
One of our favorite egomaniacs has once again stepped atop his soapbox, and with relatively awful sentence structure and nearly illegible paragraphs,
Mark Cuban has managed to blast broadcast networks for missing the opportunities HDTV presents -- or at least that's what we deciphered. He suggests that while streaming internet video may be the "hot sexy thing" right now, the limited "internet bandwidth available to the home" puts a theoretical cap on the "quality and simplicity of video delivery." Of course, he forgets to mention the
bandwidth crisis that every major cable provider out there is now facing, as the aging copper wiring simply can't keep up with the HD explosion in its current state. Nevertheless, he states that "HDTV is the
internet video killer," and also says that the ease of receiving HD broadcasts on your television (
really?) will prove a more viable outlet for advertisers to use in the long run as HD becomes more and more
common in American households. Mr. Cuban (apparently) insinuates that broadcast networks should seize the opportunity that HDTV presents to elicit funding for those crisp, bright HD commercials -- but let's be realistic, we've already learned that HDTV "
has no business model," and tapping that FF button happens
just as rapidly regardless of whether the plug is in paltry SD or 1080i. Moreover, ole Mark didn't hold back from plugging his own HDNet channel as being a frontrunner in the HD ad revolution, but we'd recommend he figure out a way to cram
more HD channels through an
antiquated pipeline before complaining over a lack of HD channels to advertise on.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
GhostDoggy @ Dec 28th 2006 5:30AM
Until he can insure that his hdnet and hdnet movies channels are delivered to the end user in an unadulterated format (in other words, not abused by hdlite from directv) then he needs to just keep his attitude and hypocisy in the closet.
picaso @ Dec 28th 2006 10:17AM
Mr. Cuban, How 'bout getting your HD net channels on the largest provider, Comcast. I don't know what the holdup is, but come-on how many years of negotiation has it been?
sartinsauce @ Dec 28th 2006 11:12AM
You know, we do a lot of work for HDNet where I'm employed. You wanna talk about antiquated. They're using the first HDCam decks that sony produced. Talk about missing out on opportunities, at least the Broadcast Networks deliver 5.1 Audio. Mark's Network (HDNet) only delivers stereo audio, with poor quality color sampling.
Andy Sullivan @ Dec 28th 2006 12:06PM
I applaud anybody (Cuban) shouting out the HD message. Maybe he doesn't have the answers but we need high profile people like Cuban keeping the HD fight in the forefront of as many readers as possible. Keeping his attitude in the closet would be a shame. He has fought a constant war with "D" regarding hdlite and has made his feelings known many times. Just because he doesn't have the technical answers doesn't mean we should bash the messanger.
Ben Drawbaugh @ Dec 28th 2006 2:41PM
You guys are nuts.
Mark has been done alot for HDTV and continues to promote it.
He is absolutely right, it will be a long time before any ISP can deliver quality HD in real time. While some of his rant is obvious to us, it isn't so obvious to many. There is no question why the big 4 were the first to go HD.
HD.net equipment is old because they were the first to buy it and any smart business doesn't replace equipment just because something newer is released, unless it makes business sense.
Don't blame Mark, blame Comcast, they choose what channels to deliver to their customers.
Darren Murph @ Dec 28th 2006 4:56PM
Mark:
Awesome to read your reply! First, we're in the business of playing devil's advocate at times, so of course I had a little fun with everything. Second, don't you hate the grammar rant? We get folks all the time correcting us, so it felt good to be on the other end of all that.
And trust me, I hear you loud & clear on the "we need more HD, it's good for everyone" message. But there's a lot standing in the way of having hundreds of HD channels at any one time, irregardless of how many HD ads networks sell.
Lastly, getting HD -- from the actual meandering around & selecting your set, to installing it, to tweaking the settings, to actually getting HD content on it -- isn't easy for the average joe. As a matter of fact, it's frustrating in a lot of ways. Online video is, at least somewhat, easy to grasp, especially when you consider the built-in technical know-how that someone actually surfing around for online video already has. Me? I greatly prefer HDTV over anything internet-provided. My 50-inch Sony looks 100x better than my Dell monitor. But HDTV needs more overall bandwidth, accessibility, and backers to give us all more to watch in HD for a fair price.
Keep on writing that oh-so-controversial stuff Mark, it's good for us all. ;-)
Darren @ Dec 28th 2006 7:58PM
Mark:
That first bit clears things up quite a bit. You're saying with so few HD channels, they should be grabbing onto the ad possibilities as many folks will be drawn to their stations simply because they're in HD, and because there's so little competition, life's easy right now. We're on the same page now...I think ;-)
Alan Weinkrantz @ Dec 29th 2006 12:20AM
Mark is right- to some degree. I am now using the AT&T U-verse IPTV offering in HD and it really works. And it works on an old time copper wire.
See: http://www.3screens.net
mitch Davis @ Dec 29th 2006 6:08AM
Mark, great to see you posting here. Please tell me, what will it take to get Videotron to carry HDNet here in Montreal? I find it infuriating that they have yet to add it to their lineup and would gladly pay a premium to get it.
Back-to-topic, I agree with you, there are huge numbers of people with hardware in search of content. A vast opportunity is being missed.
siva @ Dec 29th 2006 12:44PM
There is enough bandwidth in coax cable. They just need to switch to IPTV. If AT&T can deliver 4 channels at a time with a phone cable, I am sure cable companies can deliver 10 HD channels as IPTV to every home. All they need to do is revamp their head end and deliver set top boxes to the consumers.
Derek @ Dec 30th 2006 7:46PM
Mark whats up, I just got a HDTV digital box for my new HDTV. Timewarner is my provider and I'm impressed with the quality of HDnet. But honeslty whats up with the programming man? Dang, they don't show anything worth nothing. I like the NBA and NFL broadcasts on HDnet. Then theres the "Nothing but trailers" program which is nice. Star Trek is a plus for its fans even though I dont watch it. But thats that, the rest of the programs are some no name, never heard of before fillers. I mean damn. Then you have HDnet movies.... which shows some old *** movies from the 70's ad 80's. Early 90's once in a bue moon. I mean its unwatchable. I can't experience the quality of HD watching some movie out the 80's.
Come on man, bring us some stuff we wanna watch. Good luck with the Mavs.