|
 
GlenQuagmire
Giggidy Giggidy Giggidy Goo
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Grand Rapids, MI | Re: Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV They way it stands now POTS networks are just not designed for video. Unless they plan on upgrading their network so that they have fiber to the home they just can't do it. | |
|
 | 
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA
1 edit | Re: Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV Now it all makes sense. This is why the TelCos are pushing for two tier service.
But don't be too pround of the CableCos, because as soon as all these new options start rolling through their pipes they'll start loosing money and incorperate the same types of tiers the TelCos are currently talking about. | |
|
| Poomfasa
join:2003-04-13
Rocklin, CA
| Yes, POTS was not designed for video, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. In the Sacramento, CA region Surewest pushes Non-HD streams using MPEG2 (3.5mbps) over ADSL2 to quite a few people - 2 STBs per DSL line. Until MPEG4 is used HD is only feasible on FTTH though which I wish I had instead. There's another telco back east using the same setup with ADSL2. AT&T will be doing essentially the same when they roll out their IPTV - last mile will be copper. Will it work - yes; will it be optimal - no.
/Watching IPTV using ADSL2
»www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c···business | |
|
| | 
bmupton
join:2001-08-19
Saskatoon, SK
| Re: Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV My ISP (Sasktel, in Saskatchewan Canada) runs IPTV over it's ADSL network. I don't believe the network is ADSL2, but I can't be certain.
Two set top boxes running standard definition TV in MPEG2, plus an average of 1.5Mbps download for regular net access.
And for the total bill: Around 65 a month.
--
Brent,One of the good guys, or something | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
Makes plain old cable TV a bargain compared to IPTV
