 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to fifty nine
Re: Why IPTV? Verizon is doing both. As a bridge they deployed technology emulating existing HFC CATV network. This got them up and running as quickly as possible. They are also experimenting with IPTV.
IPTV represents a totally different way to distribute video, more like going to the Library then watching TV. One needs to keep in mind broadcast TV and Radio business model is an outgrowth of technology limitations. Prior to the Internet is was impossible to deliver customized content. High speed Internet access eliminates that constraint.
Except for live events there is no reason to "broadcast" by that I mean send the same programs to millions of households at the same time.
I'm a little surprised FairPoint is doing this. Only a small percentage of their customers, those connected to FAST (Verizon FIOS), have a fast enough first-mile connection to support IPTV. The bulk of Fairpoint's investment is going to expand DSL in rural area. Long DSL circuits mean speed is too low to deliver TV.
The other business reason to invest in IPTV is because it increases demand for faster Internet access.
/tom |
|
| Unless you're doing IP multicast, you're going to consume more bandwidth by doing IPTV versus doing regular broadcast TV over a HFC type of network.
For on demand, IPTV works well. For broadcast channels, I think it's going to needlessly consume bandwidth. |
|
tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| said by fifty nine:Unless you're doing IP multicast, you're going to consume more bandwidth by doing IPTV versus doing regular broadcast TV over a HFC type of network. For on demand, IPTV works well. For broadcast channels, I think it's going to needlessly consume bandwidth. I assume internally ISP will use some form of Multicast to save not only internal network bandwidth to to reduce load on video servers.
"Wasting bandwidth" is always a contentious issue. It really only comes into play if you don't have enough. Unused bandwidth is like empty seats on an airplane.
If we assume both first-mile and internal network has enough capacity to support wide deployment of demand based IPTV there is no reason to "conserve bandwidth."
/tom |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:Unless you're doing IP multicast, you're going to consume more bandwidth by doing IPTV versus doing regular broadcast TV over a HFC type of network. For on demand, IPTV works well. For broadcast channels, I think it's going to needlessly consume bandwidth. Broadcast is suited to Multicast (at least IPv6 MC) since more than one TCP/IP Stream can be carried over the same bandwidth as a single TV Channel. Since with IPv6 the STB can be assigned not only its own private IPN (needed to talk to the headend as well as receive On Demand) but others that are used for TCP/IP Broadcast. While IPv6 MC, each MC stream has its own destination IPN. The STP is told when it tunes to TV Channel X, to listen to the IPN that is carrying the TV Channel X stream. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to tschmidt
said by tschmidt:Except for live events there is no reason to "broadcast" by that I mean send the same programs to millions of households at the same time. /tom Theoretically true but both linear digital cable and IPTV have their advantages and disadvantages. Only about 30 (major broadcast and cable network) channels have really large viewership and with current technology it makes sense to provide them through linear digital cable. The several hundred channels that have relatively small viewership however waste a tremendous amount of bandwidth when provided in such a way and are much better suited to non-linear transmission such as IPTV. |
|
| reply to tschmidt
Well, I like your 'other' business reason to invest in IPTV, but we don't currently have enough bandwidth for the number of individual streams needed or wanted at the quality it should be. I had a problem last night where I wanted to record two HD streams and finish watching a third. It couldn't be done on U-Verse ( as an example). The problem is worse because we can not record and watch HD on two TVs. If we had much more bandwidth, then maybe IPTV would work, but right now it isn't quite there. I'm sure the solution will be to make the image quality even worse than it is... That's not acceptable. I love the idea of IPTV, but the implementation leaves something to be desired so far... |
|
| reply to fifty nine
BINGO! |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to Sammer
said by Sammer:said by tschmidt:Except for live events there is no reason to "broadcast" by that I mean send the same programs to millions of households at the same time. /tom Theoretically true but both linear digital cable and IPTV have their advantages and disadvantages. Only about 30 (major broadcast and cable network) channels have really large viewership and with current technology it makes sense to provide them through linear digital cable. The several hundred channels that have relatively small viewership however waste a tremendous amount of bandwidth when provided in such a way and are much better suited to non-linear transmission such as IPTV. There is currently technology to handle this. It is called SDV and assigns the less watched channels to a separate set of channels (in lieu of each channel having a fixed/dedicated channel. What happens is that if anyone on your node is tuned to one of the SDV supplied channels, the STB is told to watch it on SDV Channel X (and that channel is used by all the boxes on the node to watch the channel). If someone on another node tunes to a different SDV supplied channel, it may be delivered on SDV Channel X unlike non-SDV supported channels where all the nodes get it shown on Non-SDV channel Y (and that other channel is shown on Non-SDV channel Z). |
|
|
|
