<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Buckle up: Traditional TV is in for a heck of a ride</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 04:40:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike E.</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-660911</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike E.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 01:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-660911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mix in a good OTA antenna and you&#039;ve got quite the setup. Critics deride it as a &quot;dog&#039;s breakfast,&quot; but it&#039;s the savvy way to go.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mix in a good OTA antenna and you&#8217;ve got quite the setup. Critics deride it as a &#8220;dog&#8217;s breakfast,&#8221; but it&#8217;s the savvy way to go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CarlK</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-659635</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CarlK]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-659635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This seems to be a very intelligent crowd dwelling here, so I hope you don&#039;t take offense in the comments I will offer. 

If traditional Americans are ever to gain control of their destinies again, nothing is more important than the destruction of those dumb them down t.v. media boxes with content bundled garbage, and media owned and controlled messages mostly stealing from your lives.

One quick case in point is the lack of mass media coverage taking place during the past week&#039;s &quot;Occupation Wall Street&quot; demonstrations that have been ongoing.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/221382/20110928/occupy-wall-street-protest.htm

Best thing for all Americans, will continue to come from a free and open internet, however. Get rid of those walled gardens ASAP! They need an empowering internet where they can use their time to search, discover, entertain, create and educate themselves according to their own individual dreams which provides them with the liberty their founding fathers may have truly believed had once existed.  

I see some mention of the MSO&#039;s here, or the Big Bad Cable companies, and they are bad!

Some of the really smart ones here know that their days are numbered because, it&#039;s true that the PIPES for bringing our eyes around the globe ubiquitously via the internet--ALL IP-- were capitalized more than ten years ago, even while the DUOPOLISTS inside the last mile including telecom and cable have attempted to kill it or slow it down each and every part of the way.

Truth be known, the cables are only able to bring you to the internet because of one of the carriers who spent billions in capital to bring them there. That carrier, Level 3 Communications(LVLT), by proxy is your cable company who had, and does &quot;lease&quot; fiber capacity from them today with &quot;leases&quot; running out in less than ten years. Much of their digital voice services--Voip--including all of the bells and whistles plus E911 are Level 3 Enabled.

Level 3 and Comcast you should know, are still working out their dispute of Comcast expecting to create a toll booth in order to block Netflix&#039;s over the top video from reaching their end users who are craving it. Level 3 can deliver the content more cheaply, and deeper inside Comcast&#039;s network territories because it owns their network, or can build interconnections to the necessary points and not add superfluous expense to third party customers like Netflix, or consumers who will ultimately be gouged by Comcast in the end.

Wall Street courtesy of their greedy omnipotence, on the other hand, recently asked Level 3 why they won&#039;t simply add the costs Comcast is dictating, a &quot;just because we can&quot; dictum, to their customers and move on! Level 3 refuses to act improperly, economically speaking, and is appealing to the FCC for assistance in developing the right &quot;economic paradigm&quot; for weighing bit traffic, i.e., freight long into the future so the internet&#039;s sustainability is better served, while customers&#039; long term needs are met. 

Thanks for your valuable time, and the great article spearheaded by the author!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This seems to be a very intelligent crowd dwelling here, so I hope you don&#8217;t take offense in the comments I will offer. </p>
<p>If traditional Americans are ever to gain control of their destinies again, nothing is more important than the destruction of those dumb them down t.v. media boxes with content bundled garbage, and media owned and controlled messages mostly stealing from your lives.</p>
<p>One quick case in point is the lack of mass media coverage taking place during the past week&#8217;s &#8220;Occupation Wall Street&#8221; demonstrations that have been ongoing.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/221382/20110928/occupy-wall-street-protest.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/221382/20110928/occupy-wall-street-protest.htm</a></p>
<p>Best thing for all Americans, will continue to come from a free and open internet, however. Get rid of those walled gardens ASAP! They need an empowering internet where they can use their time to search, discover, entertain, create and educate themselves according to their own individual dreams which provides them with the liberty their founding fathers may have truly believed had once existed.  </p>
<p>I see some mention of the MSO&#8217;s here, or the Big Bad Cable companies, and they are bad!</p>
<p>Some of the really smart ones here know that their days are numbered because, it&#8217;s true that the PIPES for bringing our eyes around the globe ubiquitously via the internet&#8211;ALL IP&#8211; were capitalized more than ten years ago, even while the DUOPOLISTS inside the last mile including telecom and cable have attempted to kill it or slow it down each and every part of the way.</p>
<p>Truth be known, the cables are only able to bring you to the internet because of one of the carriers who spent billions in capital to bring them there. That carrier, Level 3 Communications(LVLT), by proxy is your cable company who had, and does &#8220;lease&#8221; fiber capacity from them today with &#8220;leases&#8221; running out in less than ten years. Much of their digital voice services&#8211;Voip&#8211;including all of the bells and whistles plus E911 are Level 3 Enabled.</p>
<p>Level 3 and Comcast you should know, are still working out their dispute of Comcast expecting to create a toll booth in order to block Netflix&#8217;s over the top video from reaching their end users who are craving it. Level 3 can deliver the content more cheaply, and deeper inside Comcast&#8217;s network territories because it owns their network, or can build interconnections to the necessary points and not add superfluous expense to third party customers like Netflix, or consumers who will ultimately be gouged by Comcast in the end.</p>
<p>Wall Street courtesy of their greedy omnipotence, on the other hand, recently asked Level 3 why they won&#8217;t simply add the costs Comcast is dictating, a &#8220;just because we can&#8221; dictum, to their customers and move on! Level 3 refuses to act improperly, economically speaking, and is appealing to the FCC for assistance in developing the right &#8220;economic paradigm&#8221; for weighing bit traffic, i.e., freight long into the future so the internet&#8217;s sustainability is better served, while customers&#8217; long term needs are met. </p>
<p>Thanks for your valuable time, and the great article spearheaded by the author!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erik Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658717</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Erik Schwartz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658717</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What do you mean the infrastructure costs are &quot;largely unneeded now&quot;?

The infrastructure required to deliver IPTV at the same level of service is much larger and more expensive than the infrastructure required for broadcast. The base infrastructure requirements are basically similar, but in broadcasting each incremental viewer is free, not so with IPTV.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you mean the infrastructure costs are &#8220;largely unneeded now&#8221;?</p>
<p>The infrastructure required to deliver IPTV at the same level of service is much larger and more expensive than the infrastructure required for broadcast. The base infrastructure requirements are basically similar, but in broadcasting each incremental viewer is free, not so with IPTV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: farwestab</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658560</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[farwestab]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Widely accepted&quot; isn&#039;t actually relevant: the numbers show newspapers and magazines are in steady decline: subscriber bases are smaller, there are fewer newspapers and magazines in existence, revenue is down as is profitability. A better description would be &quot;widely proven&quot;. The decline of print isn&#039;t about belief, it is about proof and fact. Whether some people &quot;accept it&quot; or not is irrelevant: print media is in trouble.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Widely accepted&#8221; isn&#8217;t actually relevant: the numbers show newspapers and magazines are in steady decline: subscriber bases are smaller, there are fewer newspapers and magazines in existence, revenue is down as is profitability. A better description would be &#8220;widely proven&#8221;. The decline of print isn&#8217;t about belief, it is about proof and fact. Whether some people &#8220;accept it&#8221; or not is irrelevant: print media is in trouble.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bes</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658523</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:56:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658523</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Traditional players in TV and Old Media are tone deaf to the desires of consumers, particularly women consumers.  That is their corporate culture.  New players in media are also male dominated and therefore initially equally as inadequate at providing entertainment and a view of the world that appeals to female consumers, but new media adapt quicker to their failures they don&#039;t just do the same tone deaf behaviors of failure over and over and over.  Old Media will die when they can no longer keep the new comers from bringing product to market because they have a corporate culture of not caring what the consumer wants, they don&#039;t care because they haven&#039;t had too, they are a monopoly.  Don&#039;t bet on any old companies, they will not change their corporate culture and they can&#039;t succeed unless they do.  52% of the population is female.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Traditional players in TV and Old Media are tone deaf to the desires of consumers, particularly women consumers.  That is their corporate culture.  New players in media are also male dominated and therefore initially equally as inadequate at providing entertainment and a view of the world that appeals to female consumers, but new media adapt quicker to their failures they don&#8217;t just do the same tone deaf behaviors of failure over and over and over.  Old Media will die when they can no longer keep the new comers from bringing product to market because they have a corporate culture of not caring what the consumer wants, they don&#8217;t care because they haven&#8217;t had too, they are a monopoly.  Don&#8217;t bet on any old companies, they will not change their corporate culture and they can&#8217;t succeed unless they do.  52% of the population is female.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bes</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658515</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well don&#039;t forget that as soon as bundling is ended women consumers will no longer be subsidizing &quot;men&#039;s content&quot; and they will also not be purchasing the viewerless schlock that Corporate Media labels &quot;women&#039;s content&quot;.   What will corporate Media have to sell women consumers?  Very, very, little.  And they have been so extreme at keeping authentic women&#039;s voices out of the market that there isn&#039;t even a true &quot;women&#039;s content&quot; provider for Corporate Media to buy up.  Remember the only financially relevant definition of  &quot;women&#039;s content&quot; is content women will pay to consume, men&#039;s opinion of such content is irrelevant.  So how will men&#039;s sports content adapt to the loss of fees which are now extorted from women consumers?  Of course we know the schlock now marketed as &quot;women&#039;s content&quot; will die a quick death.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well don&#8217;t forget that as soon as bundling is ended women consumers will no longer be subsidizing &#8220;men&#8217;s content&#8221; and they will also not be purchasing the viewerless schlock that Corporate Media labels &#8220;women&#8217;s content&#8221;.   What will corporate Media have to sell women consumers?  Very, very, little.  And they have been so extreme at keeping authentic women&#8217;s voices out of the market that there isn&#8217;t even a true &#8220;women&#8217;s content&#8221; provider for Corporate Media to buy up.  Remember the only financially relevant definition of  &#8220;women&#8217;s content&#8221; is content women will pay to consume, men&#8217;s opinion of such content is irrelevant.  So how will men&#8217;s sports content adapt to the loss of fees which are now extorted from women consumers?  Of course we know the schlock now marketed as &#8220;women&#8217;s content&#8221; will die a quick death.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658480</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are really intent on investing in the next generation of whatever TV will become, I recommend you first change the way you &quot;listen&quot; to the market. Your arguments, and most comments here, sound like marketing smoke and mirror -- a lot of big words with little meaning to back them up. Faced with an industry clearly threatened, who speaks as prophet? Should we really listen to the &quot;thinkers&quot; that MSOs employ? Why does everybody believe the guy sitting in the middle of the sinking ship is the best positioned to explain what caused the leak and how to prevent it? The future isn&#039;t a &quot;tweak&quot; of the present, it can&#039;t. The future must be a new start. And the only way you&#039;ll get it right is by listening to the people who will pay for it.

I&#039;m no expert, and I wouldn&#039;t even recommend asking *me*, but if your plan is to beat this thing by helping build the future, start by asking the *consumers* what they want. The consumers are the people who will pay for it: the parents, the people with jobs, the people with income to spend on it. You can&#039;t beat piracy simply because the first and foremost reason people pirate things is because they can&#039;t afford it. Why is the industry trying so hard to fight piracy and free content? Do you really think you can get those people to pay for that content instead?

You can&#039;t win over the 16 year old without a job, no matter what you do. Your best bet is to provide an attractive product that someone with expandable income will want to invest in (instead of pissing him off so much that he resorts to piracy). As a real consumer, I can tell you for a fact that what I want isn&#039;t a bunch of videos of teenagers kicking each other in the nuts. Yet, somehow, that&#039;s the number 1 trend. *sigh*]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you are really intent on investing in the next generation of whatever TV will become, I recommend you first change the way you &#8220;listen&#8221; to the market. Your arguments, and most comments here, sound like marketing smoke and mirror &#8212; a lot of big words with little meaning to back them up. Faced with an industry clearly threatened, who speaks as prophet? Should we really listen to the &#8220;thinkers&#8221; that MSOs employ? Why does everybody believe the guy sitting in the middle of the sinking ship is the best positioned to explain what caused the leak and how to prevent it? The future isn&#8217;t a &#8220;tweak&#8221; of the present, it can&#8217;t. The future must be a new start. And the only way you&#8217;ll get it right is by listening to the people who will pay for it.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m no expert, and I wouldn&#8217;t even recommend asking *me*, but if your plan is to beat this thing by helping build the future, start by asking the *consumers* what they want. The consumers are the people who will pay for it: the parents, the people with jobs, the people with income to spend on it. You can&#8217;t beat piracy simply because the first and foremost reason people pirate things is because they can&#8217;t afford it. Why is the industry trying so hard to fight piracy and free content? Do you really think you can get those people to pay for that content instead?</p>
<p>You can&#8217;t win over the 16 year old without a job, no matter what you do. Your best bet is to provide an attractive product that someone with expandable income will want to invest in (instead of pissing him off so much that he resorts to piracy). As a real consumer, I can tell you for a fact that what I want isn&#8217;t a bunch of videos of teenagers kicking each other in the nuts. Yet, somehow, that&#8217;s the number 1 trend. *sigh*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cheese</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658403</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[cheese]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:25:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the most sane comments on the blog :-) ROTFL.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the most sane comments on the blog :-) ROTFL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658353</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 02:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658353</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t mind some advertising.. But, CATV has become so bad I can&#039;t stand to watch. If my wife did not watch so much TV I would have cancelled the service long ago. I mean, it is just over the top now days... Commericals have run me off.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t mind some advertising.. But, CATV has become so bad I can&#8217;t stand to watch. If my wife did not watch so much TV I would have cancelled the service long ago. I mean, it is just over the top now days&#8230; Commericals have run me off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bunny</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/09/24/buckle-up-traditional-tv-is-in-for-a-heck-of-a-ride/#comment-658350</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bunny]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 02:13:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=411020#comment-658350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I believe that group viewing is due a revival. I believe that current networks worldwide have targeted individual groups so heavily in the past twenty years, that viewers have had to splinter.

Three years ago I identified that there were no shows in prime time anywhere in the world that were aimed at a young family. Where the parents and their young children could all sit and enjoy together. There was childrens programming, adults programming, and &quot;Reality TV&quot; which is mainly adults programming, but sometimes has child friendly content.

There are no shows like The Muppet Show any longer. Where the parents have more artistic/adult content mixed in with bad jokes and slapstick for the children.

It is impossible to claim that the audience no longer wants this sort of content, when no one has created it for 20 years. Before the Harry Potter fad, people were claiming that children no longer wanted to read. The problem with their theory was that no one had created written content aimed at tweens in over a decade.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe that group viewing is due a revival. I believe that current networks worldwide have targeted individual groups so heavily in the past twenty years, that viewers have had to splinter.</p>
<p>Three years ago I identified that there were no shows in prime time anywhere in the world that were aimed at a young family. Where the parents and their young children could all sit and enjoy together. There was childrens programming, adults programming, and &#8220;Reality TV&#8221; which is mainly adults programming, but sometimes has child friendly content.</p>
<p>There are no shows like The Muppet Show any longer. Where the parents have more artistic/adult content mixed in with bad jokes and slapstick for the children.</p>
<p>It is impossible to claim that the audience no longer wants this sort of content, when no one has created it for 20 years. Before the Harry Potter fad, people were claiming that children no longer wanted to read. The problem with their theory was that no one had created written content aimed at tweens in over a decade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
