2002-09-23 16:57:41+00 by TC 9 comments
Dan is still going to loose Our Bet but it seems that people think broadband is too expensive. The reason for my confidence is that the writting is on the wall that it will be cheaper to provide broadband than dial-up. It will take some time just like DVDs still have an inflated price over VHS despite production cost. I have 18 years for things to sort out.
[ related topics: Dan's Life Todd Gemmell broadband Theater & Plays Work, productivity and environment ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment made: 2002-09-23 16:59:39+00 by: Dan Lyke
Hee hee hee. Remember, it's not about broadband versus dial-up, it's about point-to-point versus broadcast.
#Comment made: 2002-09-23 17:15:46+00 by: TC
Yeah yeah. I know you'r going to try to weasle on the definition of "broadcast" but my point here is just getting infrastructure done. Then there is adoption and finally it's use. I also got to thinking maybe we should pre buy the bottles? AN Ardbeg 17 would be 35 years young. Hmmmm here's a yummy looking Balvine Cask born the same year as me.
#Comment made: 2002-09-23 22:42:18+00 by: Dan Lyke
A thread on /. references a New York Times article talking about how the USPS is probably the leading supplier of broadband in the U.S.
#Comment made: 2002-09-24 02:57:06+00 by: meuon
I'm supporting Dan. Broadcast allows mass media to be in control, as well as the economics of bandwidth, now and then.
Old school: Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.
New school: Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a Fed-X pouch full of CD's.
#Comment made: 2002-09-24 03:14:03+00 by: Larry Burton
Yeah, I think Netflix has figured out the best way to implement broadband.
#Comment made: 2002-09-24 17:09:32+00 by: other_todd [edit history]
OK, sorry about that. This replaces a post complaining about broadband services. If you missed it, don't worry.
I went back and read the original thread. I don't think I realized that your bet was supposed to be about "entertainment" content only. At the beginning of this thread it sounded like Todd was talking about what consumers are willing to pay for in terms of connectivity bandwidth ... no sign there of how people get their entertainment efficiently, which is a different mess entirely.
I think that most "entertainment" is always going to be somewhat "broadcast" - but here I think I quibble over "broadcast." The real battle is between customized-for-the-user entertainment (web, in a meta sense) and same-content-for-everyone entertainment (movies, tv).
So it will end up being what people want (customized content) vs. what is cost-effective to produce (mass content). I'm betting on the people with the money, so mass content it is. Movies are not doing well but that just means that even more people will stay home and watch cable TV and play computer games - which are still mass content.
#Comment made: 2002-09-24 17:29:21+00 by: other_todd
I do think movie rentals are customized-for-the-user entertainment, by the by, but that water is muddied because unless the content providers thought enough of the masses would buy it to make it viable, it wouldn't have gotten to the point where the user could select it. So there the "broadcast" vs "point-to-point" distinction makes sense.
I can't find a bottle of Macallan 18 anywhere. I've looked and looked. I'm going to have to wait until they release a new one. The last time they put out an 18 was the 1982 stock (that is, it was out in 2000).
#Comment made: 2002-09-24 22:04:35+00 by: TC
Yeah the bet morph'd a bit since it's initial inception and I think we were going to both reread the thread and meet(over scoth) and get a definitive bet written down and possibly an arbiter or perhaps it was pistols at dawn I don't recall.
#Comment made: 2002-09-24 22:06:49+00 by: TC [edit history]
yeah the 18 is hard to find but if you really want it there is the Macallan 25