how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to dvd536
Re: Just a matter of time..
I agree with you... however, there's also the fact that I doubt that MILLIONS of people could be streaming SD and HD streams of the superbowl, a live event at the same time.. it just won't happen and like he said.. not in our life time.
There are MANY shows that are live events that people want to see together, sporting events being one of them.
Sure, video downloads are nice for some people and it does change the face of video viewing, FOR A FEW, but those video downloads are done at varying times, not clogging up the pipes at the same time.
I am, however, still a believer that TV is delivered perfectly fine the way it is right now for our time. We just aren't that important or special to need video on our own terms like 'some' people want. The RF and satellite delivery of TV, IMHO is just fine.. combine that with an "UNINHIBITED" DVR service or device and TV is JUST fine today.
Again, we as Americans need to stop feeling so "me" centric and deal with making time for things important to us in our life. | |
netengnr
join:2006-07-15
Atlanta, GA
| Video is happening today over DSL. Technical and Market trails by telcos are in place and close to a full scale launch.
The FUD that it can't happen and will clog pipes is just that... FUD
Millions of households watching a single sporting event is much less of a strain on a network than Millions of households watching millions of channels if you understand how the technology works.
IPTV is here today and will compete head-to-head with the Cable in the VERY near future. IPTV scares the heck out of the Cable Companies because they understand it is possible.
SD Channel today 2.5Mbs and HD Channel 7-9Mbs. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Sorry, I don't use or speak with words like FUD.. can you translate that?
Second.. there is a HUGE difference between last mile broadband and the internet itself. The last mile options such as IPTV that phone and cable have wanted to do, and some are doing, has a much greater throughput and is designed for the application.
However, when you put video over the intenet direct from the providers, well, you will have a bottleneck. There are companies, providers, and vendors that want to become cable companies/video providers over the internet... again,.. isn't going to happen anytime soon other than the usual video clip on your CNN site, or the ABC streamings, etc. Lower quality, short and to the point clips.
There is no way I'd want to see people getting into the video market over the internet to compete with the traditional devliery systems of cable, satellite and fiber providers. The internet is not large enough, strong enough, or simply capable of becoming everything for anyone that wants to get through. Again, it's the one argument that the anti-net nutrality people out there have in their pocket and one that I would have to side with them on. (Be it the ONLY one, but it's a big one)
And actually, IPTV doens't really scare cable as cable is looking into embracing IPTV as well. It's been brought up in company wide meetings for years as a solution for cable as well. But still, IPTV may be on the horizon as an option for telco, they aren't being too serious about rolling it out. It's a project that could also put telco into the trash at the same time.
But, it's not about telco and cable.. it's about streanming content direct. | |
netengnr
join:2006-07-15
Atlanta, GA
| '»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD'
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
FUD was used to describe IBM's sales tactics during the 80's with explosion and competition of the PC market.
Providers are in the process of positioning themselves to exchange encoded content. Not streaming video like CNN, but real traditional switched video content. The same stuff they would pull off a bird.
As far as the telcos not being serious about IPTV. AT&T (which is really just SBC if you want to get down to it) has bet the bank on IPTV. It is a recurring question from Wall Street analysts that is seriously affecting their stock price. The question to them is not if, but WHEN will they deliver. They must deliver or they will be screwed. Significant investments by the telcos doesn't put the projects in the disposable category. They must find a way to deliver video over wireline service.
Entire provider infrastructures are being overhauled at this moment to handle video. I'm not talking about the last mile either.
If the telcos can't deliver IPTV they will continue to lose market share at a rapid rate.
The lines are rapidly blurring between what is an MSO and what is an ILEC/CLEC/RLEC and don't expect it to get any clearer anytime soon.
The MSO are, again in my opinion, far better positioned to deliver IPTV over their networks. The point is they don't need to at the moment because the competition hasn't started to take away any market share.
1. The Internet is used to deliver some broadcast video content today and the magnitude will only grow with time. I would bet packet delivery networks will be the method of choice in the near future based on what is happening today in the background.
2. One of the top MSOs today uses IP for video delivery. Their video is in a IP data payload for a period of time on their infrastructure before it hits an edge QAM. AFAIK 100% of their video is encoded into an IP stream for a portion of it's life before it hits the customer.
3. Content providers will be using packet based networks to exchange content between super headends for delivery to their customers over national networks. Those packet based networks are the Internet.
These are my opinions and assessments based on what I'm seeing in the industry today and what I've been working on for the past couple of years. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| When it comes to IPTV, there are various reason as to who and why they want it.
Telephone NEEDS it over copper because that's the only way they can deliver a video feed... data.
Cable WANTS it becuase it's the way of getting more capacity virtually over night for content. Cable, having a limited number of useable frequency could turn their pipeline from a limited resource to an unlimited resource. (Telco can too) But instead of saying "we can only deliver 250 channels" it's now endless channels.
(By the way, once you mention MSO, you are no longer talking about cable, so it's best to simply say cable... telephones are also becoming "mso's" as well. MSO originally was knows for Multi SYSTEM operator and now is also used to deonote a Multi SERVICE operator)
1) The problem is the internet becoming the delivery pipe for television content is that EVERYONE is going to want to put their video content down the same line. It will soon become a sea of everyone and their mothers wanting to be a "cable company"... it's not going to work at-all the way our internet is today. Again, it's an argument AGAINST net nutrality, once in which I agree. (the only one actually)
2) "One of the top MSO's" (cable operators) is Time Warner. It's still in a test phase and not their standard, yet. But like I said before. The reason telco is being given more of the press on IPTV is because it's all they have. Cable has been talking about it, as far as I can remember, back in 1998.. again, it's comcast and it's as far as "*I*" first heard of it.
3) "Content providers will be using packet based networks to exchange content between super headends " it's already happening.. it's called OnDemand.. and those networks are usually leased private lines such as the way Comcast is leasing dark lines from Level 3.
You are largly correct in what you are saying. Many people, however, are loosing sight of the history of things because stuff is changing so quickly that they forget certain events in the past. (Such as associating IPTV as a telephone technology) | |
|
