x
Cable/Video

Is Video In Demand?

Deals in the video-on-demand market are once again revving up debate as to whether these applications can help kickstart the telecom industry.

Up to now, the digital video market has been a question mark (see Digital TV: Who'll Tune In? and We Want Our Packet TV!). Folks haven't seemed eager to use their computers to rent movies if it's easier to drive to the corner store or use pay-per-view services.

Now that seems to be changing. According to Tom Nolle, president of consultancy CIMI Corp., customers like movies that can be downloaded via the Internet and then played and replayed at the customer's behest, with pauses for pit stops and snack retrieval. Two deals, announced today, put the spotlight back on the market:

  • SkyStream Networks Inc. announced $4 million in new funding from several investors, including Amerindo Investment Advisors Inc., AOL Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: AOL), Comcast Interactive Capital, and Shaw Communications Inc. The input completes SkyStream's fifth round of funding, the majority of which closed back in March 2003 and now totals $29 million for this year (see SkyStream Scores More).

    SkyStream CEO Jim Olson says the funding will be used to increase development around its Mediaplex product line, which converts analog video signals to digital ones for use on packetized networks (see SkyStream Wants Its IP TV ). The multiple systems operators (MSOs) that are helping will also direct R&D for the product, ensuring it meets what's shaping up to be a big market in video-on-demand and interactive TV, Olson says.

  • BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS) announced a partnership with Movielink, an online video rental provider, to enable DSL customers to download movies via the Internet, then play them separately on home equipment. In its press release, BellSouth cites figures from GartnerG2 that indicate the market for video-on-demand from cable TV operators could hit $2.8 billion by 2006 (see BellSouth Goes to the Movies).

Such market research figures, as they often are, may be overly optimistic, but analysts see things heading in the right direction.

CIMI Corp.'s Nolle notes that the model acording to which films are downloaded to a hard drive and played back at the customer's convenience makes it easier to apply encryption and license control as well.

In BellSouth's new service, for example, customers pick movies on their DSL screens and pay between $2.95 and $4.99 to download (pricing is set by the movie studio that distributes the film). Flicks can be viewed on the computer, or transferred to TV using a set-top box, anytime within 30 days. Each customer has 24 hours to play, replay, stop, and start the video, which is copy-protected. Nolle thinks it could be an $8 billion to $18 billion market annually.

Other IP video options have emerged. According to media and entertainment analyst Adi Kishore of Yankee Group, another big market is forming among cable TV providers that are eager to offer video rentals, not on the Internet, but on their own dedicated networks. The technology involves streaming video from specially designated servers. The speed of delivery is faster than store-and-play via the Internet; delivery is straight to the TV; and the quality is significantly better than what can be obtained on a computer monitor.

Kishore says streaming video services from MSOs are growing faster than downloads. He estimates that 10 million to 11 million cable TV users in the U.S. now have access to services from their MSOs, and that by 2007, 32.5 million will be using such services.

Counter to this view, Nolle says streaming video involves a range of problems not common to video on demand, since greater scaleability, security, and administrative options are required. This, he feels, could hinder its spread among RBOCs.

One thing all parties agree on is that video is on the rise. While kinks remain to be worked out, service providers and vendors think consumers are ready for more video from their Internet providers, and vice versa. They're starting to see the synergies among PCs, phones, and other gear lying around their living space.

On the way to market expansion, there will be some false starts and dead ends, as service providers of all kinds find a niche. "You're going to find a lot of strategies hybridized, as cable and satellite providers and RBOCs extend video over their networks... but there's no question that digital video content will be a powerful revenue generator in the future," Nolle says.

— Mary Jander, Senior Editor, Light Reading

Y2KickIT 12/4/2012 | 11:32:43 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Cable television is largely a U.S. phenomenon; most of the rest of the world get television from satellite.

Much of Asia and most of the developed nations are either ahead of the U.S. in broadband access or moving much faster to deploy advanced technologies.

The RBOC FTTP RFP? When and where do you think they will deploy? Greenfield FTTP will take up the available budget and if they can get the regulations written the way they want then fiber DLCs will also be exclusive and they can cut competitors off from legacy plant, which means most of us still have copper.

Japan and Korea are building FTTP now. Japan has over 10.9 million broadband subscribers, 458,293 of which are FTTP, 60,000 of which subscribed in June alone. http://asia.cnet.com/newstech/...

Anyone who thinks the U.S. just must be number one is delusional, doesnGÇÖt read much, and hasnGÇÖt traveled.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:33:49 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? The MSOs are all about providing an ever-increasing amount of content and services over that COAX cable.

This is the rhetoric being pushed on the public by both the cable cos and the FCC.

Looking a bit more closely reveals, the MSOs are broadcast entities. They prefer large audiences sitting behind one event. Their primary goal is to strengthen their negotiating position with the content refineries so they can make more money for themselves during these events.

A bandwidth abundant, unicast capable, content direct model cuts them out of the loop completey. It allows consumers to negotiate price (and schedule) with the content refineries. And most importantly, it enables new generations to produce product for unicast sized audiences without the need for so many sponsors.

When will the MSOs and FCC fight for honest principles instead of hijacking our communications infrastructure and calling it broadband?
alchemy 12/4/2012 | 11:33:53 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? The Comcast model is to give a certain amount of Video on Demand away for free in the hope that a fraction of their customer base will get hooked on the heroin. For a small monthly fee, you get a set top box that has unlimited access to content like news programs and other programming. The big flaw is that VoD in the MSO network doesn't use DOCSIS so there's a lot of redundant equipment in the cable head end to mix VOD and DOCSIS signals. Expect DOCSIS set top boxes in the near future that can do IP Streaming Video, IEEE 802.11, and 900 MHz home wireless telephony. The MSOs are all about providing an ever-increasing amount of content and services over that COAX cable. That keeps their customer base from jumping to DirectTV and lets them mine more dollars per month out of their customer base.
cc_junk 12/4/2012 | 11:34:13 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Reponse to PackMan #26:

"It takes 2.5-3 Mpbs using MPEG-2. Thus it is very viable even over commonly-available heavy-rate DSL. I know this. I work on it. So don't tell me it can't be done."

Sure it could be done.

Sure your isolated DSL access connection can handle it for a couple hours. But your access technology doesn't mean the network and application servers/systems can handle this service at volume. Suppose everyone was doing it with several hundred thousand full length DVDs being downloaded across the country every day. Forget the Internet backbone, your stream couldn't even make it through your DSL access provider network whose great "access speed" you are touting. Some of those providers are known to overbook their aggregation networks 100:1. Do you have the business case for them to spend a huge amount of money on their network to only get $20 per sub? (actually, I think most consumers are thinking that somehow they might get the movies for free with that $40-50 monthly DSL fee).

Today's Internet could not handle this service at volume. It will require a lot of money/investment to accomplish what you are suggesting.

Sure it is possible with the technology, but I saw enough technology stories with no business case in the bubble to not get excited about big technology stories alone. [Besides the dot.bombs, try this story on the investors in the Chunnel or the Boston Big-Dig].

But if the true costs of providing this service at volume gets passed on to you do you think it will still be competitive with netflix?

Of course the content providers and equipment vendors (the voices from Silicon Valley/Seattle lobbyists) believe that the investments should be made in the network to carry services like video-on-demand at volume. Easy for them to say - for the former it isn't their money and for the latter it's money going into their pocket. But they say that the provider network services should be kept cheap for their own personal gain. "The service providers are charging too much" (meanwhile the "Cisco and Junipers" run with %50+ margins while the providers run negative margins)

Of course, also from the same constituents not only should the network be cheap to build, but (quoting our poster rjmcmahon) have "operational costs orders of magnitude cheaper" (orders of magnitude? a little hyperbole). What is the basis for this supposition? What providers quarterly reports support this?

For the largest internet backbone that I am familiar with the operational costs per port and per $ revenue are far higher (one order of magnitude? :-) than any of the voice or private line or FR or ATM services. The customer care and network facing ops are much larger than for the other service ops yet for much smaller services. [I don't size a service by the number of bits carried, but by inservice ports or revenues - ports because operational costs are highly correlated with ports while less correlated with port speed or utilization.] To be fair, some of that opex is due to a higher service "add" rate of the Internet service compared to the other services.

sgan201 12/4/2012 | 11:34:15 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Hi Packman,
Now, I understand where you are coming from. You are working on a science project with no real bearing on actual business model/venture.

In 20 years, I hope we have better things to do with our life than spending all the time watching movies. I do not even watch TV or movies nowaday.
PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:34:24 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? I realize there are different solutions for VoD, but *A* solution is real-time streaming video, from a centralized server or nearby cached source. Yes it is buffered on the local CPE for functions like pause and fast-forward. However you don't have to wait 20-30 minutes to start watching it, and it doesn't take 10Mbps or 80Mpbs. It takes 2.5-3 Mpbs using MPEG-2. Thus it is very viable even over commonly-available heavy-rate DSL. I know this. I work on it. So don't tell me it can't be done. In my opinion this is the *best* solution.

All other things being equal, given a choice between selecting any movie they want and watching it either now or later, vs. selecting any movie they want and having to wait 20-30 minutes (via download or Blockbuster) or several days (Netflix), how many customers do you think would choose the latter?

Certainly the cost of the service is more now for online VoD, due to the costs of upgrading the network to support it. However the same was true of the PSTN when it was first created as well, as an alternative to letter-writing. The first users of the PSTN were only rich guys due to its extraordinary costs. Eventually however it became the more prevalent communication medium due to its speed and much greater bandwidth vs. writing letters.

I'd love to re-visit this in about 20 years.
PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:34:25 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Come on man - mass imported labor? This would provide all kinds of issues with security, labor unions, etc. I don't think it's a great suggestion to put thousands of Americans out of work. Even so, there's already tons of cheap labor here, recently influxed from our neighbors to the south, that I'm sure would fit the bill.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:35:00 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? just pure hard working guys

and gals.
lastmile 12/4/2012 | 11:35:01 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? About 3 years ago VOD was supposed to be a killer application but it never happened.
True Video On Demand is easily feasible but it requires a tremendous amount of bandwidth and Bandwidth requires fiber.
It is the labor cost of deploying Fiber that is delaying VOD (and every other killer application) in the US.
Labor is inexpensive (not cheap!) in ASIA. Screw all the technology that makes life great. Technology can happen only when the basic infrastructure is in place. Fiber is an infrastructure that requires labor and not brains.
The labor that does work, does not care about 10 Gigs or 40 Gigs or VOD.
In ASIA labor is cheap. And that is why ASIA will dominate the the US in terms of high quality communications.
If you do not believe me visit Korea and India. If I had visited China during the last few months I would have added China to my list.
I think it is time for Congress to step in and help the US maintain it's technology lead by passing a short term inexpensive (not cheap!) labor bill that will help us import labor to deploy badly needed fiber. No H1 No L1 just pure hard working guys.

JMHO
LM
sgan201 12/4/2012 | 11:35:01 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Hi Packman,
Please do your home work before you write any message. You have no idea between PPV and Video on Demand.. Video on Demand is not Video streaming. It is a virtual VCR type of service where the user can pick any movie in the library and the movie is partially or fully downloaded to the setup box. The viewer can fast forward or re-play or pause the view like a real VCR.
What is in the hotel is Pay per view..
If you cannot control the viewing like a real VCR, it is not video on demand..
Due to that "VCR" like function, the bandwidth has to be higher than video streaming.

Even let's say 10Mbps is fast enough, how many homes in USA has 10Mbps Internet access now??
sgan201 12/4/2012 | 11:35:02 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Hi,
Hong Kong Telecom have been providing USD $80 per month: Cable TV, 1Mbps Internet access, umlimited Video unlimited for the last 5 year over simple/normal Ethernet copper. It used to be over ATM backbone and now probably over some metro Ethernet network..

Japan get 1Mbps/6Mbps DSL for $20 per month..
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:35:03 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? You are overstating the advanced Information Economy in Asia relative to the USA. The picture will be very different in 10 years.

I'll have to defer to you on this one. My Asian info is filtered much. Let's hope you are correct and I am mistaken.

PS. What's Singapore's info economy status?
optical_optimist 12/4/2012 | 11:35:03 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Why do you think Asia will march forward with respect to Video on Demand much faster than the USA ?? My gut feeling is that the same entrenched interests within Broadcast, Cable, Media, and PTT will delay its rollout in Asia.

Yes, many of the countries with top DSL penetration are in Asia, but I don't think this is a result of competition related to the unbundling of PTT copper pairs. Rather, the housing units are more dense geographically, allowing DSL to be deployed more economically. Therefore, better competition exists between Cable TV (coax) and PTT in Asia, but clearly the RBOCs in the USA are waking up that Cable TV is a serious triple play threat. This is why the Fiber to the Premises RFP has been released in the USA.

In the end, Video on Demand success in the USA will be slowed more by the entrenched content owners (film studios, etc.) than by access loop issues.

You are overstating the advanced Information Economy in Asia relative to the USA. The picture will be very different in 10 years.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:35:06 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? The Internet video delivery business has to go after a different market, i.e., real time delivery.

I'm not sure what you mean by realtime. Are you talking about an OJ low speed chase, an embedded journalist in Iraq, or a superbowl? These types of events are less than 5% of video viewing.

On-demand, making sure everybody gets paid, and opening the markets so anybody can publish seem to be the critical components by my judgement. Throwing technology at that problem is about 2-5% of any solution.

The RBOCs have both arms tied behind their backs. Unfortunately, the FCC is killing off the chances for others to enter by not requiring unbundling of the fibers. The net effect is that our information economy is being delayed, maybe by a generation or two, while Asia just marches on forward. (The complaints on these boards about H1Bs reveals that net effect.)
cc_junk 12/4/2012 | 11:35:07 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? There was an article in the Sept 23, 2002 New York Times, "New Economy" section by Peter Wayner exactly about the ability of Internet to compete with the Netflix model.

Netflix cost of mailing is what? $0.37 plus their internal handling. The estimates in the article had Netflix shipping almost as many bytes per day as is carried on the entire North Amercian Internet backbone. (that was for Netflix shipping 190,000 discs per day)

When I think of how much money is spent annually on just the one large Tier 1 ISP backbone that I am familiar with there is no way Internet delivery can compete for the Netflix business (of course at 19.95/mo maybe Netflix is not making any money). The Internet video delivery business has to go after a different market, i.e., real time delivery.

I remember the old version of Tanenbaum's "Computer Networks" textbook talking about the logic of trying to use packet networks to deliver solve every content delivery problem. He said something about never underestimate the capacity of a station wagon full of mag tapes hurtling down the highway. Here we can't underestimate the capacity of a USPS trailer full of DVDs speeding down I95. The latency is awful, but the throughput is tremendous.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:35:09 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? However the myriad of vendors that are developing and preparing to deploy VoD will be able to fit distribution fees into a reasonable cost model.

What myriad of vendors? Are you talking about tech IO equipment companies? These guys don't have any customers and Wall Street has stopped funding the speculation. The streaming industry has gone bankrupt for all practical purposes. The recurring bw costs were orders of magnitude too expensive and that was w/o paying for content rights.

Just because companies like Netflix only pay a one-time fee doesn't make it a monumentally better cost model.

Netflix's fate is still in question. It some ways it's a book of the month club. Who will pay for that when DVDs are becoming available in every convenience store and every narrow channel, packed and ready for purchase on demand?
PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:35:09 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Sorry, I should rephrase that - licensing isn't an *overcomable* issue. Certainly licensing fees must be paid as appropriate. However the myriad of vendors that are developing and preparing to deploy VoD will be able to fit distribution fees into a reasonable cost model. Just because companies like Netflix only pay a one-time fee doesn't make it a monumentally better cost model.
PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:35:13 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? I'm not talking about movie downloading - I'm talking about real-time streaming of the movie, which takes on the order of 2-15Mbps, not 80Mbps. 2-15Mbps is certainly do-able using existing network and technology - DSL, cable modem, etc.

And let me re-iterate that licensing isn't an issue, otherwise thousands of hotels everywhere wouldn't be able to do it. They already have on-line movie distribution. VoD is already starting to be offered by some IOCs to the public.

And 70.5 Terabytes is more like "$" not "$$$$$".
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:35:13 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? And let me re-iterate that licensing isn't an issue, otherwise thousands of hotels everywhere wouldn't be able to do it.

You need to read up on broadcasting rights. This simplification is completely wrong.

Bit distributors must honor property rights if our industry is going to progress. Any groups basing their business on stolen works is a path to failure. And make no mistake about, that's exactly the direction the current cable cos and telcos are heading.

The suppliers must be paid. The best way to achieve that is for customers to pay direct.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:35:26 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Who is going to provide the infracture at so that it can earn $19.95 per month to match Netflix's price.

In a customer owned last mile the cost of bit distribution will quickly trend towards the real costs. The price of a video viewing will be negotiated by the customer and the rights holders.
sgan201 12/4/2012 | 11:35:27 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Hi PackMan,
1) Each DVD = 4.7 GigaBytes.. 15,000 or more DVD
= 70.5 Terabytes = $$$$$.
Network exists-> you must be joking.. To deliver 10 to 15 minutes deleievry time, 15 minutes = 900 seconds to deliver let say 1Gigabytes = 80 Mbps per seconds..
How many people has 80 Mbps per seconds to home??

2) Netflix/Video rental place do not have pay per DVD fee for content.. Do a Google search and do your research. Do your home work before you write any message..

If Content licensing is such a easy problem to solve we would have on-line music and movie distribution for a long time..

3) See number 1

4) You must be joking again..

5) See number one and do your math..

Who is going to provide the infracture at so that it can earn $19.95 per month to match Netflix's price.

PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:35:38 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? >Hi,
>Imagine

>1) Having larger selection of DVD than NetFlix..
>Huge Storage Area Network..

Network already exists - the Internet. Only new requirement is regional storage servers.

>2) Netflix only pay once for the content -> >Price of DVD and rent forever

Content licensing is an issue that could be easily worked out. I'm pretty sure Netflix pays a per-DVD fee for content anyhow.

>3) Netflix do not have to build a network (US >Postal Service provide that) to deliver the >content

The network is already build, for the most part, for broadband internet access.

>4) DVD -> High quality

HDTV = Higher quality than DVD

>5) Charge less than Netflix and still make money >after sunking the CAPEX and OPEX on the network..

See #3

>Where is the business model??

After the infrastructure is in place, the cost of delivering a movie is only per-viewing royalty. Netflix costs are the same royalty, plus DVD manufacturing, plus shipping and handling.
sgan201 12/4/2012 | 11:35:43 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? Hi,
Imagine

1) Having larger selection of DVD than NetFlix..
Huge Storage Area Network..

2) Netflix only pay once for the content -> Price of DVD and rent forever

3) Netflix do not have to build a network (US Postal Service provide that) to deliver the content

4) DVD -> High quality

5) Charge less than Netflix and still make money after sunking the CAPEX and OPEX on the network..

Where is the business model??
PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:36:06 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? >>When I decide to rent a movie, most of the time >>I don't want to wait that long, I'm ready to >>watch within 15-20 minutes.
----------
>While thats true of many people, the relative
>success of netflix shows that there is a set
>of people who would probably be willing to
>wait slightly longer than that.

>Ultimatly, you want to get to a 15-20 minute
>download model, but getting to something like
>the netflix model minus the physical media
>and the shipping is still very compelling and
>has a reasonable business case.

You're right, and perhaps I was a little too harsh in branding the model "unacceptable". I'm thinking more in the long term; eventually when John Doe who downloads his movies to his PC and watches them 2 hours later sees that his brother Joe Doe can watch them immediately, he's gonna want that.

A comparison is dial-up internet access. It'll fly for a while and make money for a lot of people, but eventually it'll be gone when a better service (broadband) becomes cheap enough and ubiquitous. The difference here is that the ultimate model (real-time VoD) will be available almost as soon as the previous model (downloadable movies), not 20 years later like DSL/Cable was to dial-up.

PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:36:06 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? ----
So we agree that the application in the article is largely being served by other technologies. That estimate of $8 to $18 billion seems pretty absurd when one considers it on a per DSL connection basis. It comes out to over 400 movies per year for every domestic subscriber.
----
That estimate is long-term, thus current DSL/cable modem subscriber numbers can't be applied. If instead you eventually have 80% broadband pentration, about 300 million in the U.S. (accounting for population growth), then that's only about $30-$60 per year per sub, which is about 10 movies. Even at just 40% broadband penetration that still just 20 movies per year.

----
That notwithstanding, what do you think are the obstacles for providing a service similar to VoD via satellite using DVR type equipment? Clearly Tivo has extended the viability of sat TV, don't you think?
----
Bandwidth, my friend. To be honest, I don't know the bandwidth numbers for satellite (I'd love if someone could provide them), but there's no way they scale well enough to provide VoD service for 10's of millions of subscribers. That requires distributed storage over optical networks.
skeptic 12/4/2012 | 11:36:09 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? When I decide to rent a movie, most of the time I don't want to wait that long, I'm ready to watch within 15-20 minutes.
----------
While thats true of many people, the relative
success of netflix shows that there is a set
of people who would probably be willing to
wait slightly longer than that.

Ultimatly, you want to get to a 15-20 minute
download model, but getting to something like
the netflix model minus the physical media
and the shipping is still very compelling and
has a reasonable business case.

PacketPadre 12/4/2012 | 11:36:09 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? So we agree that the application in the article is largely being served by other technologies. That estimate of $8 to $18 billion seems pretty absurd when one considers it on a per DSL connection basis. It comes out to over 400 movies per year for every domestic subscriber.

That notwithstanding, what do you think are the obstacles for providing a service similar to VoD via satellite using DVR type equipment? Clearly Tivo has extended the viability of sat TV, don't you think?
PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:36:10 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? -----
Course, I'm still trying to figure out how and why he expects me to connect my set top box (which is supplied by my cable co) to my hard drive which is connected to my DSL modem (which is supplied by my telco). Seems like if I wanted to watch it on TV, I'd just order it directly via pay per view or digital on-demand service from the my cable or dish company...
-----

I agree.

Though don't confuse "Video on Demand" with "Pay per View". PPV is what you see now with satellite service, and is done by using existing channels and staggering broadcast times. PPV is strictly a broadcast service. VoD on the other hand is a point-to-point service, requiring either non-real-time downloads (which can be done directly to the STB if it has enough memory), or a high amount of additional bandwith to stream it real-time from a VoD server.

VoD over satellite is not feasible, which is why eventually satellite TV service will go the way of the dodo bird. It'll be a long time, but eventually it will happen.
PackMan 12/4/2012 | 11:36:11 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? ----
Could someone in the know shed some light on the protocols used for compression / delivery and how long it is likely to take to download a 2 hr. movie? Thanks
----

It depends on what equipment is being used for the download. Typical compression of a broadcast TV signal is about 2-3 Mbps. Thus downloading a 2 hour movie over 1.5Mbps DSL lite or cable modem to a hard drive would take about 3 hours. Thus I think this model is unacceptable. When I decide to rent a movie, most of the time I don't want to wait that long, I'm ready to watch within 15-20 minutes. Thus either VDSL, heavy ADSL, or cable equivalent is necessary. In this case download could be 15-20 minutes or so. Or, depending on the network, it could just be streamed directly to the STB and watched in real time as its downloaded, or a hybrid of the two.

MPEG-4 can reduce this down to 1-1.5Mbps or so. HDTV requires a fair amount more bandwidth - I believe about 15Mbps on MPEG-2 and about 6Mbps on MPEG-4 or H.264.
PacketPadre 12/4/2012 | 11:36:11 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? A few billion here and a few billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

Course, I'm still trying to figure out how and why he expects me to connect my set top box (which is supplied by my cable co) to my hard drive which is connected to my DSL modem (which is supplied by my telco). Seems like if I wanted to watch it on TV, I'd just order it directly via pay per view or digital on-demand service from the my cable or dish company...
desikar 12/4/2012 | 11:36:13 PM
re: Is Video In Demand? The last line says it all :)

Could someone in the know shed some light on the protocols used for compression / delivery and how long it is likely to take to download a 2 hr. movie? Thanks.

-desikar
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE