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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (21022)	4/22/2007 7:44:58 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Capacity allocations are arbitrary, at best. If you consider the imbalances that exist between program services on cable (and FiOS), for example, it's something like 1:400 or more, depending on how many cable tv channels they support. DSL is less lopsided, but only because it is far less capacious to begin with. Even with DSL, the amount of 'discretionary' bandwidth that users have at their disposal for high-speed Internet and VoIP is far less than what is now being made available for multiple IPTV sessions, and wherever DSLs are challenged by distances and/or poor line conditions, the discretionary bandwidth made available over them is marginalized even further. No telco that boasts IPTV as a part of its triple play bundle is going to sacrifice on video or any of its other pay-fer services for the sake of yielding bandwidth (on a < 20 Mbps loop, say, which amounts to most present day DSL services here in NA) to end-users discretionary HSI purposes, especially when those same end users would only turn around and use that same discretionary bandwidth to download videos for free, or from some other source, thus helping to further cut themselves out of the loop, as it were. Bandwidth, instead, would more likely be taken dynamically from the HSI allocation -- as when the second and third tv sets are turned on within a household, in order to augment video's needs. So you are correct when you state: "If we must have video, then something's got to give." ------

To: axial who wrote (21022)	4/22/2007 8:03:01 PM
From: Whitebeard	Respond to of 46821

they can't throttle video, can they? Cat's out of the bag.

To: axial who wrote (21022)	4/22/2007 8:20:20 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

re: "(Note: It's difficult understand why we have players pleading capacity constraints while at the same time, they seek to further burden their networks with video.)" Or for that matter, singing the wonders of Hi-Def video as if everyone "must have" it, while at the same time trying to start another new market at the opposite end of the spectrum (mobile TV on a handheld). That article from The Register (I just skimmed it) takes an odd approach to making its case re: internet video. Today we have blurry 4" video windows (though generally less jerky/choppy than the norm a few years ago), generally in the 5 minute duration area. The article jumps all the way to streaming HD video 1080i, 2 hour movies. I don't even know why the case is being made for that (maybe because it doesn't sound "sensationalized" enough to deal with a more likely, more incremental next step of standard def, maybe increasing the duration, and many of them downloaded not streamed. It will be many iterations (i.e. many years) of internet video incremental growth before streaming 1080i is the norm. More likely that 1080i will be relegated to the walled gardens of the incumbents for eternity, and they'll use every excuse in the book to make internet HD a pipe dream. Who knows, maybe it really is, from a business perspective.