dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1925

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

Should TV even be over cable wires anymore?

It seems to me, cable is almost finding itself limited to what it can offer over those wires. Its keeping internet speeds slower because you only have so many channels to deal with.

I see a world, where all the "tv" is tcp/ip based.

Hell, why do we even need "tv" anymore? With YouTUBE, Twitch.tv, Ustream, and many other video platform alternatives?

If they gave us more upload speeds and a lower price, we might find more of our entertainment coming from within our own ranks. The platforms I listed above surly allow we end users to make content and broadcast it to the masses.

What, with Netflix, Amazon, Itunes, Roku and whatever, why do we even WANT networks and the such anymore?

NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX.... Go tcp/ip NOW! You could get setup on YouTUBE right now I bet with your very own channels.

Anyway, I went on enough for now. See ya all soon.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

1 recommendation

Mele20

Premium Member

Personally, the only TV that I like is from the broadcast channels. I can't get them OTA or satellite so I certainly would not want cable to disappear. Plus, my ISP (the only one available to me) is my cable company. I doubt individuals could have the budget and skills to produce great drama series which is what I watch on the broadcast channels. I don't care for movies...only TV well done dramas. So, for me, your proposal is a no-go.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

The point, was that TV should be tcp/ip based, and not radio signals shoved into a wire.

Maybe I didn't make that part clear enough.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

Mele20

Premium Member

So, you mean IP TV from the local landline company? That's available in some areas of Oahu but not the entire island and not at all on the neighbor islands. I doubt Hawaiian Telcom will ever extend the service to my area.

davidg
Good Bye My Friend
MVM
join:2002-06-15
00000

davidg to gatorkram

MVM

to gatorkram
we were discussing this very thing at work yesterday. I think once they get the tech to the point where either it appears to work like it always has or the interface is intuitive to even the most tech challenges then it will change to all IP based. For now though too many folks still want to be able to tune to a "channel" and just watch shows back to back. The biggest thing will be when all the sports events can seen live on streaming, at that point more folks will jump off the cable/sat bandwagon.

Of course you also have to keep in mind there are millions of folks that live so far out from reasonable wireline service that they cannot get high speed internet to support streaming. So for those folks to do it the cell carriers will have to start offering wireless HSI with no or very high caps. Existing cable internet caps will have to be lifted or raised as well, or at the very least change to count only certain types of usage and ignore the bandwidth hogging streams.

Hard Harry7
join:2010-10-19
Narragansett, RI

2 recommendations

Hard Harry7 to gatorkram

Member

to gatorkram
There is a very easy answer for this; broadcasters don't want to because they will lose very lucrative contracts with providers. Most large broadcasters already have tcp/ip options like NBC online or HBO Go. Also the feeds from the broadcaster isn't put on cable to the provider, but a satellite (digital) feed. To remove a technology that cuts off a large portion of your commercial watching public doesn't make economical sense. Not to mention bandwidth caps most ISP have that would cause problems after '"cutting the cord". You might want to research the interactions between broadcaster and content providers.

davidg
Good Bye My Friend
MVM
join:2002-06-15
00000

davidg to gatorkram

MVM

to gatorkram
BTW, CBS.com just launched a stream of all their shows and sporting events. »www.cbs.com/all-access/? ··· A58951b3

Kilroy
MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

4 recommendations

Kilroy to gatorkram

MVM

to gatorkram
How they work is the reason. TCP/IP is a point to point communication. Broadcast is just that a broadcast. It takes less bandwidth to give everyone the same thing at the same time than to give everyone something different.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew to gatorkram

Premium Member

to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:

The point, was that TV should be tcp/ip based, and not radio signals shoved into a wire.

A large number of channels already are available IP based by way of TV Everywhere. It's available on a number of providers (Comcast, TWC, Charter, Verizon, ATT, DirecTV, etc.) or direct from channel websites and usable by way of apps for Xbox, Roku, iOS, Android, SamsungTV, and dedicated websites for PCs.

Billing is the thing they're really trying to figure out...
Marcer
Premium Member
join:2007-07-08
Hamilton, ON

Marcer to gatorkram

Premium Member

to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:

radio signals shoved into a wire.

Hmm... maybe you'd want to research how Video and IP/Data are currently fed into cable networks before making such statements

coxta
Ultramundane
Premium Member
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA

2 recommendations

coxta to gatorkram

Premium Member

to gatorkram
OTA is a much higher quality signal.

koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK

koolman2 to gatorkram

Premium Member

to gatorkram
They are anything but just a signal shoved into a wire. Digital cable uses the same encoding as cable internet, but like others have stated is just broadcast instead of IP. They use the same 256-QAM modulation and fit ~38 Mbps of data per data channel, which can hold several cable channels. Typically, companies will put 5-10 SD channels in one, and 3-4 HD channels. Many are still using MPEG2 encoding for the video signal.

A coax cable, assuming 1002 MHz of available bandwidth, has about 3 Gbps of data available assuming 6 MHz channels and 256-QAM modulation.

Edit: I would LOVE to see cable operators move to switched TV where only the actively watched channels are broadcast.

DocDrew
How can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900

DocDrew

Premium Member

said by koolman2:

I would LOVE to see cable operators move to switched TV where only the actively watched channels are broadcast.

Some have been using Switched Video (SDV) for years, such as TWC, Cox, and Charter. It causes issues with legacy equipment and 3d party CableCard devices. AT&T Uverse is IP based and only streams actively watched channels as well.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

nunya to gatorkram

MVM

to gatorkram
Read the front page of this very site. I think there's at least one "cord cutting" article every week.
There's no gun to your head forcing you to buy into cable or satellite. It's possible to be "cable free" today. I refuse to pay over $100 / month for 95% crap content. There is life after traditional pay TV.

I get OTA broadcasts for free. I just had to buy an antenna. I'm willing to pay for Nextflix and Amazon Prime.

I envision that in the next 5-10 years, wireless technology will develop to a point where it no longer makes financial or logistical sense to install or maintain Outside Plant (cables and wires) in the last mile of urban and suburban areas. Rather, it will be fiber-to-the-tower and then wireless to the house.
A guy will pull up, screw a box to the side of the house, and point a small antenna in the general direction of the tower.
Rural installations will be much more difficult due to trees and terrain, but I expect wireless to make big inroads nonetheless.
Critsmcgee
join:2011-12-02

Critsmcgee to gatorkram

Member

to gatorkram
I'm sure they are worried about sharing as well as a smaller target audience. Not to mention the extra overhead and requiring people to have internet to get TV. There would be no way to separate the two items. Personally I'd love it!

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

1 edit

Hayward0

Premium Member

OOPS NM wrong reply source
Hayward0

1 recommendation

Hayward0 to gatorkram

Premium Member

to gatorkram
.
It will only happen when broadband is everywhere...and in remote areas that will still be by radio you would still have to pay for.... OTA is ad paid free.

And why do you see great differentiation between cable coax and Ethernet cable??? Wire is wire and it will never serve a huge area that radio(TV) can.

City/suburban people can be awfully self centered ignorant thinking what they have is everywhere sometimes.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

I didn't mean to imply OTA should go away. If anything, Id like to see everything go OTA.

I guess I was thinking, satellite and OTA seem like more logical choices.

Frankly, I'd like to eliminate third party sources for TV, and have it sold directly to me, and delivered via dish/sat or OTA.

tcp/ip or switched tv seemed like a good alternative to the above, if its available to you.

I'd like to see cable tv / internet companies get out of the TV business and focus on providing internet.
Ole Juul
join:2013-04-27
Princeton, BC

Ole Juul to Hayward0

Member

to Hayward0
said by Hayward0:

City/suburban people can be awfully self centered ignorant thinking what they have is everywhere sometimes.

I too get tired of assumptions and local thinking.

I live in a town with 100 inhabitants where we have 1.5 mbps "broadband" no cell service, and a problem with bears. Lucky for me, I hate TV and actively discourage others from using it as well. I can't imagine anybody living differently. Can you?

Hayward0
K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL

1 edit

Hayward0

Premium Member

Depends on the TV you re talking about...amongst he "reality" cesspool float some real gems if you are selective, many good drama, real (not silly pandering) comedy, and documentaries.
Hayward0

4 edits

Hayward0 to gatorkram

Premium Member

to gatorkram
said by gatorkram:

I didn't mean to imply OTA should go away. If anything, Id like to see everything go OTA.

I guess I was thinking, satellite and OTA seem like more logical choices.

Given the billion(s) dollar cost to launch and maintain and periodically replace satellites (they last about 12 years) that will never be free, and there just isn't the OTA local bandwidth to offer what closed system cable and more limitedly sat can nation wide from a single source....not hundreds of local transmissions in every market.

Digital sub channels has done some to increase that (at the cost of 1080p broadcast) but that is still dozens of channels (most SD) not hundred+ there is only space for.

Kilroy
MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

Kilroy to nunya

MVM

to nunya
Live sports is what keeps most people connected. The NFL has prevented cutting the cord for another eight years if you're an NFL fan. In their brilliance they have a plan where you can pay to watch the game the next day, I don't see the point when you already know the score. College football on the other hand can be streamed, but still requires a cable provider. Since I'm not interested in other sports I can't say how available they are from a streaming perspective. The main reason I have cable is cheaper Internet package, but I don't watch TV from the Superbowl until college football starts.
Critsmcgee
join:2011-12-02

Critsmcgee to Ole Juul

Member

to Ole Juul
said by Ole Juul:

said by Hayward0:

City/suburban people can be awfully self centered ignorant thinking what they have is everywhere sometimes.

I too get tired of assumptions and local thinking.

I live in a town with 100 inhabitants where we have 1.5 mbps "broadband" no cell service, and a problem with bears. Lucky for me, I hate TV and actively discourage others from using it as well. I can't imagine anybody living differently. Can you?

City/suburban people have problems with bears and even run into poor internet in areas. I think everyone should drops the assumptions as they go both ways.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt to gatorkram

MVM

to gatorkram
In an ideal world ISPs would be solely concerned with delivering bits, regardless of the content of the bits themselves.

Going forward there is no reason a content aggregator also needs to provide first-mile Internet connectivity. In an IP world they can be anywhere in the cloud. Video require significant bandwidth so this distribution model is not going to be available to everyone. We have a solution for folks who do not have access to sufficient speed; it is called broadcast and has worked well for a century delivering radio and TV. It is a very efficient means of delivering common programs over a vast area. Having fewer parts it is also in some ways more robust then the Internet.

Our current situation has evolved over the years because prior to the Internet each type of information needed its own purpose built distribution network: radio, TV, telephone, music, newspaper, and magazine. With digital technology that is no longer the case but there is a tremendous reluctance on the part of the established players to embrace the new. They desperately want to preserve their legacy business model.

/tom
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned) to gatorkram

Member

to gatorkram
There is a ton of awesome content on you tube along with a ton of crap as well. But i do not see a time where major scifi shows or example come from with in our own ranks. How ever i do see a internet based tv set up is possible hell we already have it. Uverse is a example. Ever sense the first true digital cable box cable tv boxes have had a ip So again iptv is nothing new it is just a new word for something that has been around for 20 years. Just like the cloud. It is just a marketing term. I also do not see OTA tv going any where any time soon.
Nanaki

Nanaki (banned) to Marcer

Member

to Marcer
Yeh it has not been radio signals jammed in to a wire for a couple decades. Analog cable worked that way. It is why old cable boxes had a fine tuner and click dial akin to some radio. In fact if you took one apart you found multiple radio crystals in the for various frequency ranges. I was heavy in to rc cars back in the day so i harvested many of those crystals for to re-purpose for that use. As many would simply plug in to my controllers.

But as stated above with digital cable that went by by.
Nanaki

Nanaki (banned) to gatorkram

Member

to gatorkram
Hmm do you mean chans like scyfy and tnt? If so yeh that would be awesome. But i don't see it happening any time soon. Hell not sure if it would even be possible.It wold possibly ruin theme channels like scyfy etc.
Nanaki

Nanaki (banned) to Hayward0

Member

to Hayward0
Sat is not ota. Not in the way he meant. He means arial digital.

As for the space problems that could be dealt with pretty simply more mhz range and tuners capable of seeing them.

Current digital channels (here) range from 3.1 to 60.9 meaning you have potential space for 513 channels that is 57 chansx9 sub chans per. Most all tv tuners are good for i think 255 channels some are more some are less (180) so you have the potential in current tvs with digital tuners 255x9 2295 channels (currently driven by cable cards etc.)

Really the only limit on OTA Arial is the mhz range used and enough transmitters to handle the channel line ups and tuners to pick them up. It is all very doable with todays current technology.

Granted the higher the mhz the lower the range per watt or transmission power. The lower mhz channels would reach further while the higher ones less so. Now here's the thing satellite is if i recall 2gz range. It reaches many 1000s of miles from space to us.Do to the dish collecting and concentrating the radio energy to the receivers antenna. Similar things can be done for OTA panel antenna yagis and dish set ups etc are all various types. Hybrids as well. So with out microwaving every thing in the path it should be doable to get a 1 to 2+ ghz signal 500 miles or more effectively. Has already been records set for 2.4ghz band wifi over distances pushing upwards (if not haven't looked in a while) 250 and 300 miles point to point adhoc using sat dishes and allot of watts.

The real problem is not in the ability to do it with current tech but the cost of it all. To get hundreds you would need allot of towers and allot of band width and watts
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to nunya

Premium Member

to nunya
I do not think wireless can ever replace wires. Especially HFC or pure fiber.

Holding back wireless even more than technical aspects though is business models. Wireless services business tends to still follow very low cap very high overage. Until it can offer a reliable connection speed with low latency and 30mbit or greater with no less than 500gig cap or preferably uncapped for current average wired prices than wireless will never push put wired. Tech will make viable wireless possible, shareholders will kill it.
Kearnstd

Kearnstd to Ole Juul

Premium Member

to Ole Juul
I think I'd have trouble picturing a town with a population that could be fit into a SWA 737.