Comments on: Whats the Next and 1st Big Broadband Application ?

By: s3rcy

s3rcy — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:53:48 +0000

The other problem is content, there has to be a general amount of interest available for the user to become interested in being online. We won’t see this for probably some time I predict, that is a determinate unforseen.

By: sencene

sencene — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:07:28 +0000

Partial problems lie in the technology itself. if users still desire to complete applications or simple commands that are not available what else is available. The other problem is content, there has to be a general amount of interest available for the user to become interested in being online. We won’t see this for probably some time I predict, that is a determinate unforseen.

http://www.sencene.com

By: robwood

robwood — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:08:37 +0000

I reckon that the problem isn’t so much the bandwidth as I’m familiar with apps that run at very low bandwidth (for social netowrks). The problem is the expectations and who’s paying for the development. Advertisers want to develop ads and get your ‘eyeballs’ on the ads. Highly sophisticated visual advertisements take loads of bandwidth — as Mark mentioned, so might the video of the neighborhood softball game. Here’s where the net neutrality comes in: you want to run an app on my network? You’re entitled to this much bandwidth per person. Video streaming takes 10x the bandwidth of audio streaming. I don’t think we’re there yet. I know we’re not. But, because the advertisers can embed their content there, then they pay for that. The rest of us are left with the smoldering crumbs of the Internet to try to put together apps and get “eyeballs”. Gary Larson (Far Side) style art work, instead of Pixar.

By: robert dowling`

robert dowling` — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:25:16 +0000

i don’t agree the internet should be open. as soon as the government gets involved based on the type of scenarios suggested they will eventually get control over it and we will be compromised. i say leave it open and let people do as they want on it. it is a network of us so let us use it as we please so long as it is legal.

By: Jeff Johnson

Jeff Johnson — Fri, 01 May 2009 02:59:57 +0000

Briadband has in actual fact enabled me o deploy a scaleable full screen magazine publishing paradigm. Couldnt do it before, since each page was 100-200kb to maintain accuracy. Needed it to scale also, so it would fit a home theater 1920 x 1080 down to 1024 x 768 screen. lots of challenges. But in todays speeds it works
http://ctngreen.com/2009/mar/?page=20 stuff like this works.

I’m hoping to deploy this across interactive web-enabled channels in HD when that evolves. You can navigate and play with a handheld remote.

BTW Fairpoint ( aquired FIOS ) in new england is not carrying HDNET, COMCAST is strangleholding us.

By: tvlampsn

tvlampsn — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:33:50 +0000

Hi Mark,

Video is the broadband application. Since you own your own television channel(s), you can help to set the trend but people want to digest video when they want and where they want. The cable companies have it all wrong trying to make more money from bandwidth. Instead consider being able to simulcast shows online and on television. People would have an account where they specificy what time zone they live in so they can watch online.

For the people watching on a television, there’s a box to the right which would have a chat window where people can watch the shows together. It would be like a chat room on your television. Lots of people watch television shows together so what better than to take social networking and broadcast television and combine them.

In terms of the reason why…first networks and cable operators would be able to sell advertising against both the on and offline component. Plus – there’s no easier way get people to talk about something.. products, episodes than to let the conversations take place online.

This would allow the cable, fiber and satellite companies to add a feature which would make them money on the back end without needing people on the front to pay. Or if they want to be greedy for $5.99, you can get the option but that would lower the rate of adoption.

More and more people are hooking up boxes to their TV to bypass cable companies, but everyone doesn’t want to deal with the lag between BitTorrent or Hulu – they want to watch it when they’re used to watching it.

By blending and blurring the television experience on and offline (even mobile – with 4G), you have a broadband application which will revolutionize how video is monetized and give old companies new streams of revenue.

By: naughtygeneration

naughtygeneration — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:34:07 +0000

This post seems like a bit of a Trojan horse. Obviously, applications built specifically for high speed networks and bandwidth caps are related, but it seems like most people will agree with the first premise without hesitation (“yeah! there should be more cool, fast stuff!”), but might not think twice about your second premise, regarding limits. I don’t know enough about the debate to take a side at this juncture, but I don’t think premise 2 necessarily follows premise 1.

http://naughtygeneration.com/

By: Darren Fox

Darren Fox — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:12:40 +0000

It’s not Youtube’s new Video service with movies and TV shows. I can’t believe they released that site. Finally, something the are not even second best at…Hulu leaves them in the dust.

Maybe you should launch your video content site. I’m sure you could do better.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:12:14 +0000

i agree
but time warner wants

$25 for 5gig per month
$35 10gig
$45 20gig
$55 40gig

and $1 per gig on overages.

thats outrageous.

right?

ive heard a super 100 gig talked about(no idea on the price)
but even that isnt enough for some.

-chris

By: Playboys Blog

Playboys Blog — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:02:35 +0000

Google Losing up to $1.65M a Day on YouTube is also very interesting.

I wonder how twitter also will be able to become monetized (if ever)