Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MikeM54321 who wrote (7513)	7/7/2000 3:41:05 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

"How many channels can I get?" Mike: The question you hypothesize here is not the one to ask, and from your own perspective is a loaded question since the issue we are debating here is "how many is enough," not simply "how many." I think the more appropriate question is can I get the channels I really want to watch, or would even considering watching. At least that's what I do now when I continually weigh the offerings from DirecTV v. my MSO. The issue I highlight here is not that a VDSL provider can only carry 50 channels, or maybe a number somewhat greater as you imply. The VDSL provider may in-fact carry the full monty (ie. 200 channels) but may only be able to offer a subscriber to as many as 50-75 channels via a subscription over a single copper pair. So the subscriber is not necessarily faced with a simple 50 v. 200 channel selection that I think you would prefer to oversimplify here, but rather is confronted with the task to SELECT 50 or more of his/her favorite channels from a 200+ channel offering. To take this argument one step further, if a subscriber is so bent on receiving more the full 200 broadcast channel spectrum, it is certainly w/i the realm of possibility to have more than VDSL provisioned one copper pair coming into the home. But that's not really my point. My point is that in the future, the consumer is going to have a lot more influence over what is broadcasted into his home, much in the way things we see things evolving over the Internet today. We in-fact have glimpses today of so-called "tailoring" over the broadcast medium. Just look at what NWS (Fox) has done for example. In addition to its "flagship" channel, it offers a network of regional sports programming; a second channel for more modern "extreme sport" enthusiasts; a family channel; a kids channel; a news and commentary channel; a financial news channel. The list goes. ABC-Disney is doing the same. I think my point is further illustrated if instead of discussing a 200-channel broadcast world, the spectrum was opened up to 500 channels, or maybe a 1000 channels. At what point does the consumer say "I don't need all these channels. I am only interested in these types of shows, this type of entertainment, etc. Provide me only with those channels that provide the programming that I want to see & you, provider, can save the rest," and hence save bandwidth. There are only so many days in the week, so many hours to view programming. Sooner or later the demand of channel broadcasting is not going to PUSHED into the consumer's home, but rather PULLED. The PULL model will evolve in order to squeeze greater advertising dollars from particular programming sought by particular consumers. Your likely to find different commercials "aired" over the same content to different consumers in accordance with that consumer's profile. Today's video broadcast model is inefficient. Its not laser-like in targeting its audience. So the attitude is let's give'm as much as we can throw at them, and they'll be happy. IMHO, this model ain't gonna work in the future. My point is . . . in the future . . . 50-60 channels is going to plenty to satisfy what a consumer wishes to view in his limited leisure time, provided the programming is targeted, and it will be based upon expressed consumer preferences and viewing habits. JMO.