| Why bother with Video over broadband? Are there not enough delivery platforms for which Video can be delivered in a safe, economical manner? I think its asinine to expect TCP to deliver video entertainment unless that entertainment is of such a low bitrate that you can accomodate TCP/WAN overhead, retransmissions, buildout WAN networks 25-fold (from a capacity standpoint), etc.
And what consumer is going to pay for a +20 Mbps pipe to there home? I bet the cost to the consumer would be in excess of $100/month, which is a far cry from more traditional delivery systems (DBS, Cable, etc.).
I think Nortel is smoking dope and trying to convince the clueless exec suits at telco's they need Nortel products. If I want Mexican food I'll go to Taco Hell and not McDonalds, thank you!  |
|
 odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| 20Mbps modem to VOD server.
still only going to be whatever the standard DSL speed is to the internet. they need this bandwidth to do switched digital narrowcasting of digital video content. 3-4 tv's in a house with 3-4Mbps for each programs. HD's even worse thats gonna require at a minimum 10Mbps when crushed and 15-18 in the "raw".
and to that fact that the are already cannibalizing their own customers to satellite and i doubt VODSL is gonna be big anytime soon. small markets and indy coops could really do it, but the monster ILEC's can'.
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to ParanoiaInc
I think ftth is going to be the major competitor here, which means that all the other pipes to the home will become obsolete in a comparable timeframe. Why bother with such high bandwidth DSL with ftth knocking on the doorstep?
And I absolutely agree that it is a pathetic way of delivering video to the home. It's making the same mistake the cable operators are with single set digital boxes ... most homes have multiple TVs all watching different stuff. That pipe is going to fill up awful quick with 3 HDTV video streams and a high speed data stream.
It's a pathetic waste of the technology to even pump VoIP when the traditional phone service does the job remarkably well. |
|
odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by sbrook:
And I absolutely agree that it is a pathetic way of delivering video to the home. It's making the same mistake the cable operators are with single set digital boxes ... most homes have multiple TVs all watching different stuff. That pipe is going to fill up awful quick with 3 HDTV video streams and a high speed data stream.
switched digital narrowcasting allows each node to be given insane amounts of content.
»www.bigbandnet.com/products.php
it's the dope sheet 
--
disclaimer: my opinions are my own, my employer is not responsible. |
|
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:
It's a pathetic waste of the technology to even pump VoIP when the traditional phone service does the job remarkably well.
Except it's so much cheaper and relatively more flexible and feature-laden. If all you do is call the pizza guy, you're right. But when you get into the long-distance and international realm, VOIP looks better and better.
--
A good idea expressed in a poor manner is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | reply to ParanoiaInc
There are many TV Channels that my cable company does not offer me. Like BBC America etc. If I could buy such channels I could bypass Cable and get only what I actually want to watch.
In terms of technology ADSL2 and ADSL 2+ is available TODAY and slowly the Baby Bells will be switching over. It should be more quickly. In terms of cost I don't see it as being materially more expensive that onler forms of ADSL. Maybe by the time of rollout it will be cheaper than the older technology Standard. |
|
| reply to ParanoiaInc
The world is moving towards high-definition content, and I like to think this begins at 19.1 Mbps and ramps up to 28.8 Mbps. By the time they could deploy enough capacity into any LEC's network and build it out to the consumer's home they will already be shy of the mark.
Next, you have to resolve oversubscription conditions, which has and always will be in telco/cable networks. They could care less about friday night bottlenecks or saturday evening traffic congestion as they are looking at the average across a week or month, which is well short of the QoS needed to transport video datacom infrastructure.
Now, if they want to consider a one-way wifi solution then this could be an answer, but 1.5-5 Mbps is a far, far, far cry from 19.1 Mbps (let alone 28.2 Mbps) for the future of content. Of course, you could always short-sheet the customer like someone selling streamed movies that have picture quality below that of DVD. Anyone buying?
And finally, how do they actually plan on competing? The cable and satellite companies are already established, with a working business model. Its one thing to win a customer off the street and a completely different scenario to steal one from the competition.
Again, this topic is coming from a company making a sales pitch to sell equipment in order to stay alive. Where is the consumer outcry for datacom-delivered quality content for thei television? If anything the telco's should just get into the broadcast business and buy some digital OTA transmitters and bandwidth and compete on a local-market via ATSC broadcasting. |
|
