I worked in the cable industry for several years doing embedded and systems development work. I think that regulation of that industry and its infrastructure would do it a world of good. There's absolutely no reason to support a broadcast infrastructure any more: as one who's familiar with the capabilities of installed hardware in the field, cable operators could offer an unlimited number of channels AND more bandwidth for data if they'd only stop stuffing their pipes with data nobody's listening to (500+ channels of broadcast MPEG streams). They won't do that, however, because they have no reason to change because they are monopolies and have no reason to do much more than what they've been doing for years: finding ways to sell advertising.
I wrote a proposal suggesting a system that used deployed Motorola hardware to effect a hybrid, high-capacity system, and it ended up being understood as some kind of Video On Demand thing. Which it is, from a certain perspective, but that's the point: the entire system could be built on an on-demand architecture, instead of doing the same old scheduled-programming thing. Nobody wants to hear it, though, which is why regulation is necessary: to break the strangle-hold that media companies have on the entire business. We don't need fiber -- we only need access to the coax/HFC networks which are already deployed. Cable companies won't suffer at all if they switch to an entirely on-demand architecture, since there will be plenty of space freed-up for other data-providers when they stop stuffing their pipes full of stuff nobody wants. - Conor On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Michael Weinberg < [email protected]> wrote: > > MacWorld has a cogent critique of Time Warner's plans for metered > broadband access: > > http://www.macworld.com/article/140032/2009/04/costliercablefromtimewarner.html > > The gist of the article is that TW is using metered access to create a > status quo where it is too costly to get Entertainment content over > the Internet, so they can maintain their monopolies, not on fast > Internet access, but on content delivery to the home. > > I think that the best salve for the current situation is to build open > access networks, ideally fiber networks, that exist to encourage > competition and aim to deliver the services that the public wants, at > prices that are fair to both the customer and the service provider. > > Even if you don't agree with me about fiber, this article is a good > read to remind us why community networks have value, in whatever form > they may take. > > -- > Michael Weinberg > President > Personal Telco Project, Inc. > A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ The Personal Telco Project - http://www.personaltelco.net/ Donate to PTP: http://www.personaltelco.net/donate Archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.portland.general/ Etiquette: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/MailingListEtiquette List information: http://lists.personaltelco.net To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
