[163543] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Webcasting as a replacement for traditional broadcasting (was
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rajiv Asati (rajiva))
Tue Jun 11 07:36:48 2013
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: Michael Painter <tvhawaii@shaka.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:36:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <AC144134BA494238975DD909446DE350@owner59e1f1502>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
This is very interesting and insightful.=20
While the broadcasting would seem more efficient (and cheaper in many respe=
ct) than webcasting for the live content, the former can't quite serve mult=
iple devices with varying form-factors with the same efficiency. The latter=
can. Isn't that a key differentiation?=20
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:03 AM, "Michael Painter" <tvhawaii@shaka.com> wrote:
> Jay Ashworth wrote:
> sniip
>> And, quite aside from broadcast networks protecting the ad revenues
>> of their contracted affiliates -- the primary reason for most of the
>> (from an engineering standpoint) stupidity surrounding the intersection
>> of broadcasting and new technology -- social networking is beginning
>> to drive this aspect, to the point where the Golden Globes stopped
>> tape-delaying the west coast broadcast so those viewers didn't get
>> spoiled on twitter.
>> Thanks for your views, Eric.
>> Cheers,
>> -- jra
>=20
> The Sportsbar I deal with has purchased every one of the Ultimate Fightin=
g Championships PPV events (161).
> Now, after UFC's deal with FOX, the prelims for any fight on FUEL are onl=
y shown on...FACEBOOK.
>=20
> Bad Craziness as Hunter Thompson would have said.
>=20
> Thanks for everyone's comments.
> --Michael
>=20
