- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Netflix:Also to Blame
Posted on 5/22/12 at 12:13 pm to simbo
Posted on 5/22/12 at 12:13 pm to simbo
quote:
The studios will NEVER allow an upgraded Netflix......it will kill the cable companies and they will never allow that.
They may not allow Netflix to do it, but they will either piggyback the technology and start their own streaming services or grant rights to a streaming services that pays a higher rate.
Cable TV as we know it is fast approaching extinction.
This post was edited on 5/22/12 at 12:14 pm
3
Posted on 5/22/12 at 12:36 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
TV is like a radio signal that gets sent directly to your home via coaxial cable [TV used to actually be an RF signal, but now most providers have switched to digital. But that doesn't matter for this conversation, similar to how radio stations have largely converted to digital] , and you need a receiver to "hear" it [in this case, a TV to modulate the multi-plexed signal]. So, TV is a one way street. Like radio stations, it is there all the time, regardless if people use it. More people listening to the radio doesn't burden the system.
So it sounds like the answer is streaming is more efficient on an individual basis, but probably much less efficient when you scale up to neighborhood and city levels.
quote:
What I don't know is if TV uses up some of that available pipeline from the cables [like the coax in your house], or if the internet is already using the maximum speed of the coax cable.
Fiber Optics is replacing coax in many places including Baton Rouge. This is from an article talking about phone infrastructure, but much of the info should be applicable to TV and Internet as well.
quote:
Distance Bandwidth Voice Channels
Copper 2.5 km 1.5 Mb/s 24
Fiber 200 KM 2.5+ Gb/s 32,000 +
That tremendously higher capacity comes at a price. But even if it costs 1000 times as much for two fibers (one to transmit and receive), it is still 1/100th the cost of copper per voice channel. And it has other advantages, like a fiber optic cable being a fraction of the size and weight of a copper cable, a big point in underground conduits in crowded cities!
Depending on the application, fiber costs are typically 1-5% as much as copper in the backbone
LINK
The fiber upgrade is happening all over the country because it's pretty obvious we'll all be using much more bandwidth in the future and that may make the bandwidth question moot.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 1:16 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
They may not allow Netflix to do it, but they will either piggyback the technology and start their own streaming services or grant rights to a streaming services that pays a higher rate.
Cable TV as we know it is fast approaching extinction.
I'm on this side, obviously.
I think the cable companies will continue to entrench themselves UNTIL they see profit possibilities. They aren't going to pursue it until then.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 1:25 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Cable TV as we know it is fast approaching extinction.
Certainly there will be some change. But I think we are a very long way, from everyone wanting just on demand, a la carte TV watching. Many of us still like to surf and often find and watch shows/movies we'd never sit down and order.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 1:37 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
So it sounds like the answer is streaming is more efficient on an individual basis, but probably much less efficient when you scale up to neighborhood and city levels.
Yep. TV, like radio, gets blasted out; so, in that sense it is inefficient. However, it takes far fewer resources to blast out that TV signal than to "grow" internet bandwidth.
quote:
Fiber Optics is replacing coax in many places including Baton Rouge. This is from an article talking about phone infrastructure, but much of the info should be applicable to TV and Internet as well.
That is true, fiber has a much higher data transfer capability, but that capability is still limited by other devices, like your modem. But, just because the pipe gets bigger [more water can flow faster], doesn't mean we have enough water to meet everyone's needs. [water = bandwidth] For example, fiber can transfer at 2.5+ Gbps, but FIOS only offers up to 150 Mbps service [costs $200 per month]. So, it doesn't look like TV channels are eating up capability.
Also, there is the possibility that multiplexing eliminates any worry about using cable transmission speeds. IE: there is just one signal on the line, and the line moves it at the same rate regardless. Multiplexing technology is what allows for multiple channels, but I'm not sure how the internet works in that regard [IE: if the internet is just "one" channel].
Even the numbers I have seen for coaxial's limits, including your link, indicate that the TV signal isn't affecting anything because based on available data speeds coaxial could transfer at a much higher rate than readily available internet speeds. For example, a T-3 line is roughly 45 Mbps, and newer coax can transfer at speeds up to 100 Mbps. So, there must be another limiter.
[Wow, this is longer than expected, twss] Also, from your link, even though fiber has a much higher potential in terms of future proofing infrastructure, it looks like current replacement might be due to other factors as well:
quote:
What about the coax cable used for CATV? Well, it has lots of bandwidth (100 MHz to 1000 MHz depending on how old the installation is), but it even cheaper than telephone wire to install. CATV systems are using this coax for everything, (television signals, Internet connections, and even telephones) but it too is quickly converted to fiber, which provides the backbone connectivity due to lower loss (and subsequently longer runs betweem repeaters) and much greater reliability.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 1:47 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
FIOS only offers up to 150 Mbps service
Just to put that in context, the bandwidth used for NetFlix streams are:
1080p - 4.8 Mbps
720p - 3.8 Mbps
SD - 2.2 Mbps
LINK
So 150 Mbps would be more than enough for the average household.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 2:16 pm to TigerinATL
My point was just that TV doesn't interfere with data speeds. IE: removing TV will not increase bandwidth. After thinking it through, it has to be multiplexing that makes it a non-issue.
But, yea, that is a ridiculous amount for a household. I would say most households that have broadband internet have 10-20 Mbps. But, that is why the 150 Mbps service is so expensive.
The hypothetical problem is everyone [or many users at least] moving to streaming content. Would the infrastructure be able to handle the demand? I think it is more likely that providers will just raise prices to compensate for increased demand, before we hit a wall.
Currently, Netflix streaming takes up about 29.7% of internet bandwidth during peak times, and that is just 1 streaming company!
LINK
quote:
So 150 Mbps would be more than enough for the average household.
But, yea, that is a ridiculous amount for a household. I would say most households that have broadband internet have 10-20 Mbps. But, that is why the 150 Mbps service is so expensive.
The hypothetical problem is everyone [or many users at least] moving to streaming content. Would the infrastructure be able to handle the demand? I think it is more likely that providers will just raise prices to compensate for increased demand, before we hit a wall.
Currently, Netflix streaming takes up about 29.7% of internet bandwidth during peak times, and that is just 1 streaming company!
quote:
In the Global Internet Phenomena Report: Spring 2011, Sandvine found that Netflix is now 29.7 percent of peak downstream traffic in North America, and has become "the largest source of internet traffic overall."
LINK
Posted on 5/22/12 at 2:19 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
They may not allow Netflix to do it, but they will either piggyback the technology and start their own streaming services
This is what I said in the earlier post.
The studios and cable companies are going to run Netflix out of business by not offering sufficient content to them, and they'll stream themselves.
What they ultimately want to is get rid of all DVD's and just go streaming and then they can once again control the delivery. No copying DVD's no sharing.....they control the selection, content and price of streaming. Then we are back to being screwed like 1985 again.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 2:30 pm to simbo
quote:
What they ultimately want to is get rid of all DVD's and just go streaming and then they can once again control the delivery. No copying DVD's no sharing.....they control the selection, content and price of streaming. Then we are back to being screwed like 1985 again.
But Antonio and I look at that as a positive.
There's no way that they'll restrict you to certain seasons of shows FOREVER, not have a decent selection of pricing plans. They'll almost be forced to go to a la carte. They might rotate shows, but that's no big deal.
The ideal is that you pay a certain amount per channel, $10 for ESPNs, $20 for HBO, $8 for AMC and so forth, and THAT's your bill. And you can watch when you want, where you want, and complete back catalogs (according to the channel's wishes).
There would be a free market for syndicated shows, to exist on multiple channels.
I envision that eventually cutting out "channels," to where it just becomes Production companies.
The big issue behind ALL of this: Cable companies and broadcast companies rely on statistics, Nielsen ratings to be exact. But those are WOEFULLY inadequate even now, to truly track the impact of shows.
Why wouldn't they want much more consistent targetting (streaming shows with direct targeted ads instead of "one size fits all")? And more true figures about who is watching what?
Some people think that's the end of niche television, but I still disagree with that. For many many reasons. I think niche television suffers most from the lack of true ratings than the crap/reality television does. "Community" is one victim of that.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 3:01 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Some people think that's the end of niche television, but I still disagree with that. For many many reasons. I think niche television suffers most from the lack of true ratings than the crap/reality television does. "Community" is one victim of that.
I think you might see an expansion of niche programming. Authors are already preselling books, I can see TV shows going in this direction. Or maybe something like paying an extra $1 per month for NetFlix original <InsertGenreHere> programming. NetFlix could produce multiple pilots and let users vote on which ones they want to see produced. That's kind of how it works now only you get direct feedback from consumers rather than relying on flawed ratings numbers.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 3:22 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
I think you might see an expansion of niche programming. Authors are already preselling books,
Exactly.
quote:
I can see TV shows going in this direction. Or maybe something like paying an extra $1 per month for NetFlix original <InsertGenreHere> programming. NetFlix could produce multiple pilots and let users vote on which ones they want to see produced. That's kind of how it works now only you get direct feedback from consumers rather than relying on flawed ratings numbers.
Right, again, Netflix seems to just cruise right now. And Amazon isn't agressive enough. Whether they dont' want to push cable companies, or they really are that pessimistic about the market, I don't know. But there are so many options they haven't even thought about yet.
Posted on 5/22/12 at 3:42 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Why wouldn't they want much more consistent targetting (streaming shows with direct targeted ads instead of "one size fits all")?
in a word, efficiencies. Its probably much more efficient and cost effective to have 4 or so plans with different channels to choose from, than it would be to have 100,000 customers in Baton rouge, all picking different channels.
quote:
There would be a free market for syndicated shows, to exist on multiple channels.
I envision that eventually cutting out "channels," to where it just becomes Production companies
That just sounds impractical. Certainly there can be some of that, but there's still economies of scale that exist in the current model. Movies would be one thing, but a network like NBC can afford to produce 20-30 shows, knowing some will be hits, some will tank and others will build slowly.
There is no reason, why multiple models can't exist.
Posted on 5/23/12 at 9:59 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
That just sounds impractical. Certainly there can be some of that, but there's still economies of scale that exist in the current model. Movies would be one thing, but a network like NBC can afford to produce 20-30 shows, knowing some will be hits, some will tank and others will build slowly.
There is no reason, why multiple models can't exist.
Agreed.
But Channels used to exist to combine like content, create an audience, etc. Most Channels are owned by larger broadcast/production companies anyway.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News