Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Elvispookie

Unfortunately robin I disagree.. the wiring that is used by your ISPs can only handle so much. It is not an endless portal that can expand as more people use it. If you read an earlier post (page 4) I provided some links to articles referencing that we are running out of space on this wiring. The data throughput can only go so far. Thus my analogy. Our forefathers who laid down the sewer realized that these small towns could grow and thus gave us huge piping. The ISPs who routed all this wiring around your town did it when??? about 15 - 20 years ago. Do you really think they thought the internet would need so much space for data transfer? Sure they did.. and they gave us what they thought we needed.. unfortunately no one knew about HD and huge data packets.

Read this AT&T link:

http://news.cnet.com/ATT-Internet-to...3-6237715.html

first paragraph says it all.

The only thing that shows is that internet capabilities are growing far faster than was imagined, but it's not something that can't be overcome with infrastructure upgrades that WILL be done. It's not like they are going to just let the internet break and say "oh well." It's far to important to society now.

[Elvispookie]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

The only thing that shows is that internet capabilities are growing far faster than was imagined, but it's not something that can't be overcome with infrastructure upgrades that WILL be done. It's not like they are going to just let the internet break and say "oh well." It's far to important to society now.

I am not saying they are going to let it break and the internet is over.. but if you think AT&T or your ISP is going to bend over backwards for you.. your crazy.. What they will be doing is putting a charge on your bandwith one day.

Trust me when I tell you this:

When streaming video becomes a way of life.. your ISP will complain to the goverment that data needs to be prioritized. Too much bandwidth from certain users are slowing down everybody.. and what will that create? Charging you extra money so you can have the higher bandwidth apportioned to you. Once the extra money factor arrives streaming video will go bye bye

[FIREitUP913]

There is one MAJOR factor people seem to be completely ignoring. I already agree we can't compare music downloads to movie downloads, but guess what? CD's have been the norm for music since the 80's. A CD is about 800mbs, and has been used for music since the 80s and will continue to be the norm for music. Digital music only takes a sample of this, but what its taking a sample from has been a constant since the 80s and internet speeds were allowed to catch up. Looking at movies starting from the 80 we have come from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray. By the time internet speeds catch up and we can all download blu-ray quality movies, we will have 3d hdtvs or super high resolution tvs and there will be a NEW format or an evolution of blu-ray disc that holds 200-1000 gigs. I can't believe no one is talking about this. We upgrade our movie format on a normal basis for superior video and audio and we will continue to do so. Blu-ray is the norm now and you cant even readily download DVD quality movies, everyone is not even equiped to download DVD quality. Movie formats continually advance, and therefore the internet speeds can never catch up and there will always be physical media. By the time you can download blu-ray quality, I will have movied on to the next format.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

The only thing that shows is that internet capabilities are growing far faster than was imagined, but it's not something that can't be overcome with infrastructure upgrades that WILL be done. It's not like they are going to just let the internet break and say "oh well." It's far to important to society now.

But the vast majority of what society "needs" is relatively low-bandwidth stuff: email, monetary transactions, etc. And for those enterprises who routinely like to have their videoconferencing and whatnot will generally pay a premium for dedicated bandwidth. The telcos know that whether or not the backbone can handle 1080p streaming is not something that will make-or-break modern society.

As I mentioned before, the telcos have no financial incentive to upgrade the backbone. When they can charge you and arm and a leg for 10 Mb/s and call that "high-speed," why should they bother upgrading if they have already, in many cases, maximized the market price for "broadband"? I think before the Internet gets faster, you're going to see providers setting caps, throttling, etc...making the Internet slower or charging more for what you already have.

[thunderforce]

where i live they are already charging you extra if you download more than a preset amount.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

But the vast majority of what society "needs" is relatively low-bandwidth stuff: email, monetary transactions, etc. And for those enterprises who routinely like to have their videoconferencing and whatnot will generally pay a premium for dedicated bandwidth. The telcos know that whether or not the backbone can handle 1080p streaming is not something that will make-or-break modern society.

And ten years ago it wasn't going to make or break society if we couldn't have youtube or music... but we moved beyond 14.4kbs modems. We will continue to move forward, because free market competition demands it. When telecom A starts losing customers to telecom B because B offers more bandwidth and no caps.... guess what telecom A is going to do.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

And ten years ago it wasn't going to make or break society if we couldn't have youtube or music... but we moved beyond 14.4kbs modems. We will continue to move forward, because free market competition demands it. When telecom A starts losing customers to telecom B because B offers more bandwidth and no caps.... guess what telecom A is going to do.

As I recall, music was fairly prevalent before the Internet came along. As for Youtube...who is making money off of that? Free market competition only works if there's some actual profit to be found. Google and some partners maybe pulling some ad revenue...maybe. Sure, youtube is indicative of an interesting cultural phenomenon, but people would just as easily tune it out if it became pay-to-play.

And right now, there are only a small handful of companies who have major lines on the backbone, and they lease that space out to retailers. Sure, this vendor or that vendor may offer this sale or that sale to end users, but that is all just market forces working at the bottom-feeder level, with de minimis impact on the development of the real infrastructure.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

As I recall, music was fairly prevalent before the Internet came along. As for Youtube...who is making money off of that? Free market competition only works if there's some actual profit to be found. Google and some partners maybe pulling some ad revenue...maybe. Sure, youtube is indicative of an interesting cultural phenomenon, but people would just as easily tune it out if it became pay-to-play.

And right now, there are only a small handful of companies who have major lines on the backbone, and they lease that space out to retailers. Sure, this vendor or that vendor may offer this sale or that sale to end users, but that is all just market forces working at the bottom-feeder level, with de minimis impact on the development of the real infrastructure.

Obviously I meant music over the internet. Who profits off of various websites is completely irrelevant to the issue of competition between telecoms.

In the end, it's not what the consumer NEEDS that fosters advancement... it's what the consumer WANTS. It's a simple fact that competition to attract more customers by doing a better job of giving customers what they want has driven constant improvements, and will continue to drive constant improvements. If this were not true..... we'd all still be listening to our modems making ET noises as we attempted to sign on to the internet, and we'd all still be browsing text only websites.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

Obviously I meant music over the internet. Who profits off of various websites is completely irrelevant to the issue of competition between telecoms.

In the end, it's not what the consumer NEEDS that fosters advancement... it's what the consumer WANTS. It's a simple fact that competition to attract more customers by doing a better job of giving customers what they want has driven constant improvements, and will continue to drive constant improvements. If this were not true..... we'd all still be listening to our modems making ET noises as we attempted to sign on to the internet, and we'd all still be browsing text only websites.

I think we're starting to argue for the sake of arguing, as I earlier posted a response to your assertion of how important huge bandwith is to society...which suggests more of a "NEED" than a "WANT." But anyway...

Consumers want everything. It's Economics 101, the economic problem...we all have unlimited wants and needs. What is paramount is the resource that is actually readily available to consumers, and further how market forces affect that resource's price and availability. And right now, North American network capability has limitations. For the major gatekeepers to lay new fiber from LA to Denver to Houston to St. Louis to Chicago to Cincinatti to Atlanta to NY is an enormous expense--much larger than a few extra dollars on your and my monthly Internet bills will buy.

This goes back to my earlier post about why we here in the U.S. (all of our free market proclivities notwithstanding) have much slower Internet speeds than other industrialized nations do. And the question I raised is whether it would be pragmatic--if we did want enough bandwith so that 1080p video could stream to every single household--for the public sector to step in and make it happen. Because I just don't think that consumer-based Internet supply/demand will get us there alone.

[brettallica]

The United States also has a very challenging topography/geography that other westernized/advanced countries do not. Just in terms of land mass alone, we're up there — number three in the world, in fact: we're just behind Canada, and a fair amount behind Russia. This is part of the reason why we might be behind some countries like Japan and other geographically miniature countries when it comes to a fast internet infrastructure.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

NOW! At this moment none exist, but i thought the discussion was titled the FUTURE! Thats what i don't get about your arguments, i am not saying discs will disappear, just that downloads are not the big evil screwed up crazy idea you think, they may be now, but limitations don't last forever.

it is not about limitations, if someone said I think the next format will be a disk with no DMR and people will be able to do what they want with the content I would laugh at them just as much. Studios will never allow you to do what ever you want because many people will use it in ways that hurts the studio. You buy one copy to be used in a limited way the movie itself belongs to the studio. Be it disk based or DL based or anything else that fact won't change.

You adopted Blu-Ray even though HDTV is a fraction of the market, now how many people own computers today as opposed to HDTV, i would say far more. What does it matter what the physical container is? thats is all i am saying.

that makes no sense, I know people that have BD players connected to SD TVs, so that "limit" for BD does not hold, on the other hand many people have PCs but who has it in the living room/HT hooked up to the best display in the house? how many people with PCs have ultra high BW internet access? Because I have this PC that I am typing on does it mean that someone else could be using it at the same time to watch a movie?

I will tell you a s4ecret, even if DL happens it won't be PC based, only people that work for MS are dumb enough to think people want a PC in the LR. It will be a player, maybe like apple TV, VUDU... maybe like the Netflix/BD players....

As was said look at all the companies pursuing this line of technology and ask yourself who is crazy, me and all those companies for thinking that this is not to far around the corner and could offer every thing a physical disc offers and more, or you who says not possible EVER lol.

you, I thought you would be smart enough to understand that by now. small upstarts like VUDU are on the verge of bankruptcy just buying time hoping that someone will be dumb enough to buy them? or companies like apple/netflix that just say "what do I have to loose?"

Let's face it even if one assumes DL is the future, there won't be a shit loads of formats, there can only be one. Which means that if you buy the wrong one you would be like the Beta owners or HD DVD owners.... just out of luck.

To me you sound like HDDVDers did saying Blu-Ray would fail out of spite for all the money you invested in BLU just like me. However i see downloads as an addition to not a replacement for BLU-Ray

no man you sound like an HD DVDer with "anything as loong as not BD": flash sticks? OK; DL that take a week to DL a movie? OK: much lower quality?OK; a person has no internet connection and a 10 year old PC at the other end of the house? then he is ready tp DL movies….

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

Of course it doesn't exist, but I'll bet both of my thumbs that if starting Dec 1st 2009, you were able to download new release blu's for $15 bucks and catalogues for $7.50, in under an hr, you'd all scrap your physical collection. Of course it would have to include some sort of gaurantee of the data, but since there's is no physical item to replace, a lifetime license wouldn't even be unreasonable.

it is not a matter of not wanting "it" but realizing what is possible and probable. yes you can try and make it sound good (why not 1$, 10 seconds to DL and uncompressed 4k while you are at it) but what is realistic. Do you know you can go now buy one of the earlier movies WB released with DC, try and use and it won't work because WB does not want to have the DB of used/unused codes for ever? Do you expect that someone will have a DB that grows by billions of entries (movies sold) every year and keep it for ever? not only that but every few years a new "version" of the movie comes out, do you think the provider will keep every copy of a movie that is released just in case something happens to your HDD?

also the disk replication is less the fifty cents, the rest is profit by studios, stores, distributors, why do you think they would be willing to take a massive cut in profits just because you want DL?... are prices for DL much less now (if we use it as an example of what is likely to happen)? Legal retail new releases on DVD in China cost less then 2$, the price of movies has nothing to do with replication or them being on disks. But yet your example cuts the price in half (at least for you and me in Canada)

The only reason you may not like it now, is because it doesn't offer any benefit.

and that too, people won't move if they don't see benefits. That is why DVD offered a lot more then VHS (better PQ, 5.1, no rew, extras, multiple languages...) and BD a lot more then DVD (much better PQ, 7.1, losssless, better extras....)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by binarymelon

You're right about people possibly not wanting an entire album, but how is a music CD or file any more portable than a movie file or a dvd? The media is only as big as the device you're playing it on and most devices play both now.

you miss the point it is not that it is but needs to be. For example I listen to music on the 20 minutes bus ride to/from work every day, I will listen to music on the two hour drive to Ottawa, I listen to music when I go for a jog/walk... people bring their music with them. For example when I go to Ottawa I need a few tunes for that 2h drive, while on the other hand movies tend to be in the LR/HT, yes if you have kids you could put a movie for a long drive for them, but with movies being 1.5h+ you don't need to bring many with you, one or two will be good for most trips and you can decide that before the trip.

This report states that 1/3 of music sold in the US was downloads last year and the physical music market is hemorrhaging consumers.

I did not read the article, but let me ask you this, the ipod/itunes came out in 2001, we are now at the end of 2009, and let's face it they where not the first, but yet DL is only at 33% and that is supposed to be good? how long before DVD reached more then 90% of the market? why are some people talking about BD s slow growth because it will surpass that mark only next year? But some how music DL reaching that point in such a long time is hemoraging.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

And ten years ago it wasn't going to make or break society if we couldn't have youtube or music... but we moved beyond 14.4kbs modems. We will continue to move forward, because free market competition demands it. When telecom A starts losing customers to telecom B because B offers more bandwidth and no caps.... guess what telecom A is going to do.

You do know there is no real competition in consumer telecom infrastructure. That telephone cable could be resold by several telcos, but there is only one that owns it. Infrastructure wise the only competition in most places is between cable and telephone. On the other hand let's flip the discussion. Let me ask you this. Two guys have the same internet package, one is a BW hog which forces a telco to upgrade the infrastructure in the area the other guy checks email every day and surfs a bit and barely registers on the BW meter. Who do you think the ISP would be happier to lose and who would they want to keep at all cost? the guy that pays his bills and brings in money or the guy who forces them to upgrade and costs them more then he is bringing in?

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

You do know there is no real competition in consumer telecom infrastructure. That telephone cable could be resold by several telcos, but there is only one that owns it. Infrastructure wise the only competition in most places is between cable and telephone. On the other hand let's flip the discussion. Let me ask you this. Two guys have the same internet package, one is a BW hog which forces a telco to upgrade the infrastructure in the area the other guy checks email every day and surfs a bit and barely registers on the BW meter. Who do you think the ISP would be happier to lose and who would they want to keep at all cost? the guy that pays his bills and brings in money or the guy who forces them to upgrade and costs them more then he is bringing in?

Apparently i am naive but when did it become the providers want as the driving force and not the consumers demand, even my mom is up to using quite a bit of Bandwidth thanks to HULU. You seem to discount their is a whole generation of people entering the market at the moment who have grown up with all this stuff, so sure, ISPs could just stick with the old farts, or adapt to the demand of the generations that almost live online.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Apparently i am naive but when did it become the providers want as the driving force and not the consumers demand

it always is, or else tell me where I can get free GBps access because that is what I want.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

I keep hearing the limits on the internet, and while i DO fully believe that, my internet provider has been offering more and more download speeds without any kind of caps at a steady pace. Not to mention how intertwined the net is with every facet of technology and business these days, downloads might not be feasible anytime soon, but i find it hard to believe the private or public sectors would allow us to hit a wall on the internet. No matter how much money it costs, they will make it happen as a lot of revenue would be lost if left unchecked.

Actually, there is a physical limitation to the speed that the Internet can work at. Systems based on electric circuits are inherently limited by the speed the electricity flows at (or in the case of optics, the speed of light through the fiber), if nothing else.

We're not close to this limitation I'm sure, and there are technically ways we might be able to beat it (quantum entanglement... wrap your head around that one), but even so, the speeds needed to facilitate Blu-ray level bitrate downloads (let alone STREAMING) are just completely impossible any time soon even with following our intense upward curve. Within a decade, the best-of-the-best probably will have fast enough (if content providers could serve the content, which they almost definitely would not be able to!!), but it can't supplant Blu-ray as HD media of choice in the general population unless it is readily available to all (not that the general population would be all that thrilled about giving up physical media).

And actually, I'd like to think that if network capacity has increased that quickly as to be able to provide BD-level bitrates on the Internet, that in the same time, they'd have come up with a way to offer even BETTER quality over physical media: 4K lossless video and lossless stereoscopic 3D at that resolution, perhaps? I honestly wouldn't mind them dropping BD technology on a laserdisc size disc. That might be able to do it now even! People in favor of downloads always look at the sliding scale of network technology and forget that the scale slides on physical media as well.

Originally Posted by Elvispookie

I know all physical media will be gone in 20 years

This is not true. Things like newspapers and magazines, maybe, but books, physical delivery of music, of movies, absolutely not. Books literally have been technologically obsolete for decades. But people keep buying books. For video games, I'd say it's contingent on whether or not the sizes of the games themselves warrant requiring physical discs or not. PSP is a portable system, but it's already proven able to handle full game delivery via downloads. Just a question of how effective the home consoles would be at sustaining that same sort of model.

Originally Posted by robinandtami

The only thing that shows is that internet capabilities are growing far faster than was imagined, but it's not something that can't be overcome with infrastructure upgrades that WILL be done.

They'll only be done if they're profitable for the group doing it. And, at least for now, the Internet is not run by a NPO or the government. You're not going to be getting 200 mb/s connections tomorrow for free.

So even as technology is increasing by leaps and bounds, that doesn't guarantee that we'll see network capacity keep up with modern theoretical limits, at least in the United States. Other Westernized countries have the government biting the bullet and funding expansion of network capacity, and other countries have a simply easier time upgrading due to, as others have said, smaller physical size and the general topography of the state.

[krazeyeyez]

JUST TO CLARIFY: I am in no way saying downloads are the ONLY movie format a year from now lmao. @ AFRO i know they won't supplant blu, @anthony P - anything but blu-ray huh, i know you probably got a download chip on your shoulder thanks to the FUD of red fanboys, but dang, seek help brother.

All i am saying is downloads will happen, I may be a BLU addict in the truest sense but their are still many things i don't care about seeing in lossless sound, OMG seth rogan fart jokes sound crazy in lossless, how did i ever go without. I think downloads would make a fine addition to my movie collecting hobbies for many reasons including convenience, and if so many here didn't see it as a threat it really isn't you would to. Hell Star-Trek looks pretty dang good streamed off HULU in HD, and that's free, and i know some services are starting to get DD 5.1 sound along with HD video, even if it is not 1080p YET.

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

JUST TO CLARIFY: I am in no way saying downloads are the ONLY movie format a year from now lmao. @ AFRO i know they won't supplant blu, @anthony P - anything but blu-ray huh, i know you probably got a download chip on your shoulder thanks to the FUD of red fanboys, but dang, seek help brother.

All i am saying is downloads will happen, I may be a BLU addict in the truest sense but their are still many things i don't care about seeing in lossless sound, OMG seth rogan fart jokes sound crazy in lossless, how did i ever go without. I think downloads would make a fine addition to my movie collecting hobbies for many reasons including convenience, and if so many here didn't see it as a threat it really isn't you would to. Hell Star-Trek looks pretty dang good streamed off HULU in HD, and that's free, and i know some services are starting to get DD 5.1 sound along with HD video, even if it is not 1080p YET.

This is my beef with these discussions. It seems that everytime I find myself involved and quote current trends to point where we are already at and where we've come from in a short period of time, it turns into me suggesting that we'll be downloading everything in 2 yrs.

Not even close to what I'm saying.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

This is my beef with these discussions. It seems that everytime I find myself involved and quote current trends to point where we are already at and where we've come from in a short period of time, it turns into me suggesting that we'll be downloading everything in 2 yrs.

Not even close to what I'm saying.

to take a lesson from your avatar

+1

i mean to a level it is not surprising because i was around for all the HDDVD downfall and the psychotic conversation going on lol, just surprised the levels of resent that still remain. Blu is going no where, but i really do believe we will see some unexpected stuff to come out of area's of development in this arena.