Here in Florida, DISH Network has the same problem except this time it’s rain. Every time a semi-hard rain comes by the signal gets knocked out – often. Once again there were no obstructions and dish was pointed correctly.

Needless to say we’re back on cable. Blaming it on the end user is a poor excuse for substandard crappy service.

Funny how you blasted the existing infrastructure as being (in your words) “too old and too big” yet champion twisted pair which uses that same infrastructure for its reach. Just because you put new wires on the poles doesn’t mean the infrastructure is any different; the physical limitations remain the same. Furthermore, twisted pair is older than cable is(!)

WiMAX is junk because it uses microwaves. The band is too narrow and requires expensive specialized equipment both to send and receive. The range is roughly the same as VHF but requires twice the cost just to go the distance (literally.) Microwaves are also subject to sun spots and other weather phenomena whereas VHF isn’t. The VHF band when introduced as a digital medium will obliterate WiMAX easily.

Fiber is junk because of its very limited over-the-wire range. It will be years (if ever) that it reaches remote areas. And the cost to bring fiber to the masses is ridiculous – that’s why it’s taking so long to make it happen.

Both are poor alternatives to standard telecom/cable or satellite.

This is my last comment concerning this because it’s already too far off the original article subject. Reply if you wish; I won’t be veering this train any further off the track.

And you sound like a cable ad with your “but as we all know the spotty semi-reliable nature of the [satellite] service makes it terrible.” I’ve been a satellite subscriber for years – DirecTV and DISH Network. And living in the snowbelt as I do I should have dropped signals galore – at least according to Comcast. But in over 10 years of using satellite as my primary television provider I can recall maybe two times I’ve had signal fade to the point of loosing a broadcast. Satellite’s only failure is the end user needs a clear view of the southwestern sky. Otherwise they provide a great picture, tons of channels, and superior customer service.

Yes, the existing physical infrastructure is very old. However, using telecom (ex: Verizon) is just as bad as cable because they’re using the same physical poles the cable companies do. There’s really no advantage either way. Where the poles go is where the reach starts and ends currently.

The only true alternative is satellite as it does not use the poles, but as we all know the spotty semi-reliable nature of the service makes it terrible.

The second true alternative doesn’t exist yet, that being the (very) old VHF band for use as a digital medium rather than its current analog state. Verizon is a player in that field and could deliver wi-fi which would (finally) get off the poles in a reliable way and use a long-range terrestrial-based networking to deliver television/internet content.

In theory this *should* mean lower prices for all (being there is no utilities company involved at that point) and extend the range more or less everywhere, even to the most remote areas where poles can’t go.

For the time being the “dinosaur” as you put it still works and works well. The re-do of the VHF band will offer an alternative in the near future but we’ll have to wait until 2009/2010 for that one – assuming Verizon has something ready at that point.

The CC Act of 1984 amended the 1934 Communications Act to include cable – establishing ground rules to ensure everyone was playing on a level playing field. Before 1984 communities had substantially more control than they do now – some didn’t. And let us not forget various governing bodies wanted their take of the tax pie. But it really did nothing more that establish rules and regulations to ensure that neither the franchiser nor the franchisee took advantage of the other.

To say that you don’t consider pre-1984 CATV to be representative of what we have today – there are still markets in this country that do not have upgraded cable service. Yes, they’re rural, but they exist. Those of us lucky enough to live in urban areas that have saturated cable service often forget what it was like having the basic channels. Ironically the basic infrastructure that supplies those rural areas has at it’s core the same infrastructure the rest of us have. And the same cable signal supplied by the big buys in the larger urban areas would work over those rural cables.

Anyway, cable is a dinosaur waiting it’s painful walk to extinction. Their infrastructure is too old and too big to easily revamp and rebuild. The only advantage cable has over other providers is reach (in terms of television delivery). Verizon FioS and ATT Uverse are changing that slowly. And offering more bang for the buck while doing it. CATV will be going the way of vinyl, 8-Track, cassettes, and B&W broadcasts.

I don’t believe CBS will mess too much with CNet’s existing formula as it seems to work well for them. But there will be changes to the tune of a tidal wave of CBS programming in CNet’s lineup. Or at least there should be. Whether this actually works concerning getting more eyeballs on CBS’ content remains to be seen however. It also remains to be seen whether or not advertising revenue can even make a dent (much less overtake) against the larger well-established mediums.

Cable television (CATV) started in the late 1940’s as an answer to the FCC’s freeze on television broadcast licenses in 1948. So you’re about 35+ years off.

And it’s doubtful CBS acquired CNet to facilitate their entry into on-line delivery of their content. CBS has been in the on-line content delivery system since before NBC/Fox started their joint venture Hulu. Honestly, CBS has been at the forefront of getting their content on the web – and now that the CBS Audience Network is up and running anyone looking for a CBS product can easily find it. (CBS did make the mistake of multiple on-line distribution agreements – I beleive they have deals with almost 300 sites from Joost and AOL-TV to YouTube and MSN.)

So I’m not convinced that CBS’s acquisition of CNet has anything to do with video distribution – it could very well be that CBS saw an investment and took it. Just like they did when they acquired CSTV (as well as many others). ABC, NBC, FOX, and CBS are huge corporations with even larger parent companies – they are bound to invest in lucrative ventures that will further their corporate identity.

CNet has a good thing going – I doubt CBS will want to change that for fear of loosing visitors to the CNet properties.