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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcmay who wrote (139889)	7/22/2001 5:07:53 PM
From: rustr	Respond to of 186894

<< If by chance Zach was talking about the John Malone vision, circa 1994, of "500 channels," we are far away from this. The "last mile" situation we talk about so often hits in spades for dreams of "500 channels." Without fiber to the home, or about five times as many satellites as there are parking spaces for in the Clarke Belt, just no way to get 500 channels. And, by the way, even these 500 channels won't require the kind of numbers of transistors that Intel's bucketloads are best for. No reason my existing set top box, designed presumably in the early 90s, can't cope with the load. It's got several hundred empty channel spaces, all the infrastructure for pay-per-view, etc. Why are more transistors needed? What would Intel bring to the party? --Tim May >> Better video and audio compression will drive more computing power. Mpeg4 and other intensive compression schemes will allow the "500 channels" and video on demand through few satelites. Of course, I'd probably still not find anything on worth watching. JMHO. -rustr