Com'on, who you kid'n!
Every one knows Apple will be 1st to this....and then ripped off...I mean copied...flattery...Ah' you know what I'm sayn'.
Problem is none of these folks know what Apple is planning so they are all scrambling around doing anything they can think of, hoping to beat Apple to what ever 'it' is. If Apple had never mentioned an interest in a new TV concept I doubt the industry would have even tried to change their concepts other than for the likes of Netflix services.
[...] Cable companies get all the blame but its the content providers pushing/forcing bundling.
Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.
I think that is partially correct. I feel the problem with today's SmartTVs isn't just a slow and convoluted UI but a lack of content that simple cant be had today without working with the cable/sat providers.
I don't want Apple to ignore cae/sat but to work with them so that the Apple TV UI is I tethered seamlessly into the content you get from your cable/sat providers.
I've envisioned a couple ways (logistically) this can be done but none of them seem like a great solution. Apple typically doesn't do partnerships like this but like most things there is an exception. They partner with telcos for the iPhone and it's their most successful product line. I don't think it would be if they were there own MVNO or only sold it unlocked at their retail price.
Whether we get Apple HDTVs or not I'm hoping Apple has inked deals with a large cae company (like they did with Cingular) to get the ball rolling with an Apple-branded cable box that has WiFi and BT.
An HD Scientific Atlanta box is in the retail iPhone and iPad prices, if memory serves. I'm not sure how much of that is profit but I have to think Apple can do it more efficiently as there is no part of the HW they don't have experience with, save the specific HW for the digital cable decoding. Apple even has experience with analog TV tuners but I would doubt that would be included in this 21st century device.
One caveat is, I think, most cable companies are still using MPEG-2 for digital cable, including HD. Not hard to support in the device since we're talking about a codec and the processing is considerably less than H.264. Having a separate backend system for just H.264 for Apple's content would be an undertaking. That said, I have faith that would be considered since a transition would have to happen and it will save them considerable bandwidth saturation, data usage, and allow for On Demand to be queued faster.
I don't think it's worth talking about H.265 until later in the year. Once it's finalized (next month?) then the re work starts.
Well if Apple's big thing in 2013 is a cable set top box count me out. I have DIRECTV so I'm guessing it wouldn't benefit me anyway. But if they find a way to bring a product to market that gets rid of the mess of cables and cords behind my TV then sign me up!
Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.
Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.
This is why Apple trying to force there way into this market without the cable companies seems so very difficult to me. The cable and sat companies pay a huge amounts of money for the rights to these channels.
If Apple undercuts them with access to the same content for less or in a better way they don't get enough subscribers they lose money. But it's worse than that if they are using the cable companies internet access to obtain it. Not only do they lose money with the subscribers but they have to spend more servicing their internet. I see no other solution than for the cable companies to jack up their internet rates and/or place data usage caps to make up the difference (as well as any planned differences they expect).
But it's not just the cable companies that have been against this paradigm change. It's also the content owners. They make a planned amount from the cable companies that it likely wouldn't behoove them to allow this sort of upheaval unless they were assured their profit would be increased dramatically. I wouldn't expect them to get rid of a sure thing for a risk that didn't make them turn into a cartoon character with dollar signs for eyes... but Apple usually doesn't offer that. They usually just show how a model will ultimately fail, which I don't see with studio and cable companies unless the studio and cable companies agree to it.
Well if Apple's big thing in 2013 is a cable set top box count me out. I have DIRECTV so I'm guessing it wouldn't benefit me anyway. But if they find a way to bring a product to market that gets rid of the mess of cables and cords behind my TV then sign me up!
I hear the cable (and remote control) argument used a lot when it comes to TVs. Sure, it's not a slick design but it's not more convoluted than a Mac mini setup.
I don't want to have to buy one of 3 Apple HDTVs when all I want is a better way to control my TV and content. It's just not cost effective. And will they have a 30" model that will fit in my guest bedroom? If not, will they offer a box or will only excessively large TVs that I have to pay $1500 each for be allowed with this service? I just don't see how replacing ideal sized devices that work well with expensive devices that don't fit ones needs makes sense when all you want is a better service.
The TV is just a display. With the cable and sat boxes we've been using for decades you put the TV on a channel/input and never worry about that again. You can even put that remote in a drawer somewhere and never think about it again until you need its batteries for your cable/sat remote.
The only annoyance with that setup is that your DVD/BR players requires an input change on the TV. Same goes for the Apple TV. Which an Apple TV built into an HDTV you can eliminate a device (I guess that has its benefits until you want a newer Apple TV every couple years) but the entire UI can be controlled from that one remote. You still have your cable/sat and DVD/BR connected to the imports so you still need those remotes and to switch the input, but you have a little easier access to your Apple TV UI. I don't think that's nearly enough reason to make a TV.
I think a better solution to make a larger Apple TV that still uses the HDTV as just a dumb monitor but that has several HDMI inputs so that your cable/sat and DVD/BR devices can plug into it. Now you get the same effect of always having the Apple TV UI on the ready and can switch those inputs easy but with a fraction of the cost of buy a new TV set and having to replace the set every couple years. I'd pay $200 for this Apple TV+.
But that's still a hobby device idea if your main usage will still be from the cable/sat companies. Therefore I think that Apple needs a cable/sat box to integrate with their system so that the Apple TV UI can also be the one that works with your content providers lineup. You not only get everything from the Apple TV UI but it opens the door for plenty of other options when the Apple TV is aware of what you watch and when you watch it. You can pause a movie on one TV and start it on another. They could make the BT remote use that finger print tech to know when you've picked up the remote which will instantly adjust the settings and favorites to your viewing habits. The list goes on. You could buy this out right or rent it from your cable/sat company. I think this is the only viable option for making this a great solution. Apple can't headbutt their way into this market. It's just too complex and entrenched.
I hear the cable (and remote control) argument used a lot when it comes to TVs. Sure, it's not a slick design but it's not more convoluted than a Mac mini setup.
I don't want to have to buy one of 3 Apple HDTVs when all I want is a better way to control my TV and content. It's just not cost effective. And will they have a 30" model that will fit in my guest bedroom? If not, will they offer a box or will only excessively large TVs that I have to pay $1500 each for be allowed with this service? I just don't see how replacing ideal sized devices that work well with expensive devices that don't fit ones needs makes sense when all you want is a better service.
The TV is just a display. With the cable and sat boxes we've been using for decades you put the TV on a channel/input and never worry about that again. You can even put that remote in a drawer somewhere and never think about it again until you need its batteries for your cable/sat remote.
The only annoyance with that setup is that your DVD/BR players requires an input change on the TV. Same goes for the Apple TV. Which an Apple TV built into an HDTV you can eliminate a device (I guess that has its benefits until you want a newer Apple TV every couple years) but the entire UI can be controlled from that one remote. You still have your cable/sat and DVD/BR connected to the imports so you still need those remotes and to switch the input, but you have a little easier access to your Apple TV UI. I don't think that's nearly enough reason to make a TV.
I think a better solution to make a larger Apple TV that still uses the HDTV as just a dumb monitor but that has several HDMI inputs so that your cable/sat and DVD/BR devices can plug into it. Now you get the same effect of always having the Apple TV UI on the ready and can switch those inputs easy but with a fraction of the cost of buy a new TV set and having to replace the set every couple years. I'd pay $200 for this Apple TV+.
But that's still a hobby device idea if your main usage will still be from the cable/sat companies. Therefore I think that Apple needs a cable/sat box to integrate with their system so that the Apple TV UI can also be the one that works with your content providers lineup. You not only get everything from the Apple TV UI but it opens the door for plenty of other options when the Apple TV is aware of what you watch and when you watch it. You can pause a movie on one TV and start it on another. They could make the BT remote use that finger print tech to know when you've picked up the remote which will instantly adjust the settings and favorites to your viewing habits. The list goes on. You could buy this out right or rent it from your cable/sat company. I think this is the only viable option for making this a great solution. Apple can't headbutt their way into this market. It's just too complex and entrenched.
Check out Gassée's article on this: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/
A HDMI hub is a great idea, it should also act as a cross platform media server.
I don't think Apple is that stupid. They'd never come up with a solution that forced people to buy a new television set. There would always be a companion device (ATV) for people who already have perfectly decent TV's and aren't interested in buying a new one. But of course there will always be someone looking for a new TV. And if Apple has plans to revolutionize that space I can't see them doing it without offering their own all-in-one solution.
How much revenue and profit does Apple currently make off ATV? My guess is its not a lot. I can't see an Appe set top box being that profitable. I mean if Google thought that's where the next big thing is at would they have sold off Motorola's STB business?
I hear the cable (and remote control) argument used a lot when it comes to TVs. Sure, it's not a slick design but it's not more convoluted than a Mac mini setup.
I don't want to have to buy one of 3 Apple HDTVs when all I want is a better way to control my TV and content. It's just not cost effective. And will they have a 30" model that will fit in my guest bedroom? If not, will they offer a box or will only excessively large TVs that I have to pay $1500 each for be allowed with this service? I just don't see how replacing ideal sized devices that work well with expensive devices that don't fit ones needs makes sense when all you want is a better service.
The TV is just a display. With the cable and sat boxes we've been using for decades you put the TV on a channel/input and never worry about that again. You can even put that remote in a drawer somewhere and never think about it again until you need its batteries for your cable/sat remote.
The only annoyance with that setup is that your DVD/BR players requires an input change on the TV. Same goes for the Apple TV. Which an Apple TV built into an HDTV you can eliminate a device (I guess that has its benefits until you want a newer Apple TV every couple years) but the entire UI can be controlled from that one remote. You still have your cable/sat and DVD/BR connected to the imports so you still need those remotes and to switch the input, but you have a little easier access to your Apple TV UI. I don't think that's nearly enough reason to make a TV.
I think a better solution to make a larger Apple TV that still uses the HDTV as just a dumb monitor but that has several HDMI inputs so that your cable/sat and DVD/BR devices can plug into it. Now you get the same effect of always having the Apple TV UI on the ready and can switch those inputs easy but with a fraction of the cost of buy a new TV set and having to replace the set every couple years. I'd pay $200 for this Apple TV+.
But that's still a hobby device idea if your main usage will still be from the cable/sat companies. Therefore I think that Apple needs a cable/sat box to integrate with their system so that the Apple TV UI can also be the one that works with your content providers lineup. You not only get everything from the Apple TV UI but it opens the door for plenty of other options when the Apple TV is aware of what you watch and when you watch it. You can pause a movie on one TV and start it on another. They could make the BT remote use that finger print tech to know when you've picked up the remote which will instantly adjust the settings and favorites to your viewing habits. The list goes on. You could buy this out right or rent it from your cable/sat company. I think this is the only viable option for making this a great solution. Apple can't headbutt their way into this market. It's just too complex and entrenched.
Check out Gassée's article on this: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/
I've always thought the same thing. Even if the BR/DVD or Xbox/PS3 didn't plug into it and still required the traditional input switch, those are pretty nitch usages and typically are on that input for a while. The cable to Apple TV switch I do a ton more and that would eliminate it completely.
What probably the biggest advantage that they would have is a unified search platform as well. There are apps that do this on the iPad now, and I believe roku offers this already (again- why the Apple TV doesn't yet- no clue). But I was searching for "max and ruby" for my 3 year old. Had to go to Hulu- search. Nada. Then netflix. Search. Nothing. Then input, go to cable box, search, found the time it would start.
A unified search process through all channels would be ideal, because you could see "x" is on Netflix and iTunes for purchase, or whatever. That, working in conjunction WITH cable or Internet TV would be incredible- and something no one else can offer.
To each their own I suppose. For me, sports is the main reason I stopped watching cable TV.
There is more entertainment value in sticking your head out the window or going for a walk than there is following organised professional sports. You don't learn anything, you aren't actually being entertained most of the time, and all the events end the same way. The teams change rosters, the players start and retire over time, the teams change names, colours and cities, but other than these completely inconsequential details, every game is the same boring story over and over and over and over again.
Every minute you are sitting in front of a TV watching some silly sporting event, is a minute of your life that you are wasting IMO.
That is easily argued for nearly all TV content. There are exceptions, but not a lot of them.
No, and no, and that doesn't excuse how it's not at all the cable he's disconnecting.
I refuse to ever move to a cable or any other "shared" bandwidth system.
DSL is shared too, it only shares back one step, at the DSLAM rather than on the wire. I can easily feel the difference between daytime and evening traffic. It only depends on how much the backhaul is oversold vs. how much people use it.
My only problem with the service is the "slower as you get further from the hub" thing (so people in rural areas can't get the fastest packages), but fiber fixes that, yeah? No loss over distance there, right?
If I could buy into such a system, I would. The established powers offer no way to even front the "last mile". I couldn't just pay someone a lump sum to lay fiber to the nearest fiber box if I wanted to. I even started a micro ISP to at least get broadband to the area, but the interest wasn't there yet. It was basically a mile too far out for wire roll-out.
Agree with Flaneur's big -picture predictions. However, timing is everything and I wonder WHEN we will get more of Apple's coolest stuff.
It will get here when it gets here.
I really can't wait until Hollywood is just one tiny subset of a giant content producing universe of talent throughout the world.
The glass pipes are on the way regardless.
I thought DVDs and later, YouTube and Netflix were supposed to do that. Making interesting video content takes a lot of time, talent and money helps grease that wheel too. The independents have grown, but I just don't see where the established content system is going to be marginalized in the next 10 years.
Problem is none of these folks know what Apple is planning so they are all scrambling around doing anything they can think of, hoping to beat Apple to what ever 'it' is. If Apple had never mentioned an interest in a new TV concept I doubt the industry would have even tried to change their concepts other than for the likes of Netflix services.
That makes sense. TV devices were pretty stagnant until Roku & AppleTV showed up. Anyone that doesn't have something new to try to compete is surely out of the game. Those that do try at least have a chance to stay in the game.
Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.
This wasn't always true, but no one remembers a time when it wasn't. I was able to pay $20/mo for the channels that I wanted. If C/Ku Band had enough HD content, I'd probably still be using it.
What probably the biggest advantage that they would have is a unified search platform as well. There are apps that do this on the iPad now, and I believe roku offers this already (again- why the Apple TV doesn't yet- no clue). But I was searching for "max and ruby" for my 3 year old. Had to go to Hulu- search. Nada. Then netflix. Search. Nothing. Then input, go to cable box, search, found the time it would start.
I've thought about the pros and cons of Apple making a box that integrates with the local cable/sat programming but I never once considered a truly unified search or how the current Apple TV OS doesn't let you search through everything to find content.
In fact, I find the Apple tV UI quite annoying in that the Movies and TV Shows on the main page are the first two buttons but completely useless buttons since I pull this info from my iTunes library which means I have to first go to Computers. No option for me to put that Library on the page as a main button or for the first drill-down to remove itself because I only have the one iTunes library attached.
I also dislike that I can't choose what media I can share to the device. I need to have Home Sharing turned on but then I can't select with content is available. If it's in my iTunes library that AppleTV will have access to it. If there is a better solution I don't know what it is.
I've thought about the pros and cons of Apple making a box that integrates with the local cable/sat programming but I never once considered a truly unified search or how the current Apple TV OS doesn't let you search through everything to find content.
In fact, I find the Apple tV UI quite annoying in that the Movies and TV Shows on the main page are the first two buttons but completely useless buttons since I pull this info from my iTunes library which means I have to first go to Computers. No option for me to put that Library on the page as a main button or for the first drill-down to remove itself because I only have the one iTunes library attached.
I also dislike that I can't choose what media I can share to the device. I need to have Home Sharing turned on but then I can't select with content is available. If it's in my iTunes library that AppleTV will have access to it. If there is a better solution I don't know what it is.
I agree with you on all fronts of your complaints. The only time I use "movies" is when my imac isn't waking up for some random reason and I have to go to "purchased" movies from digital copies I have redeemed from Blu ray purchases.
No, and no, and that doesn't excuse how it's not at all the cable he's disconnecting.
I refuse to ever move to a cable or any other "shared" bandwidth system.
LOL, it never ceases to amuse me how you can blithely reject reality because you don't like it.
Yes, classic DSL is dying. Subscriber numbers are down. Yes, classic DSL speeds are slow in comparison to cable broadband. 5-8 Mbps ADSL/ADSL2+ is about as fast as you can expect and only if you're within a few miles (18,000 ft) of the CO. And while the bandwidth isn't "shared" if there are too many other DSL subscribers in your cable bundle you will suffer reduced speeds from crosstalk issues.
As far as VDSL goes, it is faster but it's that evil shared bandwidth you wish to avoid because most VDSL deployments are FTTN like uVerse. Likewise high speed ADSL2+ deployments are FTTN because the max distances are even shorter (around 5,000 ft). Also "shared" bandwidth. And frankly, all bandwidth is "shared" anyway whether that happens at the node or at the CO.
Comments
Problem is none of these folks know what Apple is planning so they are all scrambling around doing anything they can think of, hoping to beat Apple to what ever 'it' is. If Apple had never mentioned an interest in a new TV concept I doubt the industry would have even tried to change their concepts other than for the likes of Netflix services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlongz
The day I can subscribe to all sports for $25/mo will be the end of current cable Giants and their lazy foot.
That day will never occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
[...] Cable companies get all the blame but its the content providers pushing/forcing bundling.
Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.
This is why Apple trying to force there way into this market without the cable companies seems so very difficult to me. The cable and sat companies pay a huge amounts of money for the rights to these channels.
If Apple undercuts them with access to the same content for less or in a better way they don't get enough subscribers they lose money. But it's worse than that if they are using the cable companies internet access to obtain it. Not only do they lose money with the subscribers but they have to spend more servicing their internet. I see no other solution than for the cable companies to jack up their internet rates and/or place data usage caps to make up the difference (as well as any planned differences they expect).
But it's not just the cable companies that have been against this paradigm change. It's also the content owners. They make a planned amount from the cable companies that it likely wouldn't behoove them to allow this sort of upheaval unless they were assured their profit would be increased dramatically. I wouldn't expect them to get rid of a sure thing for a risk that didn't make them turn into a cartoon character with dollar signs for eyes... but Apple usually doesn't offer that. They usually just show how a model will ultimately fail, which I don't see with studio and cable companies unless the studio and cable companies agree to it.
I hear the cable (and remote control) argument used a lot when it comes to TVs. Sure, it's not a slick design but it's not more convoluted than a Mac mini setup.
I don't want to have to buy one of 3 Apple HDTVs when all I want is a better way to control my TV and content. It's just not cost effective. And will they have a 30" model that will fit in my guest bedroom? If not, will they offer a box or will only excessively large TVs that I have to pay $1500 each for be allowed with this service? I just don't see how replacing ideal sized devices that work well with expensive devices that don't fit ones needs makes sense when all you want is a better service.
The TV is just a display. With the cable and sat boxes we've been using for decades you put the TV on a channel/input and never worry about that again. You can even put that remote in a drawer somewhere and never think about it again until you need its batteries for your cable/sat remote.
The only annoyance with that setup is that your DVD/BR players requires an input change on the TV. Same goes for the Apple TV. Which an Apple TV built into an HDTV you can eliminate a device (I guess that has its benefits until you want a newer Apple TV every couple years) but the entire UI can be controlled from that one remote. You still have your cable/sat and DVD/BR connected to the imports so you still need those remotes and to switch the input, but you have a little easier access to your Apple TV UI. I don't think that's nearly enough reason to make a TV.
I think a better solution to make a larger Apple TV that still uses the HDTV as just a dumb monitor but that has several HDMI inputs so that your cable/sat and DVD/BR devices can plug into it. Now you get the same effect of always having the Apple TV UI on the ready and can switch those inputs easy but with a fraction of the cost of buy a new TV set and having to replace the set every couple years. I'd pay $200 for this Apple TV+.
But that's still a hobby device idea if your main usage will still be from the cable/sat companies. Therefore I think that Apple needs a cable/sat box to integrate with their system so that the Apple TV UI can also be the one that works with your content providers lineup. You not only get everything from the Apple TV UI but it opens the door for plenty of other options when the Apple TV is aware of what you watch and when you watch it. You can pause a movie on one TV and start it on another. They could make the BT remote use that finger print tech to know when you've picked up the remote which will instantly adjust the settings and favorites to your viewing habits. The list goes on. You could buy this out right or rent it from your cable/sat company. I think this is the only viable option for making this a great solution. Apple can't headbutt their way into this market. It's just too complex and entrenched.
Check out Gassée's article on this: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/
A HDMI hub is a great idea, it should also act as a cross platform media server.
It should also mow your lawn and fix you dinner.
The original Apple TV could certainly cook it.
How much revenue and profit does Apple currently make off ATV? My guess is its not a lot. I can't see an Appe set top box being that profitable. I mean if Google thought that's where the next big thing is at would they have sold off Motorola's STB business?
I've always thought the same thing. Even if the BR/DVD or Xbox/PS3 didn't plug into it and still required the traditional input switch, those are pretty nitch usages and typically are on that input for a while. The cable to Apple TV switch I do a ton more and that would eliminate it completely.
What probably the biggest advantage that they would have is a unified search platform as well. There are apps that do this on the iPad now, and I believe roku offers this already (again- why the Apple TV doesn't yet- no clue). But I was searching for "max and ruby" for my 3 year old. Had to go to Hulu- search. Nada. Then netflix. Search. Nothing. Then input, go to cable box, search, found the time it would start.
A unified search process through all channels would be ideal, because you could see "x" is on Netflix and iTunes for purchase, or whatever. That, working in conjunction WITH cable or Internet TV would be incredible- and something no one else can offer.
http://gigaom.com/video/inside-intels-tv-service-no-ces-announcement-but-plenty-of-juicy-details/
That is easily argued for nearly all TV content. There are exceptions, but not a lot of them.
DSL is shared too, it only shares back one step, at the DSLAM rather than on the wire. I can easily feel the difference between daytime and evening traffic. It only depends on how much the backhaul is oversold vs. how much people use it.
If I could buy into such a system, I would. The established powers offer no way to even front the "last mile". I couldn't just pay someone a lump sum to lay fiber to the nearest fiber box if I wanted to. I even started a micro ISP to at least get broadband to the area, but the interest wasn't there yet. It was basically a mile too far out for wire roll-out.
I think that's partly YouTube's fault. Their little applet seems to have progressively gotten worse even when available bandwidth has improved.
I thought DVDs and later, YouTube and Netflix were supposed to do that. Making interesting video content takes a lot of time, talent and money helps grease that wheel too. The independents have grown, but I just don't see where the established content system is going to be marginalized in the next 10 years.
That makes sense. TV devices were pretty stagnant until Roku & AppleTV showed up. Anyone that doesn't have something new to try to compete is surely out of the game. Those that do try at least have a chance to stay in the game.
This wasn't always true, but no one remembers a time when it wasn't. I was able to pay $20/mo for the channels that I wanted. If C/Ku Band had enough HD content, I'd probably still be using it.
My EyeTVs tented to cook themselves after about a year. This was maybe a couple hours a day of recording.
I've thought about the pros and cons of Apple making a box that integrates with the local cable/sat programming but I never once considered a truly unified search or how the current Apple TV OS doesn't let you search through everything to find content.
In fact, I find the Apple tV UI quite annoying in that the Movies and TV Shows on the main page are the first two buttons but completely useless buttons since I pull this info from my iTunes library which means I have to first go to Computers. No option for me to put that Library on the page as a main button or for the first drill-down to remove itself because I only have the one iTunes library attached.
I also dislike that I can't choose what media I can share to the device. I need to have Home Sharing turned on but then I can't select with content is available. If it's in my iTunes library that AppleTV will have access to it. If there is a better solution I don't know what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, and no, and that doesn't excuse how it's not at all the cable he's disconnecting.
I refuse to ever move to a cable or any other "shared" bandwidth system.
LOL, it never ceases to amuse me how you can blithely reject reality because you don't like it.
Yes, classic DSL is dying. Subscriber numbers are down. Yes, classic DSL speeds are slow in comparison to cable broadband. 5-8 Mbps ADSL/ADSL2+ is about as fast as you can expect and only if you're within a few miles (18,000 ft) of the CO. And while the bandwidth isn't "shared" if there are too many other DSL subscribers in your cable bundle you will suffer reduced speeds from crosstalk issues.
As far as VDSL goes, it is faster but it's that evil shared bandwidth you wish to avoid because most VDSL deployments are FTTN like uVerse. Likewise high speed ADSL2+ deployments are FTTN because the max distances are even shorter (around 5,000 ft). Also "shared" bandwidth. And frankly, all bandwidth is "shared" anyway whether that happens at the node or at the CO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, and no, and that doesn't excuse how it's not at all the cable he's disconnecting.
I refuse to ever move to a cable or any other "shared" bandwidth system.
Notice how they all say "up to" when advertising bandwidth?