Yup; the Internet is screwed up.
jgreco at ns.sol.net
Wed Jun 22 20:55:05 UTC 2011
> Joe Greco wrote:
> > that things are changing. The number of TV's in a household are going
> > up. Some can now stream directly to the TV. I have numerous devices
> How can it go up even more? I thought every bedroom and living room has
> one by now, in the average family house.
That's not universally true. It is, however, becoming more true as the
cost of the devices drops and the form factor becomes more convenient.
At one time, families could only afford the money and space for a single
TV; they were large, expensive console affairs. Now I can have a TV on
the wall in my office which does multiple duty as an additional screen
for less-resolution-intensive computer uses, customer presentation
purposes, and oh yes it can act as a highly competent TV capable of over
the air, cable, or Internet stuff too. It's feasible to stick a TV on
most any wall, without losing floorspace. And last I checked, TV's of a
respectable size were only a few hundred bucks.
> In my experience families have
> fared pretty well getting these TV signals through more traditional means.
People said similar things in the Days Before Cable. And then before the
Days Before Satellite TV. While it's true, it's only *so* true.
There's a ton of stuff, for example, that's available on Netflix streaming
that hasn't been aired on commercial TV (at least that I've seen) in a
very long time. Those of us who are TiVo fans are used to being able to
have meaningful selections of shows available to watch at our convenience.
This, however, is a process that involves being aware of the shows that
are interesting and going to be broadcast, or hoping that the TiVo will
"guess" as to what we like, which is only so likely. By way of comparison,
Netflix streaming - while limited in show selection - offers the
convenience of TiVo-style "on demand" viewing without being limited to
the 980 hours our TiVo is capable of storing. There are many thousands
of hours of TV instantly available, and the way it seems to be to me, it
is only likely to go up.
> > that stream Internet radio audio, something that would have seemed
> > completely frivolous 15 years ago, but today my AV receiver comes with
> There has been in place for many decades multiple perfectly viable
> alternatives of getting TV or radio signals into your house. Using your
> good old antenna, satellite, cable... Considering these alternatives I'd
> say the idea of the internet replacing old existing infrastructures
> shouldn't be the top priority.
Shouldn't be? Maybe. But these things happen.
> Now if you mean added functionality or special ways of doing things that
> delivering content over the internet can provide I can see a point.
> Be that as it may, I don't think current methods and techniques in use
> will scale well to fully replace antennas, satellite and cable to
> provide tv and radio signals.
I remember when the same was being said of VoIP back when 33.6 modems
were the majority consumer access device. Even now, VoIP isn't that
prevalent, but it is becoming moreso. It's a slow process, but the
convenience is there.
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
More information about the NANOG