[opendtv] Re: Best apps to enhance your Super Bowl 50 viewing experience | Fox News Video
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:37:25 -0500
On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:01 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Are you using the "royal we" here, Craig?
No I was talking about YOU. I know what I was saying, and that your were trying
to change the argument as you are so often wont to do.
It's a no brainer that multiple Gb/s of network capacity should not be
wasted, 24/7/365, on channels that no one is watching 24/7/365.
That's your opinion. The companies making more than $100 billion from this
"wasted" bandwidth may not agree.
Yes, Craig, ca. 1950, or perhaps ca. 1978, with advent of cable.
But content is moving behind pay walls,
Some might be, but this has NOTHING to do with what a standard receiver or
STB needs to look like, or how programs are delivered. It's another topic
Exactly so please stay on subject.
So the answer is 19%.
Okay, so from last year to this year, the number of homes served by broadband
increased from about 70+% to 81%. Not bad, I'd say.
Here is the report from Leichtman Reaearch from 2014:
NEARLY 80% OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS GET BROADBAND AT HOME
More Time is Being Spent Online at Home Than in Previous Years
Durham, NH -- October 24, 2014 -- New consumer research from Leichtman Research
Group, Inc. (LRG) found that 79% of US households get a broadband Internet
service at home, an increase from 20% in 2004.
From 79% to 81%.
Wrong again. Better check your facts before making a fool of yourself...
For the purposes of supporting IP-based TV sets or STBs, therefore, it looks
like 19% of households would be out of luck. So, the easiest/cheapest way to
reduce that number is to add those households, as much as possible, to
existing PONs. A small percentage would need either satellite broadband or
WISP rural service.
Here we go again...
Half of those households have access to 25/3 broadband, just like you.
Like you, they either choose not to pay for this service, or they cannot afford
As for those who cannot access broadband, virtually all can access a DBS
service; they do not need Internet access to watch TV.
It's obvious that expanding broadband with the most cost effective means
permits broadband to be made available at the lowest cost to the subscriber.
Really. Building rural broadband networks is cheaper than the DBS service that
And who is to say what is the most cost effective means for wired/FIOS services
to expand their broadband offerings, which are heavily subsidized by the MVPD
services that paid for the existing infrastructure?
And it could make it more expensive for many families that would
need more bandwidth
Bull. The way you keep prices high is to create artificial shortages. Which
is the case now.
There is no artificial shortage Bert. From the FCC 2016 Broadband Progress
We first present data showing Americans without access to fixed advanced
telecommunications capability, which demonstrates that a significant percentage
of the country lacks access to fixed broadband services. As of December 31,
2014, approximately 34 million (10 percent) of Americans lack access to fixed
25 Mbps/3 Mbps advanced telecommunications capability.240 At slower speeds, 6
percent of Americans lack access to fixed terrestrial service at 10 Mbps /1
Mbps and 5 percent lack access to such services at 4 Mbps /1 Mbps.241
You choose to pay for the slowest service described above. There is competition
for broadband in your neighborhood - at least three choices with speeds up to 1
If prices are too high, Title II regulation is not going to help.
Other related posts: