6/23/2003
(Note, I’m not discussing ‘copyright’ infringement in this post).
For those of you that follow the spat with the MPAA and various other entertainment studios on one side and others like ReplayTV and TiVo on the other, I have a question. The studios contend PVR (personal video recorder) devices like TiVo should be “outlawed” or “regulated” because of their ability to fast-forward or ‘ignore’ advertisements, I was wondering about the parallel between pop-up blockers for web browsers and the boob tube.
Various browsers like Mozilla and Opera have built-in technologies that can manipulate pages so that banners, pop-ups and virtually all extraneous ads can be hidden entirely. I have not seen any clamoring or brow-beating with this small, yet growing market of tools that allow users to “skip over” advertisements, however are these not the same sort of features that various PVRs offer?
The ad-based arguments studios and networks use in their lawsuits against PVR makers basically amounts to:
Networks derive the majority of their revenue through advertisements. We need an audience for advertisers, otherwise no one will advertise and we will be unable to pay the bills.
PVRs allow users to skip over ads and thereby by-pass the primary revenue generators for the networks. Rather than trying out new business models (like subscription based television, where you pay a dollar for each episode – just one of many possibilities), the networks (like the RIAA and music studios) are suing companies like SonicBlue to cease and desist.
Of course they could always just outlaw behaviors such as flipping the channel when an ad comes on (no more channel surfing). Or Hatch-it, every third violation results in your remote control exploding.
I suppose my question is probably rhetorical is really a moot point, as several large sites now have “subscription” methods to deal with revenue. It’s the same nonsensical debate though, hopefully the PVR makers can use that to their advantage.
Now where did I put my EFF membership card…
Well, largely because of peer-pressure, and the need to feel both warm and special, I filled out all of the forms necessary to display this pleasing-to-the-eye picture. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.
Get this pic of Aimee Deep when you
Sign the Petition to Reclaim Our Public Domain!.
My Signer Number is 14932
Love ‘em or hate ‘em, women certainly have a way
with words. Note: I am not responsible for any physiological changes that may take place in viewing the aforementioned photograph (she’s an
7.2).
A few weeks ago I discussed 3G cellular technology and how it is finally coming to the market. A recent article at News.com mentions an interview with Nobuharu Ono, the CEO at NTT DoCoMo, Japan’s top mobile phone service provider. In it he describes the slow roll out of the 3G platform in various markets and the future of cellular technologies. If you keep up with wireless news, his observations reinforce the notion that the current business model for mobile phone providers could be a dead end in the long-run.
The fact that 4G will not be fully deployed until the 2010 time frame could be the nail in its own coffin (in addition to costly spectrum purchases). Before I discuss the WiFi standards that could uproot this established player, I’d like to point out another interview posted at News.com several months ago – with Martin Cooper, inventor of the portable cell phone.
Here Mr. Cooper discusses his likes and dislikes within the competitive cellular market place and essentially bashes the hype surrounding various features promoted by 3G providers. Among other things, he is disappointed with how service providers cannot complete and reliably hold a conversation 100% of the time, yet at the same time they are pushing devices that integrate more and more features (none of which can work consistently because of persistent service problems). While not directly opposed to WiFi, he does think it will become obsolete through the manifestation of ‘smart antennas’ (at this point I should point out that he founded a company that develops adaptive/’smart’ antennas).
Now this is where Voice-over-IP and new WiFi standards can work their way into the scheme of things. While these methods may never displace (at least in the short-run) cellular technology, they could offer a competitive thorn in the side of mobile carriers, to spur them into continually creating innovative solutions to problems Mr. Cooper spelled out.
Which leads me to next-generation WiFi standards currently being drafted. Andrew pointed out this post which outlines several of these upcoming standards. One that I think that could add some firepower to a WiFi cellular solution is 802.11e, which (among other things) adds multimedia support including that for voice, video and audio. Once this is finalized I would initially expect similar offerings to what Cirrus and Broadcam currently deploy. In addition to the QoS-based specification, one that is needed is something like 802.16, for greater signal range – and one of the current failings for WiFi that Mr. Cooper pointed out.
Another promising standard is 802.11n, which increase the theoretical bandwidth constraints, from 54 Mbps to anywhere between 108 and 320 Mbps. Not only is this head and shoulders above 3.5G (and most probably 4G), but it is also a good baby step towards gigabit wireless (imagine of being able to run a Serial ATA hard disk remotely and wirelessly at high speeds).
So I guess the only question remains is how many of you are going to hold your breath and wait for all of this to come into fruition. I’d buy a couple of spare oxygen tanks if I were you (though David Beberman is out snorkeling already).
