commercials. Right now, you must be a semi geek to set this up.

I think you're going to seriously mislead those not familiar with MythTV. MythTV can and does mark commercials in shows (very simply, without using any special scripts) and allows you to skip them automatically while watching those recordings. The commercials are not removed, but rather marked by starting and ending frame. I record all over the air DTV (no cable here except for internet) and watch essentially all my TV from recordings (since I can record up to three shows at a time) in HD with no commercials...sweet.

The script in the link is only for someone who wants to transcode the MythTV recording to another format while honoring a cutlist created from MythTV's commercial flagging, thus perminently editing out the commercials based on those marks. This unfortunately is a very bad idea. While MythTV's commercial flagging is great (near perfect on most U.S. TV for me) it's not perfect...I occasionally have to jump back or temporarily disable auto-skipping to see content that was erroneously skipped. That script would loose that content forever.

Re:I dodged the expensive DVR

[gregmac]

I have two mythtv systems - one is disk-less (mini-itx), running minimyth, which netboots off my main one. It has no tuner card, it streams all content from the main box - and it skips commercials exactly the same as the main one.

I even have the same remote on both. The only difference between using them is the diskless system sometimes has a slight delay when you load the recordings list, or when you first start to play back a recording. I assume its also got a bit of delay changing channels, but I almost never watch live TV.

Welcome to my world

[AlHunt]

Dedicated PC, no cable. no satellite, 1 remaining broadcast station until June, when it goes digital. Hulu, Netflix and other streaming TV and most of them are advertising supported, exactly as was broadcast. Nothing has changed here but the cost and variety. Lower cost, better variety.

Nice to see the rest of the world catching up to me. Gonna be a pisser when the DSL pukes ...

Re:Welcome to my world

[HeLLFiRe1151]

I lost a lucrative job in late 2001. The first thing I cut off was the satellite tv. I learned to test DTV until the p-4 switch and have since relied on OTA and various forms of TV over DSL, especially justin.tv. My kid doesn't care or doesn't realize that we only have 2 channels on our tv.

Re:Welcome to my world

[mi]

Hulu, Netflix and other streaming TV and most of them are advertising supported

How long, do you suppose, they'll continue to exist, if the efforts to get rid of the commercials described elsewhere on this page make progress?

Re:Welcome to my world

[benow]

Yes, because blanket broadcasting crap that statistically nobody wants is such a good way. Internet viewing, if anything, stands a much better chance at producing a workable revenue model.

Re:Welcome to my world

[AlHunt]

>>Hulu, Netflix and other streaming TV and most of them are advertising supported

>How long, do you suppose, they'll continue to exist, if the efforts to get rid of
>the commercials described elsewhere on this page make progress?

Frankly, who cares how long they exist?

What used to work for me, doesn't work now.
What works for me now, probably won't work forever.
When it doesn't, I'll find a new solution.

"Content providers" need to realize that you and I don't *need* their content. They need you and I to *want* their content. I can always throw in a DVD.

Re:Welcome to my world

[mi]

Frankly, who cares how long they exist?

I asked a question...

I can always throw in a DVD.

And how long will that remain a viable option, if the likes of The Pirate Bay and their sympathizers prevail?

Re:Welcome to my world

[AlHunt]

>> I can always throw in a DVD.
> And how long will that remain a viable option,
> if the likes of The Pirate Bay and their sympathizers prevail?

Holy cow. The simple point was that there will always be some option to view content. If at some point I find the then-current options distasteful I can either watch the DVDs I already own or go find something else to do with my time. Just that easy. When I didn't like the options I had, I found others.

Re:Welcome to my world

[mi]

The simple point was that there will always be some option to view content.

Only for as long as the concept of "Intellectual Property" continues to exist. When/if the people I mentioned prevail (which is likely, because "free" stuff is so tempting, the temptation crowds-out reason), the only content for you would be, what the government or other wealthy sponsors pay for... If you dislike "commercials" now, the stuff loaded with propaganda and/or product-placements will be completely intolerable. Quality movies will cease to exist and even quality books will be harder to come by, because authors — unable to live off their creations — would need to be independently wealthy to be able to write them.

The effects will not be limited to entertainment — all things, that are hard to design, but easy to reproduce (like fashion design, for example) will similarly suffer.

(This is, largely, how the world used to be, BTW, before "Intellectual Property" was invented — little choices, literature glorifying the leader-of-the-day, and quality music available only to the upper crusts of society able to pay for live performers.)

Similarly, the scientific progress will suffer as scientists-employing firms will not be able to sell the patents and will have to be parts of conglomerates able to not only devise new things, but produce stuff using the inventions. As China's explosion attests, manufacturing is a "solved problem" — a reasonably modern factory can make anything, having the designs. And, as "3D-printers" like this take hold (and move beyond one-part-at-a-time), designs will matter more and more. And yet, the designers will be just as few and far between, as the above-mentioned composers and writers, unless the Intellectual Property concept survives...

Those who oppose the use of force are forever at the mercy of those who don't

George Orwell said it better: Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.

Keep chippin away

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the day the whole fucking lot of them, Big Media and Major ISPs, box themselves in with their walled gardens and restrictive laws. When the top 1% earners are the only consumers left to afford multiple service providers, they'll realize the internet was fine to begin with.

Hnng on

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought digital TV was supposed to save bandwidth!? ;)

Re:Hnng on

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is that it could have. But the cable companies chose for it not to. They could have sent TV as unencrypted QAM so that people could just use their own set-top boxes, but they didn't (because they wanted people to use the cable -company boxes) so people gave up on traditional cable TV and went with IP instead. Then they could have heavily used multicast or aggressively cached, but they didn't, so people transmit the same gigabits over the same wires over'n'over.

They did everything they could to lose, fighting relevance and revenue every step of the way.

Netflix

[stomv]

I haven't had cable television in 7 years. I don't miss it. For the money I save, I
  * Netflix
  * Go to the movies
  * Pay for the newspaper
  * Pay the late fees on my library books
  * Pay admission to museums

At the end of the day, cable isn't offering us anything we can't see already on Netflix or on youtube or hulu et al. So really -- why pay $700/yr or whatever when we can watch all the programming that we really like by pulling it instead of waiting for it to be pushed?

P.S. Take a Kill-A-Watt and check out how much electricity your cable box + DVR + ??? are using on standby and calculate the additional burden on your electric bill. I'd bet it's a combined 40W or so, good for another $50+ a year.

Re:Netflix

[siriuskase]

I haven't had cable television in 7 years. I don't miss it. For the money I save, I
* Netflix
* Go to the movies
* Pay for the newspaper
* Pay the late fees on my library books
* Pay admission to museums

At the end of the day, cable isn't offering us anything we can't see already on Netflix or on youtube or hulu et al. So really -- why pay $700/yr or whatever when we can watch all the programming that we really like by pulling it instead of waiting for it to be pushed?

P.S. Take a Kill-A-Watt and check out how much electricity your cable box + DVR + ??? are using on standby and calculate the additional burden on your electric bill. I'd bet it's a combined 40W or so, good for another $50+ a year.

I've never had cable and rarely watch broadcast. I've been with Netflix since its creation. Last time I watched broadcast was when Obama was on Leno. I picked up a converter box at Fry's because it was cheap, but it's been at least a month and I have yet to plug it in. I'm starting to think I wsted the $9.99 I gave to Fry's.

Throw in one of these, and live broadcast is completely unnecessary, except possibly for emergency broadcasts when internet is down.

The cable adapter takes no juice at all. Imagine the savings if you got all your shows with your computer.

Re:Netflix

[GWBasic]

I haven't had cable television in 7 years. I don't miss it. For the money I save, I

For the money *I* save, I bought a set of rabbit ears and an HDTV tuner for my computer. It allows me to watch American Idol and the Super Bowl in full 1080 glory. It turns out that the TV software has a great de-interlacer; so 1080i HDTV looks better using my computer then when I used a cable box.

It's not going to make anything cheaper.

[91degrees]

Most would welcome the chance to buy only those channels they want to watch, rather than pay for expensive packages of programming they are largely not interested in.

I'm sure they would, but the economics of television channels doesn't work like that.

Let's suppose person A is willing to pay $5 a month for the sport channel and $10 per month on the news channel. Person B is willing to spend $10 a month on the sport channel and $5 a month on the news channel. If the package of 2 channels costs $15 they'll both be willing to pay for the channels. If the cable provider charges $7.50 for each, then each subscriber only pay for one channel since the other one is not worth the amount they're charging to that customer. So, the cable provider has lost out on $15, and each subscriber has lost out on a channel that they're reasonably interested in.

It's not like other purchases. The cable provider doesn't have to buy a selection of channels and resell them. They pay a fixed fee to the station, based on the expected number of subscribers, and price their offering so as to maximise their profits.

Internet based TV services aren't going to change this offering. They'll still offer a selection of "channels". You'll still end up with a package of programmes, most of which you don't want to watch.

Re:It's not going to make anything cheaper.

[metamatic]

There's no reason why cable companies can't continue to offer bundles of channels for those who prefer bundles. But they're going to need to start offering a la carte if they want to get back people like me. (Just canceled my satellite subscription for AppleTV.)

Re:It's not going to make anything cheaper.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't the a la carte pricing be $10 for the first channel, $5 for the second, $2 for the third, etc.? There's no reason that it needs to be $7.50 for each an every channel with no volume discounts.

Re:It's not going to make anything cheaper.

[Culture20]

But Sci-fi (syfy?) + CN + local channels isn't worth $60, and even though I'll admit a lot of people I know watch ESPN and CNN, no one I know watches those 10+ shopping channels. The two channels I would watch are worth $10 total to me, not more. They're missing out on $120/year from me, and several friends are dropping too.

Re:It's not going to make anything cheaper.

[91degrees]

I don't know what packages your provider offers, but I imagine their pricing structure considers most channels to be padding to make the deal look better so people don't question why they're paying an extra $30 for one extra channel (even though that's exactly what they're doing). While they may be missing out on $20 a month from you, they're making $40 a month from someone who values those channels more than you.

Or maybe they got their estimations wrong and there are more than 3 times as many people who would go for a $20 package than would go for the $60 package, but they're working on the theory that they haven't.

tv is background noise

[xmousex]

in my house its usually on cartoon network or the news and its just been sitting there playing while we are online, gaming, or doing things around the house. we watch important shows on hulu if we care about it, or we look through ovguide.com, so we can start and stop and go back to previous episodes. we have a tivo someone gave us but never saw justification for the subscription fees.

shows that we really care about and want to keep come in from netflix and copied to external hard drive.

we search for the ultimate device to make use of this collection. that device would read through all the episodes of each show we have and play them back like itunes on random and broadcast those to all the tvs in the house on our own custom tv channel. we dont want to have to pick a show to watch, we just want them all playing on their own and we can either sit down and watch if were interested at that moment or not.

my younger sister lives in an apartment but is rarely ever there because of work or social activities. she just has her laptop with her always and a sprint card. this is how she watches her tv shows and gets her news. if that device gives her whatever she needs, why pay the extra money for something that only works when she is in one particular spot?

the people i know that care about the tivo are older, they are settled into houses, have a big entertainment center hooked up, and do not spend alot of time buzzing about. like my dad, he loves tivo. the difference i think is he specifically spends an hour or more sitting in front of the tv and thats all he does, his purpose is actually to just sit there and watch... just sitting and watching tv would drive me nuts.

Re:tv is background noise

[BenoitRen]

in my house its usually on cartoon network or the news and its just been sitting there playing while we are online, gaming, or doing things around the house.

(snip)

we dont want to have to pick a show to watch, we just want them all playing on their own and we can either sit down and watch if were interested at that moment or not.

What a waste of electricity.

Re:tv is background noise

[xmousex]

yep it could be, mostly its only for the 2-4 hours we have from when we get home to when we try to sleep. more so on the weekends, especially during winter.

Re:tv is background noise

[GlobalEcho]

Hey, look! Something shiny!

That headline reminds me of the RIAA....

[Joce640k]

The only thing they know is hardball. They'll do anything, ANYTHING ... except listen to their customers and give them what they're asking for.

USA only

[Exp315]

Whenever you list online media sources like Hulu, you should remember they are available in the USA only due to restrictive regional licensing agreements by the major media cartels. The rest of the world can only download the same content illegally.

Re:USA only

[tepples]

The rest of the world can only download the same content illegally.

Immigration to the United States is not necessarily illegal.

Re:USA only

[IANAAC]

The reverse is also true. There is a lot of really good programming outside the US (for my interests, that would be Europe), but cannot be had in the US. Sure, there is Livestation, but for individual programs, control is control, no matter what part of the world you live.

Re:USA only

[kwark]

But is the rest of the world paying $700 yearly for television? I only pay 9.50 EUR/month for the basic subscription (26 channels). Throw in the FTA channels, about 15 interesting enough and I still don't watch more then 15 of them.

The max. subscription price is 53 EUR/month (for about 65 channels), but I can't imagine anyone willing to pay that amount when you have the ability to (illegally) download most of it for your own convenience.

Re:USA only

[williamhb]

Whenever you list online media sources like Hulu, you should remember they are available in the USA only due to restrictive regional licensing agreements by the major media cartels. The rest of the world can only download the same content illegally.

Stunningly enough, however, the rest of the world does have some technical nouse of its own, and isn't just twiddling its thumbs in the dark. iPlayer, iView, 4od, ... rather a lot of channels in non-US countries provide their own Web TV services.

Re:USA only

[jabithew]

Just really, really difficult to do legally.

Re:USA only

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is silly. It's called the internet. The 1980s called and want their local-only BBSes back.

Re:USA only

[tepples]

Which is silly. It's called the internet. The 1980s called and want their local-only BBSes back.

Advertisers of consumer products designed to be used by and shipped to United States residents do not want to advertise to people who can't buy their products.

Re:USA only

[Ifandbut]

Yes, and I have to download Dr. Who via PirateBay or wait 2 years for SyFy to catch up. Not to mention Anime which is harder to find on torrents with decent fan-subs so I have to start trolling IRC.

Re:USA only

[ccguy]

Care to point me to the specific Spanish law that make it *illegal*?
The content is not available here at all (unvailable from anywhere for any amount of money).
Now go tell the judge how a company who _refuses_ to sell me anything is losing money with my free watching.

Re:USA only

[Anonymous Coward]

Just really, really difficult to do legally.

What's really amusing about the above comment is that it's modded "funny" rather than "insightful."

As somebody who went through the process, and knows a number of people that did/do, I think the humorous part of that comment is certainly overshadowed by the sad reality of it.

Anyone else annoyed by the noise?

[anss123]

All DRV boxes I've gotten to play with have 1. been noisy even when not in use and 2. require you to target the remote directly towards the sensor.

As a result we got rid of the DRV/Digital decoder and we'll be sticking with analog TV for as long as that lasts.

Re:Anyone else annoyed by the noise?

[Huh?]

Not sure Tivo was on the list of DVRs you tried, but the remote/receiver on all of my Tivos have been amazing.

Re:Anyone else annoyed by the noise?

[anss123]

Nope. Never seen a Tivo. Good to hear that there are good remotes out there.

Outright Arrest or Nationalisation

[resistant]

I'm typically a "small-ell" libertarian, but I'm strongly moved to advocate that the principals in the acceptance of vast sums of public money during the 1990s to provide nearly universal broadband be given the choice of either being sent to prison for fraud, or agreeing to the nationalisation of their companies, with control over operations specifically delegated to individual cities or counties. It might be unwise in some ways, but how can it be worse than the situation that exists today, with greedy, infinitely arrogant corporations butt-raping their customers in semi-monopoly markets?

The fat lady is just getting warmed up

[doppiodave]

The Economist article on Internet TV says all the right things. But never underestimate the ability of the incumbent broadband ISPs in North America to leverage their near-monopoly control of last-mile facilities. In Canada, as well as the US, the incumbent telcos and cablecos have both the opportunity and motivation to use traffic-shaping, bandwidth caps and exhorbitant fees to discourage the use of the local loop for any service that threatens an established service of their own - especially video. Ever since the collapse of the content/carriage distinction, they've all been in a conflict of interest, fully sanctioned by the FCC and CRTC. You get to own the pipes plus you get to offer whatever content you like. So don't be holding your breath about the ability of that "torrent" of startups to dislodge the likes of Comcast and Rogers. True, Time Warner Cable just lost a high-profile battle on bandwidth caps. And they retaliated by taking their DOCSIS 3.0 marbles and going home to sulk. Up here, Bell Canada has filed a tariff that would allow it to extend 60-gig caps beyond its own subs, to be applied to every DSL reseller it supplies in Ontario and Quebec. And this tariff is actually being given serious consideration, even though it's egregiously anti-competitive. Proving once again that non-facilities-based competition just doesn't work. Did I mention Bell owns Canada's leading satellite-TV provider, ExpressVu? Sure, we're getting TV over the Web. And Canadians lead the world in consumption of online video. But fiber is the only viable way we'll ever get real hi-def TV running over the Web in North America, looking like it oughta. And the incumbents - with exceptions like FiOS - don't want to go near FTTH, because that would spell the end of the artificial bandwidth scarcity that keeps them in charge.

Ogg Theora

[cdn-programmer]

The real issue is how few know about open source codecs like Ogg Theora.

I live in Canada and CTV for instance has both Discovery Channel material and BNN material online. However their websites are so broken that its not worth the trouble to even try to access the material.

Calling them and sending emails doesn't help. They are really thick.

Maybe if more people get on the phone and start demanding support for Ogg Theora then things will get better. Another option is to contact their advertisers and tell them they are wasting their money.

Attack of the Clones

[tepples]

Grow up, perhaps? ^^

Just because you saw accelerated aging in Attack of the Clones doesn't mean it's been invented in this galaxy.

Torrents

[ayjay29]

>>A torrent of innovative start-ups

Nice choice of words :-)

Netflix is not for sports

[tepples]

True, the combination of Netflix, Netflix, and online news can replace films, scripted TV series, and news on cable TV. But what replaces live sports on cable TV?

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Carlosos]

With big sport games its the broadcast channels you get with antenna and with the digital channels it is better than analog cable TV but sadly no ESPN for the people that watch more sports. Maybe there is a chance to get ESPN from unencrypted satellite channels but I never tried that since I'm living in an apartment and a big dish is no option.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[McGiraf]

You can find this too, here for hockey i use cbc.ca (free) and rds.ca (pay per view and subscription). For F1 races I use torrents, they are available a few hours after the event.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[evilviper]

But what replaces live sports on cable TV?

Maybe live sports on the dozens of free, over-the-air, broadcast TV stations? The ones you can get in vastly higher quality with a bent piece of wire and a $15 converter box?

You know, the channels you currently watch through your cable/satellite service, which buy up and broadcast ALL of the remotely popular sporting events. Remember those?

Hell, NBC's Universal-Sports DTV sub-channel broadcast at least here in the greater Los Angeles area is VASTLY better than ESPN/FoxSports/etc.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Ronald Dumsfeld]

True, the combination of Netflix, Netflix, and online news can replace films, scripted TV series, and news on cable TV. But what replaces live sports on cable TV?

The satisfaction of not seeing a bunch of jocks demonstrating why the college dean fiddled the entrance criteria to get them on the team.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[tepples]

stomv wrote:

I haven't had cable television in 7 years. I don't miss it.

tepples wrote:

But what replaces live sports on cable TV?

evilviper wrote:

Maybe live sports on the dozens of free, over-the-air, broadcast TV stations?

But the local CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox affiliates don't broadcast the sport that I like to watch. For instance, only one game of this round of the NHL playoffs is on a broadcast network; the rest are on channels exclusive to cable or satellite. Instead, the major networks they broadcast some strange "sport" that they call Reality TV. Should I just learn to like a different sport?

Hell, NBC's Universal-Sports DTV sub-channel broadcast at least here in the greater Los Angeles area

WISE-TV, the NBC affiliate in Fort Wayne, Indiana, doesn't have Universal Sports.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[SanityInAnarchy]

Live sports streamed over the Internet.

Granted, it sucks compared to what you'll get via satellite or cable. Last I looked, they were generally all in WMV or some Silverlight crap, and pitiful quality compared to the HD you might be used to. And HD does actually make a difference with sports.

Of course, personally, I agree with Ronald -- sports are pretty boring.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[tepples]

[IPTV sports] sucks compared to what you'll get via satellite or cable. Last I looked, they were generally all in WMV or some Silverlight crap

And a lot of these are Silverlight 2, not the Silverlight 1 that Moonlight supports. So in other words, I'll need a newer PC, one with more CPU and more RAM to run a virtual machine, and I'll need a copy of Windows to install into that virtual machine. That could cost as much as a year of cable TV.

I agree with Ronald -- sports are pretty boring.

Unless a fan of boring is paying the utility bills.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Anonymous Coward]

You could visit minor league games "live". The way everyone used to do before television based sports took over.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But what replaces live sports on cable TV?

Going outside and playing them yourself?

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Jason Pollock]

It depends on the sport. Baseball has a video portal.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Optic7]

When searching for P2P TV channels after seeing this story on Slashdot, I noticed that sports is some of the most common programming offered on P2P TV sites. Google for P2P TV Sports and you will find a bunch of sites dedicated just to this. Here is the first link from the results, as an example.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to watch yesterday's game tomorrow... That's the point of live sports, to watch them as they happen, often with your friends or to at least discuss the game with them later, around the office the next day, etc. I know a lot of slashdotters don't care about sports since they're played outside, often by dumb jock millionaires, and not in mom's basement on a plasma tv with some cheetos and a pizza. Unlike Wolverine or whatever, the game isn't available until it's actually being played, so you can't get it ahead of time and be in sync with your friends.

Its perfectly fine to not value live sports... but, well, at least for me, and millions of other people, I want to watch my teams play live. That means the other half of the season that make up the away games (and if you're like me and prefer a team from several states away, home games too)... not to mention playoffs, lesser viewed sports, etc. An entire year of cable also costs less than cheap seat season tickets for just one team too ($720 for cable for the year versus $1100 ($2200 if I want to buy a second seat to take a friend with me) for nosebleeds for my hockey team. For that $720, I get all 82 regular season hockey games and more than 100 football games, plus SciFi, Comedy Central, etc)

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Optic7]

That's the point of those sites - they're not torrents of yesterday's games, they're live P2P feeds of the games.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[Anonymous Coward]

True, that's why we invented bars.

Re:Netflix is not for sports

[evilviper]

Should I just learn to like a different sport?

Actually, I would simply recommend that you try to avoid exaggerating in the future. ie. Just because the largely-unpopular sport you happen to like isn't available on broadcast TV, doesn't mean "live sports" are unavailable without cable/satellite.

Personally, I wonder just how many Hockey fans would find the high price of cable/satellite worth paying JUST for coverage of that single sport.

Some sports are beginning to be broadcast online... nearly-live. The Olympics being an obvious example. If you wait a while, you're sure to see other options mae available.

A common misunderstanding..

[general_re]

Cable-television companies make money by selling packages of channels. The average American household pays $700 a year for over 100 channels of cable television but watches no more than 15. Most would welcome the chance to buy only those channels they want to watch, rather than pay for expensive packages of programming they are largely not interested in.

It's not the cable companies that are selling packages of channels, it's the content producers - cable companies don't much care beyond the technical details of access control and so forth.

Everyone thinks they want a la carte programming, but the reality is that if it ever came to pass, most folks would pay pretty much what they pay now, except they'd get fewer channels in exchange, particularly for those who are interested in niche or specialty channels. Without the producers being able to subsidize niche channels through fees for their popular, flagship channels - which is, of course, exactly why they sell channels in packages like they do now - the price of those niche channels will go up dramatically for those who choose to subscribe to them. Not a problem if you're only interested in ESPN 1 and MTV 1, but if your tastes are even slightly outside the mainstream, you won't wind up saving much money at all.

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[metamatic]

Without the producers being able to subsidize niche channels through fees for their popular, flagship channels - which is, of course, exactly why they sell channels in packages like they do now - the price of those niche channels will go up dramatically for those who choose to subscribe to them.

I think you're wrong. The truly niche channels are currently usually sold only as add-ons or in premium packages, precisely because they don't have the clout to force their inclusion in the core packages. For example, if I wanted the Science Channel or Logo via DirecTV, I'd have to upgrade to the $61/month package. In the mean time, I was left subsidizing channels like ESPN and FOX News, which frankly don't need subsidy.

[I've written about the whole a la carte thing in more detail.]

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[steveha]

Everyone thinks they want a la carte programming, but the reality is that if it ever came to pass, most folks would pay pretty much what they pay now, except they'd get fewer channels in exchange

Nope, not buying it. You can't convince me that having a choice is worse than having no choice.

I have some friends who used to live in Japan. When they moved to the USA, I checked to find out how much it would cost to get them one channel of Japanese TV programming on Comcast cable; it was heinous. They would have to buy a complete package of stuff they didn't want, plus pay something like $30 for the Japanese channel. It would have been $60 or $90 per month (I don't remember exactly how much, but I just remember my feeling of shock over how much Comcast wanted for this).

I have to assume that some company in Japan could stream TV shows over the Internet for way less cost to the user.

As another example, I'm interested in bicycle races. The "Versus" cable TV channel will have the Tour de France, but no cable channel will carry the Giro d'Italia or several other bike races I could name. There just isn't enough interest in most of the customers in America. If I could get TV shows a la carte, I could get the Giro.

I think you are partly correct: it may be that buying a bundle of channels will allow customers to save money compared to buying every single channel one-off. And people will probably still buy bundles for the convenience. But the current situation lets the cable companies dictate terms to their customers; when the customers gain the power to end-run the cable companies, that will put downward pressure on the cable company prices. Which can only help bring costs down for the consumers.

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[Anonymous Coward]

So.... since I only want a few mainstream channels (PBS, history, discovery) I get to subsidize the niche channels. No thanks, a la carte please.

Actually, now that the newshour is available in whole online, the days of my cable subscription are numbered.

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[general_re]

As another example, I'm interested in bicycle races. The "Versus" cable TV channel will have the Tour de France, but no cable channel will carry the Giro d'Italia or several other bike races I could name. There just isn't enough interest in most of the customers in America. If I could get TV shows a la carte, I could get the Giro.

You've changed the point I was making, and I don't think you even realize you did it ;)

(Full disclosure: I work in the cable industry, so I'm far more familiar with the economics of it than most people here.)

Anyway, by "changing the point", notice that you've asked for TV shows a la carte. I think that eventually you'll get what you want, but what most people think they want is channels a la carte. That's simply not going to happen unless it's mandated, and even then, as I said, it really won't save anyone any money.

But that's neither here nor there. The future of television is not 500 channels, or 5,000, or 5 million, where you go through and pick and pay for only the ones you really want. Instead, the future is, in my opinion, going to consist of only one channel, but what's on that channel is determined by you. One channel, but it has whatever you want to watch. And pay for, of course. Other than selling programs in bundles rather than channels, in the long run the idea of a linear channel is dead - the future is all video on demand. Which makes this discussion kind of moot anyway :)

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[CodeBuster]

but if your tastes are even slightly outside the mainstream, you won't wind up saving much money at all.

Alright, but why should the MTV and ESPN crowds, cultural cretans though they may be, subsidize the History or National Geographic channels of Frontline on PBS for the wine drinking, luxury car driving, and art appreciating snobby types (who could afford to pay full price anyway)?

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[general_re]

Alright, but why should the MTV and ESPN crowds, cultural cretans though they may be, subsidize the History or National Geographic channels of Frontline on PBS for the wine drinking, luxury car driving, and art appreciating snobby types (who could afford to pay full price anyway)?

Normally I'd agree, but unlike NEA grants using tax money to subsidize the ballet, the folks who are into gangsta rap, NASCAR, the NFL, or whatever, can always opt out of these subsidies. As it stands right now, your subscription to ESPN is subsidizing sumo wrestling and tractor pulls on ESPN 8, "The Ocho". If that's a problem, you can always cancel your subscription.

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[CodeBuster]

subsidizing sumo wrestling and tractor pulls on ESPN 8, "The Ocho". If that's a problem, you can always cancel your subscription.

Well, I don't know about you, but from where I sit it just doesn't get much better than crashing into a vintaged duct-taped La-Z-Boy recliner at the end of a hard day of wrestling the jackhammer with a sumo gut, popping open a fresh can of Sapporo, and tuning in the swamp buggy tractor pulls on ESPN 8 "The Ocho".

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[Aceticon]

Without the producers being able to subsidize niche channels through fees for their popular, flagship channels

I think you're interpretation of the motivations of the "producers" is wrong - they're for profit companies: they're in it for the money, they won't subsidize anything ("subsidizing" = less profit).

If the specialist channels are part of the packages, that's because the producers believe they can make more money by having them there than by not having them there.

Interestingly enough there recently was an article floating around (in the Economist, maybe 2 weeks ago) about how in the US the broadcasters are loosing market share to other channels - which seems to contradict your theory of flagship channels subsidizing niche ones.

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[general_re]

I think you're interpretation of the motivations of the "producers" is wrong - they're for profit companies: they're in it for the money, they won't subsidize anything ("subsidizing" = less profit).

If the specialist channels are part of the packages, that's because the producers believe they can make more money by having them there than by not having them there.

Here's the thing - "subsidize" is not a totally accurate description of the situation. You're right, they're not putting niche channels on because they're nice people, they're putting them on to turn a profit. The only way to turn a profit is to generate revenue in the first place, but the problem is that when the producers approach cable companies or satellite companies with their plan to put The Quilting Channel on the air, the cable companies will (rightly) say "Who's going to watch such a thing, and why should we pay you for the privilege of carrying it? TQC is not the sort of channel that attracts new subscribers for us, so what's in it for us?" And so TQC never goes anywhere, much to the disappointment of grandmothers everywhere.

If, however, the owners of TQC also own something really popular, they can bundle the two together in order to get the niche channel on to cable systems. Basically, the deal is that if you want to carry the Beer'n'Titties Network, you also have to carry TQC. And it's not even necessarily a matter of charging cable operators more for the bundle - they might charge less for the bundle than for BTN by itself, as an incentive to carry TQC also. The reason is that they can then make more money from advertisers, because they can then say to advertisers "Hey, TQC has penetration into X million households, so here's how much ad time costs for you on that station". And, of course, the bigger "X" is, the more that ad time is worth.

So "subsidy" is not a good word, necessarily - it's not like those channels are necessarily losing money. It's more like a situation where their value is maximized by leveraging the value of the flagship channel. Take away the ability to get that penetration, and the producers will lose ad revenue, and hence the direct cost of niche channels to subscribers will go up - they'll have to make up that lost ad money somewhere, if they can, so they'll either charge more per subscriber, or they'll fold up shop altogether if they can't. But either way it's not a particularly attractive situation for people who are actually interested in quilting.

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[AK Marc]

It's not the cable companies that are selling packages of channels, it's the content producers - cable companies don't much care beyond the technical details of access control and so forth.

Cable companies are selling packages. Period. How they buy them isn't my concern. How they sell them is. They are selling packages. I can't get ESPN without ESPN2. There is no amount of money I can pay the cable company to make ESPN2 not come into my house if I get ESPN. Using the cable company box (and interoperability with 3rd parties is required by law, but practically impossible) I can't get ESPN2 to not show up in my channel listing, whether I pay for ESPN or not. It doesn't matter how much I offer to pay them, they will not sell me a box that doesn't include ESPN2 in their channel listings (and no, I don't count manually setting up a favorites list and using that as a channel listing, that's a favorites listing, like the name states).

You can claim it won't be financially viable or whatever to sell ESPN2 separately from EPSN, but you can't tell me that the cable companies aren't bundling them. Well, unless you can name a single cable provider you can get ESPN from and not ESPN2 (and note, I'm not even trying for the harder choice of EPSN2 without ESPN).

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[general_re]

You can claim it won't be financially viable or whatever to sell ESPN2 separately from EPSN, but you can't tell me that the cable companies aren't bundling them. Well, unless you can name a single cable provider you can get ESPN from and not ESPN2 (and note, I'm not even trying for the harder choice of EPSN2 without ESPN).

Of course the cable companies are bundling the channels into packages, but the point is that they mainly have no choice but to do so by the terms under which they carry the channels in the first place. Even if Time-Warner or Comcast wanted to sell you ESPN by itself, they can't - ESPN won't let them. If, as a cable company, you want your subscribers to be able to watch ESPN, you have to also provide them with ESPN2. Period.

I'm not denying the reality of bundling, merely pointing out the real culprits, and it's not the cable companies.

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[AK Marc]

Even if Time-Warner or Comcast wanted to sell you ESPN by itself, they can't - ESPN won't let them.

Again, I'm hearing that TW signed a bad contract and is taking it out on its subscribers. And I'd like to see the agreement. I've never seen one, and I'd expect that it's not as you characterized. They may be required to pay ESPN for ESPN2, but are they actually required to deliver ESPN2 into every house that received ESPN? Or is there just the expectation that they will because they've paid for it?

Re:A common misunderstanding..

[general_re]

Again, I'm hearing that TW signed a bad contract and is taking it out on its subscribers

I gather that you've had a bad experience with a cable company, and therefore you are looking to reinforce your view of them as pure, unadulterated evil. However, your characterization of the carriage agreements could hardly be farther from the truth. If Disney comes to you, as a cable provider, and says "If you want to carry ESPN for your subscribers, you must also carry ESPN2," then you have two choices - take the deal, or watch millions of customers defect to satellite. If you'd like to call that "taking it out on [their] subscribers", so be it. Most observers would probably call it "the lesser of two evils", but there you go.

And I'd like to see the agreement. I've never seen one, and I'd expect that it's not as you characterized.

The exact details of the various carriage agreements content producers have with cable and satellite companies are not made public, for the rather obvious reason that it contains information of value to your competitors if you are a cable company, and information of value to other purchasers if you are a content producer. After all, if cable company X managed to negotiate a good deal, Y and Z will undoubtedly want the same deal or better. Whether you believe me as to what these agreements look like in general is neither here nor there - it is what it is, whether you believe it or not.

They may be required to pay ESPN for ESPN2, but are they actually required to deliver ESPN2 into every house that received ESPN? Or is there just the expectation that they will because they've paid for it?

Naturally they're required to actually deliver it. If they weren't required, cable companies might not do so, and then ESPN would be missing out on the piles of ad revenue which they expect to gain from selling time on ESPN2. A previous post I've made here goes into a bit more detail as to why the producers of channels want to bundle things together. It's not actually about revenue from subscribers, it's more about ad revenue. Perhaps you will find it illuminating:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1211949&cid=27728081

Mis-Informed Article

[tealwarrior]

While stories of the cable companies running in fear from the impending flood of online content and restricting bandwidth in response have been common on slashdot for a while it's disappointing that something like the Economist has picked up this fable.

The reality is that most of the content that offered on cable today won't make its way to the web for free under the current revenue models of content providers (not cable cos). Currently half of the revenue that channels like TLC get is from cable subscriptions. The other half is from advertising. These channels aren't interested in cutting their revenues in half on the hopes that on-line advertising somehow doubles in profitability. This is especially the case when it's currently only about 10% of what the same ads get you on TV.

Hulu is an experiment by major networks (FOX/NBC) (who already provide their content for free and get most of their revenues from advertising) to see if they can make the online advertising model work and capture more eyes than they are currently getting. While the site is successful in terms of traffic, the advertising dollars aren't there yet. As long as it doesn't undermine the real money of TV advertising, it's a useful experiment. (There is some cable network content on Hulu from Viacom ala Comedy Central/Sci Fi but its the content that is so mainstream that the advertising experiment may pay-off).

While the Economist was missing the boat they decided to also throw in the al-a-carte pricing myth as well. That model doesn't work either since not everyone wants the same 15 channels. If you move to that model then today's 100 channels would be tomorrows 20. Hope you like Home Shopping Network more than BBC America.

As to why DOCSIS 3 is so slow to make its way out? First cable cos are large companies that have basically been monopolies for long enough that their culture reflects that. They are slow to do anything. Second, they are waiting for the end of analog signals so they can reclaim some bandwidth. Third it's expensive. When you have 30 million customers, $100 a pop is real money. Under these conditions, there is little incentive to rush to market. That said, cable cos are starting to roll out this service and increasing the bandwidth of existing customers.

So what will happen? I think content providers will partner with cable cos to provide their content online. It will be on a different part of the pipe, just like phone service is so you get good quality of service for HD even when your neighbor has his torrents at full throttle. You'll see reasonable network caps like comcast's 250GB a month but your video viewing (on that separate pipe) won't count towards that so you mostly won't care providing you have a job or something else to do other than watch torrent content all day. Will you suddenly get all the good content you want for free? Unlikely. Will your most affordable (and legal) option for getting content still be from a cable co/tele co? Probably. Hopefully as more options become available: Cable, Fiber, Netfix, iTunes, the pressure will be on cable/tele cos to provider a better experience.

Re:Mis-Informed Article

[californication]

Discovery has 100 networks that earns them 3 billion from 1.5 billion viewers. Whats to stop them from starting their own over-the-internet subscription service? If their viewers bought only one channel a-la-cart, they could pay 17 cents a month and Discovery would still net 3 billion in a year. With their viewers buying even more channels, or packages, the price per channel could drop even lower, or they could simply pocket more of the revenue.

Channels that are unpopular should die, not be subsidized by other consumers. We already have public television to fill that gap.

Re:Mis-Informed Article

[PPH]

So what will happen? I think content providers will partner with cable cos to provide their content online.

That might bite the cable companies in the ass. Certain content providers are waiting eagerly for them to open the doors on such negotiations. That'll make cable dumber than a dumb pipe.

Second, they are waiting for the end of analog signals so they can reclaim some bandwidth.

Huh? Cable bandwidth is unrelated to the OTA switch to digital signals. Some cable companies will continue their analog basic cable services long past the switchover date. Others have already abandoned analog, requiring their customers to use a digital set top box, with whatever DOCSIS version or other protocol they deem appropriate (FiOS for example).

Re:Mis-Informed Article

[Qzukk]

You'll see reasonable network caps like comcast's 250GB a month

And unreasonable caps like Time Warner's 5GB a month? I guess that's a "fable".

Re:Mis-Informed Article

[jedidiah]

> The reality is that most of the content that offered on cable today
> won't make its way to the web for free under the current revenue
> models of content providers (not cable cos). Currently half of the
> revenue that channels like TLC get is from cable subscriptions. The
> other half is from advertising. These channels aren't interested in
> cutting their revenues in half on the hopes that on-line advertising
> somehow doubles in profitability. This is especially the case when
> it's currently only about 10% of what the same ads get you on TV.

Any channel that needs to squeeze money out of cable providers
as well as spam us with advertising is already living on borrowed
time. These are the sorts of channels that need to be put out of
their misery by the march of technological progress. If you are
extracting subscription fees out of me or out of me indirectly
through my cable carrier then your content better be commercial
free or else you are trying to steal my time.

Hulu or something similar is probably the wave of the future. Any
"channel" that can't deal with this sort of model probably should
"start getting their affairs in order" right now.

Re:Mis-Informed Article

[tealwarrior]

I agree TWC is a tool. I still don't think its due to fear of losing customers to online video. Hopefully in the future, they will come up with more reasonable policies.

re The Economist on Broadband TV

[Anonymous Coward]

For a piddling 80 bucks a month, you can get 3D bar charts of Sri Lanka's GDP updated in real time!

DVR and skipping ads... really?

[Pathway]

I'd like to point out something I've observed over the years I've used my DVR: I watch the commercials.

I'll be watching my show, and I'll be using the 30-second skip feature to skip commercials during the show... but in the act of flipping through the commercials, If I see something that looks interesting to me, I'll actually go back and see what the commercial is about.

Reasons I skip commercials include: The commercial is annoying, I've seen it several times, or I am defiantly not the target audience.

I've also experienced where I am watching with somebody else, I skip a commercial, and the other party asks to go back to see it because they were interested in it.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this observation. So, I think all commercials get a fair showing in most cases with DVR.

Re:DVR and skipping ads... really?

[Ifandbut]

True. If I pass by a commercial for a new show/movie/video game I'll rewind if it looked interesting, however there are so many trash commercials (no, I dont want term life insurance from the oxy clean guy) that I really dont miss much anyways.

Re:DVR and skipping ads... really?

[Jared555]

Also, if companies did a better job of integrating commercials with their programming the commercials would be a LOT less annoying.

Going from on demand Ax Men (history channel) with mediacom to some of their ads (the 100 calorie pack of some food where there are 20 people doing nothing but screaming) when you are using a stereo for sound makes me want to throw the remote across the room.

In addition, with regular programming when you go from a quiet program to ultra loud commercials is bad enough on a regular tv, let alone a stereo turned up loudly. One random commercial had my cabinets rattling from my subwoofer.

Also... poor attempts at targeted advertising are worse than good untargeted advertising. On hulu I see four or five products advertised only. Some hotel, condoms, anti drunk driving, a random energy drink, and relief/non for profit groups.

When you are watching straight through five seasons of a program it gets very repetitive.

Again, I don't have a problem with ads or paying for tv. Just if you are going to show ads and charge, make sure it is worth it or people are going to go the illegal routes.

I would drop cable almost instantly if I could get a service with similar options online. Mediacom wants $15-$20 for every DVR or about $10 for every cable box if you want on screen guide.

Re:DVR and skipping ads... really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am at the exact opposite end of the spectrum -- I have multiple custom configured HTPC DVR's that are interfaced to multiple HDHomeRuns & also to my Comcrap cable box via Hauppauge HD-PVR's. Everything is automatically stored to either shared directories on my home network or onto my primary server directly (which hosts my DVD library).

I have all of them setup to generate ComSkip files and automatically skip the commercials on EVERYTHING. We never even have to hit a button, the commercials are just skipped automatically (and I've custom tweaked the tuning to where it is VERY reliable).

I don't even remember the last time we actually watched a show "live" -- even on stuff like American Idol, we always start at least 20 minutes into the show so we can skip the commercials and be caught up by the time it's over.

With the possible exception of the Superbowl, I haven't watched any commercials in years.

As far as that goes, even before I got my HTPC's setup (which has been 5+ years -- albeit they were analog only originally), I had been recording just about everything we watched on our VCR's and skipping the commercials on them as well (of course the fact that I had an unreleased firmware in my VCR that watched for specific combinations of the CC stream and AMOL codes and PAUSED automatically when recording commercials was a real blessing)

Re:DVR and skipping ads... really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not alone, but your post is the first time I've seen the "I watch the commercials" stance not be modded into oblivion by the "DVR lets me skiped the comershals" types.

Kudos--however you managed it. The "DVR means no commercials" mentality really grates.

Re:DVR and skipping ads... really?

[GWBasic]

I'm sure I'm not alone in this observation. So, I think all commercials get a fair showing in most cases with DVR.

Actually, the TV stations learned from the mistakes that the Newspapers made in the 1800s when they realized that their readers could skip ads. In the 1800s, the Newspapers tried to use devices that glued peoples' eyeballs to the add.

Needless to say, these newspapers failed in the marketplace rather quickly.

Why someone else in the house wants cable/sat TV

[tepples]

Then how do I convince the head of the household not to want to watch "a bunch of jocks demonstrating why the college dean fiddled the entrance criteria to get them on the team"?

Netflix Streaming Censored Movie Versions

[Nom du Keyboard]

The problem in streaming is as follows:

Netflix Streaming Censored Movie Versions

What you see with Netflix is definitely not what you get. Or to put it more precisely, what you see with their streaming Watch Instantly service is not what you get when you get the DVD version in the bright red envelope. Not only is the quality far less than the DVD version (a known feature of their streaming that only got worse with their new optional player that they try to trick you into installing), but it's not even the same movie! An example: I wanted to enjoy one more time "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" because I've found it to be the funniest pseudo rockumentary since "This is Spinal Tap". Rather than give up my one DVD rental slot I was pleased to find it available for streaming, even if I would have to watch it on my computer. There's music in the movie not on the soundtrack album. With no warning from Netflix that it would be streaming a censored version it was left to me to discover missing pieces throughout the movie. Called Netflix to complain and was told that they have to stream the version provided by the studio, which may be different than the DVD version that they'll mail to you. But they don't warn you when this happens. Now I don't want to use their streaming service at all because I don't trust it to deliver me the same movie experience. And it wasn't just removal of some sex and/or nudity. What they left in was far more challenging than what was clipped out. And don't tell me this is part of the DRM scheme to avoid theft. Copying a DVD is as cheap and much easier than stealing Netflix's low-quality stream. In short, there is no logical reason for this to happen - and especially no reason for it to be kept secret that the streaming version isn't the DVD version. In an ideal world, in addition to the Watch Instantly option and the mail me a DVD option, Netflix should offer a third Download Complete Full Resolution Version To Watch Much Sooner Than Waiting For It To Be Delivered By Mail option. And they should be much more upfront about the differences between their DVD and streaming versions. Otherwise they'll never be able to convince us to eventually abandon physical delivery of DVD's in favor of Internet delivery. Anyone else suspect that they've had this same experience yet?

Re:Mis-Informed Article-No End Of Analog

[Nom du Keyboard]

Second, they are waiting for the end of analog signals so they can reclaim some bandwidth.

Sorry, but that's not going to help you. The whole point of cable for many people is that the digital transition in February, excuse me June, excuse me whenever, doesn't affect cable viewers since they will continue to receive the same analogue signal they have to this point.

Your other points might be more valid.

History will repeat itself

[Dega704]

This is sounding an awful lot like what happened to the recording industry. Instead of changing with the times they are trying to fight the current, and it isn't going to accomplish anything except delaying our broadband future even more. Considering how long they have been screwing us over I really don't care how much of their profits go down the toilet over this.

The Economist articles

[falconwolf]

They most of been slashdotted as neither is available for me.

Falcon

Re:The Economist articles

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, at least you spelt your name right, although we could have just looked at your username in the title.

socialism is bad,

[falconwolf]

it's what got us here in the first place

Blanket labels like that are rather shortsighted. There are many socialized services that do very well and are required for quality of life in the US. Medicaid, medicare, social security, police, fire, public schooling, etc.

While Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are federal the rest of these are state at most but more likely locally controlled. As for Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security I think it would be better if they were privatized or opened to a free market. Because of a disability and being turned down for health insurance I collect SSI and have Medicare and I don't believe hard working taxpayers should be paying my for disability or health care. As for retirement everyone should plan for and save and invest while they are working for when they do retire.

Falcon

Re:socialism is bad,

[hazem]

As for Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security I think it would be better if they were privatized or opened to a free market.

When the Bush administration started just over 8 years ago, one of its major goals was to privatize social security... everyone would get their own account... in the stock market.

Now consider what has happened in the stock market since then. What happens to all the people who depend on that "fixed income" from social security when it would now be easily cut in half?

This analysis doesn't require any sympathy or consideration of the plights of individuals (some would argue that they should have provided for themselves). But what happens to the economy as a whole? A bunch of people lose their houses because they can no longer pay their mortgages and taxes. We already have a glut of houses on the market, adding more houses only makes the problem worse.

Then consider the hoards of homeless old people. Now, again, we don't need any compassion for this analysis... we don't have to care about the individuals and their suffering. But do need assess the impact of their homelessness on society as a whole. Some will turn to crime and some of those will be caught and we'll need to more spend money on trials and prisons.

This exercise in identifying systemic costs due to a lack of a functioning social security system can go on for a quite a while. But what you end up with (again, without taking into consideration compassion or emotional arguments) that no matter what choice you make as a society, there will be a cost to the decision. You can have the direct costs of a social security system or the many indirect costs of having hoards of criminal or sick grannies wreaking havoc on society.

Once you realize that every choice for a system has its own costs, then it's a matter of maximizing or minimizing the the things that are most important. THAT is a judgment based on the values and priorities of a society.

It's easy to say that everyone should provide for their own retirement, and it's a great "value system" and sentiment. But the fact is, not everyone can or will (there are plenty of ways even the most perfectly planned "life" can be derailed by life events). The hard reality that has to be faced then is "what do do about them". The world isn't so "neat" that they simply go away. Our society, as a system, will incur the costs of their lack of a retirement plan in one way or another.

Because of a disability and being turned down for health insurance I collect SSI and have Medicare and I don't believe hard working taxpayers should be paying my for disability or health care.

You're welcome. I work hard and pay taxes and I'm glad we have a safety net in place for people who need it. I do realize there are some people who abuse that safety net, but even then, I feel we are better off as a society with it, abuses and all, than without it.

You don't have to look very hard to find societies that are failing because they have no safety nets and people are driven into poverty and crime. Somalia with its pirates and Mexico dominated by drug cartels are easy examples. In fact, look at most places that are laissez-faire, low regulation, have minimal societal safety nets, and they're generally unpleasant places for a majority of the population to live in. The rich will be comfortable wherever they are, but since most of us won't be rich, I opt to live in a society that has some safety nets and regulation.

Re:socialism is bad,

[DJRumpy]

It doesn't matter if they are state or federal. They are still regulated, controlled, and funded by taxpayer money. It's also disingenuous of you to state social services are all evil when you yourself are already benefiting from them. Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to plan or save money for retirement. Some have disasters that can wipe out entire savings, some simply have no spare money to save.

I won't even go into the Privatized Retirement accounts that Bush wanted to replace our current social security model with. Hazem has summed it up very nicely. I would have been a disaster had we left it up to private industry.

Re:socialism is bad,

[mattack2]

When the Bush administration started just over 8 years ago, one of its major goals was to privatize social security... everyone would get their own account... in the stock market.

I'd say that was one of the (very few, IMHO) good ideas that Bush proposed. I'd prefer getting rid of Social Security altogether, or at worst replacing it with a "mandatory 401k" if we really need to force people to save.. But at least having some of the Social Security money I pay in _my_ account rather than in the general SS money, it's better.

Plus, at least according to the Wikipedia entry, the funds could have been invested in stocks, bonds, or mutual funds. So it would have been the account holder's own choice for how much risk they were willing to take.

FYI, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_(United_States)#George_W._Bush.27s_privatization_proposal:
President George W. Bush discussed the "partial privatization" of Social Security since the beginning of his presidency in 2001. But only after winning re-election in 2004 did he begin to invest his "political capital" in pursuing changes in earnest.

So it was really the 2005 State of the Union Address that made this an actual issue he brought forward.

Re:socialism is bad,

[falconwolf]

When the Bush administration started just over 8 years ago, one of its major goals was to privatize social security... everyone would get their own account... in the stock market.

Only if they wanted an account in the stockmarket. Even then though there are different types of stocks to invest in as well as different strategies. Someone young should be able to weather the current recession. Someone closer to retirement should be shifting their investment portfolio to value stocks and investments that generate an income not growth. In 3, 4, or 10 years the current economic recession may very well be a blip on the screen. The economy has recovered from every other recession. Even if you include the Great Depression of the 1930s. I don't have a reference right now but even with the depression stocks increased in value by more than 10% a year during the 1900s. And compound interest works wonders. If an 18 year old were to invest $2000 a year for 7 years, until the age of 25, then didn't invest another dime by the tyme they were 65 and they got 10% growth they would have almost a million dollars by retirement. By then they should already have paid off their home and so should live quite well on the interest and dividends paid to them.

Do you think Social Security will pay that much?

Now consider what has happened in the stock market since then. What happens to all the people who depend on that "fixed income" from social security when it would now be easily cut in half?

This does bring up a problem, however those workers who are not near retirement should be able to set aside some of the social security taxes they pay into an investment portfolio. Now, to fix SS for those close to or are in retirement. One possible solution is to open up the borders and allow immigrants to legally work here. Make them pay social security without the eligibility to collect it later. Unless they become US citizens. However most would not want to do that, most want to send money home or save it then go back to where they came from.

But what happens to the economy as a whole?

The current economic recession we're in now may never have happened if more people saved and invested more money for retirement instead of depending on government handouts. Reduce or eliminate taxes and both spending and investing will increase. Both of those raise employment, which raises wages.

A bunch of people lose their houses because they can no longer pay their mortgages and taxes.

Many of those people bought houses they could not have afforded, they brought it upon themselves. And banks and other mortgages lenders lent money to them. If those banks had not been bailed out then banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing. All it did was enrich a few at the expense of everyone else.

We already have a glut of houses on the market, adding more houses only makes the problem worse.

Yea, I don't expect it to bottom out before fall, then I'm hoping I'll be able to buy one. I doubt it but I hope.

Then consider the hoards of homeless old people.

That's dealt with above, increase spending and investing by lowering taxes.

Question, were you ever homeless or did you ever work with the homeless? Though not homeless myself I did work with homeless people. No not as a social worker, but literally with them, between jobs and college I worked through a day labor pool. You simply show up in the morning and sign in, then you wait until someone who needs help calls in. I know about the homeless.

This exercise in identifying systemic costs due to a lack of a functioning social security system can go on for a quite a while.

A functioning social system does not need government. For ages civil societies have helped many. The comedian and actor Dann

writer savvy enough to make own Ubuntu media PC

[KWTm]

"Torrent was EXACTLY the word I was looking for. Thank you, The Economist!"
If you think that happened by accident, you don't read The Economist regularly. That's exactly the sort of dry wit their writers use.

Agree, especially since the writer is savvy enough to build his own media centre with Ubuntu and Boxee. He knew exactly what he was writing, and I'm sure the editors did, too. For all we know, the writer probably reads Slashdot.

Okay, Economist-correspondent-writer-in-Japan, reply to my post and prove me right! (Or at least someone pretending to be him reply to my post and make me look good. :) )

Re:writer savvy enough to make own Ubuntu media PC

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an Economist correspondent writer in Japan, and you are right!

Fast fibre connections into every home

[falconwolf]

In a way I agree about one entity owning the infrastructure with the requirement that that infrastructure be open. However who's going to spend the money to do research? Without research we wouldn't have fiber.

Falcon

Re:Mis-Informed Article-No End Of Analog

[tealwarrior]

Below is what I was referring to. I was left with the impression that digital transmission and digital tier we're somehow related such as not having to transcode an analog signal in real-time but given that it say "independently" they may not be. Thanks for the correction.

http://connectedhome2go.com/2009/04/20/project-cavalry-in-philly-and-beyond/

"Independent of the broadcast digital transition set to take place on June 12th, Comcast is making the all-digital shift in about half of its markets this year. (All Motorola markets so far) In fact, the Comcast move is taking place in my own Philadelphia backyard at the moment. As part of a âoemarinationâ period, Comcast is deploying digital set-tops and DTAs for basic subcribers during already-scheduled truck rolls. After new hardware is the field, Comcast aims to move roughly 40 analog channels to its digital tier - all as a way to free up bandwidth for more HD content and DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding."

Sports on P2P TV is very common

[Optic7]

When searching for P2P TV channels after seeing this story on Slashdot, I noticed that sports is some of the most common programming offered on P2P TV sites. Google for P2P TV Sports and you will find a bunch of sites dedicated just to this. Here is the first link from the results, as an example.

socialism

[falconwolf]

just throwing pork at privately owned companies is pretty far from socialism, and calling it that is a sign either of confusion or dishonesty.

No, that's called corporate socialism.

Falcon

PBS: maybe, maybe not

[AliasMarlowe]

Can't speak for CSPAN, but PBS has an awesome video portal to most of their content now... http://www.pbs.org/video#
It was just launched last week

Thanks for the link - PBS rocks. Unfortunately either they are having problems, or they're restricting distribution (perhaps geographically, as I'm in Europe). All I get, on any of the shows, is "this content is currently unavailable" either in audio or as text.

national heath insurance

[falconwolf]

Complaining about the license fee is like complaining that for a measly 1/4 of what the USA spends per head, we get universal health care with no co-pay and fixed prescription costs.

And you may have to wait for health care. While not everyone in the US has access to good health care many international patients come to the US for diagnosis and surgery. In a way I find it weird that while people in northern US states cross the border to buy prescriptions in Canada, Canadians would can afford it go south to cross the border to have surgery in the US. The article "An expensive way to die - criticism of national health insurance" goes over some of this.

Falcon

Re:national heath insurance

[Another, completely]

American healthcare, like American education, has some of the best institutions in the world. It also has quite a few that aren't so impressive, and a large number of people who don't enjoy the level of access that most western countries consider the basic minimum (some get it anyway, but bankrupt their families as a result).

The general argument of the Canadians is that allowing differential healthcare, where rich people can bypass the public system, will make it easier for the government to let the public system slide. As the author of your cited article mentions, the rich will often bypass the system by going abroad for specific treatments, but a large number of people who could afford to go abroad use the public system anyhow. Those who went abroad for care can be very vocal about how the current system is not providing the level of care that they expect. Which is the point, really.

When the current system was adopted, everyone knew that pulling the entire population to a single system would pull some down as well as up. Naturally, some people are unhappy with the system as it is. If your mother dies while waiting for surgery, it will influence your opinion (although whether that influence is towards more funding, privatization, or better management can vary). On the other hand, it's the third rail of Canadian politics. Nobody who wants to be re-elected would suggest changing it. That suggests the average voter believes that care would, for most people, get worse in a two-tier system.

Just in case someone out there has the numbers, what about the relative life expectancy of people over 65 in Canada and the United States, broken down by annual income or personal net assets? The article gave only Europe, and only for the total population.

A very interesting exploration of this exact topic is available in The Barbarian Invasions, which was nominated for the 2004 Best Writing Oscar, and won the 2004 Best Foreign-Language Film Oscar.

But what replaces live sports on cable TV?

[falconwolf]

Going outside and playing them yourself?

That's too much hard work. At least it seems that's the attitude many have. I admit I don't go out much anymore but I prefer doing over watching. Then again some of what I like doing isn't shown on TV much if at all, such as scuba diving.

Falcon

Economist Wrong About Tivo @ CES

[meehawl]

Ironically, the Economist misses an important piece of the puzzle. It writes:

TEN years ago this week a black box was demonstrated at a broadcastersâ(TM) convention in Las Vegas. TiVo's digital video recorder (DVR) was expensive: the cheapest model cost $499. But it was hailed as revolutionary.

The 1999 CES awarded the "Best of Show" video category to ReplayTV, with Tivo as the runner up.

Marc Andreessen, Netscape Communications co-founder and recently named Replay-Networks board member, calls ReplayTV "just about the coolest thing I've ever seen."

The man who made the Internet accessible to millions of people worldwide thinks ReplayTV and Replay Network Service will fundamentally change how people watch and interact with television. "Replay could do for television what Netscape did for the Internet," Andreessen said.

ReplayTV was the DVR to own during the analog era. It offered built-in autoconfiguring ethernet, automatic user-oblivious commercial skip (using detection heuristics similar to those now employed by MythTV) and the ability to exchange show recordings over the internet. The last two features were potentially massively disruptive to the TV/movie industry and landed the ReplayTV people in court. The protracted legal battles drained the company's finances and attention, and in the end they consented to remove the coolest features from their newer units. By then Tivo, which always played well the media conglomerates, had taken most of the market by offering units with significantly less disruptive potential.

Re:I don't watch TV

[sonicmerlin]

The "needs of your family" eh? It's always interesting watching feminist zealots conceal their agenda with platitudes of conservative religion.

The last mile?

[symbolset]

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a minivan full of backup media.

Re:The last mile?

[doppiodave]

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a minivan full of backup media.

Yeah, the sneakernet is alive and well - for those who have the sneakers, the minivans and the backups. Which does nothing for the other 95% of the population.

What's Non-Pre-Recorded TV?

[billstewart]

Sure, my Tivo _has_ a LiveTV button, but I almost never use it. Occasionally I'll watch shows in near-real-time if they happen to be on (e.g. the first few minutes of Colbert after Jon Stewart records and before Leno starts), but even then I'll usually watch something else for 5-10 minutes so that Tivo has enough head-start that I can watch the live show without commercials.

Me too - and I haven't missed it

[mcrbids]

Me too, in February, when I moved. We had the dual-dish DVR with the super-duper-mega family plan hooked up to two NTSC TVs.

When we moved, we decided to put off signing up for cable until after our expenses stabilized, but since I have to work on the Internet, we got DSL set up with wifi immediately, 3.0 Mb. Simple, fast, cheap.

And without the TV to distract us, we quickly discovered hulu, Netflix-on-demand (we always had the Netflix plan, but didn't use it all that often) and casttv.com. Between all of them and the direct networks (fox.com/fod, cbs.com, etc) we've hardly missed our satellite at all.

In fact, it's actually BETTER in many ways because

1) with the DVR, you had to know in advance what you wanted to watch. You set the DVR to record your favorite shows, and then you get into the "comfy zone" where you don't ever watch anything really new because of the hassle of going through the schedule of 300 channels in order to find something that doesn't suck.

2) If you like a show that runs often, like law&order, (which my wife loves) you end up either: A) loading up the DVR with a bazillion episodes that you've already seen or B) only the "new" episodes, which are often re-runs from a year ago, anyway.

3) You do NOT get access to shows that you actually haven't seen but aren't on the airing schedule. If you discover a show that you like (EG: Heroes) in season 2 or 3, you don't ever get to go back and see the ones you missed. Online, you do.

4) If you had a lazy day, and wanted to watch a ton of TV, it's common to run out of shows that you like. So there you are, with half a 12-pack in the cooler at your feet, having watched all the Mythbusters and Galactica episodes, and you have to either watch stuff you already saw or be content with the saturday afternoon golf.

With the Internet television, you watch what you want, right now. You can (usually) see reruns from past seasons, you can watch entire seasons in series, and you never run out of new stuff to try. (Try Mi5 - it's like CSI only it's in Britain, and unlike CSI, it's actually GOOD television, with actual acting and plots that aren't as formulaic as a Nancy Drew mystery.

Try it - it's better than you thought!

Death to TV!

[spanky the monk]

I just have to say: TV sucks, the Internet is awesome. Death to TV!
--
Television: forming public opinion since 1930.

sign me up

[code4fun]

It's time for cable services to change. Even the Comcast digital starter package is $59.95/month. I only watch about 5 channels out of the list they provide where 1/3 of which are infomercials anyway. The only reason I subscribe to it is because I like to watch Discovery, History, and FOOD channels. The other thing is local news which I can get off the air. I welcome IPTV and anything that allows me to select what I want instead of stuffing everything in a bundle. Send those programs over IP multicast and I'll drop my cable service in a heartbeat.

A word from our sponsors.

[John Pfeiffer]

Personally, I haven't had cable in years. I watch all my television shows either streamed live, or after downloading high-def copies of them from the internet...granted, that's by necessity because I pretty much only watch Japanese television.

Speaking of DVR users and skipping commercials though... Let me tell you, back when I -did- have cable, 80% of American TV commercials were just completely OBNOXIOUS and STUPID. Seriously. And nearly 100% of the time, they are louder than what you were watching, which makes them all the more annoying.

On occasion, I watch UK-based broadcasts of Formula 1 and rally car racing, their commercials, even the ones that are sort of obnoxious, are much more entertaining than American commercials.

Japanese TV commercials... What can I say? They're just flat-out fucking BIZARRE. But at the same time totally HILARIOUS. (Example: The recent commercials with Tommy Lee Jones for Suntory's 'Boss' canned coffee. One of those had my father laughing for like five minutes.)

This is neither here nor there, but if they started making commercials that weren't seemingly designed to annoy the shit out of us, it just might work to their advantage. JUST A THOUGHT.

I'm very close to cancelling my DirecTV

[e40]

I got a mini and installed XBMC and uTorrent (which sucks on the Mac, btw, but Vuze is just too bloated). One issue is my son, who watches most of his shows in another room on another TV, away from the mini. The Slingbox/Slingcatch combo isn't that cheap, not too far from another mini. Another is that as soon as I turn off the service, what I have on my DVR will be inaccessible. So, I have to download or watch all that is there before I call them.

I'm also using ted (http://www.ted.nu/) as a poor man's DVR for torrents. It is not that good (it downloads torrents from private trackers whick never go anywhere, missing downloads that I can easily find on mininova, etc). It does have a nice interface, so there's hope that it will get better over time.

Rant on uTorrent on the Mac: doesn't stop at pre-defined share ratio, just keeps seeding forever. Has a bug which pushes CPU use up to 100%. These bugs are 5+ months old. The perils of arrogant developers (they delete cries for patches on their forums) on a closed source project.

Should we expect better?

[leshert]

Early adopters of DVRs used them a lot â" not surprisingly, since they paid so much for them.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc much?

How about tru2way?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in the process of shopping for a new flat screen television and I really like the Panasonic Plasma televisions. Browsing their website they are now selling the high end televisions with ethernet connection directly. This is part of the the (I believe) tru2way standard (www.tru2way.com). Has anyone out there used it, what is your experience with it. The web site at Panasonic states you can connect to you tube and weather but really I would like the ability to at the very least connect to Amazon on demand, it would be great to connect to Hulu as well but I doubt that this is available. Comments?

It doesn't matter if they are state or federal.

[falconwolf]

Have you ever heard of and read the USA Constitution? It does not give the federal government the power over Medicaid, medicare, or social security.

It's also disingenuous of you to state social services are all evil when you yourself are already benefiting from them.

I did not say it was evil, so because you want to make things up I'm ending this here.

Falcon

If your mother dies while waiting for surgery

[falconwolf]

it will influence your opinion (although whether that influence is towards more funding, privatization, or better management can vary).

No it wouldn't, waiting is part of why I do not like socialized medicine.

Just in case someone out there has the numbers, what about the relative life expectancy of people over 65 in Canada and the United States, broken down by annual income or personal net assets?

It's not broken down by income or wealth but the List of countries by life expectancy does list average life expectancy. Oh, lest someone objects to wiki, it was the first result when I googled "life expectancy" canada "united states". However "a casual look at life expectancy statistics reveals no obvious pattern".

The Barbarian Invasions

Reading it I see one of the comments, by a Quebecois, says "Yes the health care is that bad here. But then again where is it perfect? The population is growing old, hospitals are overcrowded, our government spends most of our tax money for it and its still not enough. But at least we don't have to pay for health care. I'm happy to pay taxes that help elders and sick people get treated."

Falcon

government and broadband

[falconwolf]

I'm not as sure about airwaves being viable competition for fiber.

It could be for local access in high density areas such as cities. WiMax is growing by leaps and bounds in Asia. Spending is high in both China and India, by 2013 India may be the biggest WiMax market in Asia. If they can do it I see no reason the US can't, as long as the incumbents are kept out of the way. But of course they'll fight it tooth and nail if they can't have a piece of it. Now I'll admit fiber can provide more bandwidth but it's possible to get as fast a broadband as many people get now from cable and DSL.

Falcon