 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to NetAdmin1
Re: And why should they lose money so video providers get rich ? said by NetAdmin1:Yeah, but "channels" don't translate over very well in IP networks. The closest thing you can get to channels with IP, while still using bandwidth efficiently, is to use multicast (why does the site think that word is misspelled). That just calls out the even bigger problem -- we have more existing infrastructure for channel capacity than we do for IP capacity. I can get a couple hundred channels via Dish or DirectTV, with at least 30-50 viewable HD channels. Multicast is a solution, but still not the solution. Just look at all the issues ATT is having with U-Verse; only being able to watch 2 channels within a house because that's all the bandwidth you have sucks. I run a single household and my Dish DVR still records 3 feeds at times (2 SAT + digital OTA) to get everything I'm interested in watching. Assuming 5mbps per HD feed, that'd still require 15 mbps of IP capacity just to watch those 3 channels.
said by NetAdmin1:]When the scheduled distribution of that show occurs, it would be done via multicast to all of the DVRs. So instead of multiple data streams, you have only one data stream. Why not do the same thing on a traditional channel by playing frequently requested programs in a loop sequence on a "request" channel like they do with PPV? The selection criteria could be: You select a program that is not live, the first thing the appliance does is check the schedule to see if it will be on anytime soon, if it is not in the schedule then it resorts to retrieval over the the network. If enough people select content for retrieval, it can be scheduled to be aired on the request channel and the updated guide information is pushed down to the appliances. With DVRs being networked, this can be implemented on existing technology with very little engineering rework. |
