BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!
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!" |
|
phattieg
join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| 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
| 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!" |
|
