Comments on: Cable Ruling May Provide Opportunities For Google, Startups

By: توبيكات ماسنجر

توبيكات ماسنجر — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:04:11 +0000

منتديات-صور بنات منتدى-افلام عربيه

By: توبيكات

توبيكات — Sat, 09 May 2009 06:22:20 +0000

thankx

By: منتديات

منتديات — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:56:58 +0000

thank you ! برامج

By: فوتوشوب

فوتوشوب — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:51:10 +0000

thankx

By: منتديات

منتديات — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:24:46 +0000

thankx

By: تحميل صور

تحميل صور — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:56:16 +0000

thnk u

By: تحميل

تحميل — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:14:40 +0000

thnk u

By: NFL Network...coming to a TV near you? | Sports Business Digest

NFL Network...coming to a TV near you? | Sports Business Digest — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:15:53 +0000

[...] television, as soon as this month, on the basis that the big cable companies are too dominant, From Tech Crunch, The move would lower the cost of entry to new content providers and forcibly provide access where [...]

By: Devthink

Devthink — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:04:10 +0000

70/70 rule makes Google a cable operator?…

In a recent FCC ruling, as reported by the NY Times and Techcrunch, may open up the cable networks and possibly let companies like Google become providers. Another possible outcome is the un-bundling of cable channels. This seems to already be happenin…

By: Digital Lifescapes

Digital Lifescapes — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:33:54 +0000

techmine @11… agreed, PCCW (the IPTV provider in Hong Kong) introduced an a-la-carte model and the sky didn’t fall for the other pay-tv service providers. However, consumer prices did fall.

It still amazes me that the FCC deregulated the cable tv industry in the U.S. without mandating an a-la-carte unbundling order.

Meanwhile local municipalities gladly grant a right-of-way monopoly to one cable tv company, in return for the increasing sales tax windfall.

The time for FCC intervention is clearly long overdue.

By: Google се пукна

Google се пукна — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:26:32 +0000

[...] уточняват, че забележителния спад не е засегнал само Google, защото индексите NASDAQ и Dow Jones също стремително са [...]

By: Sou sou 7

Sou sou 7 — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:24:10 +0000

Awesome, Time warner is way to expensive, they need kicked in the balls by the FCC. when I was 12 it was 28 bucks for all the normal channels, and now it’s 60, so in seven years it’s gone up two fold. There needs to be more than like two companies with control over cable.

By: techmine

techmine — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:19:24 +0000

well Duncan missed an important graph in the article. A very funny and contrasting comparison between inflation rate and the rate at which cable charges have gone up. That sums it all.

By: techmine

techmine — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:17:13 +0000

Dheeraj: a la carte system is important because it will prove economical for the consumers. FCC after all works for consumers. I don’t want to pay for channels which I don’t even watch for a single second in a month and yet pay 50 dollars. To your point that the “useless yet important” channels would die then so be it. Because for a 3-4 hr useful content/per day does not need a 24 hr channel. Those channels would either merge with similar channels or find alternate means for distribution like DVD, Internet etc. Right now its like slapping consumers which they don’t care about. Well done FCC, these cable companies are money suckers.

By: Steve Ballmer

Steve Ballmer — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 05:43:32 +0000

From my Japan trip:

“I have to go now, but since I’m on Rhuggle, let me say this about this ‘Android” thing they announced: It is just like the rest of Google ..ahem, I mean Rhuggle, IT ONLY EXIST ON PAPER! Don’t fall for this vaporware, rumors, fake-half-baked hype that they peddle!”

http://fakestev...er.blogspot.com

By: Dheeraj Sultanian

Dheeraj Sultanian — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 03:12:45 +0000

The a la carte system is a surefire way to kill creativity and destroy some pretty important, but not very profitable, channels. Channels such as Science and History, Discovery, may be popular to you or I, but would not survive more than a year via the a la carte system because the majority of America does not care. The only reason these channels exist is because they are bundled with comedy central and E! entertainment. The distribution would drop dramatically on these channels and cable companies would stop supporting them if people were able to choose one or two channels. This woud undoubtedly increase piracy and cable theft as well as costs at most cable companies – increasing bills for everyone. It would be a shame

TV advertising is not about self-serve targeting and click arbitrage, it is about forming relationships with companies and consumers – two things that Google has yet to prove it can do with and for its advertisers. Duncan, you say that Google is “well-versed” in signing up media partners? What media partners have they worked well with? NO ONE! They are being sued by everyone. They have absolutely no experience in maintaining media relationships, and this will haunt them when they realize you can’t sell ads without professional content (youtube does not count)

By: www.carversation.com

www.carversation.com — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:03:46 +0000

Now this should be interesting.

By: Duncan Riley

Duncan Riley — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:42:52 +0000

Adam
Google argument, and I don’t think it’s a bad one, is that they don’t have a monopoly because you cant have a monopoly on the internet…there is always choice, that people choose Google over others doesn’t make for a monopoly, it makes for a (mostly) superior product.

By: Edward Domain

Edward Domain — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:32:26 +0000

Right on. As Marc Andreesen said regarding Open Social: “The most open platform always wins”. (or something similar. People have been forced to swallow the cable companies’ crap channels for waaay too long. I too only watch a few channels, and would love more choice. And I would definitely choose a Google channel, and would definitely choose channels done by start ups because you know hey are going to be trying their hardest to please the audience they can attract.

Goodbye B.S. channels all copying each other- you won’t be missed. Bring on the start ups and open choice!!!!!

By: Stu

Stu — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:29:41 +0000

Oops, I forgot some short-form free method for content discovery. Youtube could be the answer, but anything that travels virally (embed anywhere) will work.

By: Stu

Stu — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:26:49 +0000

Adam: Google an ad monopoly? You mean one cant use AdCenter (MS), Platform A (AOL), FM, or even Fox Interactive Media’s announced ad platform due out in Q1 ‘08? You may want to examine the definition of monopoly (”I do not think it means what you think it means”).

How about Amazon Unbox/ Tivo just provide non-ad supported tv shows for a price and we can skip ads altogether? A la carte tv without the need for cable is the future.

There is no room moving forward for 100+ useless cable channels with only a couple worthy shows on a handful of those channels.

By: Bongosala

Bongosala — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:21:18 +0000

you are gay

By: Adam Benayoun

Adam Benayoun — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:05:32 +0000

When someone will see that google may have too much power in its corporation?
They control the advertising market and can be called in some way a monopoly, if they would have a mobile department and have a cable station, I’d say they will have too much power in their hand.

anyone?

By: te3p

te3p — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:56:28 +0000

thank you دردشة