>>> You don't understand why people would pay a moderate sum of money in
>>> order to be able to watch movies or listen to music?
>>>
>> No, he doesn't understand how a service can offer near-HD resolution
>> over the Internet.
>
> Providing data over the Internet isn't hard. But providing HD video *in
> realtime* would seem difficult given that people don't have
> megabit-speed Internet access yet.

I currently have 10Mbps downstream/1.5Mbps upstream.  And both my 
provider and its direct competitor offer better packages.

>
>> Despite the fact that tv providers have had no
>> problem doing 60 channels of the same thing over the same wires for the
>> last 30 years (10 years in the case of HD).
>
> Digital TV isn't 30 years old. :-P

That's why I said 10 years for HD.  And besides, digital channels take 
the same bandwidth spectrum as analog tv channels.

>
> Besides, it's no secret that a simplex broadcast channel is much easier
> to set up than a full-duplex communications channel.

That's why it's asymmetrical.  And also why most ISPs frown upon you 
hosting servers out of your basement, since you would be hogging the 
upstream channel.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message