is this like a peering war somehow?

Fri Jan 20 16:50:44 UTC 2006

On Jan 20, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

> On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:25, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and  
>> people will pay for them.
>
> That and breaking news seem like reasonable exceptions to point out  
> in contrast to my rampant generalisations.

I think we are in very close agreement here.

Although you bring up a good point.  At least here in the US, there  
is the "emergency broadcast system", a way to break into the TV feed  
in "real time" in case of emergency.  It was designed because, well,  
us dumb americans are glued to the boob tube 24/7, so what better way  
to say "GET THE HELL OUT NOW!"? :-)

Things like "breaking in" to TV feeds are not really useful if  
everything is pre-recorded and stored locally.

> For news, however, stories seem to break on the web long before  
> they usually reach the television. Anybody who really wants to hear  
> about things as they happen are probably best to avoid the  
> traditional news networks anyway.
>
> As far as sports go, there is no timely coverage of rugby in North  
> America anyway, I can't imagine why anybody would waste their time  
> watching inferior games like football, hockey, baseball or  
> basketball at all, never mind in real time.

I didn't say they were BRIGHT or TASTEFUL, just that people would pay  
for it.

Hell, people use Pay-Per-View for WWE, even after they admitted it  
was staged.  No one has ever gone broke underestimating the US  
public....

Then again, I like US "football". :-)

> Joe (running away quickly now)

As you should.  We might not be smart, but we can kick Canada's ass!

-- 
TTFN,
patrick