Recent Comments:
Dr. Horrible: Act One goes live {TV Squad}
Jul 16th 2008 2:53PM Good sign of a good musical - still can't get "Freeze Ray " (the 1st song) out of my head, over 12 hours later. This feels like classic Whedon, crossed with The Tick, mixed with a little Human Giant, and a dash of Rent mixed in. With inspired casting on all sides, this is the most mundane (and therefore fun) presentation of heroes and villains yet. I think this has the makings of a Broadway crossover hit, complementing Avenue Q and Spamalot.
NBC vs Fanboys vs Sports Talk Radio vs The Olympics {Blog Maverick}
Jul 1st 2008 5:55PM @ John (#24 above)
It cuts both ways. Let me take a real-world example. Back in 2002, I discovered Family Guy by way of clips online (of dubious legality). So did many people. I (and masses of others) seeked the show out on Adult Swin, and were so impressed by its quality that we went out and bought the DVD box sets. In droves. These DVD sales, in turn, translated into Fox reviving a show that had been off-the-air for three years.
The same, for me, is true of SNL. I'm more inclined to see it today than I was BEFORE "Lazy Sunday (The Chronicles of Narnia)" appeared on YouTube. That was a turning point for me, and many others. And that was a particularly interesting intellectual property situation, because Lonely Island created the content, SNL aired it, and then Lonely Island people put it online.
Regarding your general point, copyright is not the same as a sweater. It's closer to sweater design or pattern. Can I sue someone for taking my sweater? Yes. Can I sue someone for taking my idea of a sweater with a pocket by the left hip? Questionable.
Should NBC be able to control THEIR copyrighted video? Absolutely, without question. If I take a camcorder video of my personal experience at the Olympics, should I be able to post it on YouTube? I think so. I'm in no way stop NBC from creating their own content, nor am I obscuring the quality of NBC's coverage.
@ MC
The Olympics used to have a more decidedly political feel about them. Countries would boycott (US), locations would be chosen to make a statement (Seoul), and political acts would occur (Jesse Owens competing in Berlin on one hand, the bombings of Munich on the other).
In 1992, when the "Dream Team" came into being, money (in the form of US TV audience) seemed to be one of the factors (competitiveness was another one). Then, there were the USOC national advertising campaign to recruit luge-ers, the record-breaking sponsorship deals in Atlanta, the lawsuits against any company using the word "Olympic", and the Salt Lake City corruption scandal. All with the money as an increasingly powerful influence.
The fact today is that the IOC and the respective national OCs are monied interests, and they feel the need to protect their interests. Versus the YouTubes and other online competitors, it's clear they want to protect their interests. Whether this is good or bad is an interesting question, but given the amateur heritage of the Olympics, it does seem more than a little ironic.
Why Tiered Broadband is a Wonderful Thing and ASIVS {Blog Maverick}
Jun 26th 2008 7:00PM Mark, thanks for taking the time to respond!
I will freely admit that BitTorrent may not be the best CDN. But it's certainly not the worst.
And I think your analogy doesn't translate right in this situation. BitTorrent distribution is more like several people working on a proposal, like a powerpoint deck. If each person is responsible for a single slide, the whole thing will be put together faster. Taking your point about efficiency - each person needs a computer to create his/her slide, so it might take more resources to enable the faster production. In the end, though, the presentation still is completed more quickly.
Also, as I understand it, BitTorrent prioritizes seeds to peers. As such, I don't think there is a problem with Blizzard choosing to use BitTorrent-style technology. They do have a lot of seeds. Even still, since the end-user is paying for upload bandwidth, I see no problem with it being used to accelerate his next-door-neighbor's download. As long as the file is legal to re-distribute, the bandwidth is paid for, and all peers know that they are donating their upload to other WoW players, what's the problem?
But, back to your central point, I'm still puzzled - do you mean tiering end-user access? If so, don't we already have that? The person who is paying for 768 Kbps up/down is in a lower tier than the person paying for 5 Mbps up/down. If you're talking about usage caps, then how does that reconcile with the fact that advertising, the engine driving internet, requires bandwidth? If I go to an ad-heavy site like ESPN.com, and flash ads autoloads, and their video autoplays, why should I pay for it with MY usage cap? Moreover, bandwidth is not a diminishing resource, like potable water or electricity sources. Only bottlenecks, often created by artificial suppression of competition (through local monopolies).
I strongly recommend you instead use the financial/influential muscle you have (which I don't) to encourage the de-monopolization of cable and telecoms. A common carrier approach, where lines are owned or wholesale-leased to competitors, and customers pay for service/content, would be better. The local monopolies, where the lines are controlled by the telcos/cablecos, are what slow down bandwidth competition. If the companies were actually competing in every market, I doubt there would be the artificial last-mile bottlenecks that billions of dollars ($200 bln, some claim - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/technology/11online.ready.html) were meant to eliminate. What do you think?
Why Tiered Broadband is a Wonderful Thing and ASIVS {Blog Maverick}
Jun 12th 2008 1:35PM Well-written as always, but ironic... Partly because you are likely one of the 5% who take up 65% of the bandwidth. With the video you download, VOIP which you likely use, and always-connected internet appliances (TiVos, video game systems, etc), someone in your position of techno-savvy is likely already a bandwidth hog. Indeed, saying that video delivery is not fast enough proves it. The majority of internet users aren't consuming enough video yet.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees on BitTorrent. Your entry confuses a delivery system with a use of it. From what you write about the speed you want, and the stuff you use internet for, BitTorrent is in fact your ideal solution. It is a technology that enables you to get your ASIVS faster, because of the packet-management technology it uses. Used legally, as an increasing number of software companies do (open-source, gaming companies, etc), BitTorrent provides exactly what the former head of Broadcast.com would want: a means to reduce load on central servers while simultaneously increasing delivery speed to consumers.
Your comments reserved for BitTorrent should in fact be applied to all illegal downloads, no matter what. FTPing an illegal file over the net is just as illegal and clogs your bandwidth. To use an analogy, should photocopiers be banned because people CAN illegally reproduce documents?
On tiers, I am unclear. Isn't it already "tiered" with plans? When one buys the slower, 768K up/down plan, s/he pays less. The 5Mbps is faster, and costs more. If you're talking about usage caps, that also causes problems due to the fact that the engine driving internet, advertising $, hogs a good deal of bandwidth through increasing flash-y ads.
The key problem with slow bandwidth at home comes from two simple facts, which you mention: First, telecoms have refused to use the BILLIONS taxpayers already paid in the 90s to bring fiber to the home. Fiber equals speed. Indeed, telcos are asking for more money. Second, cable companies have local monopolies, meaning no competition, high prices, and poor service. Since the cable and telco industries are in the process of becoming one and the same, these two facts are intertwined.
Your solution of temporarily "tiering" until more bandwidth is available gives the telcos and local monopolies the only thing we, as consumers, have: $$. There is no reason for them to innovate if they simply can create edifices around which they make more money by offering essentially the same level of service. The threat of you moving to FiOS or U-Verse is the only thing that would truly make them tremble and act. That is why tiering and capping doesn't work. That is also why the BitTorrent users, much as they may annoy you, help your cause.
From MC:
No, actually bittorrent is awful when it comes to bandwidth management. It is without question inefficient in how it operates. Why ? Because it needs duplication in order to function. Turning every user into a host that is redundant with other hosts, thats about as inefficient as it gets.
On top of that, when used for commercial apps as a means of saving money, its tantamount to stealing. Kind of like sending someone to the buffet and then selling the extra jello you ask them to bring out for you.= :)
There are far better CDN applications that networks can offer themselves that far out perform torrent clients
The Excellence in Outsourcing Award: Call for considerations {TV Squad}
May 20th 2008 10:09PM Jamie Bamber (BSG) and Anna Friel (Pushing Daisies), hands down.
First time I heard Bamber, I thought he was putting on a fake British accent. And if there's anyone who is the idealized American "girl next door," it's Friel.
TWC's New York / New Jersey HD explosion seen a bit early {Engadget HD}
May 20th 2008 11:07AM I should add that, weirdly, this issue only started about a week ago.
TWC's New York / New Jersey HD explosion seen a bit early {Engadget HD}
May 20th 2008 11:06AM I'm in Astoria, and my TiVo HD has been losing both HD and non-HD channels left and right, but the cable box still gets them. All of the ones I've lost are "cable channels" (e.g., ESPN, TBS, Sci-Fi, etc).
Does that mean this rollout is the beginning of SDV? Help!
Nokia's E66 and E71 in the wild! {Engadget Mobile}
May 7th 2008 6:26PM If the E51 (which I have) is any indication, these would be quite functional AND sexy. The only thing on my wishlist for both of these is US (AT&T) 3G. Anything less would be uncivilized.
Kerkorian's boy says Ford should offload Mercury, Volvo {Autoblog}
May 2nd 2008 2:39PM Ford is heavily invested in Volvo's engineering/technical skills. Chronologically:
The Volvo P2 platform, which was created for the original Volvo S80 in 1999 (before Ford) is currently in use by Ford for many vehicles, as Phil noted.
In addition, the C1 platform for smaller cars was jointly designed by engineers from Ford, Volvo, and Mazda. It came to life in 2004.
Beyond that, the more advanced and flexible EUCD platform Ford debuted in 2007 is basically an evolved Volvo P2 platform, with significant adaptations from the joint C1 platform. The company is using EUCD for many mid- to full- size cars, including the current S80.
As a Volvo fanboy, I'm bummed at the way Ford is becoming all twisted with Volvo. At the same time, the fact that Volvo engineering is increasingly becoming the backbone of a Big Three automaker makes me happy.
I think there's wisdom in selling or killing off the Mercury nameplate. Re-badging is dying (see: Chrysler) and another company can take better advantage of the Mercury plate than Ford can.
At this point, Volvo is more important than Mercury to Ford's future.
Psystar says rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated, still selling Open Computers {Engadget}
Apr 15th 2008 7:04PM Oops... The terms ARE copyrighted. What I meant to say is that the terms are not legally-binding protection of copyright.
