It wouldn't happen to be this one:
http://www.samsung.com/Products/ProAV/Plasmas/PPM50M5HBXXAA.asp?page=Specifications
I was thinking of buying this last year. Held off looking for lower
pricing, so I can buy 2.
George
Rich Comroe wrote:
I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the
comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with
internet tv, it will be a lot more popular.
Yeah, but ...
My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC video server, not a TV. It's been over a year since I used a "TV" (which I define as a display box with a TV tuner built in). The living room PC has a couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48" display. Watch cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a half-terabyte drives), or Internet content. There's never even been a keyboard on this machine. If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the hassock next to the tuner card remote controls. If I really need to type, I have to use a laptop with VNC. Essentially a TIVO on steroids. It's geek heaven!
Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to
forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one
stream.
Yeah, but ...
Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV
really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly
compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW?
Rich
----- Original Message -----
From: George Rogato
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV
Nice easy reading here.
http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264
Looks like the trend is towards video on demand.
Here's a link:
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4
We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But
there is a convergence happening.
I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the
comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with
internet tv, it will be a lot more popular.
Travis Johnson wrote:
> I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have
> the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I
> usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am
> a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz
> Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology.
>
> However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home
> (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also
> have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet
> connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell
> when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using
> my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons:
>
> (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they
> don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would
> get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one
> of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware.
>
> (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but
> with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account
> automatically anyway.
>
> (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone
> service or TV service to something different, I can.
>
> (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and
> only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with
> that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to
> _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or
> telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable
> company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed
> (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that
> right now... or even 3-5 years from now.
>
> Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality.
> Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will
> never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our
> region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are
> unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want
> internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>> sigh
>>
>> having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are
>> two totally different things.
>>
>> Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business!
>> marlon
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM
>> Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
>>
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since
>>> George brought it up he felt it was appropriate.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dawn DiPietro
>>>
>>> According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more
>>> than
>>> 4 hours of TV each day.
>>> http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
>>>
>>> Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown
>>> percentage of
>>> time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but
>>> even
>>> if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is
>>> high)
>>> we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average
>>> American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study)
>>> we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a
>>> full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for
>>> viewing on
>>> demand.
>>> http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264
>>>
>>> And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free
>>> Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high
>>> dollar services or would prefer not to.
>>>
>>> The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD
>>> per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions
>>> that will need to be addressed in this answer.
>>>
>>> First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of
>>> American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one
>>> continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will
>>> continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve.
>>>
>>> Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to
>>> forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one
>>> stream. If
>>> we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a
>>> rate of
>>> 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable
>>> quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not
>>> take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should
>>> these services be required.
>>>
>>> What we can see is that any network that is only capable of
>>> delivering sub
>>> 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we
>>> simply
>>> refuse to admit it yet.
>>>
>>> Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait
>>> for the inevitable crisis.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
