Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

"Putting direct IP access to the broadcast channels on the cables is a much better approach"

And how is that supposed to work? Everyone needs a DOCSIS box/router and some kind of multicast-IP-to-HDTV converter? That seems a lot more complex and equipment-heavy.

Or is that where portfolio-company Boxee steps in to save the day?




without pretending to speak for Boxee or anybody else (I have no affiliation with the industry), I think they would like to see every TV network to make their signal (along with ads, etc.) to be available over IP, just like NASA and some others do today.

This will allow for ultimate a-la-carte subscription, something the cable companies are overwhelmingly opposing: it's much more profitable for them to send you a package of 200 channels when you only need 5, even if you're willing to pay a much higher price per channel for these 5.


Not necessarily. This could be done through most of the existing equipment customers own. An iPad app just needs the right IP address to tune a digital video stream that's arriving via your existing cable modem / router. Same thing for a stand-alone IP set top. I saw a demo a few years ago at Cisco on this exact configuration that was part of their early 'TV anywhere' development. The box they were using was about $50 and available on NewEgg.com at the time. Worked beautifully.


First sentence in the article:

"There are millions of homes and apartments around the country that have a TV connected to a cable but have no set-top box and no video service from their local cable provider"

If we need to provide these users with boxes, fine. But that's not what we're talking about here.


Also from the article:

Putting direct IP access to the broadcast channels on the cables is a much better approach.

I agree it's a better approach and offers more benefits to consumers in the long run.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: