I don't think Intel will be the company to ultimately succeed ... but it is coming, and somebody will be the Netflix of TV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...hare_tweet

(03-13-2012 03:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I don't think Intel will be the company to ultimately succeed ... but it is coming, and somebody will be the Netflix of TV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...hare_tweet

doesn't Hulu fill that role?

(03-13-2012 10:37 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 03:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I don't think Intel will be the company to ultimately succeed ... but it is coming, and somebody will be the Netflix of TV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...hare_tweet

doesn't Hulu fill that role?

No. It is missing episodes... entire seasons... entire shows... entire channels. And it doesn't do live channel streams. And it doesn't do sports. And it doesn't ..... and it doesn't ......

Piggybacking on the ISP isn't the best business model.

I'm actually more afraid of the possible impacts on net-neutrality that will come from ISPs.

Not saying the bandwidth for HDTV over wifi(a-n), whatever you want to call cell phone interent..3g-4g-???, DSL, Cable, ..... but unless your provider is really putting the money in distribution power, proper signal strength all day long and especially during peak hours then I think the bad things with streaming video like glitching, buffering, pixelating and what not then the non-internet way of watching tv still had advantages.

(03-13-2012 10:00 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Not saying the bandwidth for HDTV over wifi(a-n), whatever you want to call cell phone interent..3g-4g-???, DSL, Cable, ..... but unless your provider is really putting the money in distribution power, proper signal strength all day long and especially during peak hours then I think the bad things with streaming video like glitching, buffering, pixelating and what not then the non-internet way of watching tv still had advantages.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd think that a buffering delay and preloaded commercials could help out a bunch. Pair that with the option for lower quality broadcasts (sitcoms don't need 1080p) and it could work now. Add in some better tech (improved speeds like other countries have) and it won't be an issue anymore.

(03-13-2012 10:22 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd think that a buffering delay and preloaded commercials could help out a bunch. Pair that with the option for lower quality broadcasts (sitcoms don't need 1080p) and it could work now. Add in some better tech (improved speeds like other countries have) and it won't be an issue anymore.

With the bandwidth limitations (as in, total bytes transfer limitations) this can't fly. Something else to think about... by far, the vast majority of "last mile" bandwidth is owned by the telecoms and cable companies... and what do they have? Their own competing video service. No chance this gets anywhere with our current laws and FCC thanks to being owned by the giant telecoms and cable companies.

I'll keep my Direct TV. Thanks but no thanks to Internet TV.

(03-13-2012 10:22 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 10:00 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Not saying the bandwidth for HDTV over wifi(a-n), whatever you want to call cell phone interent..3g-4g-???, DSL, Cable, ..... but unless your provider is really putting the money in distribution power, proper signal strength all day long and especially during peak hours then I think the bad things with streaming video like glitching, buffering, pixelating and what not then the non-internet way of watching tv still had advantages.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd think that a buffering delay and preloaded commercials could help out a bunch. Pair that with the option for lower quality broadcasts (sitcoms don't need 1080p) and it could work now. Add in some better tech (improved speeds like other countries have) and it won't be an issue anymore.

When does anyone advertise "get lower quality video here"? Technically speaking 1080p isn't even a broadcast HDTV standard, just 1080i.

(03-14-2012 09:16 AM)gotigers1 Wrote:  I'll keep my Direct TV. Thanks but no thanks to Internet TV.

forget that. i had directv (and liked them) and now have time warner. I'm sick of paying for only like 7 channels that i watch. i could live with the NBA package along with TNT, USA, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and SyFy

Swoosh, it won't be any better with internet TV. They'll all still be bundled together.

BTW, I've dealt with a worse company that Time Warner. I hate them with a passion and wish we could just nuke that company.

(03-14-2012 01:49 PM)mlb Wrote:  Swoosh, it won't be any better with internet TV. They'll all still be bundled together.

BTW, I've dealt with a worse company that Time Warner. I hate them with a passion and wish we could just nuke that company.

well then what the hell's the point? i'd rather have my TV separate form my internet so I could watch TV while doing other stuff online. I like to watch the Thunder game on TV and the Giants game on the computer. I can't choose between the 2

and yeah, time warner is awful. what's funny is that their customer service is actually pretty good. everyone is nice and helpful, but it's their product that sucks. I can't tell you how many times my internet has slowed down or have had to reset my cable box cuz i wasn't getting the NBA games. Or my dvr screwing up. I can't remember if directv's customer service was any good, but i do remember that their product was better

Ha... I'd say the opposite. My problem was always their customer service. Billing errors out the a$$! They never did get it right so I switch to Dish (which I liked) and then later to DirecTV (which I love).

I've never had a problem with DirecTV's customer service, as long as I'm willing to wait for it. They've resolved every problem I've had to my satisfaction. It just takes 'em a bit longer...

(03-15-2012 10:58 AM)mlb Wrote:  Ha... I'd say the opposite. My problem was always their customer service. Billing errors out the a$$! They never did get it right so I switch to Dish (which I liked) and then later to DirecTV (which I love).

don't think i've ever had any billing errors with them. As much as I wish i was back with DirecTV, I had no choice but to switch. I had this amazing deal where I got their service (all the channels I needed, obviously excluding the premium ones) for $15/month. However, towards the end of the 12 months, I forgot that the rebates would expire, so one month I get a bill and it's for about $25. I'm like ok, that's still really good. Totally forgot about the other rebates, so the next month the bill was around $60 and i'm like oh hell no. So i called time warner (whom i already had internet with for $50/month) and asked what they could for me. They offered me TV, internet and free DVR for $60/month and they paid my $200 ETF with directv. Pretty damn good if i do say so myself. Towards the end of the 12 months with TWC, i plan on seeing what they can do for me, or else i'll go back to directv and let them pay my TWC ETF. I'll just keep playing them against each other until my neighborhood gets FIOS

(03-13-2012 06:52 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 10:37 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 03:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I don't think Intel will be the company to ultimately succeed ... but it is coming, and somebody will be the Netflix of TV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...hare_tweet

doesn't Hulu fill that role?

No. It is missing episodes... entire seasons... entire shows... entire channels. And it doesn't do live channel streams. And it doesn't do sports. And it doesn't ..... and it doesn't ......

Netflix is missing movies too nor does it do current releases, no service will ever be perfect.

(03-16-2012 12:11 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 06:52 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 10:37 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(03-13-2012 03:19 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I don't think Intel will be the company to ultimately succeed ... but it is coming, and somebody will be the Netflix of TV.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...hare_tweet

doesn't Hulu fill that role?

No. It is missing episodes... entire seasons... entire shows... entire channels. And it doesn't do live channel streams. And it doesn't do sports. And it doesn't ..... and it doesn't ......

Netflix is missing movies too nor does it do current releases, no service will ever be perfect.

well, TV in its current state isn't so bad. Like i said above, i get TV and internet for about $60. That's not bad. I imagine that FIOS will be able to do better