Think you're good at turning down the upsell? Try saying no to adding WiMAX to your home internet service for the low, low price of whatever Comcast wants to charge. Thanks to a
multi-billion dollar tie-up with Clearwire, Comcast has been offering WiMAX-based internet services in
a few markets, but now that
On Demand Online is a go, it makes sense to think that the operator would use that as leverage to get people hooked. For those unaware, ODO enables Comcast pay-TV subscribers to watch a vast array of programming from any internet connection, which of course means that any ole 3G / 4G data connection would work just as well as Comcast's own. Oh, and while mobile TV is
pretty good -- and we're going to let Comcast finish -- watching HDTV at home with a DVR is definitely the best scenario of all time.
Update: Just to be clear, this service
won't deliver TV straight to phones.
posted Sep 16th 2009 5:03PM
COMCAST I am really happy for you, Ima let'chu finish.. but BEYONCE had one of the best videos of ALL TIME! *shrugs walks off**
wow, nice kanye reference at the end, lol
I have a bad feeling that this meme will approach Yo Dawg proportions.
oh i hope not... funny, but not that funny...
http://kanyelicio.us/http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/16/comcast-could-serve-tv-over-wimax-inflate-your-bill-even-higher
http://twitpic.com/hqdd9
weak kanye
I wish they would make a windows 7 version of webguide. That program was the awesome.
Just because you can't view mobile tv on your blessed "iPhone" is why it's "pretty good" if the iPhone could do it you'd be raving.
It's just not going to happen. The geniuses who run wireless providers that think they can offer video over 4G seem to not understand that wireless is a shared medium. That while you might get 10 or even 20 mbps worth of BW over the wireless link, not everybody can get it at the same time. In fact, only a handful of subscribers in any given area will be able to get that kind of BW on a sustained rate. Even if the service providers were to backhaul their towers with multiple gbps links (which they won't do even for wired customers), their wireless network wouldn't have enough capacity to support video speeds for more than a handful of users.
This kind of thinking, that telephone companies don't need to invest in higher speed DSL or fiber to the home, is why ATT is doomed. Their management doesn't care that they are losing landline subscribers, because they think everybody will just use a 4G connection for their homes. Verizon understands this won't work, which is why they have been spending billions on FiOS - only not fast enough for everyone's liking (well, not fast enough for me anyway), because their competition hasn't been pushing them enough. WiMax and LTE will not be solutions for broadband to the home, and any cable company or telco that doesn't understand this won't be around in 10 years (unless the "competition" that the FCC deems is sufficient is equally clueless.
That's American corporate management - doing as little as possible for as much as they can charge.
I generally agree with your sentiments but be careful with your numbers. If I rip a TV show from a DVD and encode it for an iPhone it might take 1.2Mbps or something. But Youtube videos are often encoded at 260Kbps 320x240 and are probably what Comcast would be considering if they did something like this.
I have a sprint data card, and I regularly watch Youtube videos on a laptop using it. I also use a Sling Player connection over it. Youtube works "okay". Sling Player works quite well actually. It depends what you expect. I certainly don't watch either of these full screen. With the sling player I tend to shrink it down and stick it in the corner while I web surf. So the video size is probably comparable to what you'd use on a phone.
Still not saying they could handle this if enough people did it. AT&T can't handle the web traffic coming off iPhones and is scared of what enabling MMS (meaning photos taken with PHONES for gods sakes) on the iPhone, let alone letting anybody watch video over their cell network.
Personally I would consider Comcast as a cell phone provider but only if their coverage was comparable, their data was better than AT&T and they offered the iPhone. And even then I still wouldn't pay them extra for their TV service on a phone. It might help to sway me to their service vs. somebody else, but that's all.
There's nothing wrong with doing as little as possible for as much as you can charge; in fact, that's the basis for maximizing profits in a capitalist economic system. The problem is (and you almost hit on it) is that when a company provides TOO little, for TOO much, then the market should punish them. If they continue to do this for too long, then they'll eventually be forced out of business. The problem is, our government supports the regional (and sometimes national) monopolistic or oligopolistic system that is our telecommunications and media industries. So, when they misjudge (or in the case of knowing they will be backed up by the government, abuse) the market, rather than going out of business, they simply get bailed out (in the form of money, resources, frequency, clearance to buy a competitor, etc), and the slate is wiped clean for them.
And meanwhile, America continues to fall further and further down the telecommunications charts, every year becoming more and more the laughingstock of the world.
@Fanfoot, I was commenting more on carrier's belief they could offer TV service over 4G - not low res, small frame you-tube stuff, but TV shows and movies. That's going to take a lot more BW than 1 Mbps. Also, there would be more people using it at any given time if that was a major function of the service (i.e., ATT or comcast thinking they can go into the TV business using wimax).
@hexydes, yes, in a perfect world those giving little for a lot would be punished. But in the sad but true real world where there is no real competition (like TV or landline phones), the barrier to entry prevents those slackers from getting punished. But you're right about the US being a laughingstock in the telecom world.
More telecom competition might help prices, but there also seems to be consolidation in content providers which could limit how low those prices could go. In the US, most channels are owned by NewsCorp/Fox, Disney/ABC, GE/NBCUniversal, or Viacom/CBSCorp.
Oh the irony, getting my cable TV via wireless!
lol iknowrite!
Why are they showing att phones. att and comcast are competitors!
lol. I just noticed that to
I hate comcast.
Comcast is a perfect example of a government created monopoly, especially in my state of Connecticut.
What are the phones in the picture? Could care less about the article, as I don't live in the States, but the Samsung is kind of interesting.