<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: TV is dead, links are not</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:11:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: heide</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/comment-page-1/#comment-8937</link>
		<dc:creator>heide</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/#comment-8937</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;HD content is also still a bit too bandwidth-hungry to be downloaded practically just yet (a single HD movie would be 3/4 of my monthly bandwidth quota), but then you often have to put up with proprietary, crummy DVRs, big and/or expensive antennas, limited choice at the moment, etc...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And I&#039;d say TV is still in the same state it&#039;s always been: mostly junk, but with some good stuff that you often have to search or pay for.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HD content is also still a bit too bandwidth-hungry to be downloaded practically just yet (a single HD movie would be 3/4 of my monthly bandwidth quota), but then you often have to put up with proprietary, crummy DVRs, big and/or expensive antennas, limited choice at the moment, etc&#8230;</p>

<p>And I&#8217;d say TV is still in the same state it&#8217;s always been: mostly junk, but with some good stuff that you often have to search or pay for.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/comment-page-1/#comment-8927</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:21:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/#comment-8927</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Audrey:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I agree with you about sports. But the idea of paying sixty or seventy dollars a month to watch sports on the weekend is ridiculous. I&#039;ll take my chances of finding something interesting on the radio.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But the idea that everything has to be broadcast just because live stuff needs to be is soon to be dead. The ideal experience would be a menu of on-demand content available and a menu of upcoming live events.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;With this system, you could implement two tiers of payment, as well. You could do a la carte (i.e. pay per view) or a rather costly (as if cable isn&#039;t already too expensive) monthly subscription fee. I think this flexibility would appeal to people like me who can&#039;t justify the subscription fee.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Paul:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;You can&#039;t really take what Gillmor says literally. What &quot;TV is dead&quot; really means is that it&#039;s clear that the old TV business model is in the process of being replaced by something else. Just like when he says &quot;Office is dead,&quot; which gets people all riled up. Office is not dead yet. But for some people (like me) it is, which probably wasn&#039;t the case five years ago.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Audrey:</strong></p>

<p>I agree with you about sports. But the idea of paying sixty or seventy dollars a month to watch sports on the weekend is ridiculous. I&#8217;ll take my chances of finding something interesting on the radio.</p>

<p>But the idea that everything has to be broadcast just because live stuff needs to be is soon to be dead. The ideal experience would be a menu of on-demand content available and a menu of upcoming live events.</p>

<p>With this system, you could implement two tiers of payment, as well. You could do a la carte (i.e. pay per view) or a rather costly (as if cable isn&#8217;t already too expensive) monthly subscription fee. I think this flexibility would appeal to people like me who can&#8217;t justify the subscription fee.</p>

<p><strong>Paul:</strong></p>

<p>You can&#8217;t really take what Gillmor says literally. What &#8220;TV is dead&#8221; really means is that it&#8217;s clear that the old TV business model is in the process of being replaced by something else. Just like when he says &#8220;Office is dead,&#8221; which gets people all riled up. Office is not dead yet. But for some people (like me) it is, which probably wasn&#8217;t the case five years ago.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/comment-page-1/#comment-8921</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/#comment-8921</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Whoo! Finally! Somebody besides me finally nailed it! I re-quote:
&lt;em&gt;&quot;...because TV now sucks...&quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I wouldn&#039;t say TV is dead, nor that the Internet has or is trying to assume its&#039; role &lt;em&gt;(tho I&#039;m sure it&#039;ll happen; anything I like invariably ends up dead, like non-Intel computers)&lt;/em&gt;, but I will adamantly back the claim that modern TV sucks bright red baboon bum.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I miss the days of &lt;strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; TV; you know, the kind that did NOT involve cop and / or lawyer dramas, medical dramas, airheaded talk shows, horrible recreations of once-good series &lt;em&gt;(if I ever find the meathead who sullied Dr. Who, I swear I&#039;ll.... OOO! Grr.)&lt;/em&gt;, and the all-inclusive, all-stupid, craptastic &quot;reality&quot; shows.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Since those are all that TV has become, I suppose it&#039;s dead to me; so I use the Internet instead.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But, you know, you just can&#039;t good scrambly-porn -- or the CBC&#039;s infamous random 3AM Saturday &quot;surprise&quot; airings -- from a URL. Ahh, memories. :-)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;P.S. - Audrey, sports aren&#039;t the only events (live or not) that are way better televised. Having worked in the cable industry at the time of the big transition to digital, one thing I learned is that at our current stage of technological advancement, streaming video will never replace broadcast signal. It&#039;s too poor quality. Probably will be for some time. Oh, and don&#039;t get me started on the total lack of standards... ;-)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whoo! Finally! Somebody besides me finally nailed it! I re-quote:
<em>&#8220;&#8230;because TV now sucks&#8230;&#8221;</em></p>

<p>I wouldn&#8217;t say TV is dead, nor that the Internet has or is trying to assume its&#8217; role <em>(tho I&#8217;m sure it&#8217;ll happen; anything I like invariably ends up dead, like non-Intel computers)</em>, but I will adamantly back the claim that modern TV sucks bright red baboon bum.</p>

<p>I miss the days of <strong><em>good</em></strong> TV; you know, the kind that did NOT involve cop and / or lawyer dramas, medical dramas, airheaded talk shows, horrible recreations of once-good series <em>(if I ever find the meathead who sullied Dr. Who, I swear I&#8217;ll&#8230;. OOO! Grr.)</em>, and the all-inclusive, all-stupid, craptastic &#8220;reality&#8221; shows.</p>

<p>Since those are all that TV has become, I suppose it&#8217;s dead to me; so I use the Internet instead.</p>

<p>But, you know, you just can&#8217;t good scrambly-porn &#8212; or the CBC&#8217;s infamous random 3AM Saturday &#8220;surprise&#8221; airings &#8212; from a URL. Ahh, memories. :-)</p>

<p>P.S. &#8211; Audrey, sports aren&#8217;t the only events (live or not) that are way better televised. Having worked in the cable industry at the time of the big transition to digital, one thing I learned is that at our current stage of technological advancement, streaming video will never replace broadcast signal. It&#8217;s too poor quality. Probably will be for some time. Oh, and don&#8217;t get me started on the total lack of standards&#8230; ;-)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Audrey</title>
		<link>http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/comment-page-1/#comment-8903</link>
		<dc:creator>Audrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matthewgifford.com/2006/10/23/tv-is-dead-links-are-not/#comment-8903</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m still waiting for someone to address the #1 thing we use TV for in my house: live sports.  Have you tried to watch a game online?  It&#039;s terrible.  Even gamecasts without video lag and time out.  Until online media can offer a good alternative way to view live events, I don&#039;t think cable tv is going anywhere.  Sports events (particularly pro football) attract a huge number of viewers.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m still waiting for someone to address the #1 thing we use TV for in my house: live sports.  Have you tried to watch a game online?  It&#8217;s terrible.  Even gamecasts without video lag and time out.  Until online media can offer a good alternative way to view live events, I don&#8217;t think cable tv is going anywhere.  Sports events (particularly pro football) attract a huge number of viewers.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
