Subject: [IP] more on IPTV deployment in major cities
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <Bob2email@example.com> Date: October 29, 2005 6:03:02 PM EDT To: firstname.lastname@example.org, 'Ip Ip' <email@example.com> Subject: RE: [IP] IPTV deployment in major cities
As I keep pointing out the whole idea of a franchise for IPTV is strange.
Why do we need a gatekeeper when with the 1% of FIOS available for Internet
connectivity the content providers can sell direct to consumers without
paying the carriers a fee?
I've heard figures like 85% going to the carriers (CableCos). The DRM issue
is no different whether you send the bits over coax or IP (as it is
increasing the norm within the networks). The decoding is still done by a
device at the edge be it a Set Top Box or another device.
What happens when the content providers figure this out or when new entrants realize they no longer need to pay for access to customers by paying equity to the carriers?
This is a reminder that the purpose of FIOS is for the telephone companies
to go into the seeming lucrative TV business (as was DSL) while the
CableCos see money in selling telephony.
It's also a depressing reminder that the cities are seeking money to pay
for old expensive technologies. Why a community access channel instead of a
community video server?
If the city gets connectivity rather than another cable company many of these expenses would disappear. Even better with leaky connectivity once you no longer to bill by the path. The emergency network would simply be there.
As with the carriers' effort to create the billable Internet via IMS (IP Multimedia Something) (just like they tried with WAP) one has to wonder what benefit this provides to the consumer.
I call it reality arbitrage -- the anomalies are not sustainable once
people realize that they don't need to pay high fees for services they can
create themselves or buy in a competitive marketplace. Word Processing went
through this long ago and we now accept email. VoIP is coming to the force.
Video is just another format -- not at all special.
When are people going to get past the mystique and realize there is nothing
special here? Perhaps when they realize that ATT is now no different than
Packard-Bell -- just a recycled trademark and nothing more.
-----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 04:40 To: Ip Ip Subject: [IP] IPTV deployment in major cities
Begin forwarded message:
From: Sean Donelan <sean@DONELAN.COM> Date: October 29, 2005 3:08:53 AM EDT To: CYBERTELECOM-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: IPTV deployment in major cities Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet <CYBERTELECOM- L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
And Verizon, can anyone explain why there are no major cities on the list of deployments?????? -- that's because they don't want to have any major snafus
Last year Verizon Communications Inc. lawyers went to city hall in Tampa, Fla., for permission to offer television service over the phone company's new high-speed network. City officials presented them with a $13 million wish list, including money for an emergency communications network, digital editing equipment and video cameras to film a math-tutoring program for kids.
Frustrated, Verizon officials suspended their talks and decided to try another tack. The company soon persuaded Temple Terrace, a small neighboring community, to roll out the new technology. It began running radio and newspaper advertisements in Tampa, arguing that if residents want more television choices, they should move to Temple Terrace.
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Powered by eList eXpress LLC