BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to pnh102
Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!
I agree with you , this is one time I don't think we should see the comments about how we fall behind , for once this is another technology that is really just not ready for prime time.
The content providers control in the us will destroy the delivery systems soon.
Thank god for toshiba dropping hd player costs yet again , to really hit the point home that the content providers chose the wrong format and the people should be proving what format we want. Not the content providers telling us what we want.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
wifi4milez
In Need Of Garbage Pail Kids 1st Series
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
| said by pnh102  :Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV? It gives people on this site one more thing to bitch about. No really, thats it!
--
с новым годом |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV? Control ! Nothing more nothing less.
The content providers load up the DRM so no one who isn't paying can see it. They despise the idea of free content , like ota tv. Even on an ip based system they fear some one seeing something they don't pay for. And iptv gives them more assurance.
I'd have to find the article but there are plenty from the blu-ray CES expo that basically asked the content providers why they chose blu-ray and what they see in the future , they want full control over the media and the transport so you can't see something without paying. It relates to IPTV because it was one of the stumbling block MS had in the introduction of their iptv set up.
Thankfully companies like Sun avoided it all together by just providing the equipment, not the protection schemes.
These companies providing iptv want a piece of the content pie. Which I feel is disgusting , provide me a bigger pipe to my world , which is the web , I will find my own content.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by BosstonesOwn :Control ! Nothing more nothing less. While I agree with your sentiment about DRM, this is not something that cannot already be done with existing cable TV or satellite TV systems. IPTV is just another way of doing the same thing. It does not seem to be better or worse than what we have here now.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV? exactly. Fox Noise is the only channel needed.
Any on demand niche research report type programs are completely unnecessary. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to pnh102
iptv is very inefficient. Multicasting is so much less difficult. And so much more sensible. Not to mention cheaper.
It's actually worse , it takes more resources to accomplish the same thing, which is a waste in general.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV? It's called competition, dimwit. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by ackman :It's called competition, dimwit. Learn to read, please. Do you think the average customer cares how his/her TV service is delivered?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
Phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Jacksonville, FL
·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn :iptv is very inefficient. Multicasting is so much less difficult. And so much more sensible. Not to mention cheaper. It's actually worse , it takes more resources to accomplish the same thing, which is a waste in general. How do you figure? IPTV is capable of holding unused channels at the edge router. That results in less information to your TV. You have to think, there is less equipment involved in the end. Instead of occupying all that space multicasting hundreds of channels, you only stream the ones you use. So I am not understanding how IPTV is less efficent, you aren't wasting space that could be used for something else like, oh, faster internet... Now TELCO IPTV, if done with VDSL is too much equipment, but through cable, it's a viable option with the HD revolution, and the speed increases being done to internet connections. You never know, cable could bring in IPTV here and make a new cable modem standard allowing a little more competition with fiber service. I know there is things that can be done to give fiber more room too, but if you are talking about efficiency, then you can't beat IPTV... But oh well.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| You don't understand IPTV enough to know the differences. I liked playing with Sun's video delivery system while I was there , and it used IPtv , not multicasting. Which is why not many people bought it yet. Well accept the folks who purchased it to be used to store the content they needed to stream.
Multicasting the channel on ip is what cable co's want to use. Holding it at the edge is a buzz statement to try and solve a problem. This is a half assed attempt.
Iptv can only be streamed to 1 device at a time. If you have channel 100 streaming it takes another stream to hit me doubling the bandwidth used at the point of aggregation to the user. If we are on the same node we wasted a stream thus we wasted bandwidth that could be used by yet another victim of iptv. Multicasting avoids this. it lets the 2nd user pick up the stream as long as it's being broadcast already. IPtv as it stand does not allow this. It's actually considered a big security issue.
Cable multicasting is nothing new. What is new is they had the sense to see that they have to try and hold back unused channels. However just ask those folks in the beta regions. They are getting black screens with some cryptic messages on them. They did not plan on so many people wanting different channels.
Right now it's not ready for prime time. 1 way communications benefit from multicasting , it's just the way it is for now.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
