MTN & Portals
From:
Tim Salo
Date:
Nov 13 01:16 UTC
Short link
Presuming that this post was more that merely rhetorical or
contrarian, additional comments about the capabilities and
benefits of the Internet, compared to those of public-access
cable TV, may be warranted.
Laura Waterman Wittstock wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
>> And, again contrary to the writer's assertion, the inherent two-way
>> nature of the Internet is heavily used. It enables _this_
>> very discussion (try that on cable).
>
> This very discussion is store and read, store and send, not interactive.
This is a two-way discussion, something that is very difficult
(if not close to impossible) to do at all with public-access
cable TV (particularly beyond live, dial-in shows).
What exactly is your point? Are you trying to somehow give the
impression that public-access cable TV supports anything close
to the richness of communication styles that the Internet does?
That public-access cable TV provides anything close to the
access to information that the Internet does?
>> It enables real-time,
>> interactive, text-based messaging, both one-to-one and
>> many-to-many.
>
> This is true. Still as a percentage of the total Internet, it is
> small, small, small.
It depends on your age. Certain age groups are likely to configure
their computers to have instant messaging software running whenever
their machine is on. For these people, interactive, text-based
messaging is available all of the time; and many of them use it
pretty much all the time. Other age groups generally can't
comprehend why anyone would want to do this.
But, again, what is your point? This is a style of interaction
(which is heavily used by some age groups) that simply isn't
supported by public-access cable TV.
>> The Internet enables real-time, interactive voice
>> messaging. I use both a commercial voice-over-IP service
>> (Vonage) and a free service (Skype). The Internet enables
>> interactive video. In fact, many instant messaging programs
>> support interactive text, voice and video.
>
> All for those who can afford the price. A small number of people
> overall.
I spent about $20 for a headset so that I could use Skype [which
I downloaded for free] to talk [for free] to a friend who was
traveling in Europe and Africa.
I pay less per month for my voice-over-IP telephone service than
I do for either for cellular service or cable TV service.
I believe that residential voice-over-IP telephone service costs
about as much as landline service.
Free instant messaging software and service is available for
free. Most of the IM services I use are free.
Given that many of these services are free, cost wouldn't seem
to be an issue.
>> Obviously, I think that public-access TV is pretty close to
>> irrelevant.
>
> Not really a malleable position. More of a belief.
Yes, I believe that compared to the Internet, public-access
cable TV is an extremely limited medium. I think that this
is a readily defensible position. In fact, I suspect that it
is something that you largely agree with, in practice,
if not in words. Perhaps you could describe your use of
the Internet and your use of public-access cable TV over the
last month. E-mail? A home page? In support of your business?
Access to a tremendous variety of information on demand?
A search engine? How long does it take to notice that your
Internet connection is down? How long does it take to notice that
your public-access cable TV channels aren't working?
> I don't doubt the
> merger of formats is coming, along with different kinds of offerings
> for the various segments of the public. But that is not what we are
> talking about here. What we have is government deciding that public
> access is less important than its choice of wifi.
Are you philosophically opposed to the mayor proposing a budget,
or do simply not like the contents of his proposed budget?
.