Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs: | Translation, more speed?
Does this mean we'd get faster internet? Or is this just another effort to blow smoke? |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Bandwitdth issues?
Hmmmmm, how is this going to work? Are all programs are going to be On-Demand? Imagine the bandwidth when people get home or in the evening when everyone starts calling for shows.
Plus, who knows if those 20 or 30 shows are what people want to watch at any given time.
Is channel surfing going to be possible?
As for the major networks (FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS) will they allow their shows to be stored then transmitted?
Nice idea but there are issues. |
|
UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY | CV is already testing this in NJ. I am sure other MSOs are testing it as well. So much for all the MSOs saying they have no bandwidth issues, when in fact they do. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to moonpuppy
CBS already allows one of its networks to be stored and watched VoD- they own Showtime which is an On-Demand channel. |
|
majortom1981
join:2004-08-26
Lindenhurst, NY
| This will free up bandwidth
There will be no problems when people call for channels all at once. Why you aks? because every channel is streamed to every box in the houses anyway.
Even if everybody calls for channels at once it will still use less bandwidth because each box will only ask for a few channels. Not all of them at once. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Bandwitdth issues?
Currently, all channels are being broadcasted simultaneously while the operators are still offering 5, 10, and even +15Mbps Internet connectivity. They are suggesting that the average number of 'watched' channels at any given time is actually lower than the total number of channels.
As a result and the new ability to selectively not simultaneously broadcast all channels to the home they can find more useful ways of using recycled bandwidth. While faster internet connectivity is one of them, this could also allow for more higher-bandwidth channels (e.g. HD).
For instance, let's say that a cable operator routines broadcasts 200 channels simultaneously, but at any given time in their network only 150 are being watched. Since Internet connectivity is 'best effort' then the variable performance is already allowed and afforded.
Personally, they all need a better approach (deploy GigE FTTH!). |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to majortom1981
Re: This will free up bandwidth
said by majortom1981  :There will be no problems when people call for channels all at once. Why you aks? because every channel is streamed to every box in the houses anyway. Even if everybody calls for channels at once it will still use less bandwidth because each box will only ask for a few channels. Not all of them at once. That all depends on how many customers are hung off the edge router/switch. If there is a very large number(over a 1000 say), then the diversity of all those people's choices will result in a large number of channels being needed simultaneously, defeating the justification of going to a switched format. If a smaller number are off each switch, and most are watching the network(abc,cbs,nbc) and little else, this can work.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI
| reply to majortom1981
Every channel is NOT streamed to every box. A session for a specific channel is not setup unless someone requests it. If that channel is already setup and streaming, then when you tune your box to that channel you are directed to the session that is already setup...If everyone quits watching that channel, after a certain time frame that session stops. An MSO may have 300 channels available but only 50 or so are watched at any one time.
This has actually been around for years, but the technology to allow you to change channels without huge delays didn't make it really feasible. |
|
RafS
join:2003-03-06
New York, NY
| So, am I getting it?
If this was compared to a pipe with liquid it'd be like saying that instead of having a pipe for each flavor of soda and water and juice you'd have one pipe come in to your house and then jsut call the company and tell them what to pump at any given time? I guess this would then mean that all those left over pipes could be combined into big pipes for the HD streams or for way fater internet? Sounds like a feasable option to doing major upgrades |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to magnushsi
Re: This will free up bandwidth
said by magnushsi :Every channel is NOT streamed to every box. A session for a specific channel is not setup unless someone requests it. If that channel is already setup and streaming, then when you tune your box to that channel you are directed to the session that is already setup...If everyone quits watching that channel, after a certain time frame that session stops. An MSO may have 300 channels available but only 50 or so are watched at any one time. This has actually been around for years, but the technology to allow you to change channels without huge delays didn't make it really feasible. If the MSOs would enter the 21st Century and send their TV Streams via IPV6, they could save lots of bandwidth. The channels would be sent as Multicasts which would mean that they are sent over the local branch as a single session and all boxes on that leg could receive it. A channel that no-one is watching would not be routed to that section of the network. What this means is that all channels are available but they flow only to those intermediate routers that have someone interested in seeing it. So long as IPV4 is used there are separate sessions for each viewer/STB since unlike IPV6 each box has ONE IPN. With IPV6, the STB (and Modem/CPU) can have multiple IPNs including ones that are Multicast IPNs which means that the box sees a session going to all the boxes tuned to that channel and just monitors it without needing a private session. |
|
mike31mets
join:2004-10-30
Bronx, NY
| reply to RafS
Re: So, am I getting it?
if that's the case this may not be that beneficial to the customer in some aspects. while it does free up bandwidth it doesn't allow the viewer to surf channels. i can't speak for everyone here but i would say many people turn the tv on often without any specific channel in mind to watch. they simply flip the channels until they find something they want. would we not be able to do this anymore? i certainly don't want to just look at a tv guide and wonder whether the movie is good or not.
now the other thing that troubles me here is that we would have to call the company to tell them what we want to watch. what happens when there are too many callers and we have to be on hold? why not just make it like pay-per-view. if you want to watch it just have buttons that would allow you to order it through the remote control. in this case you wouldn't neccesarily have to order the channell assuming it's already apart of your package. so say I have a family package and I want to watch Fox Family with this technology we should simply be able to click SELECT and ENTER on our remote and bam the channel shows up instead of having to pick up the phone which is more time consuming. And as far as time is concerned, what happens when you find out about a show that you want to record on the vcr but you have to wait until you get home and you get home right when the show starts but then you have to wait to have the channel streamed to your home that just creates a bigger inconvience to the customer in my mind.
it's a great idea but i think this should be implemented in a way where it's fast and easy to do while still allowing channel surfing. and if i'm misunderstanding something someone clear it up please. thanks. it's interesting to say the least. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| i love analog.
it works. it's smooth. it has 'broadcast quality.' it has no compression issues like jitter, delay, pixelation, discolorations. you can channel surf, instantly. it's 'always on.'
ok, now that I got that out... cool idea, but it would likely do away with channel surfing... unless as RARPSL said, ipv6 is implemented, thus eliminating some of these issues and changing the dynamics of how it would be implemented. |
|
jeffjr1
join:2005-01-06
Rome, NY
| I recieved a letter in the mail
3 days ago about this (SDB). i will try to find the letter and post it. Basically it said that are division would be upgrading throughout the summer to this new system.
the letter also talked about how this would free up bandwidth in their system and allow for more HD broadcasting |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Good.
Now there is no technical excuse not to implement à la carte channel selection.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to UofMiamiGrad
Re: Bandwitdth issues?
said by UofMiamiGrad :CV is already testing this in NJ. I am sure other MSOs are testing it as well. So much for all the MSOs saying they have no bandwidth issues, when in fact they do. Yea.. this is nothing new. I don't know where it comes from that cable is looking at this from Phone. Unless phone was looking at doing this back in 1997 (which they could have been) cable tv has been looking at and eyeing IPTV for years. This is nothing new.
In many of our company wide meetings, Comcast officials had been talking about IPTV in the past. "The Industry" may be talking about it *now*, but I know of MSOs that have been talking about it for a while. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
3 edits | reply to RARPSL
Re: This will free up bandwidth
Multicasting does work fine on IPv4 as well you know. You'd best tell the UK operators running multicast peering for IPTV distribution that they absolutely need to use IPv6.
Point is that IPv4 multicasting can be routed as well. IPv6 isn't necessary.
No need for IPv4 to give really slow channel changing times either. As IPv6 native hardware support is still relatively limited IPv4 is still a better option for some.
After all this hardware probably isn't using IPv6, and SA aren't stupid they do have a vague idea about this cable malarky. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to mike31mets
Re: So, am I getting it?
You'd be surprised today. Channel surfing isn't necessarily done by flippin' the channels any more. Many boxes are slow and it frustrates people. What people ARE doing is guide surfing then selecting their channel.
I've been in enough homes with customers to pick up the remote to show me "how they watch tv" so see this in action. And to cliarify this for the people out there that still do channel surf, please pay attention to the word above "necessarily" before posting your "No, I still channel surf" message.
Ultimately, in the long run, TV will all be OnDemand anyway. Additionally, I can see MSOs moving towards a complete pay per use system anyway. It's been discussed in the past and given the way that networks and the MPAA are going, and how they are fighting ala cart programming, I tend to beleive the corporate big-wigs when they talked about pay for what you watch being the future. |
|
Ignite
Premium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK
clubs:
·BlueYonder Interne..
·Be There
| reply to Chris 313
Re: Translation, more speed?
said by Chris 313 :Does this mean we'd get faster internet? Or is this just another effort to blow smoke? Just because it doesn't instantly mean you'll get 100Mbit internet doesn't mean it's an effort to blow smoke.
It can free up bandwidth which could be used for wide band DOCSIS and higher internet speeds. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Bandwitdth issues?
Ameritech did advanced fiber-fed HFC cable TV fifteen years ago, well before any entrenched incumbent even had their first meeting about it...so I guess that means every other cable MSO in the region has been playing catch-up since.
What's your point?
Talking about it and deploying it are totally different things. Seems that all talk, no action shoe is now on the cable foot.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to RARPSL
Re: This will free up bandwidth
Seems like that would be a great solution for ADSL2 video where bandwidth is limited in the last mile.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... |
|
