|
|
article
page | 1 | 2 |
is distrusted by many. However, occasional stutter is anticipated and largely forgiven by the masses. However, video, for starters, simply must live up to a certain quality in order to be viable in the market. Current consumers have access to high definition content via airwaves and cable connections and online streaming channels. The picture and sound should be of the utmost quality in order to please customers and stave off competitors.
Then, of course, there's the question of access. Bandwidth is always at a premium and build-outs take time. In our February issue, we explored some new and changing access technologies. Those included WiMAX, FTTx, and advanced cable. Of these, the clear favorite for advanced content is FTTx. It's a big pipe with a lot of potential. Then again, rolling it out is time-consuming and massively expensive. WiMAX, likewise, is capable of carrying content to mobile devices in a way that's fast, efficient, and compelling.
|
|
|
In case you haven't been paying attention to the goings-on of the world, people are maddeningly fickle. Especially when it comes to entertainment and technology. |
|
|
and the consumer. In my estimation, few other solutions seem as reasonable. Should the content providers attempt to acquire greater and greater chunks of the network? Should network providers continue to steer away from their core competencies to tackle projects that third parties are already doing, often with greater speed, skill, and cost-effectiveness? Should they acquire these third parties? Risky business, that. Content is only worth having if there is a demand. Demand is driven by the market. The market is driven by people. In case you haven't been paying attention to the goings-on of the world, people are maddeningly fickle. Especially when it comes to entertainment and technology. |
|
|
|
One of the chief questions overlaying the entire issue of advanced content is the question of who should be spending their time and resources developing applications and services for the end user. Should it be the companies that own the network, or third parties? That's a touchy topic for some network owners who are adamant about not becoming just a pipe for someone else's bits. Then again, the firms that develop the cutting edge content people want clearly have no delivery mechanism other than the networks owned by the very companies that view them as competition.
So who is best equipped to bring the content to the masses? The folks at LTC, International make a pretty compelling argument in this month’s issue for a “community garden” approach, in which the Edge (device and over-the-top service companies) and the Core (network owners and operators) cooperate fully, with each faction fulfilling certain responsibilities for the good of the industry
|
|
Get Fit. Get Ready
The long and the short if it all is that the world of content isn't getting any simpler. Service providers need to gear up if they are to match demand that continues to grow and change. The content is out there, and a dedicated consumers can eat up huge amounts of bandwidth taking it all in. Limitations can certainly be put on bandwidth, but it's obviously a more attractive option to be able to meet the needs and wants of the consumer. That being the case, it's time to gear up, bite down, and get ready for a revolution.
|
|
|
