x
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
Panglossian 12/4/2012 | 11:20:28 PM
re: Is Cisco Tuning Into Video? | First, I did not say the money was raised this year. The
| three I spoke of failed within the last year.

My apologies on this point, but I don't feel that I really mischaracterized anything else in your previous post. Can you name the three companies funded to the tune of hundreds of millions that failed this year? I can think of Diva a year or two back (a video server company, a subject we are reputedly discussing), but not others. You might state that Big Band and Terayon haven't been huge successes and I might buy that.

| Second, to reiterate: The number of companies that (over
| the years) have tried to cut them (Mot & SA) out of a share
| and failed is simply too long to list.

Trying to cut into the duopoly on anything that touches their proprietary conditional access stuff is foolhardy. But there are other areas to play and they are being encouraged by the MSOs. Video servers, storage, video pumps are one area that the MSOs want to commodify. Other players can step in, but it's a question of whether or not the MSO will let any new venture truly succeed in a newly commodified market.

| Lesson: When Cisco comes in, as they apparently are, it's
| game over for the small players. They can be late. The
| advantage of muscle. And no, they won't have to buy out
| Kealia (or any of the smaller players).

I'm fully cognizant of how cisco, for example, primed the Broadcom pump for DOCSIS chips upon their entry into the market. And I'm fully aware of how they set up their DOCSIS reference implementation program. Thanks for allowing those pearls of wisdom regarding cisco muscle roll off your keyboard.

From what we've read, it's unclear the extent of cisco's involvement in Kealia. It's unclear if cisco is in the video server market. As another poster pointed out (a poster with something to contribute), it's probably Microsoft that everyone needs to worry about.

| Live a little while longer, listen more carefully, and grow
| wiser.

Thanks. You're just the sort of sagacious risk taker I want to work with! I like my philosophers light on detail but long on preachery!

I don't suppose you'd like to drop more industry science on us (for example, your commentary on the CED articles I posted). In lieu of that, some pithy aphorisms about growing long in the tooth and not messing with big, bad cisco would suffice!

Pangloss

rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:20:27 PM
re: Is Cisco Tuning Into Video? Video servers, storage, video pumps are one area that the MSOs want to commodify. Other players can step in, but it's a question of whether or not the MSO will let any new venture truly succeed in a newly commodified market.

Two questions:

1) Doesn't commodization require volume which in turn requires access to mass mfg'ing? (what are the video server/storage volumes when TV screen access is controlled by MSOs?)

2) Isn't that phase of market too late for most tech startups?

In other words, does the commodity video server market gate on fixing access?
whyiswhy 12/4/2012 | 11:20:26 PM
re: Is Cisco Tuning Into Video? Pangloss:

Go back and do your homework. SA and Mot signed agreements with everyone and his/her brother/sister back in '98 (and before) to get IP VOD going. Old news. Too many to list.

On that basis, who do you think owns VOD, and who is trying to make it a commodity?

Hint: It's not the MSO's. That's the point.

-Why
whyiswhy 12/4/2012 | 11:20:25 PM
re: Is Cisco Tuning Into Video? Access to what?

Open access is the way to enable and grow the markets, and as importantly, is the way to create the domestic jobs for members of our industry.

In the context of your note, I presume you mean to steal the channel from those who built it and give to to everyone else.

That behavior, that solution. It's so you.

Even in this government, we make a pretense of paying someone for their property when they assert eminent domain. What you should be howling about is the fact that government actually asserts eminent domain more often for the benefit of private parties (read: graft) than the net social good.

-Why
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:20:25 PM
re: Is Cisco Tuning Into Video? who do you think owns VOD, and who is trying to make it a commodity?

Those who have the content rights for the former and the CE guys for the latter. DVD players are the first commodity digital VoD servers.

Who does not own VoD are, an advertiser, an MSO, or a tech company (with a bloated cost structure) addresssing a peak market size in the thousands. Those are Wall St. hype-type plays.

And if we choose to give up "the platform" to WinTel, after pirating the value from the existing content base, they'll next ship off all the production jobs to Asia. So let's not be fooled by that Faustian bargain.

Open access is the way to enable and grow the markets, and as importantly, is the way to create the domestic jobs for members of our industry.
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 11:20:24 PM
re: Is Cisco Tuning Into Video? Access to what?

To each other.

In the context of your note, I presume you mean to steal the channel from those who built it and give to to everyone else.

Of course not. Stealing things from others does not an economy make, nor does it create worthy jobs or advance a humane society.

A customer owned fiber access network has not yet been built. And built properly, it will be constructed in a way that misguided people are not able steal it from a citizenry, a citizenry who will come to depend upon it for all our modern communications needs and wants.

What you should be howling about is the fact that government actually asserts eminent domain more often for the benefit of private parties (read: graft) than the net social good.

What we should be fighting for are principles like the freedom of speech and knowledge diffusion. History suggests fighting for principles is the way to advance the human condition.

We all make our own choices. It's called free will.
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE