Home News

4 Things to Know about CBS

CBS is experiencing some amazing growth…and a couple of serious problem. There's good news, but will it be enough to outweigh the bad news?

| Posted by:

Category: Business Internet, Cable, Entertainment, News, Streaming, TV | No Comments


4 Things to Know about CBS
CBS is experiencing some amazing growth…and a couple of serious problems. The Columbia Broadcasting Service, CBS, has been home to iconic shows. Their current content offering is no different. Yet, they’ve made a couple of big mistakes. But let’s talk about two pieces of good news first.

CBS News To Launch Local News Service

CBSN Local, as it will be called, is a new venture by CBS to connect local news providers with cord cutters. This is a smart move on CBS’s part. While customers are getting rid of cable and switching entirely to streaming services, the concern for local news stations have been “who will watch us?” To combat this, CBS News will have market-specific streaming news available. Local CBS affiliates will get to produce and stream their local news while alongside CBS’s original content. This streaming service will eventually be part of CBS All Access in the future. Not all affiliates are getting their own streaming services right now. Only the largest markets will get some first. Other cities will get their own as they roll out the service more and more. It’s a great idea, but with a downside. What if some people, namely the author of this post, are not CBS watchers? What if they get their news from somewhere else and are fine missing the local CBS newscast? CBS may be up a creek with that one. Then again, that may not be an issue.

CBS All Access and Showtime OTT Subscribers are Rising

CBS All Access, their exclusive streaming service, and their subsidiary Showtime have been showing strong numbers. These numbers are so strong that analysts have predicted they’ll break 8 million for All Access and 8 million for Showtime by 2022. Simple math means that will be 16 million new subscribers by 2022. That’s a big number and something to get excited about. That is if their forecasters aren’t mistaken like Netflix’s did last July. The good news is that CBS is adapting to the era of Peak TV better than most of their competitors. For a broadcast channel that produces shows watched mostly by the over-50 crowd, that’s pretty impressive. Let’s hope it’s enough to outweigh their bad decisions.

More Star Trek Without Avery Brooks

CBS debuted Star Trek: Discovery exclusively on All Access. This new show is supposed to be a prequel to the new Trek movies that have come out under JJ Abrams. I haven’t heard much about the show itself. Nor have I had any inclination to. And for someone who grew up watching Star Trek, that should be shocking. While it would be easy to blame JJ Abrams for this, in truth, it’s not his fault. It’s the fault of the executives and producers who decided he’d be a good choice to take control of the franchise. Since I don’t know their names, it’s just easier to blame Abrams for my distaste with the current direction Star Trek has been going. It wasn’t made any better when I learned that Patrick Stewart was getting another Trek show. Now, I don’t hate Patrick Stewart. He’s a phenomenal actor. As Jean-Luc Picard, he brought a certain panache and dignity to the role of a captain. You’ll notice there are very few Trekkie jokes that make fun of his talking style if there are any at all. Not to mention he did a great job as Professor Xavier in the X-Men movies, despite the horrible turn they took. No, the issue here isn’t Patrick Stewart at all. Jean-Luc Picard was his role and he made the character what it is today. If he wants to go and make another show based on the character, then that’s his choice. What I really want to see, and what I’ve been dying to see since 1999, is Avery Brooks step back into the role of Captain Benjamin Sisko.

Who’s Avery Brooks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3fObaejFOE For those asking that question, I am deeply saddened. Avery Brooks played Benjamin Sisko of Deep Space 9. This spin-off came after The Next Generation, which is what Stewart is known for. Instead of being set on a ship, they set the show on a space station. And not just any space station, but the space station once held by an oppressive regime. Deep Space 9 wasn’t like the other Star Trek’s, nor any others after it. It dealt with heavy issues like faith, war, and fatherhood, to name a few. DS9, as its called by its die-hard fans, also tossed out the episodic format and set up a mythic arc for the entire series. There were episodes that were "one-offs" like the time Bashir had "James Bond-like" adventure in one of the holosuites. This idea was ahead of its time. It also made DS9 is perfect for binge-watching. And yet, no movies, no reboots…nothing. And why is that? Just as Deep Space 9 was ending, I expected to see at least one movie where they brought back the entire cast, just like they did for The Next Generation. But they didn’t. Instead, they made more movies with the TNG cast. While those movies were fun to watch, I eagerly awaited them to finally give DS9 it’s big budget time on the screen. But they didn’t. Instead, someone decided to never go that direction and junk all that story potential. And for what? A reboot of the tired old series where we see reinterpretations of characters that we’ve seen a lot of already. Again, this has nothing to do with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, or the cast of the new Trek movies. They’re great actors, and this is not a reflection on them. Nor did I entirely hate the new Trek movies. They were entertaining at least. It’s a reflection on the absurdity that’s allowed to reign at these production companies. And it’s no more obvious than with this next bit of news

Les Moonves Is Still There

The CEO, who’s had multiple counts of sexual harassment against him, has been allowed to stay. While there’s been a long list of offenders who’ve been kicked out for sexual misconduct, and even worse, Moonves name isn’t on that list. The specifics of the case aside, it’s sending a message that with enough power, men like this can still be allowed to retain their positions of authority. And I find that unacceptable. While I didn’t watch a lot of CBS programming, to begin with, I doubt I’ll be doing much of it now. Maybe one day I’ll get around to watching Patrick Stewart’s new Trek series, but I’m not forking over money to a company that refuses to do the right thing in the name of profits. Nor will they make a Star Trek: Deep Space 9 movie. Or reboot the series. So much potential and such a waste. Until then, I’ll have to make do with watching reruns of DS9 so I can see one of the best actors, nay, one of the best roll-models I’ve ever seen, get a chance to act on screen. For the rest of us, it’s a free country. If you want to subscribe to CBS All Access, I’m okay with that. It is, after all, your right. Just make sure you save some cash first by checking out the best cable and internet packages. Knowing that someone will be saving money will at least make me feel a little better. And that will have to do until they finally make that Deep Space 9 movie.

Walmart V. Amazon: Is it Good for You?

Why would Walmart compete against Amazon? They’re both large companies that make a good profit, so why compete? And why would it be good for You?

| Posted by:

Category: Business Internet, News, Service Providers, Technology | No Comments


Walmart V. Amazon: Is it Good for You?

Why would Walmart compete against Amazon? They’re both large companies that make a good profit. Walmart has dominated the big-box store competition. Amazon has dominated just about everything else. But Amazon bought Whole Foods. For a technology company that can deliver things so quickly and efficiently to buy a grocery store means Walmart’s going to have serious competition soon. Reminds me of another epic rivalry.

Hi, I’m a Mac

 

Not too long ago, Apple ran this advertising campaign to highlight the differences between the two brands. Microsoft, who makes PCs, was played by the unassuming John Hodgman. Hodgman was great as the embodiment of the PC computer who was terminally befuddled with problems. Some issues were legit, like Microsoft’s horrible Vista operating system. Most of the time it was about the identity of the brands. Justin Long, the embodiment of the Mac, was the young and hip guy who casually took care of every problem and had no issues whatsoever with his operating systems. As you can see from the clip above, they were hilarious. Superb comedy writing. But they distracted from the real issue- buying a computer is more a personal choice than a rational one.

Mac or PC?

Microsoft makes great computers. Apple makes great computers. Which one is best comes down to a matter of personal choice. Microsoft, who makes the PCs, are reliable computers. They may not be sleek or classy looking, but they do the job that’s required of them. Apples are elegantly designed. What makes Apples different from PCs, besides aesthetics, is that Apple has branded itself as the “different” computer company. Those who want to see themselves as different, innovative, or an outsider, are usually going to buy a Mac. This stems from Steve Jobs prompting customers to “think different” when it came to buying a computer. Macs were made to be simple to set up, easy to use, and intuitive. PCs, however, were clunky and took a lot of work just to get turned on. In the intervening years, PCs have come a long way in terms of their functionality and ease of use. It also helps that Microsoft Word works best on a PC, and Word is the industry standard for the publishing industry. This article, in fact, was written on a PC…then copy and pasted onto our On The Download blog. While there is a version of Word available for Macs, it’s not as sleek or easy to use. Somewhat ironic really. So when it comes to a Mac or a PC, I go for the PC. This doesn’t mean I don’t like Macs. I get more benefits out of a PC than I do Macs. In the contest between Amazon and Walmart, it’s shaping up to look like the Mac v. PC commercials. In the end, it’s a good thing for the consumer- you.

Hi, I’m Amazon

Amazon started out as just an online reseller of books. It has since grown to become a behemoth in the online retail space. Amazon has hundreds of warehouses and sorting centers across the world. It took years to build this up and cost a lot to pull off. But all that hard work has proven extremely advantageous as Amazon can ship things relatively easily across the world, sometimes getting something into your hands within a day. You do have to pay extra for the service, but Amazon is the only one doing it right now. With their huge warehouses of stuff, and third-party vendors able to sell their wares on the site as well, Amazon has a definitive edge when it comes to operating an online retail space. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows though. Their last Prime Day had a rocky start, and then there were the issues with Whole Foods. When Amazon bought Whole Foods, it was expected they could start delivering grocery orders within hours. That has not quite worked out. Though Amazon has tried starting their own delivery service with sub-contractors, and even going as far as partnering with Uber and Lyft, the service hasn’t quite taken off. This may be because grocery shopping is still a personal activity. I speak from experience as I would rather pick my groceries myself than have someone do it for me. It would save me on time but at the expense of getting the wrong cereal. And that’s a blow that’s hard to come back from. Amazon is still working to iron out the kinks, but the food delivery issue is still unresolved as of this writing.

Hi, I’m Walmart

Walmart has the big-box chain thing down, pat! The only issue with this is the world is becoming increasingly digital. Walmart’s method of delivering goods from warehouse to store, while efficient, is also costly. For this reason, Walmart may not have as big a profit margin as Amazon does. What they do have, however, is brand recognition. Drive through rural America and you’ll see a Walmart in any decent-sized town. It won’t be huge or flashy, but it will be busy. Walmart’s brand of “saving you more” has stuck and people from far and wide will drive great distances to get a better deal on their weekly groceries. Yet, the world is becoming more and more digital. As cities grow and rural communities shrink, Walmart’s advantage will shrink with it.

Walmart's New Advantage

Unlike other companies who said “we’ve done things this way and it’s worked out for us so we’ll keep doing it this way,” Walmart is taking a different path. Walmart is currently ramping up Vudu, the movie streaming service it owns, and will turn it into their personal entertainment streaming service completed with original content. Walmart is also working on solving the grocery delivery and infrastructure problem. To do this, they’ve created two tech incubators, one in San Bruno, California, and one in Austin, Texas. A tech incubator is a shelter for startups. Incubators are geared for looking for a specific type of technology or process and then working on how to apply it to the parent organization. In this case, that’s Walmart. And Walmart is looking for the right startups, or even entrepreneurs, who might have solutions to their problems. Once those are identified, they’ll provide a workspace for them and money to work on their idea, process, or product. Given Walmart has these two tech incubators in very tech-heavy markets is a sign they’re aggressively seeking solutions. While Amazon has the brand image of creating new technology in-house, Walmart is working to bring in thinkers to solve its problems. That may not be part of Walmart’s overall brand, but it’s a wise move considering how business practices are changing. On a minor note, Walmart could have saved itself some money and set up shop in San Antonio, TX, just an hour down the road from Austin. It would have still had access to all the tech genius of Austin but at far cheaper overhead. Just saying.

Who Will Win?

In the coming contest for online retail dominance, Amazon appears to be frontrunner here. They’ve been building their digital platform, they’ve already run into problems with delivering groceries so they’re farther ahead on solving them. Walmart, however, isn’t sitting back and doing nothing. They’ve invested in finding people who will come up with answers and then how to incorporate those answers. They may be proverbially late to the game, but they’re not showing up short-handed either. The key to whole competition will be who will devise a better customer experience. Price will factor in too. Customers will overlook that if they like the customer interface enough. A system may be more intuitive than the other or have more features, but if a customer does not like it, that will hurt the overall performance of each company. In the end, it’s all about how well you take care of your customer. Before that happens, however, you’ll need to have a decent internet connection. Check out the best internet bundles and save yourself a little bit of money too. When Amazon and Walmart finally figure out how to get groceries to your front door, you don’t want your internet making that difficult.

2 Good and 2 Bad Things About Google’s New Data Journalism Feature

Researching for an article, though necessary, is tedious and at times mind-numbing. Google's going to help out with a new data journalism feature.

| Posted by:

Category: Apps, Business Internet, News, Reviews, Technology | No Comments


2 Good and 2 Bad Things About Google’s New Data Journalism Feature
Researching for articles is an integral part of my job. Searching through data and data is key to providing quality content. If I skip and try to pass off my work as accurate, I’m opening myself up for a major headache. And I could possibly lose my job. Despite hating research, I’ve come to love it. Which is why I grit my teeth when it comes to finding the right data, then identifying which datasets to focus on, and after all that is finally completed, digging into the data to analyze it. Along with improving grammar in their Docs, Google’s going to make research easier too.

How Google’s Going To Help With Data Journalism

Growing up my father would wake up at 4 am to go out into the wilderness and conduct research studies. He wasn’t researching wolves or bears or even something interesting. He was researching elk…elk. Just let that sink in for a minute. Majestic though they may be, these things don’t do much beyond graze and walk around. At least, they didn’t when I was looking at them. Since my dad was a wildlife biologist, I got the “opportunity” to go out on these trips. Sometimes if I misbehaved my dad decided I needed another “opportunity” to go out and help with the research. After staring at these dumb animals for untold hours, we’d go home and he’d start calculating the data. It took him more than twenty years to complete the research and analysis before he felt he had enough to present his findings. Thank god we have Google now. With a decent ISP, Google’s at my beck and call. Make sure you have taken the time to look through the best cable and internet packages in your area to cut down on twenty years of research. Without a reliable connection, I don’t think I’d be able to finish a single article. Thankfully, I do. And with it, I can easily type in a term and Google will return the relevant information. At least, in theory, that’s what it should do.

1. Save Time

I still dig through the information available there and suddenly I’m back in the field with my dad staring at a dumb animal that’s just chewing. What Google is proposing is to highlight relevant data within articles and list them above the title. A sort of preview. Already, I can feel the weight of researching getting lighter. By seeing what data is contained with an article or a report right there on the Google search page, I could save a significant amount of time. How much time I would save is still undefined. To figure that out would probably take a good twenty years anyway. This wouldn’t make research a blissful experience, it would just ease some of the headaches of hunting for data. I’m okay with that. Because there’s nothing more frustrating than opening an article and reading through a considerable chunk of it only to find it’s irrelevant. While the mistake of reading it was mine, it would have helped to get a better picture of the data contained within before I even started reading. And data previews would be a huge help in accomplishing that.

2. Refine Search Criteria

I’ll be honest, I have no master’s degree and I didn’t excel in school when it came to research. I got by well enough though. Now, when it comes to research for an article, I start by guessing at the search terms I need to use. There are the few times when I have a clear idea of where to look. Other times, and it happens more than I would like, I shoot in the dark until I find the right combination of words and terms. This works well enough most of the time. The other day, however, I had to dig through stuff from the FCC. Never in my life have I been so frustrated trying to find the relevant datasets. There was plenty of data to look at, I just didn’t have a clue what most of it meant. They use a lot of numbers.

Possible Drawbacks

Getting data previewed will be a huge help.

1. But humans will be looking at the previews

By reviewing the data alone, information can get missed. When just the numbers and the related terms are pulled out, data can be misunderstood. With no context, sometimes we can read the data in the wrong way and draw the wrong conclusions. This may not be as bad as it seems. Professionals do research and still misinterpret data from time to time.

2. Dense Reports

The real concern is when there is a huge report. You know, the academic kind with stuffy language. The type of report where the abstract alone hurts the brain while its being read. These dense tomes of collected data and aggregated information may defeat the algorithm of Google’s search engine. I doubt even artificial intelligence could make sense of them.

Get Ready For It Now

Google’s developers have already prepared for this. And they are asking that published articles are prepared in such a way that data is easy to identify. As Google searches far and wide through the internet it’ll be able to pluck the right stuff out of the text if it’s been easily labeled. There’s guidelines, source and provenance best practices listed in the developer's announcement. Before all that, there’s a list of examples for how authors and journalists can prepare their data so Google’s algorithms will recognize it.
  • A table or a CSV file with some data
  • An organized collection of tables
  • A file in a proprietary format that contains data
  • A collection of files that together constitute some meaningful dataset
  • A structured object with data in some other format that you might want to load into a special tool for processing
  • Images capturing data
  • Files relating to machine learning, such as trained parameters or neural network structure definitions
  • Anything that looks like a dataset.
That last one seems a little bit confusing. Or maybe that’s just me as I’m a not research-minded. The feature is still in the pilot phase. No news on when it will officially roll out.

It All Works Out in the End

Conducting research, as daunting as it is, is part of my job. I do get paid to do this, so I shouldn’t complain too much. And what’s a little research to make sure I’m taken seriously as a writer? At least I’m not having to drive out to the middle of nowhere and stare at elk for every article. There are times when it feels that way though. For those special people, like my dad, they look forward to that stuff. As weird as it sounds, they enjoy the hard labor of trekking out into the wilderness and collecting data. Then they head back home to crunch numbers without the help of Google to streamline the process. Instead, it’s spreadsheets upon spreadsheets. Which is almost worse than the job of collecting the data itself. But these strange people enjoy it. It has worked out for my dad though. He’s a published author now. I did get a mention in the acknowledgments section, so it was worth something for me too. Until I’m able to finish my next book, that will have to do.

3 Ways Theater Chains Can Combat Netflix

Theaters have been steadily losing to streaming services. Now big movies are coming to streaming services. Here's three ways theaters they can compete.

| Posted by:

Category: Business Internet, Entertainment, News, Streaming, TV | No Comments


3 Ways Theater Chains Can Combat Netflix
Theaters have been steadily losing to Netflix. Even though the latest Mission: Impossible scored a record last week, I didn't it see it. If it wasn’t on Netflix, then I didn’t watch it. I’m not lazy, I’m busy. There’s a difference. As a father of two and gainfully employed, a lot of my time is already spoken for. So is a lot of my income. Theater ticket prices are also a lot higher than they were when I was younger. And while I am getting a steady paycheck, with two children who are growing, I have less money available than I used to. There’s also the fact that Hollywood has lost its luster for me. I used to be the first one in line to catch a movie I liked. I would happily dole out the cash for popcorn and a soda. But most movies these days just aren’t doing it for me. I think it happened when they let JJ Abrams reboot Star Trek. There was hope that it wouldn’t be a repeat of Lost. It was worse. After that, it just became easier to stay in and miss the latest blockbuster. This had been happening with increasing frequency recently. Most “experts” point to rising ticket prices, concessions, and the increasing availability of streaming movies. Maybe JJ Abrams is to blame too. When Netflix premiered Bright last December, it marked a subtle shift; a streaming service put serious money, got serious talent, and put out a serious movie. The movie itself wasn’t truly groundbreaking. David Ayers, though a good director, has done similar movies like that. If you’ve seen Training Day and Sabotage, you’d see most of the plot twists coming from a mile away. While no Oscar-worthy film, Bright signifies that Netflix, and quite possibly the rest of the streaming services, are changing more than just TV watching.

The Problem

Theaters were once an experience in and of themselves. For those who grew up without streaming services or cable in their homes, going out to catch a movie was a big deal. Since most of the population, as of right now, grew up that way, theaters still hold sway. But not for long. As mentioned before, they’re expensive, and they’re crowded. Having to share a movie experience with strangers isn’t as appealing as it used to be. Especially when that stranger talks during the movie and took the best seat. And, as previously mentioned, the movies themselves haven’t all been winners. While I blamed JJ Abrams for this, I think it signifies a systemic problem overall. But that’s another argument for another post. Instead, let’s focus on what was keeping me at home. Netflix offering shows and movies at my fingertips with its streaming service. And with the best internet deals available, why wouldn’t I? While I waited for the latest blockbuster to be released on DVD and sent to my home, I occupied myself with classics, or just read a book. My world didn’t end if I didn’t see the latest hit in theaters. And getting to enjoy a film for the first time from the comfort of my couch, where I could provide my own concessions, and not have to listen to strangers talk throughout, that was worth staying in for. Then came the kids. Getting babysitters to watch them while I went out only to worry if they were okay the whole time really took the excitement out of the whole thing for me. Besides, I work all day, I’d like to spend as much time with them as I can. I understand there are other parents who don’t share these feelings and that’s okay, parenting isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. So how can theaters combat the rising tide of streaming services?

Embrace It

The simplest answer, yet the hardest, is for theater chains to embrace the change and find some way to get in on the action. Maybe they can facilitate the viewing experience in some way. Since I haven’t been to a theater in almost a year, I’m not sure I can come up with any logical solutions this way.

Fight Back

Theater chains can fight the coming wave. But not by taking on streaming services themselves. Instead, they need to go after the Hollywood studios who are gouging them for prices. It's a little-known fact that Hollywood isn't playing fair with theaters. Most theaters are forced cut a deal with the studios to get the latest flicks. The studios set the terms and the terms usually go something like this; to get the film on opening weekend, the theater must hand over 90% of their ticket sales for said movie. The next week they’ll only take 85% and so on. Concession prices have risen in response. By dropping prices, theaters can draw in more crowds. By drawing in more crowds, they can justify to the studios the lower prices due to the uptick in volume. Yet, I highly doubt the theaters will do this. Instead, as with all change, theaters must innovate. Here’s how.

Innovate

Ever read Ready Player One? There was the movie, but I’m talking about the book. Ernest Cline had come up with the idea of “Flick-Syncs.” Don’t worry, this isn’t a major plot point, just go read the book and you’ll see I’m right. The Flick-Syncs were interactive competitions where the player would step into a role from a film. If they delivered the line at the right time, they got points. If they managed to nail the inflection and emotion, they got bonuses. Thanks to hologram technology advancing, this may not be too far into the future. Theaters can get in on this technology in the early stages and really drive it forward by incorporating it into their movie-going experience. They could make their theaters fully interactive and immersive experiences. Watching a movie could become a spectator sport. Heck, you could even get involved in it and compete against friends. Another way they could leverage this would be to have “blind” competitions, where theater attendees could step into a role they’d never seen before- like a new release- and flex their acting chops. This could lead to a whole new wave in the casting industry- just check the leaderboards. An added benefit would be Hollywood could just release classics and turn them into Flick-Syncs. This way we can stop the endless barrage of reboots and sequels. We can be saved from JJ Abrams “reimagining” classics. Going to the theater would become a truly social event. We would just act in the movies ourselves. I'm on a roll now with these ideas...here's another one. These fully interactive Flick-Sync theaters could also pair with school districts. Imagine a day where you’re taken to the theater to experience walking in a foreign country, exploring the depths of the ocean, or even the moon? Or how about learning a math lesson within an interactive environment? No more papers and pencils! Think of all the trees we could save! And it would turn lessons into a competition. That would make math much more fun to learn. I could go on an on about it, but you’re getting the picture. I hope we will soon see theaters start to innovate beyond “softer seats” and “tastier concessions,” and into true entertainment. We may be waiting for a long time though. That’s okay, there’s plenty of movies and TV shows available on Netflix and I’m always guaranteed a great seat to watch them!  

The Future of Satellite Internet in 2020 Hinges on 3 Factors

As cool as satellite internet is, there are a lot of complaints with it. But what if there was better technology? What if it wasn't about technology at all?

| Posted by:

Category: Business Internet, News, Internet, Technology | No Comments


The Future of Satellite Internet in 2020 Hinges on 3 Factors

There’s cable internet, DSL, fiber optics, and then there’s satellite. These are the most common means of connecting with the internet today. The best option, and usually the fastest, is fiber. But that involves installing the wires needed. Thus, fiber is mostly limited to urban areas. Rural internet customers are left out, both figuratively and literally. If DSL and cable are not installed nearby, then the only options left are satellite internet providers, or if you're lucky, fixed wireless. As cool as satellite-internet is, the common complaint is that it’s too slow, or that weather interferes with the signal too easily. There's change on the horizon though. Is there a way to make satellite internet more reliable? Who's working on new technology to decrease latency, and increase download speeds to be on par with fiber? What if it wasn’t about technology at all? As of this writing, there are companies out there working on just that. According to an article on PC Mag, it’s the “New Space Race.”

The Problems

To solve the issues plaguing satellite internet’s reliability and latency issues, both well-known and unknown companies have begun their own research into how to get around all the factors involved with transmitting internet signals from the earth’s surface up into space.

Weather and Geography

DSL, fiber, and cable, all have the advantage of being installed on the ground. Satellite services like HughesNet and Viasat, contend with about 310 miles, at least, of space between them and the transceiver they’re hooked up to. That’s 310 miles, at least, of space that stuff can get in the way. Storms, even some cloud cover, can have an effect on this signal. A satellite signal is, at its core, energy riding on waves. Clouds and storms have a way of breaking up that energy. Sometimes it’s a small disturbance, other times it’s a big one. Geography, such as mountains and trees, have a more powerful effect on this energy. The signal can’t go around them, which is why satellite dishes need to have a relatively clear line of sight to the satellite itself.

Signal Strength

Tossing a football a short distance is easy. Throwing it the length of a football field, and into the hands of an open receiver, is much more difficult. And while NFL quarterbacks are paid millions to do this, their accuracy is still on par with satellite signal strength. I could name a few quarterbacks who’ve upset me in this way, but that would be too mean. A satellite, in simplest terms, is throwing a football over 310 miles, at least, to a receiver. The receiver must be able to catch and throw it back. To extend the metaphor further, because of the distance and the among of energy needed to hurl something that far, the satellite can only throw a small football. That football needs to go up to the satellite, and back, quickly. Which is why it’s kept so small. That’s why there are data caps involved in satellites.

The Players


To combat these issues, companies are trying new methods for getting around the issues. SpaceX’s Elon Musk petitioned the FCC to send up over 7500 satellites for his endeavor, Starlight. These satellites would be placed at different altitudes above the earth, some in low orbit (310 miles), some in medium orbit (3,000 miles) and the rest in geostationary orbit (about 22,000 miles). The idea is to have more satellites to transmit the signal to resolve any latency and speed issues. Google has Project Loon, which will use balloons instead of satellites. These balloons will be sent up to the stratosphere and will link up to transmit signals. Then there’s OneWeb, similar to Starlight, only they’ll use a small number of satellites for their network. The key difference is the method in how they link the satellites together. The short answer is; it’s complex. Both developers are using a different way to set up their networks. Which one will do a better job?

3 Factors Deciding Satellite Internet’s Future

All this new technology will undoubtedly yield some benefits. The speed and reliability of satellite internet may remain at the level it is today for some time. But it’s good to see brilliant minds working to solve the issues. The more they work on it, the sooner we’ll see results. The technology, however, is not what will be the deciding factor in who wins the New Space Race. It’ll be because of these three factors.

1.     Who Will Create a Viable Infrastructure?

All the technology in the world will not solve the problem of increasing the speed and reliability of satellite internet. Sure, technology is great, it can connect us over great distances, but it needs to be structured in such a way to achieve that greatness. Amazon didn’t perfect the book-buying business, they found a better way to deliver the books to the customer. To do this they needed a warehouse and delivery system. They could have started with delivering toothpaste and it still would have come down to how well they were able to get that product into the hands of the person who ordered it. Satellite internet, to be the next big thing, needs an infrastructure that maximizes the technology available. By streamlining the process, the satellites above can do a better job of sending and receiving signals.

2.     Who Will Adopt It First?

AS with any movement, there are the early adopters. These are the people who see the value in something that’s not been perfected yet. There will be bugs involved, frustration when it comes to incorporating it, and other problems. These early adopters gladly take on that burden because they see this new technology as giving them a value far outweighing the problems. The trick is getting those early adopters to see the opportunity, which leads us to point #3.

3.     Who Will Market It the Best?

Steve Jobs, Herb Kelleher, and Mark Zuckerberg have something in common. They respectively did not invent the home computer, cheap flights, and social media. They found a better way to market it to the consumer. Jobs with his Apple II made his computers easier to use by taking out the need for the average joe to know the programming language. Kelleher found a way to make buying flights simple, fun, and cheap. Zuckerberg took the concept of a university-wide student directory and put it online along with the ability to message friends and share pictures. There are other pioneers like these who didn’t invent something new, they just found a better way to market it to the individual. For satellite internet to take off, it will not be because someone figured out a way to make it 100% reliable. Though that would be very important to the story, it will mean nothing if no one knows about it.

The Internet Will Change


The one constant in life is that there will always be change.

 

The internet is no different. What will the next change be? No one knows for certain. Given that there are a lot of minds, and a lot of money, involved with improving satellite internet, satellites will play a bigger part in the future of it. Until then, we’ll have to make do with what we have. If you’re a rural customer or an urban one, save yourself some time and check out the best internet and cable packages. This way you don’t have to do all the work of finding the best deals in your area, and you can save some money too.