CEOs ponder spending mega$$

[DoneThatToo]

Full Article (http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/09/HNnoconvergedservices_1.html?source=NLC-TB2007-01-09)

Delivering video over the Internet is one of the many services that providers can offer but despite the buzz around such offerings, some of the service providers aren't sure the technology makes sense. Simply because technology is available doesn't mean it's good for the consumer or the service provider, said Glen Britt, president and CEO of Time Warner Cable. He compared delivering video over the Internet to some of the new cellular video services. Samsung Electronics and others are building phones that can receive the digital signals that broadcast television providers are starting to deliver. Yet other companies are building separate systems for cellular video. Britt wonders why they need to create a new system when one already exists.

[The Mockingbird]

Simply because technology is available doesn't mean it's good for the consumer or the service provider, said Glen Britt, president and CEO of Time Warner Cable. It's always nice to see CEO's that are hidebound, backwards jackasses, it confirms my worldview.

[facts]

No, his point is a good one. The internet is working to deliver what we in TV already do everyday.

Much like the idea of the electronic book, which has never caught on. If you think of it as the opposite -- that e-books were the only way of reading books, and I told you I had invented a book that cost 1/100th the cost, used no batteries and you could drop it from great heights, you would say "what do you call it?" and I would answer "the paperback". And it would be revolutionary.

The fight between TV and the internet is about content - there's certainly content you can get on the net you would NEVER see on tv.. and immediacy.. the ability to see what you want when you want. It's not about technology.

[Rosenblum]

Its about content, but its also about cost of distribution.

Cost of building a broadcast tower and getting FCC license? Cost of getting a cable slot on Comcast? Cost of putting content up online. That is the major factor in the coming shift.

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by facts:
No, his point is a good one. The internet is working to deliver what we in TV already do everyday.

Much like the idea of the electronic book, which has never caught on. If you think of it as the opposite -- that e-books were the only way of reading books, and I told you I had invented a book that cost 1/100th the cost, used no batteries and you could drop it from great heights, you would say "what do you call it?" and I would answer "the paperback". And it would be revolutionary.

The fight between TV and the internet is about content - there's certainly content you can get on the net you would NEVER see on tv.. and immediacy.. the ability to see what you want when you want. It's not about technology.That's only because the tech/infrastructure isn't out there yet. When it gets to the point that half the books are in e-format, you're going to see electronic books replace regular ones. THAT is inevitible.

Why? Because you can take one paperback with you in your purse or pocket.

You can take 5,000 in an e-book. And get more without ever going to a store.

[Grotto]

With the books...

Not to mention the paper it will save, which means cutting down fewer trees, which allows rainforests to replenish...which helps contain "global warming", etc...

My wife is in the book biz. The electronic shift has already begun in full force. I do not think it will be long before e-books are the norm, and I do not necessarily think that is such a bad thing. Just my opinion...

[DoneThatToo]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
Its about content, but its also about cost of distribution.

Cost of building a broadcast tower and getting FCC license? Cost of getting a cable slot on Comcast? Cost of putting content up online. That is the major factor in the coming shift.More from the article . .
She admitted that the plan to build out FiOS and deliver Internet TV is a big risk, however. "It's a huge bet for us," Ruesterholz said. Verizon expects to spend around $18 billion over the next few years on the fiber network, which currently passes 6 million homes and should pass an additional 3 million this year. She estimates that the company spends more than $1,500 per home on the network. You're right. There is a cost to everything.

[Rosenblum]

FIOS is a fibre optic cable system, a direct competitor to Comcast or Time/Warner. It is not about online content. The money is spent laying fibre optic. Is it a good investment? Who knows. John Malone says its a waste of money.

[Spike]

Originally posted by Rosenblum:
It is not about online content. It is when it's being used for high speed Internet access. The television sevice is only half the product.

[Rosenblum]

stupid me! I forgot you are the world's expert in everything! I will be sure to bring you up with them at tomorrow's meeting. I am SURE they will hire you right away. I don't know how they missed you until now.

[facts]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
Why? Because you can take one paperback with you in your purse or pocket.

You can take 5,000 in an e-book. Why in the world would I want to do that?

[The Mockingbird]

Originally posted by facts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
Why? Because you can take one paperback with you in your purse or pocket.

You can take 5,000 in an e-book. Why in the world would I want to do that?</font>[/QUOTE]Because it's convenient?

[Spike]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by facts:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
Why? Because you can take one paperback with you in your purse or pocket.

You can take 5,000 in an e-book. Why in the world would I want to do that?</font>[/QUOTE]Because it's convenient?</font>[/QUOTE]Now, how is anybody supposed to read 5000 books in 15 minute intervals on the toilet?

[The Mockingbird]

You aren't.

You just don't have to waste time deciding which book you're going to read before you sprint to the toilet, so your elimination of waste doesn't involve a photo finish.

Which would you rather have, an IPod with 12,000 songs, or a Walkman with a "Best of Blondie" tape perma-jammed inside?

[Spike]

Originally posted by The Mockingbird:
You just don't have to waste time deciding which book you're going to read before you sprint to the toilet, so your elimination of waste doesn't involve a photo finish.Oh, come on. No self-respecting man doesn't have reading material in there already.