Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It’s funny that you always stayed neutral but now you are joining your buddies. Wolf pack mentality, human nature eh?

What do you expect with responses like this? Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they’re against you. Grow up!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

https://www.dw.com/en/is-netflix-bad...nge/a-49556716

Watch on th3 smallest screen you can and in SD.

Yeah, great future Vilya

And........

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-data-centres

Read the last paragraph? Movies and tv safe, are they?

Seems I was talking sense after all.

To summarise

Streaming in HD and above is very energy reliant.

The bigger the screen, the higher the energy draws

5G mobile will consume most energy.

Video consumption may have to be rationed or taxed (please note the scary resemblance to my posts with that statement)

Photos may have to be sent in B&W.

Customers may be forced to move away from binge watching (again, resemblance)


This has got me wondering, could we return to analogue broadcast with 5 or 6 channels. Could we end up going back to the 50’s with Black And White broadcasts? Or worse, SD broadcasts?

Will that spark a battle between Netflix, Facebook, Disney for a space on that 5 or 6 channel limited capacity? Biggest bidders win? This would mean a linear channel with old fashioned broadcasting and ads of course. We would be back to a tv schedule and appointment viewing.

Or.........is satellite tv more environmentally friendly than broadband and 5G and could we see a combsck for those technologies.

In this scenario, TV sets would probably go back to 32-37 inches. The smaller the better if you can’t tolerate a mobile screen, right?

Or....... very worst case scenario, we don’t have access to video content anymore. We go back to pre war times, with radio and books and not much else.

More evidence of thought patterns

https://earther.gizmodo.com/your-bin...ing-1836311475

Watch less content. It seems I’m not alone and it’s surely a matter of time until this subject enters the public domain.

Binge shaming, call it what you will. Also, reading between the lines of some comments, it’s not hard to see data caps being the perfect excuse to introduce ‘restrictions on access to data’. That comment made me feel sick.

The two articles that you cited earlier discuss carbon emissions due to the increasing energy consumption used by internet activity, not just video streaming, but also your beloved digital online gaming and all online activities.

We need cleaner sources of energy is the only take away here. Energy consumption overall is not going to go down, only up, and not just because people stream videos or play games.

Only person with no actual authority suggested that people use "the smallest screen" possible when viewing streamed content. This person's unrealistic suggestion carries no regulatory weight and it has no bearing on viewing content on physical media, either.

Nothing in these two articles supports any of the entirely insane predictions that you persist in making. The articles are concerned with addressing carbon emissions and the energy consumption associated with internet usage is just one of many sources for such carbon emissions.

Once again you have simply taken an article and have twisted it beyond recognition to serve your paranoid rants. Nothing in either article mentions plans by any government entity to in any way restrict how we view content or how we use the internet.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

What do you expect with responses like this? Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they’re against you. Grow up!

No, but you can disagree with someone without seeking likes (thanks in this case) which is what this is essentially.

The problem we have here, is you guys are stuck on the same response for whatever I post. Take Vilya for example. “Give me a source” he says, “back your posts up with facts”, well I have just done that. Will be interesting to see if he or you can counter this like you normally do. It’s become a habit for you guys to be stuck on argument mode, even when articles and scientists opinions fully back up my beliefs.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

These two articles discuss carbon emissions due to the increasing energy consumption used by internet activity, not just video streaming, but also your beloved digital online gaming and all online activities.

We need cleaner sources of energy is the only take away here. Energy consumption overall is not going to go down, only up and not just because people stream videos or play games.

Only person with no actual authority suggested that people use "the smallest screen" possible when viewing streamed content. This person's unrealistic suggestion carries no regulatory weight and it has no bearing on viewing content on physical media, either.

Nothing in these two articles supports any of the entirely insane predictions that you persist in making. The articles are concerned with addressing carbon emissions and the energy consumption associated with internet usage is just one of many sources for such carbon emissions.

Once again you have simply taken an article and have twisted it beyond recognition to serve your paranoid rants. Nothing in either article mentions plans by any government entity to in any way restrict how we view content or how we use the internet.

Government, no? People that influence and suggest things to the government, absolutely!

Did you not read the part about the tax? Or about limiting folks access to data (data caps in other words).

Also, I need to go back and make sure, but didn’t that opinion about the small screen come from a scientist? I thought you put great stock in what they say Vilya?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Read all the articles I posted. Get back to me. You are just in denial Vilya.

I have read them all now and none of them support any of your fanatical forecasts. There's never anything to support any of your peculiar predictions and thus there is nothing to deny; they are just the ravings of a madman.

No one agrees with you. No one ever defends your posts. Why is that? Are you some unappreciated visionary? No one defends your posts because these are just the written panic attacks of a bitter, cynical, and paranoid man who is afraid of change and nothing more.

Once again, answer the question that you NEVER answer: If this is our inescapable fate, as you insist it is, what are we supposed to do about it? Be constantly worried and scared like you? Who in their right mind would choose to live that way? Who in their right mind agrees with you about any of this nonsense?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I have read them all now and none of them support any of your fanatical forecasts. There's never anything to support any of your peculiar predictions and thus there is nothing to deny; they are just the ravings of a madman.

No one agrees with you. No one ever defends your posts. Why is that? Are you some unappreciated visionary? No one defends your posts because these are just the written panic attacks of a bitter, cynical, and paranoid man who is afraid of change and nothing more.

Once again, answer the question that you NEVER answer: If this is our inescapable fate, as you insist it is, what are we supposed to do about it? Be constantly worried and scared like you? Who in their right mind would choose to live that way? Who in their right mind agrees with you about any of this nonsense?

Yeah, live in fear for sure if film is at risk. Sure. If you love film, yes.

There are several statements in those articles that virtually replicate what I have said. Not sure where you are looking?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I have read them all now and none of them support any of your fanatical forecasts. There's never anything to support any of your peculiar predictions and thus there is nothing to deny; they are just the ravings of a madman.

No one agrees with you. No one ever defends your posts. Why is that? Are you some unappreciated visionary? No one defends your posts because these are just the written panic attacks of a bitter, cynical, and paranoid man who is afraid of change and nothing more.

Once again, answer the question that you NEVER answer: If this is our inescapable fate, as you insist it is, what are we supposed to do about it? Be constantly worried and scared like you? Who in their right mind would choose to live that way? Who in their right mind agrees with you about any of this nonsense?

So the scientists speak the truth when it backs your argument but it’s bollocks when I post links?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Government, no? People that influence and suggest things to the government, absolutely!

Did you not read the part about the tax? Or about limiting folks access to data (data caps in other words).

Also, I need to go back and make sure, but didn’t that opinion about the small screen come from a scientist? I thought you put great stock in what they say Vilya?

A suggestion is a only a suggestion no matter who makes it. Doctors suggest I eat better and exercise more; I often don't, and no one is going to force me to do so.

We are already taxed for our internet and cell phone service and we have had data caps for years. My ISP has a 1TB data cap and my cell phone has a 4 GB data cap; there is NOTHING new about either one.

You don't just reach for straws, you making flying leaps in your hopeless quest to try and support the absurd fantasies that you alone conjure.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So the scientists speak the truth when it backs your argument but it’s bollocks when I post links?

The scientists were discussing carbon emissions and how internet usage contributes to that and I never contested any of it. It is your conclusions that are being criticized, genius, nothing else.

It is bollocks when you use an article to say something that it does not say and that is what you do every time with every link that you post. The articles do not support your conclusions and that is a fact plain to everyone but you. You are so invested in this dark future of yours that you see conspiracies everywhere that you look.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yeah, live in fear for sure if film is at risk. Sure. If you love film, yes.

There are several statements in those articles that virtually replicate what I have said. Not sure where you are looking?

That's just it. Film is not at risk. Except in your mind alone.

There is not one thing in any of the three links that you provided that even suggest that movies are at risk. Not a single solitary thing. Two of the articles were about carbon emissions and one was about OBB content marketed for commuters. Nothing in either one, directly or indirectly, stated that movies were in any danger. That's was all from you and only from you.

I love film, easily as much as you and maybe even more as I buy more movies in two months than you do in a whole year. I am not at all afraid for them and I know of no one who is except for you.

If there was even the hint of a whisper of a rumor that movies might be at risk, these forums would be ablaze with thread after thread decrying the terrible idea, but there is no such forum pandemonium because there is no threat. None at all.

Again, what are supposed to do about the unavoidable fate that you insist is upon us? Just cower in a corner with our keyboard and post lamentation after lamentation? I would never live like that even if I thought such an outcome had any chance of occurring.

Are we supposed to build a self-powered off the grid bunker and hoard TVs, couches, and physical media for that dark day when movies are no more and the health police are looking for people who sit too long? Do we need to arm ourselves against rampaging vegans who want to destroy our screens?

One thing you'll love about that bunker is that you won't have internet service and streaming will cease to exist... at least for you. Oh, but wait, that means no more digital games. What a pity. I guess the future has to suck afterall... for you.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The scientists were discussing carbon emissions and how internet usage contributes to that and I never contested any of it. It is your conclusions that are being criticized, genius, nothing else.

It is bollocks when you use an article to say something that it does not say and that is what you do every time with every link that you post. The articles do not support your conclusions and that is a fact plain to everyone but you. You are so invested in this dark future of yours that you see conspiracies everywhere that you look.

I have been saying the same things in regard to restrictions and procedures that might be put in place but you just breeze past them.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The scientists were discussing carbon emissions and how internet usage contributes to that and I never contested any of it. It is your conclusions that are being criticized, genius, nothing else.

It is bollocks when you use an article to say something that it does not say and that is what you do every time with every link that you post. The articles do not support your conclusions and that is a fact plain to everyone but you. You are so invested in this dark future of yours that you see conspiracies everywhere that you look.

The articles suggest restrictions may have to be put in place because it won’t be possible to support our current usage years from now. It discusses those restrictions in the same way I have been discussing these restrictions. This includes steering people away from binge watching. It says that, clear as day.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I have been saying the same things in regard to restrictions and procedures that might be put in place but you just breeze past them.

Repeating something does not make it true nor does it give it any validity. It just means that you are obsessed.

"Breeze" past them? Try summarily dismiss. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my doing so, either. I see no one championing your posts and I have seen no evidence to support anything that you predict.

If I thought any of things that you predict had any chance of happening, I would be trying my damnedest to prevent them; I would be writing to those in power, not merely whining on an internet forum.

You say you are such the ultimate lover of movies, who have you written in a position of authority about your worries? I suspect that you have not done anything other than and about them here.

I guess you're are so resigned to this doom that you simply quit without trying; it is what quitters do afterall, but I would have thought you'd want to go down fighting, doing all you could, writing everyone in power, to try and save movies. Instead, you just complain here.

The key to effective complaining is to complain to the right people, the ones who can make the changes that you hope to see. Get cracking and paper Parliament and the movie studios with your letters. Anything less means that you are just a casual fan of films; if you loved them you'd fight for them until your last breath.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Repeating something does not make it true nor does it give it any validity. It just means that you are obsessed.

"Breeze" past them? Try summarily dismiss. Pretty sure I'm not alone in my doing so, either. I see no one championing your posts and I have seen no evidence to support anything that you predict.

If I thought any of things that you predict had any chance of happening, I would be trying my damnedest to prevent them; I would be writing to those in power, not merely whining on an internet forum.

You say you are such the ultimate lover of movies, who have you written in a position of authority about your worries? I suspect that you have not done anything other than and about them here.

I guess you're are so resigned to this doom that you simply quit without trying; it is what quitters do afterall, but I would have thought you'd want to go down fighting, doing all you could, writing everyone in power, to try and save movies. Instead, you just complain here.

The key to effective complaining is to complain to the right people, the ones who can make the changes that you hope to see. Get cracking and paper Parliament and the movie studios with your letters. Anything less means that you are just a casual fan of films; if you loved them you'd fight for them until your last breath.

This is knows as an avoidance post. The point is people are now suggesting what I have hinted at. That’s a fact. Remember also about my comments that 4K would drop to 720p or even SD?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The articles suggest restrictions may have to be put in place because it won’t be possible to support our current usage years from now. It discusses those restrictions in the same way I have been discussing these restrictions. This includes steering people away from binge watching. It says that, clear as day.

Carbon emissions are the result of far more than internet usage and suggestions on how to conserve energy are not anything new. They are just suggestions. I can turn every electrical device in my home on and leave them all on for as long as I please; no one is restricting my use of any of them. Energy conservation has been an issue since at least the oil crisis of the late 1970s.

Energy demand will grow whether we stream or binge watch or not if for no other reason than our population will keep growing. More people means more demand for power. More cars, more industry, more agriculture, more services, all of which will strain the power grid.

The answer lies in generating not only more power, but cleaner power and power from renewable sources. Energy consumption is going to go up no matter how people choose to watch content and that means more carbon emissions unless the real problem is addressed: we need clean sources of energy.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Carbon emissions are the result of far more than internet usage and suggestions on how to conserve energy are not anything new. They are just suggestions. I can turn every electrical device in my home on and leave them all on for as long as I please; no one is restricitng my use of any of them. Energy conservation has been an issue since at least the oil crisis of the late 1970s.

Energy demand will grow whether we stream or binge watch or not if for no other reason than our population will keep growing. More people means more demand for power. More cars, more industry, more agriculture, more services, all of which will strain the power grid.

The answer lies in generating not only more power, but cleaner power and power from renewable sources. Energy consumption is going to go up no matter how people choose to watch content and that means more carbon emissions unless the real problem is addressed: we need clean sources of energy.

Some suggest cutting off access to home video. Did you know that? Or video altogether if it’s from the net.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This is knows as an avoidance post. The point is people are now suggesting what I have hinted at. That’s a fact. Remember also about my comments that 4K would drop to 720p or even SD?

If I wanted to avoid you, there are far easier ways to do it than replying to each of your comments.

My comment recommends that instead of just boring, , enlightening us with your "special" concerns that you instead write to those in a position of authority to address them. You are definitely not accomplishing anything here unless you see yourself as I do and that is as mere comedy relief, so do something to affect the change that you want to see and write to those in power.

The articles that you cited are simply suggesting that people conserve energy to reduce their carbon footprint. That is not your original idea by any means; you take credit where none is due to you.

Streamed 4K content has not dropped to 720p nor has streaming been reduced to standard definition. It has not happened and no one but you ever believes that it will.

[The_Donster]

The problem here is simple Steedeel. Your posts are meant to evoke a response. Unfortunately it isn’t the response you were looking for

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Some suggest cutting off access to home video. Did you know that? Or video altogether if it’s from the net.

I suggest that you stick your head into a bucket of ice water to reduce your fever. Are all suggestions followed? Do they all become the law of the land?

You can find all kinds of suggestions online, even some that make you sound sane in comparison.

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Some suggest cutting off access to home video. Did you know that? Or video altogether if it’s from the net.

I read it on the internet. So it must be true