Netflix Plans to Stream 4K Within Two Years - Page 5 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #121 of 142 Old 03-26-2013, 04:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Wow, we totally agree on something!

I know! The world must be coming to an end or something! biggrin.gif

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 142 Old 03-26-2013, 06:49 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icon13 View Post

You do not get it. NF accounts for 30% of down traffic.

1) If all of those users had Super HD it would cause so much more strain on the ISP and they would have to upgrade anyways at a high cost. NF is trying to alleviate that strain and upgrade them for free on NF's dime. The current infrastructure may not be able to handle the jump in bandwidth.

What Netflix is trying to alleviate is the transit costs incurred by using a 3rd party backbone carriers such as Level 3. What Netflix is doing will not alleviate any strain on the ISP's network, that data still has to travel down the very same "last mile pipe" it already does. Netflix is not laying new lines into subscribers homes which is what would have to take place to support your theory.


Quote:
2) NF is already making use of the ISPs physical links. How do you think NF content is currently delivered? Through the cable your ISP laid down.

3) It is not free bandwidth if NF is paying for the infrastructure to deliver it, so Comcast does not have to.

Also, Netflix is doing this as a courtesy to it's customers so SHD and 3d do not make us hit a brick data cap wall. Yes, NF will benefit by bypassing some fees, but all parties benefit including the consumer. NF could just allow SHD streaming if you have the bandwidth, but if multiple people on your block are doing so, good luck getting high speeds at peak time on your shared cable connection. Then what is Comcast's next move? Upgrade their infrastructure to handle NF bandwidth allocation or cap our data so SHD is not feasible? Comcast is the bad guy here. I did not realize when I signed up it was to a company that I pay to interfere with other services I also pay for.
Quote:
Seeing as Comcast has no standalone streaming service your Willie Wonka comparison holds no ground. Back to the drawing board Mike Teavee. biggrin.gif Umpa lumpa umpadee dee, Netflix is helping, why can't you see?
Comcast does have a competing streaming service, they call it XfinityTV.

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread about how Netflix, Open Connect and ISPs work. AVS member undecided has posted twice about checking the threads where one would get the correct information, my suggestion would also be to check those threads. I would also research what a CDN is as that is basically what Netflix is doing with their Open Connect program.

Also, if you are seeing the SuperHD logo on Netflix content listings and a Comcast broadband customer then you are either in a test market that Comcast has started with Open Connect(to date unheard of) or you are using a DNS service that "routes around" the ISP's DNS, my guess would be on the latter. A DNS service such as Unblock.us will enable anyone to stream Netflix SuperHD content, not just those who's ISP is partnered with the Netflix Open Connect program.
Keenan is offline  
post #123 of 142 Old 03-27-2013, 06:29 AM
Member
 
CaioTheBrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 47
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Also, if you are seeing the SuperHD logo on Netflix content listings and a Comcast broadband customer then you are either in a test market that Comcast has started with Open Connect(to date unheard of) or you are using a DNS service that "routes around" the ISP's DNS, my guess would be on the latter. A DNS service such as Unblock.us will enable anyone to stream Netflix SuperHD content, not just those who's ISP is partnered with the Netflix Open Connect program.

Not necessarily. For some the SuperHD logo is showed even when they are not in an "Open Connected" ISP. That has occurred to me already.

CaioTheBrain is offline  
post #124 of 142 Old 03-27-2013, 09:01 AM
Senior Member
 
HD Hockey Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
They're going to need better encoding to pull this off. I'd be happy with better 1080p content in 2 years. I'm thinking his "1-2 years" is going to be more like 3-4 years in reality.

 

50" Samsung Plasma HDTV | Networked Yamaha RX-V573 7.1 AV | BIC DV-32CLR Center | JBL 2600 Mains | Fluance AVBP2 Bi-Pole Surrounds on Soundcast SCS-100 wireless surround | Onkyo SKC-530 Sub | Networked Sony BDP-S590 

 
HD Hockey Guy is offline  
post #125 of 142 Old 03-27-2013, 09:28 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaioTheBrain View Post

Not necessarily. For some the SuperHD logo is showed even when they are not in an "Open Connected" ISP. That has occurred to me already.
That's curious, I wonder how that is happening, I'm betting it's still some sort of DNS re-directing unbeknownst to the user. Thanks for that info.
Keenan is offline  
post #126 of 142 Old 03-27-2013, 09:31 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 27,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD Hockey Guy View Post

They're going to need better encoding to pull this off. I'd be happy with better 1080p content in 2 years. I'm thinking his "1-2 years" is going to be more like 3-4 years in reality.
The encoding will come but what really needs to happen is for the ISPs to stop being obstructionists when it comes to competing video services.
AaronMK likes this.
Keenan is offline  
post #127 of 142 Old 03-28-2013, 04:57 PM
Member
 
AVGeek99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I have to see one of the 4K TV's everyone is talking about. I've heard the arguments for and against. Some say there's adifference and others say your eyes can't see any difference. After reading an article and understanding more how the human eye works I'm not convinced I'll see any difference. For 20 or 25 grand it won't be in my house. But I definately want to see one.

One of the Best Buys near me has the 84" LG 4K TV and it is IN SANE!! I too was wondering if it would be that big of a deal. With true 4k content it looks INCREDIBLE.

I read an article the other day talking about how the human eye isn't sensitive enough to notice a difference unless you are close enough. The article said that with an 80" TV you would need to be within 6 feet to notice the extra detail. I went back yesterday just to test the theory and all I can say is the author of the article hasn't seen an 80" 4k TV from 12 feet because if he had he would need to change his article. I have an 80" TV and I sit about 12 feet from it. I can say without any doubt in my mind that from 12 feet the 84" LG displaying a true 4k source blows away every other TV demo I have seen.

In this Best Buy store when you're looking at the LG, if you turn around the 70" Elite is right there. The Elite is an awesome TV, but when you've just got done looking at the 4k LG, the 70" Elite looks VERY plain.
David Susilo likes this.

AVGeek99 is offline  
post #128 of 142 Old 03-28-2013, 05:05 PM
Member
 
AVGeek99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethios View Post

I have 50 Mbps from Comcast and Comcast has speeds of up to 105 on their top tier.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/14/comcast-extreme-105-serves-up-105mbps-internet-speeds-for-home-u/

And they are going to have 200 Mbps soon they say. Now whether Netflix will be able to stream it, is a whole other issue I agree.

$105 per month for their 105mbps? And that doesn't even include any content!! I fully understand that more bandwidth is going to cost more money, but is the convenience of choosing your movie while sitting on your a$$ in front of the TV worth the extra cost? Especially when Netflix today delivers very poor quality 1080p and doesn't even offer Hi Res audio.
David Susilo likes this.

AVGeek99 is offline  
post #129 of 142 Old 03-28-2013, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,384
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by comfynumb View Post

I have to see one of the 4K TV's everyone is talking about. I've heard the arguments for and against. Some say there's adifference and others say your eyes can't see any difference. After reading an article and understanding more how the human eye works I'm not convinced I'll see any difference. For 20 or 25 grand it won't be in my house. But I definately want to see one.

Quite honestly, too many so-called "journalists" write stuff that they don't understand and never experience. I don't even know how can they call themselves journalists. Especially when there are hundreds of 4K TV shown at CES and CEdIA in the past two years. I don't get how these sorry-excuse of a (group of) journalists can write such articles (that 4K is pointless and/or pointless unless you sit extremely closely to the screen, etc, etc, etc)

Literally 100% of my encounters of people against 4K are of the people who never experienced 4K themself. All I have to do is ask:"have you had the chance to actually experience 4K?" All the dtractors thus far (in the past 2 years) I confronted never experienced 4K presentation at all. Scary that some of these people write for tech column in nation-wide newspapers/magazines.

Sad... Just sad.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is online now  
post #130 of 142 Old 03-28-2013, 05:31 PM
Member
 
AVGeek99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by okibcn View Post

4K format nowadays is a joke, if not a lie. No one can see 4K from any player outside the TV itself. There is no standard way to deliver uncompressed video at enough framerate to the display. Current HDMI devices and high speed HDMI 1.4 cables supports up to 3840x2160 24Hz/25Hz/30Hz and only 4096x2160 24Hz. Not even 30Hz in full 4K. "4K" standard is not just resolution. The standard goes up to 120Hz. This is why I laugh a lot when all the brands say that their receivers support 4K. Yes 4K but at only 24Hz... and when this standard break into the home systems the standard won't be 24Hz. With HDMI 1.5 or 2.0 60Hz is going to be the standard and 120Hz will be the future HQ.

Regards


Ummm... Movies are filmed at a frame rate of 24fps and have been for 60-80 years, maybe more. Virtually all Blu Ray movies are encoded at 24fps. Granted Hollywood could increase the frame rates at which they film and encode discs, but that would put a lot of movie theaters out of business or would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone complain about low frame rates or film jutter at the movie theater. I think the only people saying 120hz is needed is LCD manufacturers. HDMI 1.4 supports 2D 4k just fine. Only full 4k 3D will require and HDMI upgrade.
David Susilo likes this.

AVGeek99 is offline  
post #131 of 142 Old 03-28-2013, 06:25 PM
Member
 
AVGeek99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post

Sure, but at about 10-1/2 feet you can't tell the difference between 4K and 1080P on an 80" screen. To get the full effect of 3840x2160 you would need to sit about 5-1/2 feet from an 80" screen.

You must have read the same article I did. Then I went back to my local Best Buy to look at the 84" LG 4k TV they sell for $17k. I have an 80" LED/LCD TV in my home theater and I sit about 12 feet from it. The LG 4k from 12 feet blows my TV away, NO CONTEST! It's been a long time since HDTVs came out, but I would venture to guess my impression of the 4k as compared to 1080p was similar to, maybe greater than, the difference between HD and SD the first time I saw HD 14 years ago, even from 12 feet let alone 5-1/2!

AVGeek99 is offline  
post #132 of 142 Old 04-01-2013, 11:38 PM
Senior Member
 
kbeam418's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 41.7080574, -83.5911255 N41° 42.4834', W083° 35.4675'
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

4K Netflix streaming ? Really ? How many here have a 4K UDTV ? ABC, FOX, ESPN etc are in 720p and I don't see consumers complaining.
Why do you think they broadcast in 720p? Because it takes too much bandwith to stream 1080p but yet people are excited about 4k. Most TV shows are not even mastered in 1080p yet!

Take Dexter for instance when they release a season on Blu-ray the only difference in picture quality is that there isn't mosiqute noise and it's 24 fps instead of 30. Until TV channels make the jump to 1080p 4k won't be something you'll need in your house. Netflix might stream at 1080p but it's very compressed (atleast it was last year) so if they go to 4k it won't matter because it will be very compressed. Look at like this; when HD radio came out they claimed it would have quality that is as good as cd, which is a true statement because HD radio does have the potential to sound as good as cd. Problem is radio stations are set up to sound good on FM radio first so they have to run the music below 0dB than compress anything that goes above 0db, so when you listen to HD radio it doesn't sound as good as could because the music is compressed.

"Then one day you find ten years have got behind you no one told when to run you missed the starting gun."
kbeam418 is offline  
post #133 of 142 Old 04-02-2013, 06:36 AM
Senior Member
 
HD Hockey Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGeek99 View Post

Ummm... Movies are filmed at a frame rate of 24fps and have been for 60-80 years, maybe more. Virtually all Blu Ray movies are encoded at 24fps. Granted Hollywood could increase the frame rates at which they film and encode discs, but that would put a lot of movie theaters out of business or would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone complain about low frame rates or film jutter at the movie theater. I think the only people saying 120hz is needed is LCD manufacturers. HDMI 1.4 supports 2D 4k just fine. Only full 4k 3D will require and HDMI upgrade.

Panning blur and jitter is one of my biggest complaints about 24 fps. It's horrible. I'd much rather have 1080p at 60fps than 4k at 24fps. But that won't happen because it means more than twice the CGI editing and rendering which is probably one of the largest budget items for blockbusters as well as more bandwidth and data compression to fit on the discs.

http://vimeo.com/3388256

 

50" Samsung Plasma HDTV | Networked Yamaha RX-V573 7.1 AV | BIC DV-32CLR Center | JBL 2600 Mains | Fluance AVBP2 Bi-Pole Surrounds on Soundcast SCS-100 wireless surround | Onkyo SKC-530 Sub | Networked Sony BDP-S590 

 
HD Hockey Guy is offline  
post #134 of 142 Old 04-03-2013, 09:18 AM
Member
 
pwfletcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I know both Samsung and Apple have 4k tvs coming out this year or next year. Probably a good move on netflix's part ... Samsung 4k TV

I like shiny stuff.
pwfletcher is offline  
post #135 of 142 Old 04-13-2013, 12:32 PM
Senior Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Theory... Theory... Theory.

Have you tried it yourself? I've had the 84" Sony 4K TV to calibrate and audition for several days viewed from 10ft away. Even when viewed at 14ft away you have to be blind for not being able to see the improvement of 4K over 2K. Heck, 2K at 84" from 10ft away is only barely acceptable to my eyes.

Well, then the guys as S&V don't know what they are talking about either. They basically confirmed what I said before - that the benefits of 4K totally disappear at about 10-1/2 feet on an 80" screen. At less than that, the resolution increase becomes more apparent the closer you get. It is maximized at about 5-1/2 feet where a normal set of 20-20 eyes can just see all the detail that is there.

You can read Al Griffin's review here: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article/hands-sony-xbr-84x900-ultra-hd-tv.

They state: "With an 84-inch screen, an ideal viewing distance that would allow you to take in 4K’s added detail is 5-6 feet. But if you’ve spent time sitting 5-6 feet from an 84-inch screen, as I did during my evaluation of the 84X900, you’d probably consider it to be uncomfortably close. Most viewers sit 8-10 feet from their TVs. But a problem with this scenario is that, when viewed from an 8-10 -foot distance, the resolution boost provided by 4K on an 84-inch screen theoretically evaporates. And that was pretty much my experience with the 84X900. In the demo’s native 4K/1080p clip comparison using the two Sony TVs, the native 4K display’s extra detail could be clearly seen at a 5-6 foot (or closer) distance. But when I backed up a few steps — to around 8 feet — the differences faded. It wasn’t that the native 4K picture didn’t look great; it’s just that it no longer displayed clearly better detail than what I was seeing on the other set."

Some years ago when I was experimenting with one of my first of 11 LCD sets I estimated ideal viewing distance for me based on viewing maximum clarity. I was pleased to come across an article with chart a few years later that corroborated my estimates. Here is the visual acuity chart which gives ideal viewing distances based on screen size and resolution. Since I bought my first big set - Pioneer Elite 58" in 1999 I have not changed my opinion on this matter. This also includes 2 projectors (Epson 1080UB and a Sanyo 720P)



If you say that the increase in resolution is obvious at 10 to 14 feet then you are not comparing apples with apples or you have eye sight far superior to the average person. I would suggest an excellent digital source like a Pixar animated movie.
Although I haven't yet had the opportunity to scrutinize the 4K sets, I have been a video enthusiast for many many years and I do trust my eyes, which happen to be 20-20 after laser surgery some years ago.
I have compared 720P sets with 1080P and can confirm that you need to be about 50% further back than ideal for 1080 sets at which distance you cannot tell the difference on similar sized sets.
I do wish the new 4K sets would provide a similar WOW factor that I experienced when HD sets first landed many years ago but the facts just do not support it - unless you sit really close to these big sets.
Ryan1 and steve1971 like this.
billdag is offline  
post #136 of 142 Old 04-13-2013, 12:37 PM
Senior Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by HD Hockey Guy View Post

Panning blur and jitter is one of my biggest complaints about 24 fps. It's horrible. I'd much rather have 1080p at 60fps than 4k at 24fps. But that won't happen because it means more than twice the CGI editing and rendering which is probably one of the largest budget items for blockbusters as well as more bandwidth and data compression to fit on the discs.

http://vimeo.com/3388256

+1000
I have loathed 24 FPS since I was a little boy. I don't know how people can rave about the judder and motion/panning blur and make it sound like it's a good thing.
billdag is offline  
post #137 of 142 Old 01-09-2014, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taxman48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 48
taxman48 is offline  
post #138 of 142 Old 01-17-2014, 10:37 AM
Member
 
NCpowerlifter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=227582

 

Net neutrality is no more.

On Tuesday, a Washington appeals court ruled that the FCC's net neutrality rules are invalid in an 81-page document that included talk about cat videos on YouTube. To cut to the chase, the court says the FCC simply doesn't have the authority to force Internet Service Providers to act like mere dumb pipes, passing data through their tubes with a blind eye and sans preferential treatment.

 

This is a thorny problem from a policy perspective.  And as a former ISP operator, I think I'm pretty well-qualified to opine on it too.

In the 1990s when I ran MCSNet there were literally one hundred competitors in our local market from whom you could buy service at one point in time.  Even when we were just getting started within months there were a dozen or so, although not all were (of course) equal.  At the high point I believe we had a catalog of something like 112 ISPs all serving the Chicagoland area from big national companies all the way down to a guy in a closet with a stack of modems.  (By the way, MCSNet started in a closet with a stack of modems....)

However, as time went on two disturbing things happened.  The first was DSL; there were three, basically, companies you could buy that actual line service from.  Covad, Rhythms and Northpoint.  All three were running on a net-negative capital build-out basis with stars in their eyes and, from my perspective and analysis, none of them had a stable business.  The other option was the cable company, of which there was one.

The bad part of the cable side was that their build-out costs were not fully represented in their cable modem service -- and still isn't.  Rather, they are cross-subsidizing services, effectively, with their addressable cable boxes.  That is, part of the build-out necessary to run their addressable (and high-dollar) advanced cable service, including pay-per-view movies and similar content, happens to be conveniently useful for cable data service to homes and businesses.  This makes pricing for the latter impossible to duplicate for anyone who isn't in the cable television business and can't get the dual-use efficiency.

Things like FIOS are the same deal; you have a multi-use fiber drop that happens to also bring data service to your house.  And while you may only subscribe to data service all the back-end and build costs for the entire area are amortized over people who buy more than that.

In the wireless business there is of course spectrum and tower build constraints that effectively limit competition as well.

Nowhere in the country can you choose between more than one or two high-speed residential Internet carriers, say much less the 100 you used to be able to choose from when the standard technology was either dial-up or switched ISDN.

Here, for example, I can choose between "very fast" cable and "sorta crappy" DSL.  That's it.  Two choices, and they're not equal by any stretch of the imagination, with as much as a 10x or more performance difference between them.

Now you can argue "natural monopoly" if you wish but the grant of rights-of-way along roads and similar, along with the other government "special deals", are anything but natural.  They're at-gunpoint privileges granted to one company and withheld from most if not any others, either through explicit prohibitions or cross-subsidy capabilities that nobody else has.  

Nonetheless, "Net Neutrality" has led to abuse.  Companies that can effectively force the last-mile cost of insane ramps in data traffic to be born by a given carrier irrespective of whether a given customer wants it or not are wrong.  Yet this is exactly what happens today; I have no desire to watch Netflix over my cable Internet, but if you do then the entire plant has to be upgraded to support that otherwise your consumption impacts my use, and your consumption is so far out of the norm otherwise, and what was modeled when the system was built, that it could easily double -- or more -- the capital cost involved.

In a free market for these services Netflix would be back-billed for these costs, and they would have to pass them on to you.  $8/month is not even close to the cost of that alone, say much less the content (which they pay for now.)

Effectively this is like Brosurance, in that the monopoly forces allow a few companies to force others to bear their expense, and ultimately you pay for it whether you use it or not.  The firms that can do this love it, because as your costs go up you would tend to say "well, if I'm paying anyway for that capital cost why not subscribe for the $8?"

That's the wrong question -- the right question is whether you want to pay for both, and if the answer is "No" you shouldn't be obligated to buy either part of it.

In a free market you wouldn't be -- you could choose a broadband Internet company that didn't cross-subsidize and didn't force you to pay for your neighbor's build-out expense to support his streaming video addiction.  His price would go up (since he'd be shouldering the entire imputed expense) and yours would go down.

But as long as the monopolist model exists that's not what happens; you get screwed and he gets for less than cost, which incents you to come aboard.  This then forces cost up even more for everyone, and the cycle repeats with the neighbor on the other side of your house.

So the court was right to kill this, and allow Verizon (in this case) to turn around and say "Bite me", back-billing Netflix.  But -- that this decision is right on the merits doesn't help the other problem, which is the monopolist nature of that last mile.

I don't have a good answer to that issue.  We have plenty of evidence that the old "Ma Bell" model is inferior on both service quality and cost.  But the new "Cable Bell" model hasn't led to nirvana either; symmetrical service is unobtanium for most people, pricing is quite high and cross-subsidization means that there is a huge incentive for the firms involved to deliberate screw with anyone who threatens their cross-subsidy cash flow, as if they don't their entire business model could collapse.

Sadly the answer to that problem requires forward thinking and being willing to toss a lot of things on the table that currently aren't, and we're simply not there politically at this time.

Nonetheless, Netflix is a screaming short if this decision stands as it will utterly destroy their cash flow.

NCpowerlifter is offline  
post #139 of 142 Old 01-18-2014, 03:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
Liked: 20

Has anyone yelled out VAPORWARE in this thread yet?

Weboh is online now  
post #140 of 142 Old 01-19-2014, 02:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdag View Post

Well, then the guys as S&V don't know what they are talking about either. They basically confirmed what I said before - that the benefits of 4K totally disappear at about 10-1/2 feet on an 80" screen. At less than that, the resolution increase becomes more apparent the closer you get. It is maximized at about 5-1/2 feet where a normal set of 20-20 eyes can just see all the detail that is there.
...

Yep.

This is very similar to the nonsense people claim about "high end" amps and silver speaker wire.

4k is being pushed only because glass manufacturers can produce high density glass cheaply and it makes for great marketing spiel to push the average Joe to upgrade, the lack of any real benefits at current sizes notwithstanding.

Any improvements seen from 12 feet are due either to better processing, or more likely, to placebo effect stemming from excitement and jacked up brightness (which will look terrible at home).
Ryan1 is offline  
post #141 of 142 Old 01-19-2014, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ryan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCpowerlifter View Post

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=227582


Net neutrality is no more.
On Tuesday, a Washington appeals court ruled that the FCC's net neutrality rules are invalid in an 81-page document that included talk about cat videos on YouTube. To cut to the chase, the court says the FCC simply doesn't have the authority to force Internet Service Providers to act like mere dumb pipes, passing data through their tubes with a blind eye and sans preferential treatment.





...
 Companies that can effectively force the last-mile cost of insane ramps in data traffic to be born by a given carrier irrespective of whether a given customer wants it or not are wrong.  Yet this is exactly what happens today; I have no desire to watch Netflix over my cable Internet, but if you do then the entire plant has to be upgraded to support that otherwise your consumption impacts my use, and your consumption is so far out of the norm otherwise, and what was modeled when the system was built, that it could easily double -- or more -- the capital cost involved....

Well, and I want ONLY A&E and HBO, but the cable company doesn't let me have it without paying for the rest of the channels I DON'T WANT, which also technically waste bandwidth.

Here is an article I just saw in BGR which should cause much outrage:

Government regulators who killed net neutrality became top cable industry lobbyists

"The LA Times points out something worth repeating: net neutrality was really killed back in 2002, when the FCC Chairman Michael Powell reclassified cable modem services as “information services” rather than “telecommunications services.” This effectively moved Internet service providers beyond FCC regulation and led to Tuesday’s controversial decision. It created a time bomb that was bound to explode sooner or later. And now it has. Net neutrality is dead and soon ISPs will start deciding what services they will allow to run fast and what they opt to slow down — and how much sites might have to pay to move from the latter category to the former.

And Michael Powell? He is now the President and CEO of NCTA, the top cable industry lobbying organization. The man who handed the cable industry a gift worth potentially tens of billions of dollars as a regulator pivoted into a lucrative industry gig.

Isn’t that cute?

And James M. Massey, the Executive Vice President of NCTA? He used to be the Senior Democratic Counsel on Communications and Media Issues for the Committee chaired by U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) and Telecommunications Counsel for former U. S. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC).

And K. Dane Snowden, the Chief of Staff of NCTA? He used to be Chief of the FCC’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) from 2001 – 2005. You know — during the very period when net neutrality was effectively gutted by FCC’s leadership. According to the NCTA website, Snowden used to be “responsible for development and execution of the vision, strategic direction, telecommunications policy, and management of the Bureau’s activities and 300 employees.”
Ryan1 is offline  
post #142 of 142 Old 01-19-2014, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
billdag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan1 View Post

Yep.

This is very similar to the nonsense people claim about "high end" amps and silver speaker wire.

4k is being pushed only because glass manufacturers can produce high density glass cheaply and it makes for great marketing spiel to push the average Joe to upgrade, the lack of any real benefits at current sizes notwithstanding.

Any improvements seen from 12 feet are due either to better processing, or more likely, to placebo effect stemming from excitement and jacked up brightness (which will look terrible at home).

The funny thing is though, I am really looking forward to getting a 4K set in a year or two. It will need to be similar in size to my 80" Sharp and yes, I know that I will need to sit significantly closer than 10 feet to appreciate the added clarity. My criticism is only aimed at people who claim superior clarity at distances beyond the limits of normal human vision. I have even compared 1080P to 480P and if you go back far enough (pretty far!!) the difference disappears there as well......smile.gif

Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review (predecessor to Sound&Vision) delighted in double blind tests that consistently disproved superiority of esoteric Amps and Speakers wires and more. Just goes to show that the psychology of believing something is better is often enough to convince them.
billdag is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off