(12-14-2016 03:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 02:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Big difference between supplemental streaming, and the majority of users getting all of their video content from net streaming. Even as data capacity improves, it is still a waste of infrastructure (to me) to use the new gains to simply replace a current system, and neglecting the hardware already there, that has the best condensing of HD video already.

It would be like having flying cars, but restricting them flying over only the existing roads.

the current plan for AT&T and Direct TV is for AT&T to move all of their current TV subs (be it Uverse, or any traditional coax cable plant customers they have in a very few areas) over to getting their TV (as in what is considered traditional cable TV) over to Direct TV

once they do that they have freed the bandwidth that is taken up on Uverse for "TV" to be converted over to internet bandwidth e

Well Uverse is different, since it technically is an over the top service, as the UVerse signal actually takes up a portion of the internet bandwidth that is reserved purely for Uverse.

When I had uverse, I asked about it, because I had noticed there was a datacap in the agreement of 250Gig per month, and when the installer told me about it, I wanted to make sure the Uverse did not count against it (it doesn't).

(12-14-2016 03:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 03:00 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 02:29 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Big difference between supplemental streaming, and the majority of users getting all of their video content from net streaming. Even as data capacity improves, it is still a waste of infrastructure (to me) to use the new gains to simply replace a current system, and neglecting the hardware already there, that has the best condensing of HD video already.

It would be like having flying cars, but restricting them flying over only the existing roads.

the current plan for AT&T and Direct TV is for AT&T to move all of their current TV subs (be it Uverse, or any traditional coax cable plant customers they have in a very few areas) over to getting their TV (as in what is considered traditional cable TV) over to Direct TV

once they do that they have freed the bandwidth that is taken up on Uverse for "TV" to be converted over to internet bandwidth e

Well Uverse is different, since it technically is an over the top service, as the UVerse signal actually takes up a portion of the internet bandwidth that is reserved purely for Uverse.

When I had uverse, I asked about it, because I had noticed there was a datacap in the agreement of 250Gig per month, and when the installer told me about it, I wanted to make sure the Uverse did not count against it (it doesn't).

but once 100% of the UVerse TV customers (what would be considered traditional cable TV customers) are off of the UVerse plant that bandwidth can then be freed up for all of the Uverse internet subscribers

the issue with UVerse is that being hybrid twisted copper pair/fibre Vs direct fibre to the home is that twisted copper pair has a limit to the total bandwidth it can carry and more so because of the poor shielding of that copper pair a limit to the distance that data can be carried

the "last mile" to each individual home is the most expensive part to build out so moving from that twisted copper pair to a fibre right to the home is extremely expensive and really cost prohibitive in many places

BUT for a very short distance a copper pair can carry a hell of a lot of data.....but not NEAR what fibre can

and with even Uverse and the TV portion of Uverse being a "shout/broadcast" of channels down the line you are eating up a massive amount of bandwidth in that twisted pair to only have each home watch a couple of channels at a time while all of the other bandwidth those unwatched channels are taking up is going to waste

AT&T has pulled fibre into the neighborhood boxes in tons and tons of areas so it is there and waiting

now if they can free up the "TV" bandwidth on the twisted pair from each individual home that runs to that neighborhood box with fibre then they can offer a ton more internet bandwidth without pulling fibre right to the home

cable (coax) has the issue of the shared last mile

coax because of the shielding can carry much more data for a much greater distance

but because traditional cable long before internet was and still is a "shout/broadcast" of channels coax has the shared last mile issue and those traditional cable companies have the expense of running fibre further and further down the line and getting fewer and fewer subs sharing the bandwidth

this is the reason why when DSL came out you had to be within 3,000 feet of the central office....because your twisted pair can only carry data so far....as they pulled fibre to the neighborhood boxes where those twisted pairs came together the distance issue was lessened

with cable TV in the past the reason you could steal cable and or get channels you were not subscribed to by removing filter blocks at the tap is because all channels come down the line and the actual physical filter block kept you from getting some pay channels

and as cable ready TVs came out and as people stole cable boxes and or boot leg cable box suppliers were out there before the two way security was in place.....if you went outside and screwed your coax back onto the tap you got free cable until the next time the line was audited or a repairman came out and audited the line while he was there

to telco/twisted copper pair ISPs stand to gain of they can shift TV off of their plant much more than cable/coax ISPs

(12-14-2016 11:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 10:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 01:02 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The "sorely mistaken" reference is to some people's misguided beliefs that there will suddenly be a bunch of schadenfreude for the P5 conferences "when" ESPN collapses. The reality is that the Big Ten and SEC were the richest conferences long before ESPN rose to power and they'll continue to be the richest conferences even if ESPN loses power. If I'm wrong, the biggest losers will actually be the G5 and smaller leagues that lose both their revenue and exposure that came from the ESPN platform. The Big Tens and SECs of the world can continue to make money on in a over-the-top world if ESPN actually died (as you seem to hope). The smaller leagues are the ones that would get completely crushed since they have almost no value in that type of over-the-top-world.

If Arkansas State loses 100% of its $140,000 in Sun Belt media rights, AState is still making its bond payments, coaches are still on salary, life goes on.

If Washington State loses 25% of its media rights of roughly $20 million they have a new $5 million hole in the budget to plug at a time when they are burning $13 million more than they earn.

CUSA is already making its budget adjustments to their dramatic drop in revenue.

Sweat not for the G5 few are leveraged up on media income but the P5's not at the top of their leagues and aspirational to compete at that level are often carrying some serious debt.

Remember before the B1G bailout, Maryland was in dire financial straits. Imagine if media rights had collapsed at that point.

It seems the two of you are looking at separate issues. Frank's point - that the biggest brands will continue to make the most money - is reasonable. However, your point seems to be that the big brands have committed themselves to spending too much money, which also seems reasonable. It does no good to know you will always be the highest-paid person when pay cuts come if your bills are already more than what you make now!

The reality of FBS whether it is P5 or G5 is there are very few institutions that are incapable of operating in the black with nominal to no institutional support.

Now in the current marketplace good luck trying to hire a head coach for $250,000 and an offensive coordinator for $95,000 that will get people excited and yes it would mean coaches spend less time in airplanes recruiting and teams would spend more time riding a bus rather than flying to an opponent. Football squads would often have to suffer through 12-14 games with only one helmet, something the NFL mandates for safety reasons. We survived football where a team had one set of pants for the season and one dark and one light.

As long as a school isn't carrying too much debt to service, they can survive without TV dollars.

(12-14-2016 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The reality of FBS whether it is P5 or G5 is there are very few institutions that are incapable of operating in the black with nominal to no institutional support.

There are many G5 programs with an athletic budget around $30-35 million and an institutional subsidy of $20 million or more, per the USA Today chart. You're saying that they are capable of running the same athletic department on $10-15 million/year instead of $30-35 million/year?

Most of those schools are offering the absolute minimum number of sports required for FBS or very close to it, so they can't save millions/year by cutting out 6 or 8 varsity sports.

Technically capable of staying in FBS on $10-15 million/year, perhaps, but it's more likely that those schools, if forced to operate under that spending cap, would choose to stop playing FBS football.

I think he meant to say "capable", not "incapable".

(12-14-2016 05:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 03:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The reality of FBS whether it is P5 or G5 is there are very few institutions that are incapable of operating in the black with nominal to no institutional support.

There are many G5 programs with an athletic budget around $30-35 million and an institutional subsidy of $20 million or more, per the USA Today chart. You're saying that they are capable of running the same athletic department on $10-15 million/year instead of $30-35 million/year?

Most of those schools are offering the absolute minimum number of sports required for FBS or very close to it, so they can't save millions/year by cutting out 6 or 8 varsity sports.

Technically capable of staying in FBS on $10-15 million/year, perhaps, but it's more likely that those schools, if forced to operate under that spending cap, would choose to stop playing FBS football.

I am curious if all we are talking about is losing tv money why would the budgets for a G5 go from 30 down to 15? For instance a MAC school is making just under 1 million from TV so wouldn't the change in budget only have to deal with that 1 million?

Further if TV money would go away for everybody many of the P5s would likely need to cut expenses such as not paying coaches and the like quite as much and not spending as much for other items. With them decreasing costs it would make it easier for the G5 to cut costs as well since if the P5 is now half as much the G5 could also lower their prices.


I think we also need to consider there is a difference between institutional support that keeps you going and a situation where you are ending up in the red like Maryland. Being in the red is an actual problem made worse if you manage to do it while getting a lot of money like Maryland was and is. Institutional support is only an issue if you think for some reason it is going to change in a significant way such as a decision to reduce fees (or eliminate them) or a large downturn in enrollment. Unless something like that happens institutional support is fairly solid.

I've been hearing about "streaming" being the thing for a long time. 19 years ago, in December 1997, I bought a "wide screen" TV, a TV with a 16/9 aspect ratio, something that just about nobody back then had. It wasn't even HD, as there was no HD content at the time. I bought it because I was a home theater geek and it took advantage of a modest enhancement in resolution of the DVDs that had just hit the market*.

I recall that when I was talking with the TV store owner about why I was going to buy the TV, he said "forget about DVDs, no need for owning movies on disc or tape, just order the movies you want". Of course, he was talking about ordering from the cable company, as in "on demand" movie watching. I had no interest in that.

But it does go to show that the big media companies are likely to have a hand in all this. Anyone who thinks Cox and Comcast and Disney and Time Warner are going to be rendered dead by streaming and bundling are not being realistic. They are best positioned to take advantage of it.


*Just FYI, the TV was 40", as I said not HD compatible, and cost $2200 shipped from California (which basically canceled out the sales tax). And it was a WHALE of a bargain, the few that existed were selling for $3,000 everywhere else. Times change for the better, LOL.

Here comes another big merger, although this one is a bit more interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi.../95462792/

Quote:After a five-year wait, Rupert Murdoch is getting all of Sky.

The billionaire media mogul's 21st Century Fox is acquiring the remaining 61% of the U.K.-based TV and Internet provider that it didn't own for nearly $15 billion, the company said Thursday.

Fox will pay 10.75 pounds or $13.52 per share of Sky, representing a 36% premium to closing price of shares on Dec. 8. Fox expects to complete the deal, priced at about $14.6 billion, before the end of 2017. Fox announced its bid for Sky last week.

Sky has a lot of properties, including a pay TV service with 11 million customers.

Wonder how long it will be until a US operation of Sky TV launches as a streaming pay TV service?

(12-15-2016 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  19 years ago, in December 1997, I bought a "wide screen" TV, a TV with a 16/9 aspect ratio, something that just about nobody back then had.

If you bought a TV in 1997 just to get 16:9, and not even HD, .... wow, I'd love to know what kind of screen you have now! Some 5k, 300", laser projector, or some such??

(12-15-2016 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I've been hearing about "streaming" being the thing for a long time. 19 years ago, in December 1997, I bought a "wide screen" TV, a TV with a 16/9 aspect ratio, something that just about nobody back then had. It wasn't even HD, as there was no HD content at the time. I bought it because I was a home theater geek and it took advantage of a modest enhancement in resolution of the DVDs that had just hit the market*.

I recall that when I was talking with the TV store owner about why I was going to buy the TV, he said "forget about DVDs, no need for owning movies on disc or tape, just order the movies you want". Of course, he was talking about ordering from the cable company, as in "on demand" movie watching. I had no interest in that.

But it does go to show that the big media companies are likely to have a hand in all this. Anyone who thinks Cox and Comcast and Disney and Time Warner are going to be rendered dead by streaming and bundling are not being realistic. They are best positioned to take advantage of it.


*Just FYI, the TV was 40", as I said not HD compatible, and cost $2200 shipped from California (which basically canceled out the sales tax). And it was a WHALE of a bargain, the few that existed were selling for $3,000 everywhere else. Times change for the better, LOL.

Man, times have changed!

As an aside, I'm working on getting my NES (grey box) working again.

You know that they just released a hardware updated version of the classic NES, this year, right?

(12-15-2016 12:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You know that they just released a hardware updated version of the classic NES, this year, right?

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds cool.

(12-15-2016 02:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You know that they just released a hardware updated version of the classic NES, this year, right?

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds cool.

http://www.nintendo.com/nes-classic/

(12-15-2016 02:19 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 02:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You know that they just released a hardware updated version of the classic NES, this year, right?

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds cool.

http://www.nintendo.com/nes-classic/

That's freaking awesome!

I'm still going to fix my trusty grey, but I'll also invest in that bad boy.

Anyone remember the "real" original NES? Where you had a robot you had to attach to it in order to play a 1 player game vs. the computer.

(12-15-2016 12:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  19 years ago, in December 1997, I bought a "wide screen" TV, a TV with a 16/9 aspect ratio, something that just about nobody back then had.

If you bought a TV in 1997 just to get 16:9, and not even HD, .... wow, I'd love to know what kind of screen you have now! Some 5k, 300", laser projector, or some such??

Yes, DVDs were 'anamorphic', there was extra resolution (from 360i to 480p, LOL) on them, but you could only tap into those 120 extra lines if you had a 16/9 anamorphic TV to 'unsqueeze' the picture, and I got it just for that.

But nope, I got out of the Home Theater game a good 8 years ago. All I have now are three 1080P TVs circa 2009, the largest 62". I did have a 1080P projector, threw a party and watched the 2011 Super Bowl on it and blew people away with its 120" HD picture, but my ex-wife got that in the divorce later that year and I never got another.

A whole different life now, LOL.

The worst were DVD's of movies made in 1994-95 or so. Because they would be widescreen but not 'anamorphic.' I have a couple of those now, True Lies is one, and I think The Rock, where they are letterbox, but not made for widescreen TV's.

(12-15-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Anyone remember the "real" original NES? Where you had a robot you had to attach to it in order to play a 1 player game vs. the computer.

"R.O.B." was the robot's name. And yeah, I think that he was only good for that one game. If I remember correctly, it was called "Gyromite" or something like that.

And yup, that's the 'ole grey box - but much cleaner than mine lol

(12-15-2016 03:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But nope, I got out of the Home Theater game a good 8 years ago. All I have now are three 1080P TVs circa 2009, the largest 62". I did have a 1080P projector, threw a party and watched the 2011 Super Bowl on it and blew people away with its 120" HD picture, but my ex-wife got that in the divorce later that year and I never got another.

A whole different life now, LOL.

An expensive game, no doubt. I still have the same 40" 1080p LCD that I bought in 2008. Recently was given a 2006 version of the same model, as a friend got it for free with the house he bought and didn't need it. It put it in my home gym, ha!

(12-15-2016 03:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The worst were DVD's of movies made in 1994-95 or so. Because they would be widescreen but not 'anamorphic.' I have a couple of those now, True Lies is one, and I think The Rock, where they are letterbox, but not made for widescreen TV's.

Are you talking about 2.35:1 movie screen aspect ratio? Which would be something like 21.15:9

(12-15-2016 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Anyone remember the "real" original NES? Where you had a robot you had to attach to it in order to play a 1 player game vs. the computer.

"R.O.B." was the robot's name. And yeah, I think that he was only good for that one game. If I remember correctly, it was called "Gyromite" or something like that.

And yup, that's the 'ole grey box - but much cleaner than mine lol

Actually two games Gyromite and Stack Up were the only two official games released for it.

There is fairly funny review video done by the now classic Angry Video Game Nerd where he takes on old NES accessories and ROB is one of them.

(12-15-2016 09:18 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 03:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 02:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Anyone remember the "real" original NES? Where you had a robot you had to attach to it in order to play a 1 player game vs. the computer.

"R.O.B." was the robot's name. And yeah, I think that he was only good for that one game. If I remember correctly, it was called "Gyromite" or something like that.

And yup, that's the 'ole grey box - but much cleaner than mine lol

Actually two games Gyromite and Stack Up were the only two official games released for it.

There is fairly funny review video done by the now classic Angry Video Game Nerd where he takes on old NES accessories and ROB is one of them.

Some of the AVGN vids are great. Some take me back in time. Others just teach me new things that I missed way back when.