 TestBoy
Premium Member
join:2009-10-13
Irmo, SC |
to DMS1
Re: How does AT&T plan to compete with cable speeds?said by DMS1:Oh - there is no doubt whatsoever that direct broadcast satellite (DBS) technology is not a long term solution. The world will move towards a channel-less, schedule-less, video on demand approach to TV. It's happening already and will only gain pace. DBS simply doesn't fit into this model. Why wouldn't it? If we are talking about a la carte then it should work just the same. The only thing being you need a dish and receiver. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX |
DMS1
Member
2016-Jan-13 10:36 am
said by TestBoy:said by DMS1:Oh - there is no doubt whatsoever that direct broadcast satellite (DBS) technology is not a long term solution. The world will move towards a channel-less, schedule-less, video on demand approach to TV. It's happening already and will only gain pace. DBS simply doesn't fit into this model. Why wouldn't it? If we are talking about a la carte then it should work just the same. The only thing being you need a dish and receiver. No. The key bit of DBS is the B - Broadcast. The model only works when programming is broadcast to everyone at the same time. In the future this won't be how people watch TV. Instead they will go to a menu of available programming and pick what to watch. This is already the way that services like Netflix work and will ultimately be the way everything works. I had a discussion on the timeframe for this shift with a technologist from the BBC in the UK a couple of years ago. The BBC is absolutely convinced that this change is coming and he gave it about ten years. |
|
| |
said by DMS1:said by TestBoy:said by DMS1:Oh - there is no doubt whatsoever that direct broadcast satellite (DBS) technology is not a long term solution. The world will move towards a channel-less, schedule-less, video on demand approach to TV. It's happening already and will only gain pace. DBS simply doesn't fit into this model. Why wouldn't it? If we are talking about a la carte then it should work just the same. The only thing being you need a dish and receiver. No. The key bit of DBS is the B - Broadcast. The model only works when programming is broadcast to everyone at the same time. In the future this won't be how people watch TV. Instead they will go to a menu of available programming and pick what to watch. This is already the way that services like Netflix work and will ultimately be the way everything works. I had a discussion on the timeframe for this shift with a technologist from the BBC in the UK a couple of years ago. The BBC is absolutely convinced that this change is coming and he gave it about ten years. That is basically how the BBC's iPlayer already works, too - and they've made a large effort to make sure the iPlayer works on every smart TV, STB and TV platform going (even if you have pay-TV from either the satellite or cable companies, you can watch iPlayer content through it) |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX |
DMS1
Member
2016-Jan-13 11:08 am
said by ohreally:That is basically how the BBC's iPlayer already works, too - and they've made a large effort to make sure the iPlayer works on every smart TV, STB and TV platform going (even if you have pay-TV from either the satellite or cable companies, you can watch iPlayer content through it) Yes, and if you ever visit the BBC Engineering offices and see the mission statement posters they have everywhere, there is no doubt how they see the future panning out. The BBC of course has a unique problem in that to support this shift they need to change the TV licence model, which currently only requires a licence for watching live TV. This is somewhat akin to commercial operators having to change the way they deliver advertising within a VOD environment. |
|
| |
to DMS1
said by DMS1:No. The key bit of DBS is the B - Broadcast. The model only works when programming is broadcast to everyone at the same time. In the future this won't be how people watch TV. Instead they will go to a menu of available programming and pick what to watch. This is already the way that services like Netflix work and will ultimately be the way everything works.
I had a discussion on the timeframe for this shift with a technologist from the BBC in the UK a couple of years ago. The BBC is absolutely convinced that this change is coming and he gave it about ten years. Wave goodbye to 4K/8K and their adoption. Until mass produced corporate media dies out, multicast is going to be here for decades to come. Everyone is consuming only a handful of the same titles. Netflix is now mass produced corporate media. New boss is the same as the old boss. |
|
sd70mac
Premium Member
join:2015-10-18
Woodstock, IL Netgear CM1200
Linksys WRT1900ACS
Ooma Telo
|
to DMS1
Broadcast to caching still allows watching whenever a person wants, but time shifts the download to be simultaneous for everyone on the network. This helps reduce network congestion when everyone starts watching the same program when they get home from work or school. |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX |
to smk11
said by smk11:Until mass produced corporate media dies out, multicast is going to be here for decades to come. Everyone is consuming only a handful of the same titles. Netflix is now mass produced corporate media. You rather negate your own argument. You say that Netflix is now mass produced corporate media, which it arguably is, but it also isn't broadcast. People watch it when they want. Nobody is saying that the current mechanism of program production will change - just the way people consume it. said by sd70mac:Broadcast to caching still allows watching whenever a person wants, but time shifts the download to be simultaneous for everyone on the network. This helps reduce network congestion when everyone starts watching the same program when they get home from work or school. While that might provide a very kludgy, and temporary band-aid, it goes entirely against the shift away from local storage to cloud-based solutions. There might be some limited smart caching - for example opportunistic downloading of later episodes in a series as you watch the first one - this will never be a long-term solution. |
|
six9
join:2001-12-03
Wake Forest, NC |
six9
Member
2016-Jan-13 3:25 pm
said by DMS1:People watch it when they want. Nobody is saying that the current mechanism of program production will change - just the way people consume it. I already do that now. I tell my DVR to get the show I want to watch and I watch them when I want. Kind of weird to see halloween commercials in January, but whatever. I could not tell you when shows are on, just that the DVR gets them. The only exception to that is live sports. And even live sports are starting to be streamed. |
|
| |
to DMS1
Except Netflix isn't delivering 4K content to each individual customer. Most are cached locally to alleviate bottlenecks and feed out from there. There's just too much data now and it will still be too much data in the future. The vast majority of all media consumers is mass produced corporate media and that requires mass delivery methods i.e. multicast/broadcast. Cloud was a fad that if you haven't noticed died back to the niche it belongs. » openconnect.netflix.com/ |
|
 maartenaElmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA |
to trparky
said by trparky:I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic with your Trump statement. All I can say is that there is no way in hell I will ever vote for that Clinton jackass. There's not enough money on Earth to make me vote for that bitch. You don't have to vote for the "lesser of two evils". Although most people would just pick "red" or "blue" and not think about it, a smarter way to vote would actually be for a third party candidate you may like even better. Not that they have a chance of winning, but the more votes a third party candidate gets, the bigger the message to classic politicians that they are doing something wrong and are not resonating with the votes. ....But, as I said.... most people want to be either "red" or "blue". A "protest vote" for someone else doesn't count in their books. |
|
| maartena |
to DocDrew
said by DocDrew:What sort of FTTP architecture do you expect? Do you want line sharing to be possible? How upgradable do you want it to be?
Realize the entire middle mile infrastructure would also need to be rebuilt to support it. Don't forget the transit and peering too.
Oh yeah... How much do you think the price per month for normal residential customers should be? There should be no need for a rebuild. With fiber the possibilities are endless, you can run dozens of providers on it if you choose to. In The Netherlands - where my parents still live - many cities have fiber networks. There are several companies in different parts of the country that deploy the infrastructure (largely underground, there are almost no poles anywhere anymore), and they allow any ISP that wants to service the people access to those cables. Result: There are 18 providers my parents can choose from, ALL of whom offer voice, television and internet in a variety of speeds and package choices. Prices do not very that much, but as you can imagine they are very competitive. Some providers only offer 50/50 and 100/100, others go higher and offer 200/200 and 500/500, some offer small unbundled television packages, others have larger bundles, etc, etc..... some have voice with better rates to countries in europe, others are more focused on local telephony, etc, etc. One fiber cable. 18 providers. 100/100 for 55 euro. And don't say "but the US is so spread out", because my parents town is 10,000 people, about an hour away from the first city over 100k, and if it can be done in that scenario, it certainly can be done in a big US city. The only problem: In the Netherlands they used the evil term of "regulation" to get things done by government mandate, something that is a four letter word in this country, and without a doubt will have (mostly GOP) politicians screaming that the government should stay out of it. |
|
 rtfm
join:2005-07-09
Washington, DC |
to TestBoy
said by TestBoy:Small amendment. Unlimited yes... but throttled. Some [un]limits are more equal than others... |
|
maartenaElmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA |
to TestBoy
said by TestBoy:said by DMS1:Oh - there is no doubt whatsoever that direct broadcast satellite (DBS) technology is not a long term solution. The world will move towards a channel-less, schedule-less, video on demand approach to TV. It's happening already and will only gain pace. DBS simply doesn't fit into this model. Why wouldn't it? If we are talking about a la carte then it should work just the same. The only thing being you need a dish and receiver. There is one thing satellite cannot deliver, and that is on-demand. Any cable-based television system, whether that is through coaxial cable, fiber cable, POTS phone lines or otherwise has one key advantage over satellite in the future we are headed to: A return path to request VoD. While it is true most satellite systems nowadays hook in to your internet so it will use your internet connection to download on-demand video to your receiver, the majority of content will always be delivered by the dish. With more and more people interested in on-demand type video, I foresee that in a not too distant future, we will actually go back from the 200 channels we have now, to around 50, full of programming that makes sense to have broadcasted live such as news, sports, and interactive television. The rest will probably go to a completely on-demand system. That is what people want. The DVR is only an in-between to the next step. Right now people can watch what they want because they record it and watch it later. The next step is that all possible broadcasts are available through an on-demand system that does not even NEED you to "record" it first. You just come home and your list of "favorites" may simply be updated to say that there is a new episode available. That is where the world is headed, linear TV will make less and less sense, live sports and news being the major exceptions. |
|
| |
said by maartena:That is what people want. The DVR is only an in-between to the next step. Right now people can watch what they want because they record it and watch it later. The next step is that all possible broadcasts are available through an on-demand system that does not even NEED you to "record" it first. You just come home and your list of "favorites" may simply be updated to say that there is a new episode available.
That is where the world is headed, linear TV will make less and less sense, live sports and news being the major exceptions. I certainly hope not, because I still enjoy channel surfing and guide surfing to find something to watch, and enjoy live TV for general entertainment/background noise purposes. You say it's the DVR that's caused this, but that's only in the last 10 or so years. VCRs have been around since the early 80s. I think that is really when the idea of timeshifting started, obviously. But there probably wasn't sufficient technology for on demand stuff then, either. I hope it doesn't evolve into on demand only stuff. Once again, people in rural areas without access to dozens of Mbps won't even be able to watch TV anymore! |
|
DMS1
join:2005-04-06
Plano, TX |
to maartena
said by maartena:With more and more people interested in on-demand type video, I foresee that in a not too distant future, we will actually go back from the 200 channels we have now, to around 50, full of programming that makes sense to have broadcasted live such as news, sports, and interactive television. The rest will probably go to a completely on-demand system. I think it will go to precisely zero channels in the end. Sure, your video player app will have a menu structure that allows you to browse based on content provider and type, but that is very different to having a "channel", which is a fixed stream of programming broadcast to everyone at the same time. I can't decide if news programming will be the first or last to go. You can argue that news is by definition topical and therefore it makes sense to keep a broadcast-type channel for it. However, it would also work to have an on-demand summary bulletin that is updated every hour or so with the option to dive into more depth on each story by pressing a button while watching its summary. Incidentally, here is an article from a couple of years ago outlining the BBC's strategy for iPlayer: » www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentr ··· yer.html. It is clear that probably the world's most respected broadcaster is gearing up for an on-demand only future. |
|
Matt7
join:2001-01-02
Columbus, OH |
to neutrino
News and LIVE sporting events are the only two "live streaming" necessary.. Everything else can be "easily" on demand.
Even news can go "on demand" since most of the news channels are just talking heads now days anyways - they can easily on demand content and then offer the "option" of a live stream for when "breaking news" happens. |
|
| |
to pjsutton
I agree with you pjsutton, there is still something comforting, and pleasing about channel surfing, and using TV for background noise.
There still is a place for traditional broadcast television, and I doubt it will go away anytime soon, it might not have a many channels as it does today but I believe it will be around for decades to come. |
|
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
to ham3843
It probably would have been. But we would most likely have ended up with a much smaller U-Verse footprint today. |
|
| |
ham3843
Member
2016-Jan-14 12:21 am
said by silbaco:It probably would have been. But we would most likely have ended up with a much smaller U-Verse footprint today. Yes, that is true and likely it would have meant that it would have taken areas that had higher speeds with VDSL take longer to transition to FTTH/P. But honestly I would have preferred that AT&T would have gone that route IF they were committed to a universal FTTH/P for their service areas. We can always dream. I still think that somehow the US needs to re-regulate the telcos (and cable cos) and create a new Bell System, and force universal FTTH/P service. What always annoys and amazes me is how quickly AT&T can built out that FTTH/P when forced into a competitive situation. Problem is that the free market will only care about the wealthiest areas of the country and forget just about everywhere else, that is why we need a new Bell System. |
|
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
to maartena
Having 1 physical provider is by no means a perfect solution in the long run. |
|
 Zenit_IIfxThe system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA |
to silbaco
It would be like the FiOS footprint - limited to a number of prime metro areas and their outlying suburbs. Exurbs and towns/cities far from the metros got FiOS only when lucky. Practically no true rural areas got it.
If you look at the deployment map there is a clear pattern - generally wealthy (although not always the case), dense, clustered around major metros within a 50-60mi radius but not always within the major metro itself. Oh, and full of huge holes in coverage even when in areas it exists.
To add insult to injury VZ's DSL deployment overlaps the FiOS deployment in coverage quite a bit. The exception to this would be in PA or NJ, where DSL was deployed much more widely.
In VZ VA and VZ MD land DSL generally never made it out of the major town wirecenters. So towns and cities not a part of a major metro got DSL at least. Rural wirecenters were skipped. Most remote terminals never got DSLAM's put in either. I can count on one hand the number of local RT's equipped for DSL. So the people that got passed over for what I call Phase I broadband did not get in on the next-gen either! Note that Cable is an option for a good chunk of these people, leaving the outer rural fringes in the dark no matter what...
I feel like AT&T did a better job getting baseline service out to as many customers as possible. |
|
|
 ILpt4U
Premium Member
join:2006-11-12
Saint Louis, MO
Asus RT-N66
|
to silbaco
said by silbaco: Having 1 physical provider is by no means a perfect solution in the long run. Ok, I'll bite on that one... Thats why there needs to be a Loop Unbundle requirement -- get the Fiber strung, and have a Network Management Company maintain the plant and Lease Access. Then let whatever ISP/Content companies lease access to the Fiber to individual subscribers AKA treat Network Access like a Utility -- Electric, Gas -- you can "buy" your power/gas from another company, but your local Utility Companies still deliver the Power/Gas to you over the same networks, whether you buy direct from the utility or buy from another provider and that provider leases the Wires (Power)/Pipes (Gas) to get to you! |
|
TestBoy
Premium Member
join:2009-10-13
Irmo, SC |
TestBoy
Premium Member
2016-Jan-14 1:09 am
said by ILpt4U:Thats why there needs to be a Loop Unbundle requirement -- get the Fiber strung, and have a Network Management Company maintain the plant and Lease Access. Then let whatever ISP/Content companies lease access to the Fiber to individual subscribers You surely realize that you are advocating something that yanks refer to as "Communism" or "Socialism" or whatever "ism" they prefer to label it as because of ignorance as to what Socialism or Communism is because of American government propaganda. It must be bad because Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh says it is as mouthpieces of multinationals and shock jocks. If the solution does not involve the current system of politics that support corporate interests above that of the public (which brings us in line with Fascism) then it's not right. One of the things I do not understand as an expat living in the states is how a people can form the perfect secular country that values freedom and the greater good turn it into the third world in a matter of a half a century. Even less... Seems like it started to go downhill really fast in the 80s. Sorry but the bell system died. Horribly. Isn't it time for Americans to rebuild it with glass for the next 100 years? |
|
| |
said by TestBoy:If the solution does not involve the current system of politics that support corporate interests above that of the public (which brings us in line with Fascism) then it's not right. Could not possibly agree more with this statement. |
|
| |
to ILpt4U
said by ILpt4U:Ok, I'll bite on that one...
Thats why there needs to be a Loop Unbundle requirement -- get the Fiber strung... 1. Demand universal FTTP 2. ??? 3. Fiber utopia for everyone |
|
| |
Some Guy
Anon
2016-Jan-14 11:30 am
Have the underpants gnomes switched to installing fiber?
Lay fiber everywhere.
???
PROFITS! |
|
| |
to TestBoy
said by TestBoy:If the solution does not involve the current system of politics that support corporate interests above that of the public (which brings us in line with Fascism) then it's not right.
One of the things I do not understand as an expat living in the states is how a people can form the perfect secular country that values freedom and the greater good turn it into the third world in a matter of a half a century. Even less... Seems like it started to go downhill really fast in the 80s.
Sorry but the bell system died. Horribly. Isn't it time for Americans to rebuild it with glass for the next 100 years? Been going downhill for over a century now. Every period of mass prosperity causes people to ignore reality and every period of mass suffering causes change. Notice how the system didn't collapse after the credit bubble popped? If we had the great depression part II, we would have mass public works projects that would be fixing all the failed infrastructure in America including fiber. The bad news is that WWIII would be going on right now as well. Get out your checkbook and be prepared to use a few commas. |
|
| |
to TestBoy
said by TestBoy:Sorry but the bell system died. Horribly. Isn't it time for Americans to rebuild it with glass for the next 100 years? Bingo! |
|
maartenaElmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA |
to pjsutton
said by pjsutton:I hope it doesn't evolve into on demand only stuff. Once again, people in rural areas without access to dozens of Mbps won't even be able to watch TV anymore! Well.... there is the hope that rural broadband will evolve beyond its current status and have higher speeds available to them, but the reality is that rural TV customers really only have had decent options available to them in the last 20 years or so, when DBS was fully established. Yeah there were analog bog dishes, but they were expensive and didn't really have that much more selection over the good ol antenna. 30 years ago most rural TV consisted of what could be received over an antenna. At the end of the day its a business decision, and the market that drives it. 95% (if not more) of TV customers ARE in cities with broadband available and the question becomes on whether it remains economically viable to retain linear broadcasting for channels at some point in the future. Some channels have actually launched as on-demand only already, such as the Anime Network, which is pretty much only available as an on-demand option, even on satellite. (Internet indeed required in those cases). Original series from Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and others are exploding like crazy. Whole-season-at-once releases is the new normal. I don't think it is going 0 channels as someone suggested, but your "background noise" and "channel flipping" will become more limited at some point. Lets just hope that when channels go down, rural broadband will start to go up. |
|
| maartena |
to Matt7
said by Matt7:News and LIVE sporting events are the only two "live streaming" necessary.. Everything else can be "easily" on demand.
Even news can go "on demand" since most of the news channels are just talking heads now days anyways - they can easily on demand content and then offer the "option" of a live stream for when "breaking news" happens. Thats how I watch news now. Virtually every news site has video options that report on the news of the day, and I generally stay away from Fox News (right) and MSNBC (left) anyways, because they are not news channels, but political opinion channels. I don't have to have my views molded into their red and blue boxes, I just want the news. And on the linear channels news goes mostly like this: BREAKING NEWS: North Korea has tested a nuke. The news is reported for 5 minutes, followed by 55 minutes of "expert opinions" from politicians, scientists, and pundits who all have to have their say, ranging from "lets send them flowers and make nice" to "BOMB THEM INTO SUBMISSION". I don't care about it, I don't want to know everyone's opinion, I just want to get the news reported. Which is why I tend to watch BBC's news, and PBS Newshour. |
|
