 
Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs: | Translation, more speed? Does this mean we'd get faster internet? Or is this just another effort to blow smoke? | |
|  | | | | 
Cjaiceman
Premium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
 ·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| Re: Translation, more speed? quote:
It can free up bandwidth which could be used for wide band DOCSIS and higher internet speeds.
I can also be used for less compressed HD broadcasts. This is good news for Comcast because they compress their HD signals pretty bad, hence why I left them and went to DirecTV. The HD is much better and I now have more HD channels and programing. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | whoamIoramI
join:2004-05-17
Jersey City, NJ
| Re: Translation, more speed? I thought it was the reverse. Someone told me Directv compresses is like hell to a lower quailty
Anway, I'm interested to your response. I just moved to my place 7 months ago and went for comcast. I really do not like the service at all and am looking at the dish as an alternative | |
| | | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Translation, more speed? While DirecTv's picture is clean, I do believe that you may be correct with the compression. With a TV on S-Video, you can notice some alias/artifacting around many screen images (noticable on stuff like text images where there's high contrast images stuffed into a small area).
In general, its better than the analog/digital mix I had from TimeWarner and Comcast, much cheaper, and consistant picture on all channels. | |
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Bandwitdth issues? Hmmmmm, how is this going to work? Are all programs are going to be On-Demand? Imagine the bandwidth when people get home or in the evening when everyone starts calling for shows.
Plus, who knows if those 20 or 30 shows are what people want to watch at any given time.
Is channel surfing going to be possible?
As for the major networks (FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS) will they allow their shows to be stored then transmitted?
Nice idea but there are issues. | |
| | UofMiamiGrad
Premium
join:2001-02-03
Great Neck, NY | Re: Bandwitdth issues? CV is already testing this in NJ. I am sure other MSOs are testing it as well. So much for all the MSOs saying they have no bandwidth issues, when in fact they do. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Bandwitdth issues? said by UofMiamiGrad  :CV is already testing this in NJ. I am sure other MSOs are testing it as well. So much for all the MSOs saying they have no bandwidth issues, when in fact they do. Yea.. this is nothing new. I don't know where it comes from that cable is looking at this from Phone. Unless phone was looking at doing this back in 1997 (which they could have been) cable tv has been looking at and eyeing IPTV for years. This is nothing new.
In many of our company wide meetings, Comcast officials had been talking about IPTV in the past. "The Industry" may be talking about it *now*, but I know of MSOs that have been talking about it for a while. | |
| | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: Bandwitdth issues? Ameritech did advanced fiber-fed HFC cable TV fifteen years ago, well before any entrenched incumbent even had their first meeting about it...so I guess that means every other cable MSO in the region has been playing catch-up since.
What's your point?
Talking about it and deploying it are totally different things. Seems that all talk, no action shoe is now on the cable foot.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | 
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Bandwitdth issues? said by RadioDoc :Ameritech did advanced fiber-fed HFC cable TV fifteen years ago, well before any entrenched incumbent even had their first meeting about it.. Where was that network built? The only HFC system that I know Ameritech built is the one that WOW! currently owns, and it isn't even close to being 15 years old. It's about 8 at most, and even back then it was only analog. The first thing WOW had to do was order and install all the digital equipment to make it competitive. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Really? I guess Sacramento wasn't building theirs in 1992/1993 then.. MAN that must have been some good drugs we were all on... 
You've, once again, failed to prove anything other than come here to start a flame war with me as you have for the last 6 months. Bravo!
But, let me educate you on some facts:
Again, Sacramento was building it's hybrid fiber coax system in 1992, 1993.. are they not an incumbant?
Since there are already cable systems using IPTV techology with OnDemand, I guess you are correct.. some people are all talk.. that would be the phone companies. The IP address on my box of 10.130.24.152 isn't an IP? IPTV is IPTV...
Time Warner cable is already working on holding channels out on the edge of the nodes.. there are other MSOs testing standard IPTV services in the labs..
So far, if this is a competition for you, cable TV is actually moving forward MUCH fsater than Telco. Who is the big talked of IPTV and nothing coming of it? That would be AT&T/SBC... seen anything in the last 8 years from them?
I think that you will see once you remove the need to simply flame me in the forums that cable has had many more advances and deployed much more in it's world than telephone has.
If you want to have a conversation, at least be honest about it.
And for the record, a large portion of cable operators turned off their microwave hub trasmitters in lue of the fiber connections back in the early 90s, so that puts it all about 15 years ago... | |
| | | | | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | CBS already allows one of its networks to be stored and watched VoD- they own Showtime which is an On-Demand channel. | |
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Bandwitdth issues? said by hottboiinnc :CBS already allows one of its networks to be stored and watched VoD- they own Showtime which is an On-Demand channel. With all the arguments over the broadcast flag, I wonder how long before they start charging for shows On Demand.
As for "guessing" which channels will be most popular and which will be wanted, that can quickly backfire with the fickle tastes of the American Public who channel surf with more skill than the best wave riders in Hawaii. | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Bandwitdth issues? well they already charge for VoD for Showtime its part of the monthly fee you pay for the actual channel. | |
| | GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Currently, all channels are being broadcasted simultaneously while the operators are still offering 5, 10, and even +15Mbps Internet connectivity. They are suggesting that the average number of 'watched' channels at any given time is actually lower than the total number of channels.
As a result and the new ability to selectively not simultaneously broadcast all channels to the home they can find more useful ways of using recycled bandwidth. While faster internet connectivity is one of them, this could also allow for more higher-bandwidth channels (e.g. HD).
For instance, let's say that a cable operator routines broadcasts 200 channels simultaneously, but at any given time in their network only 150 are being watched. Since Internet connectivity is 'best effort' then the variable performance is already allowed and afforded.
Personally, they all need a better approach (deploy GigE FTTH!). | |
| | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Bandwitdth issues? said by GhostDoggy :Currently, all channels are being broadcasted simultaneously while the operators are still offering 5, 10, and even +15Mbps Internet connectivity. They are suggesting that the average number of 'watched' channels at any given time is actually lower than the total number of channels. As a result and the new ability to selectively not simultaneously broadcast all channels to the home they can find more useful ways of using recycled bandwidth. While faster internet connectivity is one of them, this could also allow for more higher-bandwidth channels (e.g. HD). For instance, let's say that a cable operator routines broadcasts 200 channels simultaneously, but at any given time in their network only 150 are being watched. Since Internet connectivity is 'best effort' then the variable performance is already allowed and afforded. Personally, they all need a better approach (deploy GigE FTTH!). While there are "Access to over 300 channels" there are only like 30 that get wide viewership not including premium channels.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by moonpuppy :Hmmmmm, how is this going to work? Are all programs are going to be On-Demand? Imagine the bandwidth when people get home or in the evening when everyone starts calling for shows. Plus, who knows if those 20 or 30 shows are what people want to watch at any given time. Is channel surfing going to be possible? As for the major networks (FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS) will they allow their shows to be stored then transmitted? Nice idea but there are issues. You think a 1 or 2 second pause is bad when changing channels imagine how annoying it'll be waiting for a newly tuned channel to buffer.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| majortom1981
join:2004-08-26
Lindenhurst, NY
| This will free up bandwidth There will be no problems when people call for channels all at once. Why you aks? because every channel is streamed to every box in the houses anyway.
Even if everybody calls for channels at once it will still use less bandwidth because each box will only ask for a few channels. Not all of them at once. | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: This will free up bandwidth said by majortom1981 :There will be no problems when people call for channels all at once. Why you aks? because every channel is streamed to every box in the houses anyway. Even if everybody calls for channels at once it will still use less bandwidth because each box will only ask for a few channels. Not all of them at once. That all depends on how many customers are hung off the edge router/switch. If there is a very large number(over a 1000 say), then the diversity of all those people's choices will result in a large number of channels being needed simultaneously, defeating the justification of going to a switched format. If a smaller number are off each switch, and most are watching the network(abc,cbs,nbc) and little else, this can work.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI
| Every channel is NOT streamed to every box. A session for a specific channel is not setup unless someone requests it. If that channel is already setup and streaming, then when you tune your box to that channel you are directed to the session that is already setup...If everyone quits watching that channel, after a certain time frame that session stops. An MSO may have 300 channels available but only 50 or so are watched at any one time.
This has actually been around for years, but the technology to allow you to change channels without huge delays didn't make it really feasible. | |
| | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: This will free up bandwidth said by magnushsi :Every channel is NOT streamed to every box. A session for a specific channel is not setup unless someone requests it. If that channel is already setup and streaming, then when you tune your box to that channel you are directed to the session that is already setup...If everyone quits watching that channel, after a certain time frame that session stops. An MSO may have 300 channels available but only 50 or so are watched at any one time. This has actually been around for years, but the technology to allow you to change channels without huge delays didn't make it really feasible. If the MSOs would enter the 21st Century and send their TV Streams via IPV6, they could save lots of bandwidth. The channels would be sent as Multicasts which would mean that they are sent over the local branch as a single session and all boxes on that leg could receive it. A channel that no-one is watching would not be routed to that section of the network. What this means is that all channels are available but they flow only to those intermediate routers that have someone interested in seeing it. So long as IPV4 is used there are separate sessions for each viewer/STB since unlike IPV6 each box has ONE IPN. With IPV6, the STB (and Modem/CPU) can have multiple IPNs including ones that are Multicast IPNs which means that the box sees a session going to all the boxes tuned to that channel and just monitors it without needing a private session. | |
| | | | | | | | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: This will free up bandwidth said by Ignite :Multicasting does work fine on IPv4 as well you know. You'd best tell the UK operators running multicast peering for IPTV distribution that they absolutely need to use IPv6. Point is that IPv4 multicasting can be routed as well. IPv6 isn't necessary. Please reread my comment. I never said that IPV4 Multicasting does not work - Only that IPV6 Multicasting uses less bandwidth. With IPV4 MC, there is a separate session to each modem/STB carrying the same content. With IPV6 MC, there is one session to each sub-network (gateway router) which is monitored by those modems/STBs on the sub-network that are interested in the content. Think of it like the Broadcast Address on a sub-network (ex: for a home LAN Router at 192.168.1.1 this would be IPN 192.168.1.255) where a Node (i.e.: Modem) listens not only to its own IPN but also the IPN with all 1 bits in the node part of the IPN (i.e.: The part of the Net Mask at the end that is Zero Bits - everything past the last 1 bit in the Net Mask). Note: I am only suggesting this as an analogy, not saying that it is implemented exactly the same way.
With IPV6 a Node has multiple IPNs that it monitors and Multicasting (it may be Unicasting in this context - I do not have my IPV6 references to check right now) allows the sever to send a single version of the stream that is cloned as needed by the routers until it gets to the sub-networks where it is seen by the modems/STBs.
As to the "Does not support IPV6" so called problem, just push a new version of the Microcode that has a IPV4+IPV6 stack and that becomes a non-issue. The major reason that the STBs are IPV4-only is that the MSO Private Network-10 LAN is IPV4-Only not a IPV4+IPV6 Network. It is a Chicken-and-the-Egg/Catch-22 issue. So long as neither side gets off its butt and adds IPV6 capability there will be wasted bandwidth due to the inability to make use of the lower bandwidth consumption of IPV6 Multicasting. | |
| | | | 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Seems like that would be a great solution for ADSL2 video where bandwidth is limited in the last mile.
--
WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING, except ending slavery, facism, communism, Nazism.... | |
| | | | magnushsi
join:2002-11-06
Cedar Springs, MI
| RARPSL - You don't understand how SDB works or are not articulating very well.
There is NOT a private session for every stream to every STB. That happens in VOD. A single stream is started and many STBs can access it. It works that if no one is watching a channel, no session is started, thus freeing up bw.
Channel surfing works the same way as always. You don't have to call anyone or tell anyone what you want to watch. You turn the TV on and change channels. If you change channels to something not being watch a session is built and you see the video (this all happens in millseconds).
As far as MSO's stepping into the 21st century. MSOs don't build the hardware or the platform. They buy it from companies who develops it and sells it to them. The problem is the millions and millions of STBs already deployed. Do we just scrap them all and start over? You have to migrate platforms just like anything else.
SDB will be beneficial to the residential customer as well as the MSO. | |
| | | | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: This will free up bandwidth said by magnushsi :RARPSL - You don't understand how SDB works or are not articulating very well. There is NOT a private session for every stream to every STB. That happens in VOD. A single stream is started and many STBs can access it. It works that if no one is watching a channel, no session is started, thus freeing up bw. You might be correct about my misunderstanding. Does SDB work by sending the video to the STB over a dedicated channel (as with Analog Cable and Over-the-Air) or is it done as a TCP/IP streaming video session? If the latter, how many copies of the stream are flowing over the sub-network (i.e.: From the Gateway Router to the STBs on that sub-network) when more than one STB is tuned to the channel? If it is only one, then SDB functions the same as my suggested IPV6 Multicasting (or IS IPV6 Multicasting). Are there any technical descriptions of how SDB works "under the covers" or is it still a smoke-and-mirrors claim with no technical information available yet (i.e.: "Here is what it does" claims as opposed to "Here is how it does it" type information).
I acknowledge we might be talking past each other and saying the same thing but in the absence of information on how SDB works (as opposed to just what it does information) it is hard to tell.
said by magnushsi :As far as MSO's stepping into the 21st century. MSOs don't build the hardware or the platform. They buy it from companies who develops it and sells it to them. The problem is the millions and millions of STBs already deployed. Do we just scrap them all and start over? You have to migrate platforms just like anything else.
As to the "Does not support IPV6" so called problem, just push a new version of the Microcode that has a IPV4+IPV6 stack to the STB and that becomes a non-issue. The major reason that the STBs are IPV4-only is that the MSO Private Network-10 LAN is IPV4-Only not a IPV4+IPV6 Network. It is a Chicken-and-the-Egg/Catch-22 issue. So long as neither side gets off its butt and adds IPV6 capability there will be wasted bandwidth due to the inability to make use of the lower bandwidth consumption of IPV6 Multicasting. | |
| RafS
join:2003-03-06
New York, NY
| So, am I getting it? If this was compared to a pipe with liquid it'd be like saying that instead of having a pipe for each flavor of soda and water and juice you'd have one pipe come in to your house and then jsut call the company and tell them what to pump at any given time? I guess this would then mean that all those left over pipes could be combined into big pipes for the HD streams or for way fater internet? Sounds like a feasable option to doing major upgrades | |
| | mike31mets
join:2004-10-30
Bronx, NY
| Re: So, am I getting it? if that's the case this may not be that beneficial to the customer in some aspects. while it does free up bandwidth it doesn't allow the viewer to surf channels. i can't speak for everyone here but i would say many people turn the tv on often without any specific channel in mind to watch. they simply flip the channels until they find something they want. would we not be able to do this anymore? i certainly don't want to just look at a tv guide and wonder whether the movie is good or not.
now the other thing that troubles me here is that we would have to call the company to tell them what we want to watch. what happens when there are too many callers and we have to be on hold? why not just make it like pay-per-view. if you want to watch it just have buttons that would allow you to order it through the remote control. in this case you wouldn't neccesarily have to order the channell assuming it's already apart of your package. so say I have a family package and I want to watch Fox Family with this technology we should simply be able to click SELECT and ENTER on our remote and bam the channel shows up instead of having to pick up the phone which is more time consuming. And as far as time is concerned, what happens when you find out about a show that you want to record on the vcr but you have to wait until you get home and you get home right when the show starts but then you have to wait to have the channel streamed to your home that just creates a bigger inconvience to the customer in my mind.
it's a great idea but i think this should be implemented in a way where it's fast and easy to do while still allowing channel surfing. and if i'm misunderstanding something someone clear it up please. thanks. it's interesting to say the least. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So, am I getting it? You'd be surprised today. Channel surfing isn't necessarily done by flippin' the channels any more. Many boxes are slow and it frustrates people. What people ARE doing is guide surfing then selecting their channel.
I've been in enough homes with customers to pick up the remote to show me "how they watch tv" so see this in action. And to cliarify this for the people out there that still do channel surf, please pay attention to the word above "necessarily" before posting your "No, I still channel surf" message.
Ultimately, in the long run, TV will all be OnDemand anyway. Additionally, I can see MSOs moving towards a complete pay per use system anyway. It's been discussed in the past and given the way that networks and the MPAA are going, and how they are fighting ala cart programming, I tend to beleive the corporate big-wigs when they talked about pay for what you watch being the future. | |
| | | | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: So, am I getting it? You'd be surprised how utterly crappy "guide surfing" is in other parts of the world (read: just about everywhere). The STB interface is clunky, has too much remote control lag and is generally annoying. There is no comparison to the "channel surfing" experience on an analog TV.
But keep on lying to yourself if it makes you feel more secure. Instead of only listening to people you agree with, take notes from those you don't. They are the ones who are going to drive your industry to its knees.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| You kind of have it...
You would not have to call the cable company to request a specific channel every time you wanted to channel surf, that would all be done via cable box.
The problem is, if the stream is not in your branch, the box needs the request up the chain and then get the data, which could result in a delay of a few seconds.
--
Bring back chicken and potato chips - Vote Perot! | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| i love analog. it works. it's smooth. it has 'broadcast quality.' it has no compression issues like jitter, delay, pixelation, discolorations. you can channel surf, instantly. it's 'always on.'
ok, now that I got that out... cool idea, but it would likely do away with channel surfing... unless as RARPSL said, ipv6 is implemented, thus eliminating some of these issues and changing the dynamics of how it would be implemented. | |
| jeffjr1
join:2005-01-06
Rome, NY
| I recieved a letter in the mail 3 days ago about this (SDB). i will try to find the letter and post it. Basically it said that are division would be upgrading throughout the summer to this new system.
the letter also talked about how this would free up bandwidth in their system and allow for more HD broadcasting | |
| RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Good. Now there is no technical excuse not to implement à la carte channel selection.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
stonecolddsl
Linux Junkie
join:2004-01-07
Sarasota, FL | cable what a waiste of coax I personally hate cable but wouldnet the logical thing to do with the coax bandwith issue is to do what Verizon is doing which is Fiber to the premise. It would envlove spending money that the cable industry hates to do. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: cable what a waiste of coax said by stonecolddsl :I personally hate cable but wouldnet the logical thing to do with the coax bandwith issue is to do what Verizon is doing which is Fiber to the premise. It would envlove spending money that the cable industry hates to do. Ummm.. care to rethink that one? Cable has spent a BUTT LOAD of money in the past years on system upgrades, rebuilds, new end user equipment, etc.
In case you haven't noticed too, cable's fiber is already in the very close neighborhood.. cable can easily push fiber to the home, if they wanted to. It's not simply a matter of money.
If you remove emotion and look at the cold hard facts, because of consumer spending desires, fiber to the home is NOT cost effective. Add the cost of running the plant, with the installation, to the required home equipment, it's going to take verion a LONG time to recoup their costs. | |
| | | |
|
|
Making Cable More IPTV-Like
