TDG Opinions - All Comments

re: Move Over Google TV, Here Come Cox and TiVo

Johannes — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:33:16 GMT

I thought RCN was the first integration of a cable co's VOD library with TiVo, thought maybe it wasn't a full offering like this one with Cox?

re: Google, Verizon and the Netflix Business Model

Rick Preti — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:40:27 GMT

Colin - You almost came out and said it....but you're a good diplomat. If the FCC lets these large companies re-tool the nature of the Internet for their advantage we're all in trouble, and just when broadband saturation is finally peaking.

There are hundreds of thousands of companies and consumers that depend on bandwidth parity. Fairly shared public Internet resources promotes high levels of technology democratization.

The FCC should leverage its regulatory powers to ensure fairness of this immense public resource while encouraging robust carrier and on-line content provider competition.

Prioritization of private spectrum - even when mixed remotely with public - sets-up class-of-service parameters more like legacy telephone services than the free-form of the Internet.

These monopoly-oriented companies can never get enough. Indeed, it's symptomatic to lobby regulators when there's an urgency to find cover for past and future investment mistakes. Why should they be owed special consideration?

re: Google, Verizon and the Netflix Business Model

Mike — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:30:50 GMT

Colin - differentiated services over broadband Internet already exist. In fact Netflix has such a set up with AT&T, for one, where they use Zuegma's platform to prioritize their service over plain old web surfing. This system is also used to prioritize VoIP services, BTW.

I don't understand why you compare Netflix's content fee with their distribution cost, apples and oranges. Hastings has said that physical shipping costs are much more than streaming costs so this alone will compel them to get more customers to stream. The content costs are a bit more complex on a per view basis.

As for Google, I don't care what they are selling, I am not buying, they are already too powerful.

re: Google, Verizon and the Netflix Business Model

Quincy Harris — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:23:39 GMT

Net neutrality is intended to provide open access services by providers over the public access Internet. The Goover proposal allows Google to have an unfair advantage by using a private channel on the FIOS backbone.

However, this duality of usage by Goover should really be a non-issue. Besides, there is nothing wrong with two giants working together to provide a better service to its consumers.

re: Sezmi? Says Who?

Aaron — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:48:13 GMT

I'm in Pasadena Ca and I got Sezmi 3 weeks ago from Best Buy for $199.99+tax, but with 3 months of Sezmi premium included (normally $20/month) that brings my hardware cost down to $149.99

I am a former early adopter of Tivo and was paying $12.95/month just to record some OTA programming (cable & satellite not currently available in my new apartment) and Sezmi is exactly what I was for. By the end of 2010 they will be adding ESPN to their lineup. Having TNT, TBS, USA, VH1, MTV, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, etc for $20/month with a 1400 hour DVR and VOD is very reasonably priced.

re: An Opinion on ‘The Minionator’

Shannon Ward — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:20:05 GMT

Worked perfectly on my Iphone 3g

re: Netflix Breaking Through the PayTV Window

Andy Tarczon — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:51:18 GMT

Helen - you bring up an interesting point. We recently did some research on broadband subscribers comparing those who do and those who don't subscriber to . Typically, non-paytv subs have a different media outlook - placing less emphasis on traditional video. For example: Overall non-subscribers own fewer game consoles. But those who do own one have a significantly higher internet connectivity rate then regular subscribers.

We talk about this in our report: "Broadband? Okay. PayTV? No Way!" Just click on the research tab above and you should see it under reports.