Bill, Your comments on the phone companies PLANS are insightful and accurate and really get to the core of the whole net neutrality debate (another bizzillion channels of TV controlled by one source - or free/open network) ... but, just a couple of things I would add
1) The phone companies have "been working on"/promised to do this for many years and got a LOT of public support in one way or another and have not delivered, so I wouldn't say this is any done deal for the near future. Of course, they are much more motivated to do it now, since the FCC ruled that they can ignore common carrier laws a year ago - and the year moratorium is over - with the new fiber - so they will have a monopoly on ISP services on the fiber that they control. 2) Now that Democrats control congress, it's definitely far from certain that the phone companies will be able to legally allocate the band width based on where the content comes from, since the chances of net neutrality legislation passing is now very possible. ... I know what you said was not disagreeing with these things - just thought it important to clarify these points. ... Richard On 12/16/06, Bill Streeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I tend to agree with much of what Robert says here. Even if you don't > post video online > now in HD it is great to have the HD masters you can always go back to. > I'm a little > dubious about internet distro of HD content in the short term. Even with > broadband > penetration as broad as it is now, it's still not fast enough to handle HD > (for average > consumer demand.) All the phone companies are working on rolling out fiber > to at least > within a mile of everyones front door, but at least 70% of that new > capacity will be used up > to provide their own proprietary television services that will compete > with cable tv, leaving > the other 30% (or less) of the capacity for other data service. And that > can be stifled by > content type if it appears that it threatens their other business > (subscription television). > Thus the big brew ha-ha over net neutrality last year. > > Bill Streeter > LO-FI SAINT LOUIS > www.lofistl.com > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Robert Scoble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm only using HD camcorders. Why? > > > > > > > > For one, the image I get is much higher quality overall. My $4,000 Sony > can > > shoot in low light, has better image stableization than the $700 > Panasonic > > cameras I used at Microsoft, and I like the widescreen format better. > The > > images are also better sharpness before compression and I find they > compress > > better too. > > > > > > > > But, that's not really the reason I'm using them. I expect that sometime > in > > the next 18 months that old-school TV distribution networks are gonna > need > > HD content and need it bad. I'll have it. > > > > > > > > Also, look at new school distribution networks that are popping up like > > Tivo, Xbox, Playstation. All are looking for HD content. > > > > > > > > Plus, if you ever want to show your videos off in HD, say, in a > conference > > setting, or at a future Vloggies, or something like that, having HD > > originals will make you shine in those places and if you are shooting > some > > video for home use, some for videoblogging, and some for friends and/or > > company, you'll want HD, especially if you have an HD screen. > > > > > > > > My video on my Sony 60-inch is stunning. Makes me look like the > Discovery > > Channel. > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto: > videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>] > > On Behalf Of [chrisbrogan.com] > > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:34 PM > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> > > Subject: [videoblogging] Are You Recommending HD Cameras Yet? > > > > > > > > I haven't been. I keep telling folks that, even if we've started to > > presume (most) everyone has broadband, it's still going to be a while > > before HD content on the Net is encoded and presented that way. > > > > Am I wrong? And what are you telling people, now that HD cameras are > > out there in numbers, and within range? > > > > --Chris... > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > -- http://richardhhall.org http://richardshow.com http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
