On Jan 20, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:25, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and
people will pay for them.
That and breaking news seem like reasonable exceptions to point out
in contrast to my rampant generalisations.
I think we are in very close agreement here.
Although you bring up a good point. At least here in the US, there
is the "emergency broadcast system", a way to break into the TV feed
in "real time" in case of emergency. It was designed because, well,
us dumb americans are glued to the boob tube 24/7, so what better way
to say "GET THE HELL OUT NOW!"? :-)
Things like "breaking in" to TV feeds are not really useful if
everything is pre-recorded and stored locally.
For news, however, stories seem to break on the web long before
they usually reach the television. Anybody who really wants to hear
about things as they happen are probably best to avoid the
traditional news networks anyway.
As far as sports go, there is no timely coverage of rugby in North
America anyway, I can't imagine why anybody would waste their time
watching inferior games like football, hockey, baseball or
basketball at all, never mind in real time.
I didn't say they were BRIGHT or TASTEFUL, just that people would pay
for it.
Hell, people use Pay-Per-View for WWE, even after they admitted it
was staged. No one has ever gone broke underestimating the US
public....
Then again, I like US "football". :-)
Joe (running away quickly now)
As you should. We might not be smart, but we can kick Canada's ass!
--
TTFN,
patrick
