Little futurology

[ppera2]

I recently talked in company about how will look movie watching in some 20 years from now. Here are some ideas:

VCR, DVD and even oncoming storage systems will be obsolete. Most of movie watching will be via Internet. Internet should be much faster than now, more spread and, what is most important, more useful.
People in 'better staying' countries will be able to watch almost any movie at any time, in seconds from decision. Just go on streaming site, input title (& pay on some way, of course) and it will start.
Maybe there will be 2 ways - just for watching and other for saving, what will cost of course more. But there will be probably few cases when someone will want to pay extra for having it locally, because it will have not much sense.
There will be still movie-theatres, and ticket will cost more than watching via Internet, of course new movies will run in theatres only...
Most important questions here are: will copyright holders find their interest in such way of distribution? Will all participate in Worldwide streaming services? How protection against unwanted recording will work? How diverse countries will react, what with censorship? And so further...

I think that it can be most effective, and even most profitable system. There will be very little additional costs - no clubs, medias, distributors, shipping etc. Target number of costumers will be extremely large - everybody with high-speed Internet connection.

And I think that it can really make piracy pointless. Only stupid people will want to watch some miserable copy of new movies.

Too optimistic?

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by ppera2
And I think that it can really make piracy pointless. Only stupid people will want to watch some miserable copy of new movies.

Downloading movies (& pay) from the net...

Hmm, would a copy still be that miserable then ???

Think, pirates downloading movies (& pay) but sell copies of it... :rolleyes:


Bye

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Soulhunter
Downloading movies (& pay) from the net...
Hmm, would a copy still be that miserable then ???
Think, pirates downloading movies (& pay) but sell copies of it... :rolleyes:
Bye

Such thing is possible today already. (DL & watch)
Why should copy be miserable? With enough bandwith, you can achieve very good quality.
Additionally, it's aeasy possible to add subtitle in desired language, at least on some 100 most used ones...

New movies will be not available on the regular servers, of course. Therefore I wrote that pirates will maybe try to sell some camera shots of new movies.

[Doom9]

VCR, DVD and even oncoming storage systems will be obsolete. Most of movie watching will be via Internet. Internet should be much faster than now, more spread and, what is most important, more useful.
People in 'better staying' countries will be able to watch almost any movie at any time, in seconds from decision. Just go on streaming site, input title (& pay on some way, of course) and it will start.That is the future as the media industry wants it.. it means they can keep track of who watches what movie when and at which time. It gives them a complete consumption history for every user, along with the possibility to charge for ever access.

It's a future we should try to provent at all cost, because that most certainly marks the end of fair use. If you no longer can physically own something, you're screwed big time. Also, copy protection systems for streaming so far have been more resistant than those of stuff you can get, be it physically or download to your HD. Perhaps that's a matter of becoming widespread, but I'd rather not take the risk.

The inconvenience of going to a store far outweighs your right to privacy (streaming means big brother control for movie studios), ownership, fair use and being able to acquire a "pay once use forever" style of license.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by ppera2 And I think that it can really make piracy pointless. Only stupid people will want to watch some miserable copy of new movies.

In 20 years, ultra-broadband will be common. Theaters will show movies in ultra-HTDV resolution. And, home viewers will have HDTV.

Downloaded movies will be of excellent quality, better than today's DVDs. Technological copy protection schemes will only frustrate the people who bought the crippled product.

The wildcard is the law. Will Congress get draconian and start locking up people for using anonymous P2P software? Movie producers will be be raking in record dollars, either way.

[Mug Funky]

Actually, after reading that speech to MS by the EFF guy (thanks for posting that, doom9), it seems to me that wide instantaneous distribution is inevitable.

i see the tightening vice of IP restrictions as rather self defeating, and in fact it de-values proper laws. the more stupid laws are passed, the easier it is for a good person to be imprisoned, or at least treated as a criminal, the less respect there will be for law and authority in general, and obviously it will become extremely difficult to maintain order. similar things have happened throughout history (my country was founded on it, at least as far as european colonisation goes), and eventually the governments have seen how stupid they have been, and have moved to change the laws to reflect the state of society. laws are living and breathing, not carved in stone (civil law at least - criminal law is a matter of right and wrong, which is probably innately embedded in any society).

as far as pay-per-stream, there would be not much stopping people from capturing these streams, hence owning them. and if nothing can be done to stop it happening, then it's just going to be accepted eventually.

that is if GWB doesn't nuke the world before all this happens... :)

[shevegen]

"But there will be probably few cases when someone will want to pay extra for having it locally, because it will have not much sense."
I dont see the point quite, or rather I cant share it. For example, I ever disliked streaming for several reasons. But one important one was that I certainly wont pay for something over and over again when I want to _own_ it to view when i want to at no additional price.
If that is not possible, I definitely wouldn't pay more because I'd feel it as a take off from me, and thus unfair. I as customer still decide what I do with my money. I am too a ~ hobby-collector of bought DVDs nowadays, and own quite some DVDs.

Personally, I'd say even the current DVD standards are enough (for me hehe). Apart from some simple DVD-R's, I have only three rewritable DVDs, but that's more than enough to burn the Linux Software and some Windows Software like AutoGK to not really need a new standard (my need that is). (One is still blank)

The futurology I am personally interested a lot lies in digital video recording via video cameras, best very very small cameras which still give acceptable quality. (I dont like handy's to record something because for the pay-to-view manner.) But I like recording and then enhancing the video in a quick and easy manner. Is cool to view stuff from some years ago at a later time, especially if you have family and friends who can look at the material again as well lateron. :)

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Doom9
That is the future as the media industry wants it.. it means they can keep track of who watches what movie when and at which time. It gives them a complete consumption history for every user, along with the possibility to charge for ever access.
It's a future we should try to provent at all cost, because that most certainly marks the end of fair use.....

I think that I need to explain mine thoughts more detailed. I don't care about that someone (or some company) will track what I watch, how many times etc. By your logic we shouldn't go in public libraries - almost all are now computerized, and they register every book what you loan or read internal.
I just wroted so, that every use (watching) will be charged. But you pay not only for movie itself, you pay for service too. And if that service offers such things as instant watching without going to store (or even to your large collection at home), enormous choice etc, you will not feel overcharged :)
Actually such services should be not only for movies, but for books, music etc..
What I have from that, that some libraries have millions of books, when I need lot of money to travel there? Almost same is for movies today. For instance: one my friend wants desparately to have movie 'Zebra Force'. It's nothing special, but he saw it 20 years ago on TV and want to watch again. It will hardly play again on any of TV channels receivable by us (and it's many, over 200, including satellite channels). He want to pay 40-50 Euro for it, but it's available only in USA, and including translation it's not possible to bring him for that money.
There is a lot of older filmofils, who'd liked to watch movies from their young days, but many movie is simple not available, and will not, because distributers will not find interest because of low expactable selling. But if you will be able to watch it for couple bucks, it's complete different story. Everyone can be satisfied, copyright holders, and filmofils too. Why? Because we exclude many middleman, many costs. It will be direct transfer from copyright holder to consumer. I'm absolutely sure that such system will ensure good money for owners of intellectual property. Of course only if they will offer it at reasonable price.
There will be not ruin of medias or books, service only needs to have multiple copies at multiple places and making backups (fresh copies) periodically, and it will last practically forever, without any degradation of quality. Long live digital technology! :)
I have DVD 'Matrix' (my first one) in my small collection. But what really use have I from that? In fact just feeling that I own it, and can watch whenever I want. Is that worts 25-30 Euros? I'm not sure. If I need to pay couple Euros to watch it, without moving from my sofa, maybe it will be better solution. I'm certainly will not watch it more than 5 times in next 10-20 years (if media will last so long at all). I can make of course backups periodically, but it's just add. cost.
By described service personal backuping will loose any sense (it stays of course only for public material, not private, so this site will probably survive transfer :D ).

Further: I don't understand people who dislikes streaming because they want not to pay for repeated watching. Reasonable service can give lower price for repeated watching and downloading (situation when tracking is good for user). Before 30 years it was the only way (going to movie theatre). Except for millioners, who could buy Film tape. Progress of technology allowed that ordinary people may have movie copies at relatively low price. Further technology progress will make movie owning at home obsolete, at least in most cases. That's my prognosis.

Some thoughts more:
What leads us in life? Fear, greed - first stays for ordinary people who fears from some Orwell-ian future, from being robbed. Second stays for companies, but not just - artists, writers, inventors are often greedy too. Result of this is what we have now - piracy, big prices, idiotic laws, chaotical market etc. And nobody is satisfied.
Of course. We need to utilize technology in best way, that reduce costs, make goodies available to anyone. Transporting information goes cheaper and cheaper every day. And we talk here exactly about that.
Company which will be not ready for that will loose. Remember just famous Betamax case - some politicians wanted to ban it, but at end Sony itself 'banned' it - they didn't sell licence, manufactured it only themself, and VHS prevailed, Beta died.

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by ppera2
Why should copy be miserable? With enough bandwith, you can achieve very good quality.No, this was about the pirate "miserable copies" you have mentioned... ;)
Originally posted by ppera2
And I think that it can really make piracy pointless. Only stupid people will want to watch some miserable copy of new movies.

[ppera2]

I must tell that I'm little disappointed with reactions here. Actually I expected some constructive ideas instead of fear from industry and similar.
There is a lot more possibility what technology will be able to offer...
I focused on movie watching online, because it offers fantastic perspectives for people who isn't satisfied with:
1: Going to theatre and watch newest IQ<30 movies
2: Not satisfied with always repeating (cyclic) film plays on TV
3: Not satisfied with DVD choice, especially in Europe

I will gladly pay for something better, and it's possible even today. Same as I pay gladly ticket in theatre for every decent movie, regardless of it's age.

[Doom9]

to day, PPV and VOD does not have a lot of success. The reasons for that are many. For one, movie studios don't really license movies for an acceptable price. Current offerings are sub-par quality, but prices are often still higher than a regular rental. Having a physical medium gives you possibilities electronic distribution never could. What about renting a movie for 4 days, and wanting to watch it over at your Friend's house. He'd need to have certain hardware, a credit card and being registered for the service. If you return your movie an hour late, perhaps you can talk to the guy at the counter and convince him not to charge you a late fee. Try that with a machine ;)
Furthermore, the network infrastructure is insufficient, and will remain so for many years. For streaming you need QoS implemented from VOD provider to customer. Meaning every router from server to end user has to implement it. Just throwing a lot of bandwidth your way won't help. As soon as your son fires up Kazaa, forget your movie watching experience, and since you can't download it, you're royally screwed. That means, the only way this is going to happen is if you're in a closed network, so you can only use the VOD service your ISP offers.. for the rest, you'll have to live with the risk of interruptions, quality degradations, etc.

Then you mentioned having a lot of movies available. Having looked into this biz two years ago (me and a friend came up with a business plan for a VOD service three years ago but never went ahead and did it), and having looked into streaming again when I wrote my masters thesis.. I see a lot of problems in that area, too. One is storage space (we not only get bigger HDs, our quality expectations will also grow.. 20 years from now HDTV will probably already by old news), another one is performance.. your streaming servers would have to have immense powers to handle high bandwidth streaming. Just imagine.. HDTV streams are 20mbit/s.. there's a limit to how much movies you can stream, both from a network point of view as well as from an I/O point of view. Thus, for the forseeable future, VOD choice will be limited and you'll be lucky to have the top 20 movies available at all times.

I don't care about that someone (or some company) will track what I watch, how many times etc.I do and apparently I'm not the only one. I must say I trust the guy at the video store and the librarian a lot more not to screw with the data they collect than I trust any movie studio. And whenever I can, I try not to leave an electronic trace. There are enough big brothers in todays world already, and there's no need to further invite them to our homes.

Every technology has uses and dangers.. you can't blame people for carefully considering the effects of both, and discard something because they feel the disadvantages are more important. Once again, VOD is so far a no business and DIVX has failed. People rather go to the rental store and buy DVDs. I don't see that changing for the forseeable future. With big malls becoming more and more common, you can pick up a bunch of rental flicks while you shop for groceries. So the additional cost is exactly zero.. you'll spend looking through the webpages of your VOD provider as well. But you probably don't have someone at the counter whose judgement about movies you can trust, or simply chat with him/her about god and the world. Think of that what you want, but it's those little things that are pretty darned important to many people (especially the ones that don't hang around on some web forum all day;)

[communist]

Originally posted by ppera2
VHS prevailed, Beta died.
But only for the consumer - Beta turned into one of Sony's biggest cash cows later on ;)

[mpucoder]

Here's my thoughts, hopefully more constructive. First the time frame is way off. We cannot even imagine what technology will be like in twenty years. Throughout the past the evolution of technology has been accelerating, and there's no reason to believe it will not continue. (If you had asked me 2 years ago when I got my, by current standards, clunky monochrome text-only analog/PCS Nokia cell phone what my next one would be like, I never would have guessed it (an LG) would use spread-spectrum, play midi files, have a 300 event calendar, color graphics screen, camera, and GPS in an attractive package that weighs half what my old one did.)
I believe what was described is possible within the next 5 years, maybe less. I also think, once film makers understand that they should embrace the new medium, that this will happen and they will prosper. And when it does happen piracy, although never eliminated, will not be a serious threat. The more access people have to works of art, through legitimate and reasonably priced means, the less demand there is for pirated copies. As for fair use copying, there will be little or no demand for physical copies if one can watch almost any movie any time for the equivalent of today's 25 cents or less.

[mpucoder]

Originally posted by communist
But only for the consumer - Beta turned into one of Sony's biggest cash cows later on ;)
Yes, almost every television and cable station in this country uses Beta and BetaCam, but they are being phased out by digital technologies.
As for "prosumers" I heard, but did not verify, that Sony stopped making Beta products last year.
So, many of you thought it was dead, but only for the masses. I have 4 Beta decks myself, all made in the '90s.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by mpucoder
.... As for fair use copying, there will be little or no demand for physical copies if one can watch almost any movie any time for the equivalent of today's 25 cents or less.

I doubt that it will be ever so cheap. As I see, in US ticket prices are around 8 $ currently. Here, in Eastern Europe it's around 2-3 Euro, depending on movie itself and quality of theatre.

[Joe Fenton]

ppera2, you aren't thinking like a parent. Say you have rugrats who want to watch "The Rugrats Go To Paris." In your view, the parent connects to whatever service provides the media, tells it to locate that particular film, pays a fee, and off it goes. Yeah! The kids see the movie... once. Now they want to watch it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and over and over and over and over until you are quite insane. Not to mention, you've just spent a small fortune in viewing fees.

That is why pay-per-view NEVER works in a family setting. You HAVE to own something you can show as many times as you want for nothing extra. You go buy a VHS tape or DVD for $10 to $15 for a movie like the one mentioned, then the kids can watch it 6,397 times without paying another cent. Even if you paid $1 per viewing, you vision of the future is a rip-off if the kids just watch it 20 times. And let me assure you, they WILL watch it MANY MANY MANY more times than just 20. Hell, I watch my favorite movies more often than that, and I'm not a kid.

Pay per view might work if you can make decent recordings of it and replay it as often as you like, but your vision said that was prohibited. I don't see what you see as EVER coming to pass for practical reasons. It has nothing to do with fear. It has everything to do with saving money.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Joe Fenton
ppera2, you aren't thinking like a parent.... bla...


Sorry Joe, but you should read it more carefully. I talked about possibility of recording movies.

2: What about kids who goes again and again in cinema to watch same movie?

3: I don't think that good parent means somebody who always do as kids demand.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Doom9
to day, PPV and VOD does not have a lot of success. The reasons for that are many. For one, movie studios don't really license movies for an acceptable price. Current offerings are sub-par quality, but prices are often still higher than a regular rental...

Furthermore, the network infrastructure is insufficient, and will remain so for many years. For streaming you need QoS implemented from VOD provider to customer....

Every technology has uses and dangers.. you can't blame people for carefully considering the effects of both, and discard something because they feel the disadvantages are more important. Once again, VOD is so far a no business and DIVX has failed...

Let see arguments one by one:
Yes, VOD ond similar wasn't succesfull until now, and it will not be until some company will not seriously start with that way of movie emission. Nothing goes fast, radio, TV, DVD etc. took years to get widespread.
Network is currently insufficient, right. But before 20 years we didn't have it at all (we, ordinary people). How fast it will be after 20 years we can only speculating, but 100 times faster than average ADSL now seems reasonable. About implementations and OS & other hard & software (& son who overloads bandwith) is pointless even thinking now. It's all question of profitability and technology.

Storage place: let's calculate by todays prices - 30000 movie @ average 20 GB (enough for HDTV quality) is 600 TB. It can fit on 6*600 GB harddisk, calculating 200 $ per 150 GB drive it's aprox. 720000 $. What is really not not too much, but little for such service. What will cost streaming is really hard to calculate, but it can't be more than holding thousands of rental clubs, workers etc.
Service can work practically without human assistance.

Don't trust to movie studio? I don't think that studios work with customers. Perhaps you used incorrect word, and meant movie company.
Tracking customer habits is not so bad, as many people think. If they will leave me alone (not bombing me with adverts) it will be good.
People which don't like to be tracked should seriously think about abandoning usage of M$ Windows - you know why...

I usually never ask in rental about movie quality - stuff is not enough movie-cultured (how to say that on English ?). They will tell for every peace of crap that it's good. Rentals employ people usually by only couple criteria: to be cheap and reliable.
On the other side, Internet is full with movie reviews, forums etc. Of course that I will not pay any attention for VOD service's suggestions :)
DivX failed, but it's different - it wasn't streaming service, was too expensive etc. I really wouldn't compare that stupidity with service which offers thousands of movies instantly.

[lexor]

IMHO, what stops a global destribution of movies over IP (assuming it's 20 years or so later and we got networks to handle loads), is the fact that those companies that are in control of destribution don't like thier content becoming freely available/redestributable. For example look at illigal (depends on where you live of course) Statelite TV. With those movie channels that parts of package that usually very expensive, becoming freely available in high quality digital stream. The original guy gotta buy the equipment, but then he shares his little XVid encode, and the rest get it free.

So unless some company comes up with a way that would insure that only paying customers can watch the shows/movies we will not have distributors jump on world wide TV over IP bandwagon. Considering that with world wide audience comes world wide computing power to crack the encription. Look at what happened in Japan where they tried make only certain devices being able to decode certain TV channels and only when connected to compatible TV's, so no capturing from RCA/Composite outs for anyone. They thought that would stop recording. Fan subbed Anime release groups disagreed. What happened? A program like SETI was made that once enough users joined it, cracked the encription so all the channels are recordable again.

So the threat of loosing money is real and well illustrated, the revenues are questionable at best. Who in their right mind would engage in such a business?

But you can counter argue, with all the mathematicians in the world we can't come up with something secure? Well, we can, and actually have, but then you hit a wall of National Security, if you like me live in US or near by you should be pretty sick of those 2 words by now. What does it have to do with anything? Simply put, a US company can't sell anything to a hostile/politically opposing country, and there are restrictions on what can be sold to "friends", in any case "friend or foe" you a US company can't sell something that Gov't deems too powerful in some way (here we have encription that could be used in other ways to obstract CIA's job, we don't want that do we?). So the hardware for this unbracable encription for our precious movies cannnot be sold to practically anyone.

[MfA]

Unless your national security agencies already have DRM implant chips ready the technology wont help much.

Ignoring the analog hole, secure distribution is more of a hardware than an encryption problem anyway ... basically the only way to do it securely is the DivX way (ie. it has to phone home at least once before playing anything). Otherwise you will always suffer the problem that if it is cracked once the system is irrevocably compromised, no matter the strength of the encryption (cracked in the sense of reverse engineering of the chip).

[Doom9]

@ppera: your whole argument here strikes me as a "agree with me" kinda thing.. you're so quick to dismiss points made by others that do not agree with your point of view. I see no point in participating in any such discussion anymore.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by lexor
IMHO, what stops a global destribution of movies over IP (assuming it's 20 years or so later and we got networks to handle loads), is the fact that those companies that are in control of destribution don't like thier content becoming freely available/redestributable...


Good points, lexor. I don't worry about technology, I'm sure that there will be much better protections than now.
What will decide will be here signifficant piracy or not is attitude of companies to customers. Technology (mass produced) will allow cheap distribution of digital media content - any, as movies, books, music etc. If companies still hold too big prices because of greedness and stupidity, then people will find way to 'steal' content.
If price will be reasonably low, let say ~1 $ for watching older movie it will make piracy nonsense. Piracy can be massive only in poor countries where people's incoming is low, where no infrastructure fot distribution. In fact I live in such place at this moment. In my place is no more active movie theatre, so I can watch new movies only when travel somewhere, what I do regularry. Many people buys bad camshots of new movies on the street, but I will never again watch movie so.
By me it's the only question here - will prices be reasonable?
Protection: as I see, satellite TV channels use now much better protections, and lot of them is not watchable without original cards.

Actually, protections with microcontrollers were already very effective before some 5 years. In most cases nobody broked them, but some worker stoled and sold scheme.

As I know DVD protection failed on one place: software players. Once that peace of code is in someone's compute'r memory it's over. Sooner or later he will find a way to pull out it descrambled. But it goes harder as programs are more complex and longer.

@Doom9
I'm sorry for my 'quickness' in dismission. But I see that discussion should go in such way: - I say something, you say your arguments, then I can go more deep with my arguments, to prove my starting points etc.

Usually I never reply instantly when I see someone's post, but think hours or day-two.
I would like that you elaborate your thoughts more detailed, especially about storage place case, because I think that it will be only small part of investition. Just preparing movies in apropriate form will cost much-much more.
About 'agree with me': I could guess after very few replies that most of people who looked in this thread agrees with me. Actually, I liked to hear some new ideas here, maybe something better than described.
I don't like when someone says 'it will never be made' and similar.
Remember Lord Kelvin, and his famous statement about flying machines. And he was one of most respectable scientists of his time.
I like to believe that mankind is able to make some real progress, not only in increasing speed and capacity of computers, but in real quality of life.

[lexor]

Originally posted by Doom9
@ppera: your whole argument here strikes me as a "agree with me" kinda thing.. you're so quick to dismiss points made by others that do not agree with your point of view. I see no point in participating in any such discussion anymore.

Actually Doom9, I always find your arguments are exactly of that sort, you say "they collect data" and other stuff like that. Well yes they do, and yes it has dangerous potential, how can we argue with you? There is a case of a girl killing her boyfriend with Apple's iPod, when he erazed her collection on that thing. Should we picket Apple's HQ offices? You actually badmouthed AMD's NX bit, on your main page sticking it in the same pile as DRM, even though if anyting it would prevent some program (say the evil DRMed Windows Longhorn or something) from messing around with stuff that doesn't belong to it (aka, XVid movie in mp4 container or such). Your paranoya knows no merit sometimes, you turn on technology that is actually supports your views. In general you took a very safe approach of proclaming possible dangers, there always such things, thus you just win every argument by default. What do you want us to say?

But here goes stuff more on topic:

What about renting a movie for 4 days, and wanting to watch it over at your Friend's house...
You ignoring memberships, if you charged per view, who cares where you watch? just log in, pay up, watch.

... the network infrastructure is insufficient...
we are talking 20 years from now, if they can't get us sufficient infrastracture by then, I fear for human race.

... there's a limit to how much movies you can stream...
True but grid arrays becoming cheaper and cheaper, and getting into top 10 super computers, for about $10mil, that's actually not a bad price for the purpose as it is, and will get better by the year. (Apple's XServe grids for Mass. Tech, and US Air Force, are examples here). As for storage with 500 MB HDD's (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage/display/20040615035944.html) coming closer, and in 20 years growing larger and cheaper, I really don't see that storage issue.


But you probably don't have someone at the counter whose judgement about movies you can trust, or simply chat with him/her about god and the world
True, and that's a good argument for why web-based distribution with online discussion boards, is a better alternative.

And just for the record I did think that MSN Passport was a good concept though poorly implemented and needs reworking. Since I trust Microsoft with my long term statistics more, since who has got the money to buy out Microsoft to get it? Everyone has thier price, no exceptions (it may simply not always be money), MS has the price tag no one could pay.

And with finger prints and retinal scans drawing closer and closer to reality (at least around here) I really don't think my movie/media habbits being exposed to someone, are of any concern.

[Doom9]

You actually badmouthed AMD's NX bit, on your main page sticking it in the same pile as DRM, even though if anyting it would prevent some program (say the evil DRMed Windows Longhorn or something) from messing around with stuff that doesn't belong to it (aka, XVid movie in mp4 container or such). I can't believe how people can get all riled up by the smallest things, and how long the carry grudges. Yes, I was wrong, but my source was wrong, too, so you really should blame them. I guess it's a great compliment that people seem to compare my site to other sites that are run by real journalist who had training, and are doing this for work, not as a hobby. Yet, it's also a dangerous thing. I do not have time or resources to be as thorough as real journalists. I already spend 20+ hours a week on this, yet still I don't have much time to do research. If I were to look for multiple sources and take time to contact companies concerned, then I'd have to quit my job and I'd no longer have any money to support what I'm doing.
I hope that mentioning the NX bit was wrong in the news for tomorrow will once and for all get all the people off my back who've been bickering ever since.

I happen to work for a company that designs, implements and operates phone and data networks. I've been able to experience firsthand what happens if people who do not consider all the problems involved in putting video and audio on an IP network. Most seem to think that just throwing a lot of bandwidth at it is going to solve everything. Well, it does not. We've had cases with multi MB/s links between sites that are far away from being really used, still would result in severe communication problems, because there are traffic spikes that were just more than the system could handle. And this wasn't even voice traffic, it was different parts of a PBX using IP for signalling (that's building up calls, tearing them down, redirecting them, etc). In fact, it is quite complex to build a VoIP network, most people severaly understimate the complexity of simple 64kbit/s voice streams. Since even that cannot be handled in most of todays networks, and often requires major redisigns of the entire data networks, how can we possibly stream 20mbit/s video data?

Sure, 20 years is a long time, and perhaps I just can't think that far ahead, but in the forseeable future, I see the QOS aspect as one of the major problems that need to be solved, and I don't see any solutions on the horizon.

I'm not concerned about size of the data, CPU power is probably also no problem, but I/O is a major issue. I had to look into streaming servers for my business plan. Sure, you can stream a handful of 1mbit/s video streams from a regular PC, but we're talking thousands of streams from different sources. I/O is going to be hell. Building streaming servers is not an everyday thing, there aren't many companies that actually build such machines, and powerful ones we'd need for this future, that's going to be a long way off. How much have I/O capabilities of harddisks improved over the last 5-10 years? Sure we have Moores law (but it's probably not going to last another 20 years), but that doesn't apply to I/O.

we are talking 20 years from now, if they can't get us sufficient infrastracture by then, I fear for human race.Well, I'm more afraid if we can't curb our use of fossil energy sources ;) Broadband use has increased a lot.. but has bandwidth available to the individual consumer? I tend to think no. 5 years ago, my available bandwidth via cable was not much different from what I have via DSL today. in 2000/2001 I was living abroad and could get twice the download and 3.5 times the upload for 66% of the price I pay now (and there have been serious price cuts recently).. but in that country the broadband situation has also not changed much since I left. I don't see 10+ mbit/s lines for normal users in the forseeable future.. there's simply no need for that kind of bandwidth for invididual users. Who'd rewire the entire telephonic/cable network to make this capable? Or who'd put new lines into every house to make this possible? I'm not convinced that fiber to the home is really going to be an everyday thing.

And I guess we'll see who's paranoid and who's just being realistic in due time ;) Right now there's no way to know for sure. As long as I can, I prefer to give companies as little data about myself as I can..
Tracking customer habits is not so bad, as many people think. If they will leave me alone (not bombing me with adverts) it will be good.I doubt they'll leave you alone, but once again we'll have to wait and see.

[dragongodz]

we are talking 20 years from now, if they can't get us sufficient infrastracture by then, I fear for human race.
be afraid, be very afraid. :)

some technical considerations for you.

adsl is pretty widespread now. are we seeing high uptake ? yes. is infrastructure growing at a rate to meet the demand ? no, at least not outside major cities for sure.

example here in Australia a lot of the adsl accounts are now limiting usage by giving a full speed limit (such as 12GB per month) and once exceeded your speed is reduced(depending on the account this can be down to dialup speeds). i have also heard a few isp's in the U.K. are starting to do the same. i have serious doubts this type of thing will change to the point where country wide realtime downloading and watching of high quality movies will happen, even in 20 years.

also if the cost is $1 per movie/view(i asume you mean U.S. $) then i for one would find it overpriced. you mention ppera2 that you dont think you will watch a movie that many times in 20 years, well some of us will easily and more. for the cost of watching just that 1 movie repeatedly i could have bought several and watched them as many times as i wished. :)

[ppera2]

Really high-speed Internet will require new, presumably optical cable systems to every costumer. Currently it is too expensive, but simple floppy drive costed 1000 DEM before 21 year. Now you can buy LAN card for 6-7 Euro, floppy drive for same price. Should I continue?
When mass production will establish, it will reduce prices very drastic.
Yes, we should wait, and will see...

Problem with today's Internet is that it is overloaded with 'bad traffic', let's say so. People exchanges over P2P everything what have, spam, adverts. I saw recently in Germany how it goes by average ADSL 768/128 user: they download every stupidity because it's free. That's some kind of communism, and we know that it failed. Yes, it's better to charge people, to limit, because there is no enough fast connection witch not will be overloaded in very short time.

I think that potential of VOD via Internet is enormous, it can make hunderts of million dollars per day. If it will be too cheap it can make situations what I saw many times before some 10 years: housewife rented 5 VHS tapes, and 'watches it' like this: it runs in living room, while she is in kitchen. Sometimes she looks on TV for couple minutes and so on... After one week she even don't know what she watched... And she paid for every tape.

Watching movie many times? Then buy it, don't watch online. Simple.

Is TV closed movie theatres? Is VHS caused less movie on TV - of course not, contrary. Nothing of new technology caused vanishing of old, until now. VHS will for sure die soon, but I still see VCD titles in offer - for example in Mediamarkt shops, for 10 Euro, what is more than many DVD, and just little less than average DVD there.

Yes, it's very likely that high-speed Internet will be available only in bigger cities, and no help for that. But everything is so already: can you go in theatre, nice disco, warehouse in some village?

[mpucoder]

Geez, you know a lot of the infrastructure for VOD is already in place, and being used. ADSL is a poor example, as it is a retrofit technology (how can we deliver data over old copper wires). But look at digital television systems, with 500 digital video channels over one cable.
btw, I live in a rural area of America (I can smell cow and horse manure by just opening my door), and I have ADSL and digital cable, so it is being deployed widely.

So what will be there in 20 years? Something much better and unimaginable.

[Soulhunter]

Copper wires, optical cable... Why not transmission via satellites ???


Bye

[Doom9]

satellites are problematic as they do not offer a uplink channel.

But look at digital television systems, with 500 digital video channels over one cable.Hmm.. where can you get that? In most countries 50 channels is already quite a bit. I have 300 TV channels via satellite but that's actually two satellites and thus a shitload of transponders.

Should I continue?But do we need fiber to the home? I tend to think in most cases we don't, and many telcos won't invest into fiber, especially in rural areas, unless they get a quick return on their investment, something which is rather unlikely.

I have yet to see any commercial VCD being sold..


Today I came across a newsweek article in Warren Liebfarb, perceived by many to be the real father of DVD. Today he works for MS in their HD DVD department, and he now believes in the future we won't have a physical medium anymore. Interestingly, he was the guy who said people are going to buy DVDs, not rent them, and despite many other studio heads strongly disagreeing, he eventually turned out to be right. I'm not so sure about his views of the future though. Ownership always has and imho always will be an important factor, thus a physical medium and the possibility of making copies will remain important even if you can stream high def videos.

[markrb]

Hmm.. where can you get that? I have digital cable with about 175 channels on the same wire as analog cable with about 70 channels and it also does my Broadband cable modem. This is all on one RG-6 cable. About 12 of the Digital cable channels are high definition 1080i. I know if they removed all of the analog channels it would open up considerably more bandwidth and I don't even think they hit the wall yet, even with the analog stations there. I know they do plan on getting rid of them, but it will be awhile as many people will balk at the additional cost of having to use a cable box that you don't have to do with the analog stations.

Mark

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by Doom9
satellites are problematic as they do not offer a uplink channel.Sure... :o

But could be still a nice solution for downloading !!!

Upload would still work @ the usually way...


For the HD-movies on demand thing...

Even my 56k dial-up is fast to order* such a movie !!!

While this process, a unique key gets saved @ your box (receiver or whatever) !!!

Then the movie get transmitted via satellite n' with the saved key only you can watch it... :rolleyes:

* Enter site, search movie, order it, confirm, pay...


Bye

[lexor]

Originally posted by Doom9
satellites are problematic as they do not offer a uplink channel.

perhaps I'm unfamiliar with technical meaning of uplink, but how does my friend have satellite internet (from look.ca) if he doesn't have uplink? it's a 2 way communication afaik.

[ppera2]

Of course that we have 2 way satellite systems for Internet access. In my place we have at least 3 such - but it's currently too expensive for home user. It's very asimetric, usually 1-2 Mb down and only 16-128 Kb up. As I know price is about 1500 Euro at moment.

"I have yet to see any commercial VCD being sold.. "

I didn't say that I saw people buying it :) I will not certainly...

[lexor]

Originally posted by ppera2
Of course that we have 2 way satellite systems for Internet access. In my place we have at least 3 such - but it's currently too expensive for home user. It's very asimetric, usually 1-2 Mb down and only 16-128 Kb up. As I know price is about 1500 Euro at moment.

Well his speeds are about the same as mine (cable internet here 1.5Mbps) and it costs the same for us both, but he gets way more channels with his bundle, so I'm thinking of switching myself. It's just that I'm so very afraid of change.:scared:

We pay $45CAD/month (27.5473 EUR/month = 331EUR/year, according to XE.com), which is how everything "highspeed" costs here, DSL, Cable, Satellite.

The biggest tease right now is that a friend of my dad's who lives in Calgary, says that they are so overrun with tech companies that they are having trouble keeping up all the different networks, so they decided to outfit everyone with T3 lines, and there is a rumor that that could be extended to the entire provice... all for the same price above.