Activity for October 14

Comment - Senate GOP: FCC's net neutrality 'will limit the freedom of the Internet'
(Oct 14, 2009 - 10:51 PM)

daq - I live in a medium sized midwest town (Cedar Rapids, IA) and I have three options for cable TV - Mediacom, ImOn, and Southslope. All of them provide broadband internet as well. There are also the following choices for broadband internet access:

- Qwest DSL (1.5, 3, 7 Mbps, with "soon to come" (i.e. 2 years) 10, 15, and 20 Mbps fiber)
- I can't remember the name, but they offer wireless broadband via repeater towers
- DirecTV / Dish
- Any of the various cell phone companies

So, as far as cable TV options, we have three, but satellite beats them anyway.
And as far as broadband options, I have 8-10 if you count satellite and cell phone, and 5 if you don't. And this market isn't large by any means.

As far as I'm concerned, the government is already into or seeking to be into too many aspects of my life. I'd like them to stay the heck away from my internet.
Comment - House Republicans in uncharacteristic unison over 'one-size-fits-all' net neutrality
(Oct 11, 2009 - 12:25 AM)

Fatty-

Point 1. Why all of this talk about health care? I thought this was about net neutrality. Besides, if the libs treated health care like they treat the economy, they'd be taking money away from people who took care of themselves and giving it to slobs who eat sugar all day.

Point 2. I live in Cedar Rapids, IA. Middle America. Population about 150K. We have four options for broadband, ImOn (Cable modem), Mediacom (cable modem), and AT&T (DSL), and some other company that offers broadband over wireless repeaters. Oh wait, we also have Verizon's cell phone broadband. Oh, and AT&T cell phone broadband. I think that's it. Oh, wait, we also have DirecTV and Dish networks broadband options. So, I think that's at least 8 broadband options.

Phone service is similar.

Cable TV though, we only have two options - Mediacom and ImOn. Wait, I forgot that in the southern part of the city, we can get cable service through Southslope. Oh, they also provide broadband service. So, I guess we can add that to the above total.

Where do you live that you only have two options for broadband? I thought Cedar Rapids was limited because we don't have fiber to our house. Wait, parts of Cedar Rapids do. And provided by two different services. Wait, three.

The last thing I want is more government intervention. If they do the same thing to broadband access that they have done to everything else they have touched, you are gonna be screaming louder than you are now.
Comment - Touchscreen Zune touches down
(May 28, 2009 - 12:19 AM)

Yeah, but can I sync it with MediaMonkey? The one thing I HATE about the Zune is the way it forces me to use the crappy Zune software. I really like MediaMonkey and use it exclusively to manage my library...Microsoft forcing me to use the Zune software is almost convincing me to get something not so restrictive.

At least DosBox 0.73 came out...back to playing Ultima 4....
Comment - Blu-ray sales skyrocket, provided you lower the sky
(May 8, 2009 - 1:22 AM)

http://www.bhphotovideo....ANNEL_BLU_RAY_HOME.html

7.1 + BluRay player + Speakers: $520

http://www.bestbuy.com/s...ct&id=1218035133352

Dynex 42" 1080p HDTV: $600

Total: $1120

That is an entry level BluRay setup that I could buy for someone to get them hooked on HD and will be better than upconverted DVD. My in-laws have a very similar TV, and I have seen HD content (OTA) on it blows away any upconverted DVD on the same TV (my in-laws have that setup).

I'd be pretty confident that this 1080p BluRay setup with 7.1 sound will have a noticeable improvement over their upconverted DVDs. GRanted, they don't have an Oppo $400 upconverting DVD, but who in their right mind would buy that?

Granted, this will not impress audiophile/videophile, but they don't care about cost anyway and spend $1500 for a power conditioner. They already have the best setups money can buy so they don't count in this exercise.

Where in my post did I imply that BR was catching on?

Personally, the only reason I buy DVDs is for my kids, and to get the occasional movie I really like (oh, and the $3 fire sale on HD-DVD at Amazon right now) And just wait. As soon as the ISPs find out that they can charge a fee for streaming movies online...

Besides, this whole argument is moot anyway. I honestly don't care is BD lives or dies. All I'm trying to show is that this "debate" seems to have too much emotion and not enough logical thinking. SD DVD is not as good as HD anything, unless you have a < 42" TV. Anything more, no way. Like I said, you will never convince me that football in SD on any TV is better than football in HD on my 55" TV. That said, you will never convince me that SD DVD (or even upconverted DVD) on my 55" TV is anywhere near the same quality as Planet Earth in HD on the same system. I have seen both, and HD wins hands down, every time.

I will also admit that if they can ever get streaming quality to equal HD, I'd use that in a heartbeat. But again, I don't see that happening any time soon, unless, of course, you live in New York or LA and forget that the rest of the country lags a bit in getting cool technology. Heck, I can't even get 7Mbps DSL. I need to rely on my 10Mbps cable modem, which is great, but during peak times, lags a bit too much to enjoy streaming HD content.
Comment - Blu-ray sales skyrocket, provided you lower the sky
(May 7, 2009 - 11:07 PM)

Hey Hocus,

I’ll start with the last statement you made:

“Because it is ridiculous to pretend that the market is the same. We have moved on. We are very familiar with and used to disk based video, a situation completely different to that of when DVD appeared in the mainstream.”

The jump from SD to HD is actually quite stunning. Maybe not revolutionary, but neither was the jump from VHS to DVD. Early DVDs had no better PQ than good quality VHS recordings. In fact, I could record to VHS, but not DVD. So, the only benefits to DVD over VHS were life of the product and no rewind. Remember the “but my VHS is analog and analog has better fidelity than digital because it is not quantized” bit? So, the jump from digital SD to digital HD is, in fact, a bigger jump than from VHS to DVD. Early adopters of DVD faced the EXACT same charges that you are levying against the HD crowd, especially this one:

“You can't even realise all of it's 'benefits' without shelling out for expensive new equipment (a very large HD TV & an expensive HD receiver and 5.1/7.1 high-end speaker set-up) that the mass-market will never invest in."

First, the “mass market” is never the target audience for emerging technologies. Early computers were expensive (why would I pay $3000 for a glorified typewriter?) Early CD players were expensive (why would I shell out for expensive new equipment when my large analog disc gives me a richer sound than that puny expensive thing?) Early DVD players were expensive ($500 for a new movie player that I need a new TV to realize the potential?) Early CDs and DVDs were expensive. Heck, CDs and DVDs now are still $15 even though they cost WAY less than tapes (VHS or audio) to produce. So, your “mass market will never invest in” comment is patently wrong. The mass market eventually invested in CD players and DVDs just like it will invest in HD content. The setup I have now, I got 4 years ago, expecting that one day I’d be going HD. This is what I paid 4 years ago: 5.1 surround system - $300, 55” HDTV - $1700. Do you know what kind of TV I can get now for $1700? A great deal more than I have now I guarantee you.

Second, you can realize the benefits without shelling out tons of money. You can get a good, entry level BluRay HD system with 7.1 surround and 1080p for under $1200 ($1000 if you look). Remember, that was as much as the first CD player. Just think how the people who made the same arguments you are making feel today. Their VCR clock is probably still blinking.

So, keeping your last statement in mind, what if BluRay would have been flash based instead of disc based? What if they could have cheaply made flash based media to hold HD content? Then it would be a very similar situation to the VHS to DVD thing, in fact, it would actually be harder to justify not switching because everything about HD is better than SD. Everything.

You may be bitter because HD-DVD lost (I got over that a long time ago – I got the 360 HD-DVD add on and own 8 HD-DVDs. I’m actually going to buy a bunch more from Amazon because they are like $3 new.) You may be bitter that DVD is “old hat” and can’t admit that HD content is so much better than SD (I refuse to watch football in SD anymore - it just offends my senses) You may be bitter that other people make bad arguments to support BluRay. Or, you may just be reluctant to change. Whatever it is, just admit it – you won’t convince anyone who enjoys HD content to ever go back to SD. Ever!

We have moved on. You’d sleep better if you did too.

Jeff.