dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
World's Ten Largest IPTV Providers
U.S. again fails to make the list, though AT&T is trying....
by Karl Bode 12:07PM Monday Jan 14 2008
Light Reading lists the world's top ten largest IPTV deployments, and no U.S. companies make the list. AT&T's U-Verse, which hasn't yet passed the tenth-ranked provider at 170,000, should probably make the list shortly -- given they had 126,000 subscribers at the end of the third quarter. Verizon FiOS is not listed because technically, the service is a fiber/coaxial hybrid, though Verizon will likely eventually migrate to all IP.

Click for full size
Seven European countries make the top ten. Three of the top ten IPTV providers are French. The list's top provider, Iliad, offers French consumers a DSL/IPTV/VoIP triple play bundle for $45 a month, and will soon start offering consumers fiber lines for the same price as existing DSL offerings.

A recent study stated that, on average, a U.S. family of four will pay $140 per month for the triple play, compared to $80 in Germany, $54 in France, and $50 in the UK. Much of France's success (from the consumer point of view) is attributed to local loop unbundling, an idea they picked up from us shortly before we abandoned the idea.

view:
topics flat nest 

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

quote:
U.S. again fails to make the list, though AT&T is trying....
Off we go!

BTW - We've heard a lot of not-so-good things about AT&T's IPTV service, specifically regarding limitations on HDTV. I don't know if they have resolved these now, but if they haven't, would we really want to embrace this technology?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

JasonD

@comcast.net

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

I'll cue the "they suck" whining instead. I'll keep my 'overpriced' 8Mbps speeds, PSTN, and 120 non-IPTV channels, and they can keep their high taxes, gov't provided health 'care', and bandwidth crunch susceptible IPTV.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

Cue the apologists shilling.... Why should people in the USA get crappy, 1/3rd the service, 3 times the price, Non-options?

Whining? Hardly. Legitimate issue? I think so...
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

How did you determine 1/3 the service and 3 times the price? Last time I checked, a majority of the population in the US have paid TV service. The mechanism of providing paid TV service is really irrelevant as long as you are willing to pay, and receive, the content. Personally, I'm happy with the tried and true RF over coax and satellite TV.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

From comments like "offers French consumers a DSL/IPTV/VoIP triple play bundle for $45 a month". That's about 1/3rd the price here.

I bargin shopped and got the best deal I could get (and I'm on some introductory pricing, it goes up later) and I'm paying $125 for TV, Phone, Broadband. And not the top end options either. So $45 sounds damn good to me.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

It's all relative. Personally, I'm more than happy to make the money I make, pay the taxes that I pay, have the cost of living that I have, and pay the money that I do for the services that I get rather than live in France and all of the things that are inherent with doing so. I've lived in Europe before and have a very good friend who was born and raised in France (who's chosen to be a US citizen over a French citizen) and I'll choose the US every time. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of awesome countries with incredible history, they just can't compete with quality of life and cost of living, IMO.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

Amazing how these threads go. It's not about having to live like the French to get the deal. It's just an example of what we COULD have here, if we didn't allow it to be bolluxed up so badly.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

But it is about having to live like the French, because you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. I would love to have everything that I have now and pay a 1/3 of the cost for my televion, ISP, and voice, but that's not the world we live in. If somebody comes up with a plan to make that a reality, then I'm all for it.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 edit

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

The idea is competition. The French encouraged and the Government backed up local loop unbundling which opened the door for competition. That competition was originally riding the existing Telco lines, but as they got their footing, they began building out their own networks and fiber and now you have the result --- modern, competing telecommunications services resulting in more options and lower prices.

WE were OH so close here.... We started down that path... and providers were starting to buildout their own networks... but our Government backed off protecting the fledglings from the ravages of the ILEC's and gave up on local loop unbundling-- that, combined with the dot com crash, and boom all the startups (A few barely hanging on, IE Covad) went under, and we reap the rewards today-- only a few choices, no options, and high prices.

It's sad. With just a little more leadership from the Administration and the FCC we'd be right where the French are now-- hell, we'd be better off, IMHO because we started first and because we have many content producers here.

Oh so close... but we dropped the ball.

We could have it, down the road, but it requires action and leadership now.... and it would require forcing the existing players, at least for a time, to allow access to their networks... and you know they'd fight that every step of the way... but if the Government or FCC held firm, down the road, say 10 years, the payoff would be clear--- competition. Choices. State of the art networks. Sadly, I think it's very unlikely to happen... no matter which party is in control.
BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
I agree with you , this is one time I don't think we should see the comments about how we fall behind , for once this is another technology that is really just not ready for prime time.

The content providers control in the us will destroy the delivery systems soon.

Thank god for toshiba dropping hd player costs yet again , to really hit the point home that the content providers chose the wrong format and the people should be proving what format we want. Not the content providers telling us what we want.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

said by pnh102:

Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV?
It gives people on this site one more thing to bitch about. No really, thats it!
--
BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by pnh102:

Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV?
Control ! Nothing more nothing less.

The content providers load up the DRM so no one who isn't paying can see it. They despise the idea of free content , like ota tv. Even on an ip based system they fear some one seeing something they don't pay for. And iptv gives them more assurance.

I'd have to find the article but there are plenty from the blu-ray CES expo that basically asked the content providers why they chose blu-ray and what they see in the future , they want full control over the media and the transport so you can't see something without paying. It relates to IPTV because it was one of the stumbling block MS had in the introduction of their iptv set up.

Thankfully companies like Sun avoided it all together by just providing the equipment, not the protection schemes.

These companies providing iptv want a piece of the content pie. Which I feel is disgusting , provide me a bigger pipe to my world , which is the web , I will find my own content.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

said by BosstonesOwn:

Control ! Nothing more nothing less.
While I agree with your sentiment about DRM, this is not something that cannot already be done with existing cable TV or satellite TV systems. IPTV is just another way of doing the same thing. It does not seem to be better or worse than what we have here now.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

iptv is very inefficient. Multicasting is so much less difficult. And so much more sensible. Not to mention cheaper.

It's actually worse , it takes more resources to accomplish the same thing, which is a waste in general.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

phattieg

join:2001-04-29
Winter Park, FL

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

said by BosstonesOwn:

iptv is very inefficient. Multicasting is so much less difficult. And so much more sensible. Not to mention cheaper.

It's actually worse , it takes more resources to accomplish the same thing, which is a waste in general.
How do you figure? IPTV is capable of holding unused channels at the edge router. That results in less information to your TV. You have to think, there is less equipment involved in the end. Instead of occupying all that space multicasting hundreds of channels, you only stream the ones you use. So I am not understanding how IPTV is less efficent, you aren't wasting space that could be used for something else like, oh, faster internet... Now TELCO IPTV, if done with VDSL is too much equipment, but through cable, it's a viable option with the HD revolution, and the speed increases being done to internet connections. You never know, cable could bring in IPTV here and make a new cable modem standard allowing a little more competition with fiber service. I know there is things that can be done to give fiber more room too, but if you are talking about efficiency, then you can't beat IPTV... But oh well.
--
SIPPhone/Gizmo # 17476200648 / PIMPNET Chatline / Ran by Asterisk & Slackware 10.1.
BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

You don't understand IPTV enough to know the differences. I liked playing with Sun's video delivery system while I was there , and it used IPtv , not multicasting. Which is why not many people bought it yet. Well accept the folks who purchased it to be used to store the content they needed to stream.

Multicasting the channel on ip is what cable co's want to use. Holding it at the edge is a buzz statement to try and solve a problem. This is a half assed attempt.

Iptv can only be streamed to 1 device at a time. If you have channel 100 streaming it takes another stream to hit me doubling the bandwidth used at the point of aggregation to the user. If we are on the same node we wasted a stream thus we wasted bandwidth that could be used by yet another victim of iptv. Multicasting avoids this. it lets the 2nd user pick up the stream as long as it's being broadcast already. IPtv as it stand does not allow this. It's actually considered a big security issue.

Cable multicasting is nothing new. What is new is they had the sense to see that they have to try and hold back unused channels. However just ask those folks in the beta regions. They are getting black screens with some cryptic messages on them. They did not plan on so many people wanting different channels.

Right now it's not ready for prime time. 1 way communications benefit from multicasting , it's just the way it is for now.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"
public

join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
said by pnh102:

Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV?
exactly. Fox Noise is the only channel needed.
Any on demand niche research report type programs are completely unnecessary.
ackman

join:2000-10-04
Atlanta, GA
said by pnh102:

Personally, I don't see what additional benefit one gets using IPTV versus another technology. If traditional cable TV or satellite TV delivers the same channels and same picture and sound quality, then what is the point of IPTV?
It's called competition, dimwit.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: Cue the "USA Sucks" Whining!

said by ackman:

It's called competition, dimwit.
Learn to read, please. Do you think the average customer cares how his/her TV service is delivered?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN

2 edits

1 recommendation

atat iptv

Maybe because Atat is not FTTH that their IPTV offering sucks..You can only cram so much data on a voice line..and then you have distance limitations..

I mean look at what their offering their customers now for their u verse service..6/1 internet..lol come on now..is this is the future of America? lol
--
"I am the worst president in U.S history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush
bogey7806

join:2004-03-19
Here
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: atat iptv

Very little of the problems people are having with U-verse seem to stem from lack of bandwidth to the house. The problems seem to be indemic to an IP based system.

djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

2 edits

Re: atat iptv

No, some of the biggest complaints are all related to an insufficient amount of bandwidth. Lack of multiple HD streams to the home (realistically, the service should have been designed to deliver 4 HD streams), poor quality HD (overcompressed), and unimpressive broadband speeds all point back to the fact that the system was architected to deliver 25mbps to the home.

Had they designed the system to bring the nodes closer to homes to get the full 100mbps out of VDSL, the system would have a lot more room to grow.

As a techie geek, I've had at least a dozen people ask me about U-Verse. Most were excited about it at first, but they all opted not to bother when I told them they couldn't record two HD shows at once. The lack of bandwidth IS a big issue, and in my opinion, frustratingly shortsighted on the part of AT&T. U-verse is available here and I really wanted it to be something great, and am disapppointed that it's not.

MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK

Re: atat iptv

said by djrobx:

No, some of the biggest complaints are all related to an insufficient amount of bandwidth. Lack of multiple HD streams to the home (realistically, the service should have been designed to deliver 4 HD streams), poor quality HD (overcompressed), and unimpressive broadband speeds all point back to the fact that the system was architected to deliver 25mbps to the home.

That being said, I am on FTTP with AT&T, and their FTTP version of UVERSE has the same problems. It's because AT&T is striving to create a "consistent customer experience." I, for one, don't understand why they cripple their FTTP product so the FTTN can keep up. Why not put that fiber to good use? Do they not see the kind of competition that FiOS has created against the cable companies? It's almost as if AT&T doesn't WANT to compete on anything but price.
BosstonesOwn

join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: atat iptv

It's called being short sighted. You see the nose in front of your face ? That is how investors are these days. Can't see the forest for the trees so to speak.

I like to see these guys saying the economy is costing them $$$ , no their lack of seeing the future is , don't try and make so much money per sub , give them a reason to switch to your service by offering a quality service at an acceptable rate. Which these guys just don't seem to want to offer.

We see a little trouble in the VZ camp where customers are scaling back on tv costs. But not cutting them all together like at&t is experiencing. That tells me consumers think the prices are high. Perhaps it's now with this new recession looming that the content providers will realize the costs are to high and we need price cuts to stay in business.

No wait the content providers are mostly egotistical asses out to get rich off other peoples work. So ignore that part.

I for one welcome our new content providing overlords. "Yes master I shall pay all my extra money for your blu-ray disc ! I don't need to feed my kids as well as be entertained." Oh well I guess more people will have to be without some things they want now , which may teach some of the new generation some humility.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
said by MarkyD:

AT&T is striving to create a "consistent customer experience."
That statement always makes me laugh. "Consistently crippled experience". Personally I think at&t is saying "we must make it fit" because if it turns out they CAN'T get it to work out on their current VDSL solution they have have to go back and re-do it (FTTP) it will be a costly disaster and they will have to admit to a mistaken policy from the outset. (And that means dropping millions more into it and taking the hit on their stocks.)

So, they can't give people who have FTTP a "better" option because that will only prove the point that they need FTTP and that Uverse is too limited.

So, in PR that's "Consistent Customer Experience". Or otherwise known as "Crappy everywhere."
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
bogey7806

join:2004-03-19
Here
kudos:1
Still, those are feature issues. The actual connection from the modem to the network seems to be holding up quite well with VDSL. It's just they're not using VDSL to its full potential.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
said by bogey7806:

Very little of the problems people are having with U-verse seem to stem from lack of bandwidth to the house. The problems seem to be indemic to an IP based system.
Actually, almost all the problems seem to relate to not enough bandwidth. And if something interferes, cutting bandwidth further, watch out.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)

gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall

join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
They should scrap the VDSL and rent some tech's from their sister Verizon to help them deploy the fiber.
Area's with ATt will be backwaters/hicksville in 5 years, with the rest of the fiber users smiling at 100mbs with 300 HD channels.
Company's will invest in the fiber area's and leave ATt area's to rot.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

Anyone know?

If anyone knows, how many of those cities have local & state municipalities taxing and/or surcharging a franchise fee or build rights of way? Would be interesting to see the relation between deployment and others with their hands out for access to customers.
ejrobinson
Premium
join:2003-05-16
Miami Beach, FL

Re: Anyone know?

Prices in europe for internet, including iptv, are inclusive of all taxes, especially the value added tax, by the way. That said, taxes overall are higher, but so are social services, including medical care, free schooling through university level, retirement that can't be revoked, nurseries for very young children so both parents can work, etc. Excellent high speed train service that runs at 300 km/hour (185 mi./hour) to be increased to 360 km/hour in 2 years (210 mi./hour). What we have ain't perfect, but life isn't so bad.

-er

powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK

1 recommendation

Countries or companies?

quote:
Seven European countries make the top ten -- three of them in France.
There are multiple countries within France?

kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?

join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD

Surprise, surprise

quote:
Much of France's success (from the consumer point of view) is attributed to local loop unbundling, an idea they picked up from us shortly before we abandoned the idea.
Is there any idea the French haven't stolen from someone else? Industrial espionage is a key part of their international policy.

•••••

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18
Chicago, IL

2 recommendations

The reason the rest of the world is better

Is stated quite clearly in the article. Local Loop Unbundling. That's the bottom line. Ma Bell used to be a monopoly, controlling everything from the dial tone to the backbone. What the rest of the world has discovered, is that's ok, AS LONG AS THEY ONLY PROVIDE THE LINE. Lets let the tri-opoly we now have continue to sell LINES. Let Verizon, AT&T and Qworst all sell the LINE to the home. Let's let OTHERS sell the services. We need to break up the stranglehold the megacorps have on the communications system. Verizon can STILL make money by running fiber. Hell, let's give them tax breaks to run the fiber. But DON'T LET VERIZON sell the services.
What does that do? That provides an INFRASTRUCTURE, just like the power grid. What you do with it is up to the end user, to purchase a dial tone, IPTV, or Internet services from ANY company that wants to sell it.
The problem is simply that the lobbyist bought the politicians, telling them the LIE that everything would be cheaper and faster. That's not what's happening.

Let verizon, and comcast, and all the others SELL THE LINES. Let OTHERS sell the services. If you want ABC, sign up for ABC. Hell, if an ABC station in boston will sell you the channel for $1.00/month, and the one in Chigaco wants $20.00/month, let the customer in chicago purchase the signal from boston. If ISP #1 wants to charge you $80.00/month for 8mb/1mb, and ISP #2 only charges you $15.00/month for 20mb/20mb, guess which business model will get all the customers.

Lets TAKE BACK the infrastructure we paid for. If it costs verizon $500.00 to 'fiber' a house, then let verizon charge $10.00/month for the line to the house. A 4 year return on investment is VERY good at that rate. Sure, Verizon will get a lot smaller, and make a lot less money, but all the CUSTOMERS will win, and that's what the FCC should be pursuing, you know, where the work 'to serve the common good' part of their charter (actually the 2nd line).
--
Relgion and Politics don't mix! I have firsthand knowledge of what happens when ANY religion mixes with ANY politics.

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

Re: The reason the rest of the world is better

karl, why not come right out and say what you really want -- let's have the government take over all of it!

ninjatutle
Premium

join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

Sling Box

should be on the list. They are an IPTV provider, sorta

mmss

@rr.com

Re: Sling Box

I so love my sling box! Best $40 I've spent in a while.
neufuse

join:2006-12-06
James Creek, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast

SDV...

I'd rather have switched digital video over IPTV since technically with 5 TV's I'd need 5 connections to use them... thats a lot of bandwidth with IPTV... SDV all I need is a box or SDV cable card (yes I know they are not out yet)... and no wasted internet bandwidth all over one shared line

DaneJasper
Sonic.Net
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-20
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:9

Local loop unbundling

The point made about local loop unbundling is really an important one.

In countries where the incumbent has a monopoly, deployment is behind countries where they followed the competitive model. You'd think America would recognize that competition yields better products and prices for consumers.

Too bad the FCC took it all away over the last few years.

-Dane

•••••