 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
 ·Embarq
| More like broadband quicksand. As long as broadband keeps raising there prices and threatening to offer less service (i.e. byte caps) the industry will won't catch on. Computers didn't really catch on until they started getting to be around $500 instead of $2k and dial-up didn't catch on until they lowered the price to about $15/mo with unlimited access did that ever catch on. It's always been cheaper with more service that made it grow. Not higher prices, lesser service. Until then the world will be wired at 56k.
--
»www.tfn.net/~jdbaucum | |
| |  | 
boooo
@205.232.x.x | Re: Not if the RIAA and MPAA can prevent it Sony is a member (i.e. they ARE) of the RIAA and MPAA. What this means is they have DRM measures nearly in place to stop piracy. So, now they will "allow" broadband to be recognized as having a future. Or something to that effect. | |
| | | 
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH | Re: Not if the RIAA and MPAA can prevent it A lot of Japanese companies are kind of schizophrenic about DRM. The content guys want to lock it down; the hardware guys want to sell widgets. | |
| | | | | 
thecapn20003
join:2002-01-15
Brownsburg, IN | Sure then can sue...but how can they force them to show up in court?...and then how do you enforce any court ruling?...This should be fun to watch. | |
| | | | 
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
 ·VOIPo
| said by tschmidt  :
We have two competing forces.
The technology and communication industry see widespread deployment of broadband as the driver of new business opportunity....
vs.
The 5 mega media corporations represented the RIAA and MPAA that are deathly afraid of losing control of the distribution channel....
You may have framed the competing sides to this debate properly, but you have forgotten the relative sizes of the two industries.
The revenue of all technology companies combined far outweighs the combined revenue of all RIAA member companies. Let's face it: if the technology sector formed an alliance similar to the RIAA and decided that DRM was a bad thing, Rosen and her thugs would be handily defeated.
I believe that the rumblings we heard last year from the technology industry that were somewhat directed at the music industry is just a first. I think that when the technology industry-- and consumers-- get a full picture of what the MPAA and RIAA want, there will be a massive cry about fair use rights. I just hope this full picture doesn't come into focus too late for most stakeholders involved.
The RIAA and MPAA aren't necessarily opposed to everyone having a broadband connection; they are just opposed to the free movement of their "property" without their explicit "permission" at any time. If both organizations had their way, this would likely include the total control of content delivered over radio, television, pay-per-view, movie rentals, and anything else media-related. I can easily see them pushing for a world in which content is encrypted and digitally delivered to a device in your home, which checks to ensure that you are authorized to view the delivered content prior to showing it.
The MPAA would finally be able to prevent people from copying movies when they rent them. The RIAA would possibly be able to prevent people from copying songs off the radio. And traditional non-copy-protected CDs, of course, would not be playable on the new "trusted" DRM-compliant systems. Hacking any of these new systems, or supplying help, technical information, etc. about these systems would be deemed a crime. Think it can't be made so? Just look at the crap that was pulled with DivX.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
| | | | | | | mdmathis6
join:2001-10-15
Midlothian, VA | Re: Not if the RIAA and MPAA can prevent it It was the disc....divx is another name for the mp4 codec, so when you see downloads for a divx player, it refers to a media player that will play videos encoded in mp4. | |
| | | | | xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: | Re: Not if the RIAA and MPAA can prevent it Thanks, I barely remember those disc's on the shelf, but I am familiar with DivX as the mp4 codec. Seems like every video downloaded is encoded in it. | |
| | | |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| said by xrobertcmx :
Call me out of touch, but what happened with DivX? Is this the DivX DVD disc that floped? or the Codec?
I wasn't necessarily referring to DivX being dead, but what the government did with it. If I recall correctly, didn't they make hacking DivX copy protection-- or even providing information/instructions or software to do it-- a crime? That's what I'm opposed to more than anything else. I see no reason why the government or any media company should feel they have the right to control the storage or playback method of content that I have legally purchased from them. If I buy a CD, I've bought a license to listen to the music on it, and should be able to listen to said music on my computer, my car stereo, my MP3 player, my home stereo, etc., etc. The same with video-- if I buy a movie, it shouldn't matter whether I watch it on VHS, DVD, or rip it and convert it to a format that I can watch on my PocketPC. But that just isn't the case with DivX... 
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Not if the RIAA and MPAA can prevent it You have to write many times over before your rep will ever actually see your letter with his/her own eyes.
They have legions of assistants to wade through all of the letters.
You have to be pushy and aggressive.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know.... | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
AkumalDave
Life's A Beach
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-20
Minneapolis, MN
| quote:
...unless they work together on industry-wide open standards.
Are we to assume that SONY has learned their lesson from the BetaMax? I guess they have licensed other manufacturers for Memory Stick technology, but it took awhile.
Hey, if they can make broadband as quick, easy and inexpensive as water flowing from the tap - more power to 'em!
Dave | |
| | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: | Re: Not if the RIAA and MPAA can prevent it Yeah, as long as whatever standards become standards, they are Sony standards.
I question their sincerity. | |
| | |
redtwister
@21stcentury.net
| Don't forget, Beta largely lost out not simply because it was proprietary, but because the porn industry went with VHS. With DVD, porn was 7% of titles but 25% of sales in 2001. Like the Internet, video mediums are driven by porn as well as technology and proprietary issues. If it was just the proprietary nature of beta, Microsoft would have been out a long time ago.
Cheers. | |
| | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Not if the RIAA and MPAA can prevent it No, beta lost out because Sony wouldn't license it.
Toshiba licensed VHS to anybody and everybody.
That's why it came out on top. Superiority has nothing to do with it.
Video was comparable, but the audio quality of beta was far superior.
Arrogance is what sent that format into oblivion.
--
The rich get richer, the poorer get the picture, the bombs never hit you when yer down so low...some got pollution, others evolution, there must be some solution but I just don't know.... | |
| | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| said by tschmidt :
We have two competing forces.
The technology and communication industry
vs.
The 5 mega media corporations represented the RIAA and MPAA
»www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko/
Andrew Odlyzko, formerly from Bell Labs and now at University of Minnesota makes a point that the phone companies make in two weeks what Hollywood takes in in a full year.
Compared to the consumer electronics and telecommunication industries, media companies are farts in a whirlwind.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| | |
when you think
@adelphia.net
| Re: ...More like a trickle.. there will be a tsunami that could wash the industry away unless industry-wide open standards are not targeted by big/blote/biz....
i don't really need broadband to read the news much less a TV guide... Sony, humm, oh yeah, we're having fun now...
a flood/tsunami is comming, its the internets blood flowing out to the b/b/b, surely not money today.... | |
| Sarge_0321
join:2002-06-27
San Diego, CA | Coming from Japan.. Is their Chief actually from Japan..?
Where they actually have "high-speed" internet?
Maybe this guy has broadband pipe dreams about America.
Hell.. if he can help push speeds here like they have in Japan then fantastic. | |
| | 
totamak
And they call me nuts?
join:2000-10-24
Los Angeles, CA |  Re: Coming from Japan..
| |
| |
tic tac
@cablenet.ne | Actually you need Masayoshi Son, the man at Yahoo BB.
He's is the one that started low cost, high speed ADSL in Japan and the consumers are signing up for ASDL in huge numbers. | |
| 
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Broadband Dreams? I dont have broadband dreams.
Does anyone else?  | |
| |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| Re: Broadband Dreams? I don't imagine you'd be having too many broadband dreams with the type of service that Cox Communications provides to the Northern Virginia area...
Seriously, though, I know of too many people who do indeed have broadband dreams-- and that's about as close as they're coming to getting it. It's too bad that this country hasn't seen greater roll-out of broadband service. IMHO, aside from profit and greed, there's no reason that broadband service can't be delivered to 100% of the country. Don't want to roll a bunch of cable for last-mile connections? Fine-- go wireless.
And for those of us who do have broadband connections, the prices we pay are still way too high for the service we receive. Where else have you ever heard of "best effort" service being acceptable? Never in my 28 years have I ever seen a contract anywhere else that essentially states "You're buying a 768/768 SDSL connection, but if we don't deliver it you'll get whatever we can give you... However you'll still pay us for 768/768." Or how about the cable company contracts? "You can have a high speed, always on connection, but you can't do anything with it. (no servers, shut down file sharing apps, download limits, etc)" In the case of many cable providers that's even false advertising, as the connection was not what I would consider high-speed and was certainly not always on.
Yes, I do have broadband dreams. I dream of the time that we can all afford to have at least a T1 (maybe T3) speed connection come to each of our homes and deliver the services that I as a broadband user crave: video on demand; clear, smooth voice (and live video picture) over IP for telephone calls to friends and family; secure, instant access to all connected devices installed in my home (thermostat, lights, security cameras, etc.); high speed game servers for fast and furious online gaming. I dream of the time that download restrictions are non-existant for all. I dream of a time that all users can run whatever servers they please-- not just those on DSL.
The list goes on and on. You all know what I'm talking about. This is the kind of stuff that will fuel broadband for years to come. This is the kind of stuff that America should be at the forefront of, developing ahead of the rest of the world. Unfortunately, due to greed, poor planning, and more greed, we are not. Call me crazy, but I dream of a time when high speed is truly high speed, and Internet use is without restriction.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
| | |
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA
| Re: Broadband Dreams? I was opening myself up for that one.
Hey man, I see what you're saying about broadband dreams.
But.. the Internet has gotten too commercialized.
And w/ the FCC *soon to be* giving the big companies MORE ammunition, it is ONLY going to get worse. | |
| | | | | | | | |
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Re: Broadband Dreams? I actually have Cox High Speed Internet.
Not sure why that link shows up under my name.
How do I change that? | |
| | | 
weebies$
What The Heck?
join:2002-10-26
Wayne, MI
| I have a dream too. I like yours and thought I would share mine with you.
What I believe we need is a completely new last mile infrastructure that will be able to support current and new services. The system I envision would have 10Mbps (low)/100Mbps(medium)/1000(high)Mbps last mile connections with extremely high speed backbones to prevent traffic congestion. The last mile and backbones should be designed to be easily upgradeable to accommodate future applications and needs. I envision that the last mile will be constantly upgraded to meet future needs (10/100/1000Mbps will become 100/1000/10000Mbps which will become 1/10/100Gbs until we reach the maximum of technology).
The customer of the internet access service would have an internet appliance (or appliances) that would allow the customer to use services that the customer subscribed to. The appliance would not be location specific. The user would be able to plug the appliance in at any internet access point and be able to receive service as long as the customer had the required equipment for the service. Some of the services I see as being provided:
telephone, home security, video on demand, TV channel subscription (create your own tv channel lineup - such as WGN, CNN, ESPN, etc.), home medical monitoring (blood pressure, pulse, etc.), medical information sharing/consulting (xrays, mri,etc.), online gaming, telecommuting, and many (thousands ?) others.
Some things that need to be done to facilitate this:
We need to change our broadband definition to 10/10Mbps. Our current FCC definition of 200/200Kbps is just too low. The current definition fosters a misleading idea that we are currently deploying broadband as other developed countries are deploying it. The digital divide does exist - there is South Korea, Japan, China, and other developed countries and then there is the US. As a country we are broadband paupers.
We need to realize there is an opportunity cost we are missing out on as a country. If we want to maintain our status as an economic powerhouse with a high standard of living we need to invest in our future. Yes it costs money. Sewer systems cost money - does that mean we should not build them ? Roads cost money - does that mean we shouldn't build them ? There are just some things that are too important for the US as a country not to do.
We need to realize that technology is available now to do this. This is not just some wishful dream - systems are being deployed now that have these basic capabilities. We do not need to invent the technology to do this (as we did when we decided to put a man on the moon - also, when did America become the we can't do that here nation, was there some national memo that I missed, but I digress).
We need to realize that the telephone and cable companies are yesterday's technology (actually several decades old technology). As much as I like Fred Goldstein's proposal to separate infrastructure from services I do not think the current telephone and cable companies infrastructure is what we need. Fast failure may be the best option for them. »What do you think about this: I think tschmidt has the right idea and has a better technical explanation than I can provide. Please see his posts for more details in the following thread. It's a good thread with a lot of interesting ideas. »Break up the RBOC /ILEC monopoly? Here's how.
--
innovation is made of the dreams of those who wonder what if and don't rely on what has been
[text was edited by author 2003-01-13 23:35:16] | |
| 
vknight775
join:2001-12-08
Etobicoke, ON
|  More like a drip
Now the broadband monopoly is putting the squeeze on us.
- "No, you can't run FTP/Web Server/Game Hosting/PTP servers on OUR network, although you pay us for your "always on" connection."
- WTF? Then what CAN I do??
- "You can buy products from our TRUSTED PARTNERS."
- But I don't want anything from your partners. I simply want to communicate with like-minded people.
- "Too bad. You have 24 hours to make a purchase, or we're closing your broadband account. You'll be forced to pay out the remainder of your service contract."
Okay, this was a little dramatic, but it's not that far-fetched.
I need to end this rant. Bottom line is, as the handful of major broadband providers continue to squeeze the pipes (and our wallets), this "Tsunami" will never happen. Quote me on that.
--
"There is only one thing I hate worse than a lawyer. And that's a lawyer who has a seat on Capitol Hill." | |
| |
NOVA_Guy
Obama- Commander in Thief
Premium
join:2002-03-05
·VOIPo
| Re: More like a drip I like the drama, and I'd agree-- it's probably not too far-fetched. According to the way some feel, all the ISPs would have to do is add a clause into their TOS requiring the purchase of equipment/goods/whatever from their "trusted" partners. Not buying from them? Violation of your TOS. Viola, your service gets cancelled.
said by vknight775 :
Bottom line is, as the handful of major broadband providers continue to squeeze the pipes (and our wallets), this "Tsunami" will never happen.
Absolutely. If you think back, what was one of the components that really started this massive migration toward everyone being online? One word: competition. Mom and pop ISPs jumping up all over the place, offering more features and/or lower prices. Market forces drove prices downward and brought more people online.
As long as a few major players control all the broadband services, massive broadband adoption just won't happen. Prices will remain high, true broadband applications won't be developed, the true potential of high speed networked computing won't be realized, and, yes, AOL will grow fatter.
We need small mom-and-pop ISPs to get back into the picture. We need to give the "little people" ways to compete with the ILECs when it comes to offering broadband services. Assuming the technology gets further developed, and prices on the high end equipment become/remain reasonable, wireless ISPs may be just the ticket...
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service! | |
| | | 
jkreuzig
Whatever
join:2001-07-11
Yorba Linda, CA
|  Re: More like a drip
said by NOVA_Guy :
As long as a few major players control all the broadband services, massive broadband adoption just won't happen. Prices will remain high, true broadband applications won't be developed, the true potential of high speed networked computing won't be realized, and, yes, AOL will grow fatter.
We need small mom-and-pop ISPs to get back into the picture. We need to give the "little people" ways to compete with the ILECs when it comes to offering broadband services. Assuming the technology gets further developed, and prices on the high end equipment become/remain reasonable, wireless ISPs may be just the ticket...
As much as I dislike AOL, they are (or were at one time) an example of how to become a major player. AOL started as a NOTHING company. They built their business on a model that included making internet access easy for the masses. They had, at the time, reasonable prices, and a perception of being easy to install/operate.
As I have said in another thread, I believe in the "JUST GIVE ME THE DAM BANDWIDTH" concept. I am hopeful that somebody will figure out that they should operate an ISP like a utility. Provide the users with inexpensive, always on connection and LEAVE THEM ALONE. The ISP could also provide email, but that's about it. You say you need usenet news servers? Google groups solves that and doesn't cost anything extra. ISP's should be getting out of the content delivery business, and concentrate on being in the CONNECTIVITY business.
Can you imagine your electricity being provided like your broadband service? "I'm sorry sir, but your washing machine uses too much electricity. You need to unplug it or you are in violation of your TOS. If you fail to do so by Jan 31, you could be subject to civil action and/or criminal prosecution"
-Jim | |
| | |
redtwister
@21stcentury.net
| You are overlooking some issues. small ISp's used phone lines and basically had modem banks and firewalls. And connections often sucked ie lots of drops, redials, etc. We have to get out of the small business mentality and think on a macro level, but with a peer-to-peer mentality.
A lot of Broadband requires major infrastructural changes, like laying large quantities of new cable. Here in Chicago SBC is trying to squeeze RCN and other phone/Internet providers by charging 33% more for access to the phone lines, switches, etc. ie to the infrastructure that they own.
As long as this stuff remains privatized there is no way to keep the telecom companies from trying to smash every competitor and from us getting scammed on costs and services. Do you want to be trapped with Verizon or SBC????
As for things like price and innovation, if we leave that up to private companies, anything that becomes big enough to be popularly desired will be controlled by corporations who are looking at their profit margins and stock portfolios. Don't forget, cheap service providers often pay their workers very low wages, provide few benefits, treat their workers poorly in other ways, have high personnel turnover, etc. I know folks who work in the business and I don't think that service users can ignore that their unthought-through calls for less cost and more speed is met often by squeezing the workers, by making them work faster and harder for less money. Guess what that does to service for us and the lives of the people who work for those companies? Both go to heck. We need a targeted demand for universal, high quality service and infrastucture. That means taking it out of the hands of the corporations.
What we need is truly publicly managed communication infrastructures. I don't mean state-run, per se. Although Social Security is a model system in terms of efficiency, using only 1/2% of its total budget for running the system (any private company would want at least a 10-15% rate of profit, prolly more like 20-30%), I am not for depending on the government. But the fact is that the infrastructure restructuring would cost so much that it only makes sense as a public venture. And by infrastucture, I mean all the cable, switching, routing, hub equipment, etc. Everything from backbone to residential lines. That way folks in the sticks could finally get high speed and it could be done uniformly throughout the country. Also, it should handle video, voice and data signals so that TV, computer, and phone (ie all major communications) could be handled on one single infrastructure (obviously, it would have to be heavily redundant as the Internet originally was.)
Support for 1GB link speeds per 300 people should cover any needs we have right now and in the forseeable future
Then there is no question of what type of broadband, reliability, etc. And everyone should be able to get raw access (phone, data, TV) to their home for the same cost per each service (on a single data jack type, too.) You will need transceivers for two of the three devices, but we need that now, so no big deal.
Let other special services, like hosting, off-site firewall services, etc. be handled privately. Those operations can buy more data lines and get IP licensing as they do now and charge or not charge customers as they see fit for those special services.
But communications should be universally accessible regardless of income. Why should poverty mean lack of access to communication? Then again, if people didn't have to pay so much for cable, phone and internet, maybe folks would also be a little less poor. Maybe if the folks handling the infrastructure got paid well, a few less folks would be poor.
How do we get there? Now that would be an interesting conversation.
Cheers. | |
| fullback
join:2002-01-24
japan
| Sony et all Actually, the net was created in an attempt to maintain communications during and after a nuclear war...
Sony has both IPR and IPR-breaking considerations in house. So they have a unique perspective to be able to blend the two into something workable for both camps. They create revenue from content copyrights and create revenue from hardware that copies copyrighted content.
Sony is certainly IPR savvy. They derive over $600 million/year just from patents on CD technology. That would require about $5 billion in revenue and continuous headaches to (possibly) make the same profit from a manufactured product.
They have also done some pretty underhanded things as participants in industry groups and standards committees - as all companies do. They are one of the least trusted companies by their competitors due to their reputation for delaying standards acceptance and feigning good faith negotiations in standards meetings, but in reality they are hoping to skip a generation and introduce a proprietary standard that will become a de-facto standard.
But Sony is no different than any other company. All companies try the same tactics. In the end, slogans such as 'Broadband Dreams' are more about corporate broadband profits, than user utility and convenience. | |
| | fullback
join:2002-01-24
japan | Re: Sony et all Just an addendum to list the top 10 U.S. patent recipients from last year:
1) IBM
2) Canon*
3) Micron
4) NEC*
5) Hitachi*
6) Matsushita (Panasonic)*
7) Sony*
8) GE
9) HP
10)Mitsubishi*
*Japanese companies | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
·
