You would be far better off using DirectTivos for the capture boxes. You can then 'hoover' the recorded shows onto a massive central server by using the Turbonet cards and simple protocols. This is better for multiple reasons:
1) You get the direct satellite stream without going through the decode-reencode step that reduces quality. This results in a huge increase in picture quality.
2) The Tivos can pull double duty as playback devices and capture devices. You'd just need a minor first step to make sure what you want is transferred from the server before playback.
3) If you want you can build a diskless, (fanless?) box with a 100M ethernet connected to a switchport on a switch with a gig ethernet to the server. This would give you better control over the output, especially if going to an HDTV ready TV.
4) The Tivos can act as backup devices for what is recorded when the server goes kaplonk. Still playable! This increases the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) greatly.
Good luck with whatever you are doing recording sixteen channels simultaneously.
Every cable franchise I've ever seen has a requirement to build-out the entire city. Hasn't always been enforced by city governments as tightly as it could have been, but it is definitely in most franchise agreements. Often there are daily fines (that can get significant) once a certain period of time beyond the build schedule has passed.
As far as must-build requirements for the whole nation -- hopefully our gov't won't make the same mistake of granting monopolies in exchange for 'universal coverage' that they did in the past. Instead folks who get the benefits of living in rural areas will have to also pay the attendant costs instead of convincing politicians to force a cross-subsidy.
AT&T is no longer a protected monopoly and the billions it made was long ago paid to shareholders. Should we look up granny and insist on the money back to subsidize your rural broadband?
This is a classic "Let's make this a crisis so we can get more funding" article. Hrmm - global warming is _so_ overdone, let's make it about global cooling. That will get us some headlines and funding - maybe even a post on Slashdot!
Evidence: "In the past decades, we have made great strides in understanding Earth's atmospheric circulation system because we established a global network of thousands of meteorological stations to monitor changing atmospheric conditions."
Those atmosphere guys get all the funding (and headlines)!
"No observational network exists to continuously monitor the oceans."
Wah - we don't get enough funding.
"If we just had a few more strategically placed modern instruments in the oceans for an extended time, we could understand so much more about how the oceans can cause abrupt climate changes. At present, there is no national plan for improving our understanding of the issue,"
Where's my national plan featuring Woods Hole prominently? We struggle along looking for $2 million here and $3 million there in research grants. We just need congress to pass one big $300 million plan!
"The best way to improve the effectiveness of our response is to have more knowledge of what can happen--and how and when. Research into the causes, patterns, likelihood, and effects of abrupt climate change can help reduce our vulnerabilities and increase our ability to adapt."
Translation: "WHERE'S MY FUNDING?!"
Of course this is being painted as a crisis. Crises get funding. A paper saying that there might be minor changes in atmosphere in various parts of the world that causes some minor disruption and easily handled complications doesn't get any headlines or funding. Oh no, London may have slightly shittier winters than they already do (hey - maybe the fog caused by the gulf stream will clear up!)
While more research may not be a bad thing - just wait until the anti-development crowd gets the results, interprets them in the worst possible way and starts proposing cures. I'm betting they cost far more than the problem.
Having just come from the cable tv business (don't ask, started in the ISP business and suddenly found myself doing cable programming contracts...) - I can tell you a little about how that world works. Basically when you pay your cable bill somewhere around half goes to programmers - i.e. 10 cents for foodTV, $2.25 for ESPNx (the most expensive), $0.60 for Disney channel, etc. Most cable programmers get around half their revenue from these subscriber fees and the other half from advertisers. So ad-free TV will just cost you about double on your cable bill. OK, maybe not double - assuming the cablers agree to lower margins but the same gross dollars per connection - but at least 50% more... (like that'll happen!)
Of course, I don't think this would happen overnight. Instead there will be a continuum of gradually increasing programming rates as PVR penetration increases and other ad models fall short. The industry is scrambling because they don't believe consumers will pay double on their cable bills ($56-72 basic cable anyone?) so they are talking about ads filling the bottom third of the screen, product placements, volunteer ads, and everyone's favorite - 'broadcast only flags' enforced via dubious laws and technology.
There is another issue with ad-free TV that will significant. Today the broadcast channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB) are free to cable companies - this is due to some high-priced negotiations carried out via bought congr^h^h^h^h lobbyists and finalized in the cable act of 1992. Something about the broadcasters getting spectrum and the cable guys having 'must-carry' rules - blah blah. Anyway - in an ad-free world you would have to think that another $5-10 would plop on your cable bill ($66-82 basic cable anyone?).
(How unfair to the broadcaster you say? Well - they get even by using the free content rights as clubs to force the cablers to take other (ABC-->disney channel, fox-->fox sports, etc.) expensive basic channels, but that is another story...)
Satellite customers are on the same basic model. For the remaining 15% or so of people who aren't cable or satellite customers - I'm not sure of the endgame. Perhaps they are cross-subsidized by the cable and satellite customers and the cost is eaten to maintain broadcast licenses. Or maybe the broadcasters have to find a new model or maybe the stars of 'Friends' will just find themselves making a lot less money... One can only hope...
RCN is targeting fiber to within about 900 feet of every single residence in its build-out area (more than of 4-5 million homes in dense places like Boston, NYC, Chicago, SF, etc.). The final leg is still done on coax. We (I work there) are able to run fiber on telephone poles without much breakage risk.
We did a fiber to the home trial and I have the results in front of me right now. I'll let you know what our next steps are as soon as I can - although with the new SEC rules I can't let anyone know much of anything until we issue a press release.
Slashdot Mirror
You would be far better off using DirectTivos for the capture boxes. You can then 'hoover' the recorded shows onto a massive central server by using the Turbonet cards and simple protocols. This is better for multiple reasons:
1) You get the direct satellite stream without going through the decode-reencode step that reduces quality. This results in a huge increase in picture quality.
2) The Tivos can pull double duty as playback devices and capture devices. You'd just need a minor first step to make sure what you want is transferred from the server before playback.
3) If you want you can build a diskless, (fanless?) box with a 100M ethernet connected to a switchport on a switch with a gig ethernet to the server. This would give you better control over the output, especially if going to an HDTV ready TV.
4) The Tivos can act as backup devices for what is recorded when the server goes kaplonk. Still playable! This increases the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) greatly.
Good luck with whatever you are doing recording sixteen channels simultaneously.
Every cable franchise I've ever seen has a requirement to build-out the entire city. Hasn't always been enforced by city governments as tightly as it could have been, but it is definitely in most franchise agreements. Often there are daily fines (that can get significant) once a certain period of time beyond the build schedule has passed.
As far as must-build requirements for the whole nation -- hopefully our gov't won't make the same mistake of granting monopolies in exchange for 'universal coverage' that they did in the past. Instead folks who get the benefits of living in rural areas will have to also pay the attendant costs instead of convincing politicians to force a cross-subsidy.
AT&T is no longer a protected monopoly and the billions it made was long ago paid to shareholders. Should we look up granny and insist on the money back to subsidize your rural broadband?
This is a classic "Let's make this a crisis so we can get more funding" article. Hrmm - global warming is _so_ overdone, let's make it about global cooling. That will get us some headlines and funding - maybe even a post on Slashdot!
Evidence:
"In the past decades, we have made great strides in understanding Earth's atmospheric circulation system because we established a global network of thousands of meteorological stations to monitor changing atmospheric conditions."
Those atmosphere guys get all the funding (and headlines)!
"No observational network exists to continuously monitor the oceans."
Wah - we don't get enough funding.
"If we just had a few more strategically placed modern instruments in the oceans for an extended time, we could understand so much more about how the oceans can cause abrupt climate changes. At present, there is no national plan for improving our understanding of the issue,"
Where's my national plan featuring Woods Hole prominently? We struggle along looking for $2 million here and $3 million there in research grants. We just need congress to pass one big $300 million plan!
"The best way to improve the effectiveness of our response is to have more knowledge of what can happen--and how and when. Research into the causes, patterns, likelihood, and effects of abrupt climate change can help reduce our vulnerabilities and increase our ability to adapt."
Translation: "WHERE'S MY FUNDING?!"
Of course this is being painted as a crisis. Crises get funding. A paper saying that there might be minor changes in atmosphere in various parts of the world that causes some minor disruption and easily handled complications doesn't get any headlines or funding. Oh no, London may have slightly shittier winters than they already do (hey - maybe the fog caused by the gulf stream will clear up!)
While more research may not be a bad thing - just wait until the anti-development crowd gets the results, interprets them in the worst possible way and starts proposing cures. I'm betting they cost far more than the problem.
Having just come from the cable tv business (don't ask, started in the ISP business and suddenly found myself doing cable programming contracts...) - I can tell you a little about how that world works. Basically when you pay your cable bill somewhere around half goes to programmers - i.e. 10 cents for foodTV, $2.25 for ESPNx (the most expensive), $0.60 for Disney channel, etc. Most cable programmers get around half their revenue from these subscriber fees and the other half from advertisers. So ad-free TV will just cost you about double on your cable bill. OK, maybe not double - assuming the cablers agree to lower margins but the same gross dollars per connection - but at least 50% more... (like that'll happen!)
Of course, I don't think this would happen overnight. Instead there will be a continuum of gradually increasing programming rates as PVR penetration increases and other ad models fall short. The industry is scrambling because they don't believe consumers will pay double on their cable bills ($56-72 basic cable anyone?) so they are talking about ads filling the bottom third of the screen, product placements, volunteer ads, and everyone's favorite - 'broadcast only flags' enforced via dubious laws and technology.
There is another issue with ad-free TV that will significant. Today the broadcast channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB) are free to cable companies - this is due to some high-priced negotiations carried out via bought congr^h^h^h^h lobbyists and finalized in the cable act of 1992. Something about the broadcasters getting spectrum and the cable guys having 'must-carry' rules - blah blah. Anyway - in an ad-free world you would have to think that another $5-10 would plop on your cable bill ($66-82 basic cable anyone?).
(How unfair to the broadcaster you say? Well - they get even by using the free content rights as clubs to force the cablers to take other (ABC-->disney channel, fox-->fox sports, etc.) expensive basic channels, but that is another story...)
Satellite customers are on the same basic model. For the remaining 15% or so of people who aren't cable or satellite customers - I'm not sure of the endgame. Perhaps they are cross-subsidized by the cable and satellite customers and the cost is eaten to maintain broadcast licenses. Or maybe the broadcasters have to find a new model or maybe the stars of 'Friends' will just find themselves making a lot less money... One can only hope...
We did a fiber to the home trial and I have the results in front of me right now. I'll let you know what our next steps are as soon as I can - although with the new SEC rules I can't let anyone know much of anything until we issue a press release.