Kevin Spacey's speech on content delivery and TV's archaic model

[Maximus]

Great speech ringing in the truth to the TV, Movie and Music industries that they just don't get it.

[CoryBee]

I loved that speech, so true. I am currently bingeing on the British show Spooks. Onto the third season already.....afraid to say how quickly I got there.....

[Maximus]

I've been a huge advocate of on-demand platform agnostic content delivery for a long time. The big media companies ---smurfette--- about piracy while refusing to acknowledge they are the ones fueling the fire the most. They market the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of their products then make them hard to get to. Sure that worked when the content companies also owned the content delivery medium, but now it's an impossible model to sustain.

I've always said that I would quite happily pay a monthly subscription to have on-demand access to a huge library of video content, the exact same model as Spotify or Rdio just with video rather than music, just make sure I can pull it up on whatever device I want to consume it on, whenever and wherever I want.

Would you pay $10, $20, $30 a month for access to 5 million+ movies and TV series from all over the world available instantly on demand, on any of your devices?? I know I would. Netflix has made a start but it's still struggling to get distribution deals from many of the major players.

I love the blurring of the lines that market disrupters like Netflix are pushing to the forefront, especially their great success with the 'release the whole season' model. They understand the way consumers want to consume content and have reacted to the market trends accordingly.

I can't wait for network and cable TV to die in a ball of flames so that the market can decide what is quality worth paying for and what is not.

[Howard_Casto]

UTTERLY RIDICULOUS DRIVEL!

You'd have to be either insane or utterly desperate for original series (aka Netflix) to green light a show without a pilot.  The things Spacey says just aren't true.  A pilot has nothing to do with the end product what-so-ever, it's a test run.  So no, you do NOT have to establish all the characters, add a cliff hanger, ect for the pilot... typically you take one of your best scripts for an episode and produce it.  And if you don't have at least one script ready to go.. guess what?  You aren't ready to make a show yet because you have NOTHING to produce!

To put things in real world perspective, Spacey is asking a toy company to put into production a toy line of 24+ toys based upon his idea.  The toy company replies "These are great, why don't we give you some money so we can make a few prototypes and if they turn out ok and test well with children, we'll start the whole line".  To which Spacey replies "Why do I need a prototype? You said you liked the idea!  You are being unreasonable!"

Network tv isn't going anywhere, it's still the best delivery form of tv, for better or worse because much like fm radio, it's free and broadcasted throughout the nation.  Now cable tv on the other hand, they need to watch out.  If they don't allow cable companies to let their costumers purchase a single channel instead of all 30+ from their media empire and at a reasonable price  things like hulu and Netflix are going to wipe the floor with them.  Not anytime soon though... as a nation our bandwidth is still to low, you don't have access to all shows, just a select few on a network, ect....

[Typefighter01]

Terestrial radio is full of all things I hate, liberally torqued news programs, regurgitated top ten, and endless annoying adverts. I was lucky enough (or smart enough) to buy a lifetime subscription to Sirius Sat Radio almost 7 years ago and have never looked back. It terrifies me to think about driving to work listening to Bob and Sally's morning show or switch over to AM so I can fall asleep at the wheel.

Maximus is right about "quite happily paying" for on-demand libraries, people want to watch what they want, not what a few stuffy suits think will bring in the most revenue so they can sell ad space.

It's like this, I live in Canada, I can't stand Canadian television, it's horrible. I am not asking you if it is, I am telling you it is, and I can prove it. I have access to every Canadian program I want, for free, but because it blows and the CRTC tells Canadian broadcasters that a certain percentage of their programing has to be Canadian, I am forced, like every other Canadian I know, to pay for Satellite or Cable so we can watch real television.

I hope the current model for network and cable TV dies, just like Canada post. I am off on a tangent now, but this also brings up something funny. If you can believe this, Canada Post had the balls around 10 years ago, to advertise a program where you would "pay" Canada Post to send and recieve your e-mails  , talk about running scared. Same as Rogers and Bell offering cancel anytime and change your phone as many times as you like cell phone contracts now because companies like Verizon are going to enter their market and they currently monopolize us and have nothing to offer. Bring on the foreign competion I say, saves me money.

Sorry about this little rant...carry on:)

[Maximus]

Lol where do I start with this?

Typing in caps doesn't make something true.
Your attempt an an analogy was crap
Network will die BECAUSE cable will die as they rely on their delivery pipes not OTA.
OTA is useless due to virtually non existent analytics of audience demographics and interests. OTA ad related spend is crumbling year over year as more dollars move to online based mediums due to increasingly accurate user data.
Once NFL sells out to a large online delivery player like Apple or Amazon local affiliate stations will drop like flies.

Just because you love your OTA antenna fashioned from old tractor parts that gets you the Bachelor for free doesn't mean its sticking around.

Talk about utter drivel. Eeesh.

UTTERLY RIDICULOUS DRIVEL!

You'd have to be either insane or utterly desperate for original series (aka Netflix) to green light a show without a pilot.  The things Spacey says just aren't true.  A pilot has nothing to do with the end product what-so-ever, it's a test run.  So no, you do NOT have to establish all the characters, add a cliff hanger, ect for the pilot... typically you take one of your best scripts for an episode and produce it.  And if you don't have at least one script ready to go.. guess what?  You aren't ready to make a show yet because you have NOTHING to produce!

To put things in real world perspective, Spacey is asking a toy company to put into production a toy line of 24+ toys based upon his idea.  The toy company replies "These are great, why don't we give you some money so we can make a few prototypes and if they turn out ok and test well with children, we'll start the whole line".  To which Spacey replies "Why do I need a prototype? You said you liked the idea!  You are being unreasonable!"

Network tv isn't going anywhere, it's still the best delivery form of tv, for better or worse because much like fm radio, it's free and broadcasted throughout the nation.  Now cable tv on the other hand, they need to watch out.  If they don't allow cable companies to let their costumers purchase a single channel instead of all 30+ from their media empire and at a reasonable price  things like hulu and Netflix are going to wipe the floor with them.  Not anytime soon though... as a nation our bandwidth is still to low, you don't have access to all shows, just a select few on a network, ect....

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[yotsuya]

[Howard_Casto]

Lol where do I start with this?

Typing in caps doesn't make something true.
Your attempt an an analogy was crap
Network will die BECAUSE cable will die as they rely on their delivery pipes not OTA.
OTA is useless due to virtually non existent analytics of audience demographics and interests. OTA ad related spend is crumbling year over year as more dollars move to online based mediums due to increasingly accurate user data.
Once NFL sells out to a large online delivery player like Apple or Amazon local affiliate stations will drop like flies.

Just because you love your OTA antenna fashioned from old tractor parts that gets you the Bachelor for free doesn't mean its sticking around.

Talk about utter drivel. Eeesh.

UTTERLY RIDICULOUS DRIVEL!

You'd have to be either insane or utterly desperate for original series (aka Netflix) to green light a show without a pilot.  The things Spacey says just aren't true.  A pilot has nothing to do with the end product what-so-ever, it's a test run.  So no, you do NOT have to establish all the characters, add a cliff hanger, ect for the pilot... typically you take one of your best scripts for an episode and produce it.  And if you don't have at least one script ready to go.. guess what?  You aren't ready to make a show yet because you have NOTHING to produce!

To put things in real world perspective, Spacey is asking a toy company to put into production a toy line of 24+ toys based upon his idea.  The toy company replies "These are great, why don't we give you some money so we can make a few prototypes and if they turn out ok and test well with children, we'll start the whole line".  To which Spacey replies "Why do I need a prototype? You said you liked the idea!  You are being unreasonable!"

Network tv isn't going anywhere, it's still the best delivery form of tv, for better or worse because much like fm radio, it's free and broadcasted throughout the nation.  Now cable tv on the other hand, they need to watch out.  If they don't allow cable companies to let their costumers purchase a single channel instead of all 30+ from their media empire and at a reasonable price  things like hulu and Netflix are going to wipe the floor with them.  Not anytime soon though... as a nation our bandwidth is still to low, you don't have access to all shows, just a select few on a network, ect....

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

I'm sorry if you feel like I was addressing you in some way.  I was not.  I was addressing Spacey's speech that you posted, which is, without a doubt, utter ridiculous drivel.  I've never heard a better of example of a pompus Hollywood ass complaining because people didn't bend over for him and give him his way. 

Perhaps you don't live in reality or something but the thing that determines media distribution has been and always will be infrastructure.  It doesn't matter how superior a service is, if you can't get it to the largest amount of people, then that service is completely and totally irrelevant.  Like it or not, bandwidth in many areas of the United States is still far too low for 1080i streaming without artifacts or large amounts of compression.  Why 1080i and not 1080p? Again, infrastructure.  Even though tvs have done 1080p for years now, bandwidth limitations prevent cable and sat providers from transmitting a signal that large.  That's why broadcast television is here to stay. Just like FM radio, which has been "doomed" for 30 years now, is also here to stay.  Hell, we still have AM radio.  Also don't assume things.  I have cable, AND streaming services, I'm just not so out of touch with the rest of the nation to ignore the fact that most people don't always have these options. 

[Rick]

It's like this, I live in Canada, I can't stand Canadian television, it's horrible. I am not asking you if it is, I am telling you it is, and I can prove it.

Dude. You're SO WRONG. (And Griff, you know CAPS LOCK is cruise control for AWESOME!)

Remember Bizarre? Super Dave Osborne? How about The Hilarious House of Frightenstein? Both were filmed in Scarborough! Kung Fu: The Legend Continues was filmed in Toronto... Rocket Robin Hood was animated here too!

Wait. What are we talking about?

[Typefighter01]

Hey Rick,

Here is a snap shot of CBC's 2012 line-up. Let me know which one of these shows holds a candle to Bizarre, Super Dave Osborne, The Hilarious House of Frightenstein, Kung Fu: The Legend Continues and Rocket Robin Hood .

Battle of the Blades (everyone in Canada loves hockey and ice skating, didn't you know)
Dragons' Den (probably my favorite of the bunch, but is really just more reality show dung)
Rick Mercer Report (theres some more of that liberal torque I love)
InSecurity (never heard of it, this ought to tell you something)
Little Mosque on the Prairie (only in Canada would a show like this make it past a pilot)
Best Recipes Ever (?)
George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight (give my a break)
Heartland (wow)
Marketplace (so not relevant)
Republic of Doyle (this one won't last long)
Steven & Chris (probaly the best show CBC has in their stable, can you imagine)
The Fifth Estate (more liberal torque)
The Nature of Things (this one just opitimizes all things Canadian)
The Ron James Show (never heard of it)
This Hour Has 22 Minutes (and just in case you didn't get your fill of the Liberal machine, one more show to fill your need)

The shows CBC did not renew for 2012, 18 to Life, Men With Brooms, Village on a Diet and All For One with Debbie Travis...oh god, shoot me now.

Just saying 

[CoryBee]

I have never heard any of those shows.....

[TKW4rr10r]

[INCOMING RANT WARNING!!!]

I've been telling people to watch out for major shake-ups in the TV and cable industries for awhile, and it's been sad to see some predictions come true:
- Cable companies buying up networks and content creators
- Petty squabbles between networks and providers on cost they both want to pass onto the consumer
- Mass exoduses from cable/satellite to on-line options
- Then more petty squabbles with networks/studios and the on-line providers.
- ISPs creating tiered data plans to fight the cost of people ditching their cable/phone packages.
- ISPs playing favoritism with data packets whether they come from netflix or their own services.

It all screams of an industry(s) fighting every step of the way to actually give people what they want. Now the FCC bent over again and let cable companies scramble even free local network channels, forcing people to have to buy their equipment to whatch even the local NBC, PBS, etc. Something they vowed should never be scrambled in the first place.

I "cut the cord" long ago. And when I moved and gave a cable company one more chance, I quickly dropped everything but internet when yet another "billing mistake" cost me the package deal they promised (not even two months after I moved, no less!). There's a reason companies like Charter, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable have some of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings for YEARS. The don't give a flying -fig- about what their customers want and use their monopolies to enforce any money grabbing policies they see fit. I realize not everyone can cut the cord and my situation is unique. We have a 3 year old, and anyone with little ones knows 90% of what you watch is what THEY want to watch, over and over again. Most of that is provided by Netflix or the many DVDs BluRays I have backed up to our server.

The "Pilot" system is broken, plain as that, and it's the networks that broke it with their instant gratification ratings appetite. Networks only move quickly when canceling shows. New shows just are not given the chance to succeed, and many ideas change when put to the "prove yourself in 6 episodes or less to save your life" type of situation many face. Some of the most successful TV series would have been canceled in thier first season if held by today's standards (just look at Friends' and Seinfeld's initial ratings) which is just sad. Is it any wonder why most of the shows on today follow the same predictable formats? Spacey knew this and that's why he was explaining their situation this way. Radio is loosing market-share in large numbers for these same reasons, keep providing the same drivel when technology is giving people so many more options.

People are not spending the same amount of time in front of the TV. It's in front of their tablets, phones, and PCs. The fact it took THIS LONG for networks and providers to catch onto this shows the agony we still have to wait through. I don't think a la carte plans will fix it, either. Monopolies have to be broken up to allow competition on the pipe coming to your home for data, much like water, electricity, and gas are now. It'll never be perfect, but I believe that is one of the biggest flaws at the root of this discussion.

[/end rant]

[Rick]

Stuff... Thangs...

No, I hear you. I was really only agreeing with you. In my opinion, Canadian programming has never held a candle to U.S. shows, shy of very, very few. As you may have noticed, each of my show selections were from the 70's/80's.

Beyond Corner Gas and Flashpoint, I can't recall - from recent memory - anything else truly Canadian that would be classified as a favourite.

I am thankful, however, that both Toronto and Vancouver are HUGE in quality production for U.S. programming, and that our Canadian stars have made such a great impact on worldwide TV.

[ChadTower]

Sickbeard/sabnzd FTW.   

[Typefighter01]

Stuff... Thangs...

No, I hear you. I was really only agreeing with you. In my opinion, Canadian programming has never held a candle to U.S. shows, shy of very, very few. As you may have noticed, each of my show selections were from the 70's/80's.

Beyond Corner Gas and Flashpoint, I can't recall - from recent memory - anything else truly Canadian that would be classified as a favourite.

I am thankful, however, that both Toronto and Vancouver are HUGE in quality production for U.S. programming, and that our Canadian stars have made such a great impact on worldwide TV.

For sure Rick, I have no issues with 70's and 80's Canadian TV. I mean, look at SCTV, some of the greats came out of that show. All the good actors and singers were born in Canada (this is a gereralization, don't blast me guys). The problem, is the money pit known as CBC. The CBC perserves and distributes Canadian programing to an audience that does not exist and you and I have to pay for it.

[Typefighter01]

I have never heard any of those shows.....

Don't worry, your not missing anything...

Expect to find the box set of all these shows seasons sitting in the $5 DVD bin at Wallmart.

[Maximus]

No I didn't think you were addressing me personally, but that doesn't mean your argument is any less inane.

Spacey (executive producer) got $200 million from Netflix for two seasons of House of Cards in the US market only.  The series is being distributed in many other countries for further fees so he really isn't crying about anything.  He's championing a new approach that has worked out insanely well for him and his team.

Bandwidth limits are smoke and mirror screens to justify capped and tiered billing models.  The US backbone Is quite capable of delivering 1080p to all major cities and their immediate branch suburbs. It's the ISPs and their monopolies over geographical areas that refuse to invest in further nodes that create the false 'shortage'  of the magical bandwidth.  Also they use this as an excuse to try and double dip and charge CDNs to carry their packets to the already paying customers.

OTA and network TV stations will either evolve to an on-demand digital pipe delivery medium with tight trackable user data or lose their advertisers and die.

As for living in reality, I live in a major urban area where the future is clearer to see.  I'm wondering if your uninformed and rather arrogant bias is influenced by your geography. I have no idea just guessing based on your ranting.

I'm sorry if you feel like I was addressing you in some way.  I was not.  I was addressing Spacey's speech that you posted, which is, without a doubt, utter ridiculous drivel.  I've never heard a better of example of a pompus Hollywood ass complaining because people didn't bend over for him and give him his way. 

Perhaps you don't live in reality or something but the thing that determines media distribution has been and always will be infrastructure.  It doesn't matter how superior a service is, if you can't get it to the largest amount of people, then that service is completely and totally irrelevant.  Like it or not, bandwidth in many areas of the United States is still far too low for 1080i streaming without artifacts or large amounts of compression.  Why 1080i and not 1080p? Again, infrastructure.  Even though tvs have done 1080p for years now, bandwidth limitations prevent cable and sat providers from transmitting a signal that large.  That's why broadcast television is here to stay. Just like FM radio, which has been "doomed" for 30 years now, is also here to stay.  Hell, we still have AM radio.  Also don't assume things.  I have cable, AND streaming services, I'm just not so out of touch with the rest of the nation to ignore the fact that most people don't always have these options.

[ChadTower]

The US backbone Is quite capable of delivering 1080p to all major cities and their immediate branch suburbs.

It's a damn good thing we all live in a major city or its immediate branch suburb!

I live 25 miles outside of two state capitals but I only have one broadband option that is slow as crap unless I pay for a business tier.  No fiber, no phone line options beyond dialup.  It's cable or nothing here.

[paigeoliver]

We cancelled our cable for Netflix and an antenna a long time ago. My wife is the only one that even uses the antenna and that is really only for local news and Jimmy Fallon.

I do believe those mythical people watching 1080p with an antenna that Howard is talking about are a teeny, tiny minority.

Most recent survey shows 7 percent of US households are using television antennas. What percentage of those do you think also have full on 1080p HD sets? Lets be really generous and say 40 percent since that mirrors the overall penetration of the sets.

So you have 3 percent of people using both an antenna and enjoying full 1080P broadcasting. That demographic is so small you can just throw them away. People who do all their video watching on youtube are a larger demographic than that.

[Maximus]

I live 25 miles outside of two state capitals but I only have one broadband option that is slow as crap unless I pay for a business tier.  No fiber, no phone line options beyond dialup.  It's cable or nothing here.

Exactly.  You live in a monopoly area where the provider has no financial or competitive incentive to provide you with anything else. That's not an issue of capacity it's simply the effect of private monopolies and good old capitalism.

[ark_ader]

In the UK we have Lovefilm (Amazon) and Netflix, SKY Go, and the BBC offerings.

Of all the content available I would say Netflix is the most I watch, with Breaking Bad and Damages being my recent life drain.

I can easily replace cable with Netflix and CNN, besides all the channels have sitcom reruns, CSI or Law & Order.


Have you noticed the recent A list actors now engaged in TV, than cinema?

[ChadTower]

Exactly.  You live in a monopoly area where the provider has no financial or competitive incentive to provide you with anything else. That's not an issue of capacity it's simply the effect of private monopolies and good old capitalism.

It is a capacity issue.  Everything, TV, internet, VOIP, all go through the same cable lines.  No DSL here because the phone wiring is too old.  No fiber lines here.  Yeah, the service price is monopolistic, but even they can't upgrade the speed with current lines.  There is a commerce park plotted out half a mile from my house that is completely stalled because nobody will move in due to the limitations on internet bandwidth to the property.  And this is 25 miles outside of either Boston or Providence. 

[Maximus]

Because nobody wants to front the cost of laying fiber out there, not because it can't be done or because there is a mysterious shortage of data packets or a kraken that won't let the trenching team through.
The ROI isn't there for them so they just don't do it.
That's not capacity shortage, it's refusal to bring the infrastructure for profitability reasons, very different things.

The end result for the consumer Feels the same,  lack of access to decent connectivity but it's nothing to do with backbone capacity

This is why Google is trying to build out their Gigabit network. People are being choked in their access options because the current providers can only make money from the pipe or they don't lay it down.  Google makes money by people using their services, collecting data and then selling advertising. The more people who have fast access the better Google does so the ROI is different and viable.  Of course the other ISPs dont like that because it undermines their older model which is also creating false market shortages to prop itself up.

[JDFan]

Exactly.  You live in a monopoly area where the provider has no financial or competitive incentive to provide you with anything else. That's not an issue of capacity it's simply the effect of private monopolies and good old capitalism.

It is a capacity issue.  Everything, TV, internet, VOIP, all go through the same cable lines.  No DSL here because the phone wiring is too old.  No fiber lines here.  Yeah, the service price is monopolistic, but even they can't upgrade the speed with current lines.  There is a commerce park plotted out half a mile from my house that is completely stalled because nobody will move in due to the limitations on internet bandwidth to the property.  And this is 25 miles outside of either Boston or Providence.

They're too busy using the profits to pay the upper level Mgmt. their bonuses and returning the profits to the stock holders every quarter rather than reinvesting it into the infrastructure and running the new lines  and have been for many years. with the rates that have historically been paid for the service they could have built plenty of capacity, if the had reinvested the profits but there is no incentive for them to do so - since you have no choice but to use them since there is only 1 or 2 providors to choose from in any given area so what incentive is there for them to upgrade the capacity.

[Rick]

Because nobody wants to front the cost of laying fiber out there, not because it can't be done or because there is a mysterious shortage of data packets.

The reason why people don't want to do this in CANADA is because feel they got screwed for doing it previously. Both Bell and Rogers laid billions of dollars in cable over the past 30 years, only to have it deregulated, and the Canadian Government order them to share it. Sure, they got billions of dollars worth of funding and kickbacks from the Government, but they proved that there was NO agreement in place telling them they needed to share it - and the Government just came back and said, "we're taking it."

Now, don't get me wrong. I hate Bell. I hate Rogers. I don't have either of them any more. I just canceled my Bell ExpressVu. I have unlimited Internet through Teksavvy and my VOIP through Vonage. I pay ~$80 for both, and for the exact same service through Rogers or Bell, I'd easily be paying ~$200. (And that includes the added bonus of bandwidth throttling - yay.)

I don't, however, think it's fair for anyone to come in and say you have to share. What I think they should have done was 'buy out' the infrastructure at a mutually agreed to amount. Not what they did.

[TKW4rr10r]

What I think they should have done was 'buy out' the infrastructure at a mutually agreed to amount.

This exactly. Where I was previously in the Northeast, may people wanted Verizon FiOS, but were stuck with Crapcast since they would not allow Verizon to run their fiber through the pipework infrastructure they already installed decades ago. So Verizon was stuck digging to lay new pipework, but only where they thought they would make their money back.

If anything, the local municipalities should have ownership of the pipe-work, and charge a fee for those wanting to run any copper/coax/fiber through it to cover maint. costs. It works in a similar way for those charging you for electric and water (depending on where you are obviously). The local townships have to pay for any local repairs/maint, but make that money back from either local taxes or from he companies charging the residents for service.

Without competition their is no progress in this market, plain and simple.

[JDFan]

Thing is we already pay those extra fees every month included in the bill ( My bill last month included $41 in extra fees and taxes for the local, state and federal govt.)  -- there are all kinds of taxes and fees added to the basic bill that were supposed to be used for the infrastructure, upkeep, maintenance and improvements but those funds have never been used for the intended purpose and instead have been used to prop up the company profits so that upper management and stock holders have seen larger increases in their bonuses and dividends for short term gains vs. long term investment in the infrastructure. Figure the taxpayers have more than paid for any investment that has been made in the install and maintenance of the infrastructure so I see no problem with the govt. taking control of the pipelines and letting it be shared without any further payment to those companies.

[ChadTower]

Because nobody wants to front the cost of laying fiber out there, not because it can't be done or because there is a mysterious shortage of data packets or a kraken that won't let the trenching team through.
The ROI isn't there for them so they just don't do it.

It's the same thing.  Just because capacity exists in the trunks doesn't mean it exists at the end users.  We're not talking about the ability to extend it out to users.  Yeah, that's there.  But the end users don't have it and thus it doesn't exist as a service.  Until end users have it 1080p streaming is not viable as a primary means of transmission.  The fac that it could be done is not the same as it having been done.  The conversation is about what could be offered now. 

[Maximus]

Yea I understand and agree the effect on the end user is the real issue.  We got down this road because Howard tried to claim that OTA was a superior bandwidth alternative. I suspect (hope) he meant in context to geo-economic business decisions and not in general.

Any hoooooo the fact remains the old models are going away as the market shifts towards consumers having better control over what they pay for. Its slow progress but it will result in the end of traditional network TV models.

Between now and then we will continue to see a turf war between companies that fight to hold on to their piece of the pie with old models and those that try and disrupt the market to create new opportunities. Ultimately the old guard will crumble but it will take a long time all while users like Chad get screwed.

Spacey is ultimately right in his vision, it will come to pass but how long remains to be seen.

Howard's claim that holding the most users means you hold the winning card is naive. Users are fickle and migrate in flocks easily. Ask Blackberry, AOL, Nokia and Kodak just to name a few, they'll tell you a tale of the perils of thinking you don't HAVE to evolve because you have the majority of a market.

[ark_ader]

The Google balloon WAN is a good solution.


I'd hate to be on a 747 and smack into one.