Talk:Convergence (telecommunications)

Definition of Convergence

It should be pointed out that there is no universally recognized consensus on a definition for convergence and consequently many would contest the degree to which this phenomenon has been realized.Siddharthashankarmenon (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Triple play?

I have a problem with the definition of triple play. I understand the term as so described in Triple play (telecommunications), as Internet, voice and video provided through a single communication form . i.e. broadband or DSL. In this article it is refered to as any three communication services provided by the same operator.

I'm not about to change the section before there are concensus about the term, but either this article or the Triple play (telecommunications) should be altered.

Additionally I think the definition of quad-play is erroneous as well. I perceive it as triple play made airborn through mobile technology (3G/4G). As I think is stated in the Technological convergence#Multi-play article.

What do you think guys?

BispensGipsGebis (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the other articles are right. Triple is voice + TV + Internet all on one medium. Quad is triple + cellphone. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added another vision of history about convergence. Ktlin91 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)ktlin91

first and second paragraph

The first and second paragraph has some legitimate points, but it is not so neutral. "Telecommunication convergence is a disruptive technology." The convergence technology can be disruptive depending on the point of view. I am going to change that in a few days, and rewrite a new introduction. If anybody has any problem please speak to me? 128.119.15.110 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Ktlin91128.119.15.110 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Technology Implication and social implication

You have quite a list for Technology Implication, i would suggest you to list your references to back up all the technologies. Social implication is a terribly articulated. and bad citation on Single view of customer. I do not like how you complain about the multiple billing and using the promo from a private company website as reference, which you use their advertisement as your sources. I will change that in a few days, if you did not change it already. All of the social implication needs to be reorganized. Your writing is too specific; it is hard to follow. I will try to put your writings to other section of the article , so it fits better. 128.119.15.110 (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Ktlin91

Article Name Change

Convergence (Telecommunication) is the name now. I do not think the title fits the contents entirely. Media convergence is a really big subject and telecommunication convergence is only a part of it. Some says the technology diverges and content converges. Can we do something about it? My suggestion for the article is " Media Convergence" Ktlin91 (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Ktlin91

Peer Review

You did a great job in communicating various aspects of media convergence although the article is a little hard to follow because it is so specific at times it does not transition well into the other subtopics. I would also revise certains sentences like "After the Dot-com bubble burst, companies made convergence the new thing again," and make the statement more formal because it is unclear what it means to be "the new thing." Shawn Shimpach from the Comm department teaches a lot about media convergence and the affects it has on society and he might be able to provide you with some great material regarding the topic. In addtion to written articles and other publications he has videos demonstrating the concept and all may be of great use to you. He is located at 410 Machmer.Odolgopo (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be working on my transitions. I am still reading, but i will spend time on making the whole writing flow better. Professor Shimpach, I should also pay him visit. thanks for the reviewing. 128.119.15.233 (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Ktlin91

Peer FeedBack

After reading this article I can see that you put a little of hard work and effort into describing telecommunication convergence. I would have to agree with my fellow peer advisor that at time's it is a little hard to follow. But the one thing that I did like in this article was how you listed some practical examples of how telecommunications convergence can have social implications. I think one thing that you could improve is expanding on the social implications section. The flow is a little off after your done describing Jenkins convergence and you should insert a sentence such as "to further reinforce Jenkins description of convergence we can take examples from the media such as coverage on Bin Laden after the 9-11 attacks. Other then that minor detail and my suggestion on expanding your section on social implications I would say your really well thought out and the work speaks for itself. I will probably make another pass over your article and include any details that i might have missed. Krimsonshadow (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

In the lead paragraph I think you should change this sentence: Convergence is defined by Blackman, 1998, as a trend in the evolution of technology services and industry structures. Maybe restructure it into something like this and cite it: Convergence is a trend in the evolution of technology services and industry structures. I also think you should link to access-independent, access-dependent, IP based, AT&T, digital bit stream and a bunch of other words, there might be people who don't know what those are. There is a small typo in the HISTORY section. In the first sentence I think you meant to say "types" instead of "type." Also I think you should change this sentence from: Radio were designed for audio, and Televisions were design for video. TO: The Radio was designed for audio, and Television was designed for video. . This sentence doesn't really flow, maybe you can work on it: Jenkins concludes that this events is going to be a old trick, which is going to be like radio stations take over televisions; "An Old Testament God threatening destruction unless they followed His rules" (Jenkins); the media giants are going to occupy the new technology again. I also remember learning something about synergy in my comm 121 class, maybe it's something that you can talk about. In the convergence of cell phone section you can talk about smartphones, and how they can be used as a computer, pda, mp3 player, camera, gps, etc. http://jfbelisle.com/2009/05/three-types-of-convergence-is-the-future-friendly/ Internet tv is also something you could write about. I know that there are several telecommunications companies that have converged, maybe you could give us some examples of this. You mentioned AT&T in the beginning, maybe you could go on to say who they converged with, how, and why they converged, etc. http://www2.nortel.com/go/news_detail.jsp?cat_id=-9742&oid=100243090&locale=en-us&lcid=-1 Overall this is a very good article, well written, with a lot of information. You did a very good job. Eff Gjeni (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to the Peer Review. I agree with the most part. I will have to make my sentences sound more like professional encyclopedia and fix my grammar. I have not written anything about AT&T. I realize that AT&T was written by someone else on the internet. However, I should talk about cell phone providers and how they change or engage according to Media convergence. Ktlin91 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)ktlin91

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Massachusetts Amherst supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)