On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 13:05 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:
> In message <***@pele.citylink.co.nz>,
> Richard Naylor writes:
> >ah - its that word "channel" that I don't see in the future. Such a
> >dated concept.
> Ah. Channels are double-plus-ungood. Call it a stream if it makes
> you feel happier. Or VDC or whatever.
I think Rich's point is broader than "channels," it goes to the notion
of "broadcast," which, while like most things is not going to go away
anytime soon, but the option of obtaining material from P2P or other
sources (Tivo as so aptly observed by Joe) and assembling your own
experience is becoming more feasible, NB. those "mix CDs" that upset the
same distribution monopolies who take exception to video recorders.
As per usual there will be those (including me) who wish to be spoon-fed
the mass-market LCD, and good for them, what appears to be disliked by a
percentage of any audience/market is the lack of any choice. Its no
longer held that the centre/operator knows best for us all.
This is what makes me leery of attempts to make the Internet a better
broadcast medium than it already isn't. It may make non-broadcast use
more difficult. Unintended consequences, increased core complexity, et
> Your argument seems to be "viewers must be able to view it __NOW__(tm)"
I don't recall Rich writing anything quite so exclusionary, I read it as
saying this could be a better, non-exclusive, option. Assuming you mean
MUST in the RFC 2119 sense of the word.
> My argument is that there's a fair chunk of evidence that says that
> people would be willing to wait 1, 2, 5, 10, 30, or even 60 seconds
> for something to start
Most of the WWW supports that conclusion, LOL.
> (maybe even longer if it's a sizeable time investment to watch it all
> and the waiting time can be used productively
Yes, like video rental already provides, without the drive there and
back, and PPV on Sky Digital. No, new things are almost always about
adding options, not about removing them. Though that said, some options
become so niche that they vanish.
> Think of it as the difference between everyone just crossing the road
> when they feel like it, and traffic lights (or at very least waiting
> for the same gap in the traffic).
I think its more about about buses on a scheduled route rather than
everyone owning a car going where and when they want, but your
analogising may vary.
In my analogy, people rather prefer the private vehicle (and bus over
train (10 to 1) in Wellington). They can possibly afford this preference
as the vehicle/road (as opposed to the packet/bearer) network has
matured to the point where operators don't make any money at all
(excepting London of course <grin>), though they are trying to get into
that mode via the pernicious "Public/Private Partnership" and
> >Multicast is great for synchronous events like TRADITIONAL tv. I just
> >don't see that continuing.
> It's good for things other than traditional TV too. Especially where
> there's (significantly) more than one person wanting to watch
> something at the "same" time. Which is a surprisingly common case for
> "current" events. (Speech replays, sports replays, recent movie
> releases, etc.)
I think those are "synchronous events" or what in TV is called "live"
and there certainly is interest.
> But "video recorders are bad, we must do everything to defeat the use
> of video recorders". Furrfu.)
The Boston Strangler of the TV Industry huh? (I didn't know so I'll
explain, "furrfu" is rot13 "sheesh").
Service implementation on the edge is double-plus-good. That can happen
without this discussion or the attendant attempts at co-ordination and
convincing the operators they can make money this way. Customer
owned/created services generally serve the customer best.
PS. Road congestion, like unicast broadcast congestion, seems to arise
from the continued belief that we all have to use the road at the same
times (morning and night, Monday-Friday) in the same way we all have to
watch/hear the news as it is broadcast or rolls off the presses. It
doesn't really have to be that homogeneous any more, and putting a cost
on that, might drive recognition of this fact. We appear to have noticed
you don't need to own the rails to run services over them...
You will soon break the bow if you keep it always stretched.