Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by bradleys, Feb 18, 2013.
The problem has always been distribution restrictions by content providers. I don't see how Intel is any better qualified than others at breaking those barriers in that regard, but one can always hope that by chipping away at the problem eventually the walls will crumble.
They talk about that as well:
With my DSL I can not even rely on being able to stream one high quality HD stream so what good would a service like this be to me?
Bottom line is you will need fast reliable cap free High speed Internet for this. Which for most people means their cable company. If anyone thinks cable isn't going to sh** on this when they start seeing people drop everything but their high speed Internet they are dreaming. The price of Internet access will go up to compensate them for the loss of cable subs or they will shift the costs around charging everyone more for Internet and less for cable.
In any event unless you are one of the lucky few with good multiple high speed Internet options this will end up costing more than cable does.
Moving from city to city, across country and keeping your essential TV package the same has long already been available. albeit to Satellite customers. That is one of the things I loved about DirecTV. And it was DirecTV that gave me my first TiVo experience.
When I was unable to get DirecTV at my new apartment and forced to switch to cable I knew I had to have a TiVo.
Maybe Intel can team up with Google's new broadband service.
I would not count on Intel, they still do not support Copy Protected H.264 content with their Core i HD GPUs (Integrated Graphics Processor), and have never responded to several support requests from Cox customers.
Those integrated Intel GPUs are pretty junky. I'm probably in the minority still liking laptops over wimpy tablets these days and you have to pay a lot more for laptops with real GPUs in them, but it's worth it.
From the article:
This means subscribers would have digital access to every program for seven days after transmission, without having to program a DVR
Dealbreaker. Other articles about this Intel Media initiative have mentioned that cloud content is available at the whim of the provider, which means they get to pick what you see when you want to see it. Um, no thanks - that's why I have a DVR. Not to mention that you won't be able to skip any commercials.
The cloud-based future sounds nice until you see the reality of it, which is that control shifts completely back to the content providers. The only hope here for me is that it will shake up the status quo of big content providers coupled with monopoly/duopoly delivery agents, but the problem as usual is that the agent also controls your HSI and can cap you at will if their video revenue declines.
Maybe Intel can succeed here, we will see. I can't imagine moving to all audio/video content being delivered to my house by the internet. I will estimate with my household now I get about 200 to 300 GB data a month from the antenna on the roof with TiVo, about 700 GB from discs and 100 to 200 GB data a month from the internet now.
We probably use 1 TB of data a month and I can't see how the internet can start delivering 1 TB per month to each household. Granted the various services won't provide the same quality and the data requirements will be less than Blu-ray/DVD and OTA but I have noticed Vudu HDX movies are often 10 GB of data and stream at maybe 5Mbps to 9Mbps. Most of the movies I stream with Google TV and Roku are only 2 GB of data or less. The bandwidth will be sufficient for all of us to move to cloud storage and delivery by the internet? I cut the cord 4 years ago after almost 4 decades of cable and/or satellite TV bills and certainly the internet is providing an important part of the solution but I sure can't see it providing the complete solution.
I believe the comment was directed at current generation desktop processors and the issue is copy protected, not the playback of unprotected H.264 content
But I could be wrong.
The main problem I see with this is that it's essentially a streaming service, which means it will likely be less than full HD content with limited audio. It's got to be compressed to minimize bandwidth for streaming. The real kicker is that Intel has to deliver their product via their competitors' wideband internet services. If people think they're going to be able to cut the cord with their cable provider and save money by just signing up for internet service and getting proramming from Intel, chances are they'll be in for a rude awakening.
Cable providers tend to charge you a premium if you get their wideband internet service without TV service included. If you like to watch a lot of TV, this means you're going to be using a lot of bandwidth to stream programs to your set-top box. This opens the door for providers to set a limit for data downloads and charge you extra if you exceed your bandwidth limit. In other words, you can never truly cut the cord with your provider. They'll just find other ways to gouge you.
While some of us in cable free zones do suffer from the last mile problem, I believe in general there is a big enough pipe going to most homes. After all the pipe is currently delivering cable TV & Internet access so there must be some way to for it to deliver the same amount of content via IPTV only.
The problem is that as long as a Pay TV provider owns that pipe there is no reason for them to make sure it is open and works well for another Pay TV provider to sell you services or to switch everything over to IPTV delivery.
Currently services like Netflix are for most people an add on to their cable TV service not a replacement so they are tolerated. What Intel is proposing is replacing your cable TV service. If a large number of people actually switch it will force the pipe owners (mostly cable companies) to obtain more profits from selling access to the pipe instead of selling services.
From Intel's point of view this may simple be a back door way for them to sell you a HTPC and not call it that.
If Intel can deliver some major content providers and get enough people to switch, I hope this could be a wave that can't be stopped - I have to believe that people aren't going to put up with arbitrary capping and excessive internet charges for much longer. It may get to the point that the government will have to step in, but given the current FCC makeup it probably won't be them.
Someone, sometime has got to accept the reality that we are all beholden to the limited number of wired HSI providers and that they're all going to hold us back and charge/fee us to death. Internet access should be regulated just like any other utility and should be universally available, just like power and telco. Fiber needs to laid everywhere with gov't help as needed, the lines should be opened up to any ISP and no ISP should be allowed to also provide content. They all need to be dumb pipes only.
*steps down off soapbox*
The individual pipes might be big enough, but unless we have FTTH and serious peering with IP-multicast all the way through, this would be a disaster. Add in cloud DVR, where you lose multicast, and this would totally overwhelm the internet. As it is, a lot of the in-house networks can't handle this kind of traffic, but the whole internet infrastructure isn't set up for this. A small minority of people could have it, but if the masses got it, it would be a mess... And that's just technical, without caps or overages or whatnot.