SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A couple of weeks ago in news of someone coming out with 8K resolution televisions, I left a comment to the effect that I have a 4K TV, but there's no 4K content, so an 8K TV was a bit silly. Someone said they thought Netflix had a couple of 4K offerings.
I recently ran across news that I'll have 4K content in the nebulous future. The FCC [US Federal Communications Commission] is taking its first steps toward over the air 4K broadcasts. but it appears that it may be a while before I see it.
There's more about it here at CNet. But all three articles raise questions that aren't answered, primarily, what about bandwidth? It seems to me that without extremely tight lossy compression, it would take four times the bandwidth of 1080p. Will quality be much better than 1080p after they compress the signal?
How will they get around that? Will I lose some side channels? What do you folks have to say?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @03:53PM
I'd rather have Net Neutrality, thank you.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:46PM
You only want governments to impose Net Neutrality in order solve problems created by governments in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @06:25PM
No, ISP monopolies are the natural result of a very high cost of entry - the cable plant is expensive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @11:39PM
If "problems created by government" means physically accessing all residences in a country with a wire is hard, then I guess government created the physics of the 3-D universe in which we all live.
If you think a no government free-for-all of multiple wires from multiple sources going to multiple homes is the solution, this has been tried before with power lines and it was a huge mess. A big enough mess for people to get together and force their government to step in and fix it.
If you think having a an orginization that creates/maintains a single set of lines to all homes and allows services to be run over them in a free market fashion is a decent solution, I think we may have winner. But oops, this still requires people to get together in a large geographic group and create a system to manage day to day interactions between the people living there, and in this, case said organization. To simplify, let's call this organization a "utility" as it is a utility to be used by that group of people. And shoot, while we're at it, let's also come up with a name to refer to the system this group of people uses to manage things. I don't know, what would be a good name? I got it!... wait for it... ssshhh... it's a very bad word 10 letter word...
government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:35AM
However there's one point one can make: Sure, we need an organization that manages it, and that is controlled by the people. But is there a reason why the organization that manages the cables must be the same organization that manages the roads? Instead of a single, monolithic government, we could have independent cooperatives for each of those tasks, with the government only managing the areas of conflict between those organizations (e.g. the internet cooperative wants to bury new cables, but the street cooperative doesn't want their street to be opened for laying cables).