Duo Maxwell
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI | Lay FTTH
and then do streaming TV instead of broadcasting it offer the cables, problem solved. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| Are you suggesting IPTV? If so I do not think they would do that as they would no longer be able to have caps, it would violate net neutrality. A costumer could only watch like 100GB of hulu or youtube, but could watch all the TW internet video they wanted so IF they went all IPTV and had a cap they would be crushed under lawsuits. |
|
sapo
I eat meat
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA | reply to Duo Maxwell
How does that address the issue of the rising costs of TV programs? Having the hardware is the easy part. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to Duo Maxwell
Unicast-based streaming video actually creates a whole new set of distribution problems.
Existing broadcast TV options are a single feed with many viewers, so your efficiency improves with every additional viewer.
Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations.
Verizon is using FiOS to push traditional broadcast video, delivering QAM signaling on copper coax at the subscriber household fed from the ONT. You can hook up as many TVs as you want, and install DVRs like TiVo or Moxi. There is no limitation on the number of channels you can tune.
ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. |
|
dffg
@comcast.net
| said by espaeth  :ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. Correct, U-Verse is nothing but a Fancy'd up DSL Line...
And just for heads up, AT&T actually trained their salespeoples to lie to customers to tell them AT&T's infrastructure is pure FIBER. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | if you don't include the last mile, then it's true that their infrastructure is fiber.
Time Warner Cable has been doing this kind of advertising (on tv and radio no less) for years. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to espaeth
quote:
Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations.
U-verse TV is not unicast IP. It's multicast IP via IGMPv3. So if every subscriber on the node is watching CBS, CBS only needs to be fed to the node once.
U-verse is currently limited to 2HD and mediocre quality HD video, but we can thank weakly deployed FTTN for that. If they had deployed nodes a little closer for 40mbps per home, they could go up to 4HD easily. Aside from the FTTN induced bandwidth crunch, the IPTV part of the system works brilliantly. One DVR easily records 4 channels at once. Channel changes are lightning fast. And adding HD channels is a non-issue for them.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
·PenTeleData
·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :if you don't include the last mile, then it's true that their infrastructure is fiber. Time Warner Cable has been doing this kind of advertising (on tv and radio no less) for years. So basically all modern cable systems are "fiber" too.
Difference is that AT&T has somehow gotten the reviewers to classify their service as a "fiber" service when it is FTTN with VDSL as the last few hundred feet. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :Unicast-based streaming video actually creates a whole new set of distribution problems. Existing broadcast TV options are a single feed with many viewers, so your efficiency improves with every additional viewer. Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations. If you make your LAN Network IPv6 (as opposed to the current IPv4 with Network10 addressing used for the STB <--> Headend communication) you can use IPv6 Multicast for the Broadcast Channels and get the same single feed result that you get now. This also gives you the SDV capability that you get for those Broadcast Channels that you only want to send as needed as opposed to the 24/7 availability of the more popular channels. The only time you would need to use Unicast is for VOD type usage (where each STB gets its own private copy of the stream) since the content, unlike Broadcast, is not a synchronized stream. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :Unicast-based streaming video actually creates a whole new set of distribution problems. Existing broadcast TV options are a single feed with many viewers, so your efficiency improves with every additional viewer. Unicast IP-based streaming video (ala ATT's U-Verse solution) has infrastructure that needs to grow with each and every viewer, and comes with significantly limitations. Verizon is using FiOS to push traditional broadcast video, delivering QAM signaling on copper coax at the subscriber household fed from the ONT. You can hook up as many TVs as you want, and install DVRs like TiVo or Moxi. There is no limitation on the number of channels you can tune. ATT U-verse's IP-based delivery, on the other hand, is limited to 2 HD streams per household total. I think your post was a bit disingenuous. While HFC is absolutely a better solution to deliver video, U-Verse is only limited to 2 HD streams because of the bandwidth of the delivery mechanism. It's not a limitation of IP delivery whatsoever.
Expanding upon that, isn't the move to SDV a very similar thing to IPTV? It's a digital stream that is sent on-demand to each STB, rather than being multicasted (or whatever the appropriate cable terminology is) to all customers at all times. |
|
sapo
I eat meat
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA | reply to Duo Maxwell
The delivery system is not the issue, tons of people to do that job if they need it. The issue is the cost of content, think of a solution for that otherwise your arguing technologies is pretty useless.
--
CA is Superior. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :If you make your LAN Network IPv6 (as opposed to the current IPv4 with Network10 addressing used for the STB <--> Headend communication) you can use IPv6 Multicast for the Broadcast Channels and get the same single feed result that you get now. This also gives you the SDV capability that you get for those Broadcast Channels that you only want to send as needed as opposed to the 24/7 availability of the more popular channels. The only time you would need to use Unicast is for VOD type usage (where each STB gets its own private copy of the stream) since the content, unlike Broadcast, is not a synchronized stream. Wouldn't it just be easier to use existing SDV hardware and VoD equipment, rather than spending a bunch of money to redevelop something new and end up with the same functional solution? |
|
Duo Maxwell
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI
| reply to me1212
With fios they can deliver 1Gbps lines to everyone and sell on demand tv, to hell with the constant broadcast. the distrobution chokes go away quite quickly when everyone just watches whatever show they want to whenever they want to.
They either do that or will be eaten alive by online services.
Even Ala Carte networks aren't worth it, take scifi for example, I watched Eureka and Battle Star Galactica, nothing else in the last 3 years on ther network, Comedy Central? Only Colbert and Daily Show, South Park isn't funny anymore and none of ther other shows where ever funny. Discovery/science channel? now that I actually watch a bit on, between Mythbusters, Doing Da Vinci and Time Warp with a sprinkling of their weekly specials.
I don't watch much else and nor does anyone else that lives here, yet its download or pay for a service their that actually has all of the channels we watch, which you guessed it, is only their most expensive tier due to how they disperse the channels. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :I think your post was a bit disingenuous. While HFC is absolutely a better solution to deliver video, U-Verse is only limited to 2 HD streams because of the bandwidth of the delivery mechanism. It's not a limitation of IP delivery whatsoever. U-Verse is a best-case scenario for IPTV. It's all contained with the access vendor's network, delivered over multicast, and still you are limited to more compressed HD feeds than your OTA HD sources.
This article was about Web to TV, or Internet based video. Compared to U-Verse, the scenarios are only going to go downhill because multicast isn't widely supported by Internet carriers, leaving unicast delivery being the only viable Internet delivery option.
said by Matt :Expanding upon that, isn't the move to SDV a very similar thing to IPTV? It's a digital stream that is sent on-demand to each STB, rather than being multicasted (or whatever the appropriate cable terminology is) to all customers at all times. SDV is basically dynamic channel assignment. Rather than broadcasting all channels on the wire at the same time, SDV allows channels to be dynamically added to the broadcast group when requested. SDV and multicast have quite a bit in common. Cable QAM SDV, however, doesn't have the IP framing overhead of multicast, and the hardware used to interface with the cable plant is cheaper to manufacture than equivalent IP network hardware. |
|
