If Verizon, Comcast, others do this, it CAN add competition
If all the landline based TV providers actually offer this capability sometime soon, it could add significant competition in the "Cable TV" market as they could enter each others territory very easily. The end of the duopoly.
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
The duopoly will still exist in the last mile, unless you think Verizon isn't going to try to degrade Comcast's IPTV offering when it's going to a Verizon customer (and vice versa).
Hah! How is this going to work with the infamous Comcap? They'll probably pull an AT&T and stomp all over the concept of network neutrality by making their own Internet traffic exempt.
|reply to vpoko |
Re: If Verizon, Comcast, others do this, it CAN add competition
it can change. The only thing the EU will need is an Internet connection and just plug the STB and other devices into that and they phone home to get their services. The same as TMO does with UMA on their devices.
|reply to FFH |
Not with caps. If this is IPTV you can access via the open internet you'll be at the mercy of your ISP. The only way around this is, breaking up the ownership of landline internet to be a dumb pipe owned by a local PUC, who will maintain and construct it be an unlimited pipe.
Sounds like this will be like how at&t U-Verse runs. IPTV comes from the coax and to the box where it can be ethernet to another box or wirelessly streamed to computers.
"We have to do a better job getting people to realize what they are paying us for." - Yeah I feel like I'm seriously overpaying for an old business model right now.
I was going to say, most IPTV HD streams are (on average) around 8mbps.
That's 3.6GB/hour of usage.
3 hours of TV per day for 30 days, 324GB in usage for this alone.
Don't forget about multiple TVs.
Although if the traffic is multicast, I wonder how that would be treated. Obviously if all 3 TVs are on a different channel that wouldn't matter, it'd still be a multiple.
|reply to 45612019 |
Of course this traffic will be exempt from the bandwidth limits. Most likely they would do it by separating out the internet traffic from this IP traffic. Most likely in a wide deployment they would dedicate certain channels to the normal Internet traffic and other channels to the video IP traffic.
The good thing about video over IP is that it should free up a good bit of the downstream bandwidth as there's no need to deliver hundreds of channels to every home when only a few channels in any given home are being watched at a time.
That's the main issue though. If Comcast is allowed to do IP streaming with terabytes of data per month, but limits other content providers it definitely creates an unfair advantage. Their solution will probably be create an xFinity broadband tier which charges you an extra $40 a month so you can stream other video services...
What intrigues me about this move is a possibility to move from channels to simply On Demand content. How many people already just record the shows to a DVR and then play them back at a later date, skipping the commericals and pausing when they want? With other options like Netflix having to tie your content to a specific channel and time slot isn't really the best option for Comcast. This could be a big change in the way that tv is presented. There still might be some streams and Comcast could possibly make their own "channels" by simply taking shows and creating a lineup out of them.
Obviously it's hard to say how big name channels like HBO might react to a change like this, but in reality as long as they can keep their name on the content and be the provider, they will still be making money from it.