Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Highspeed Downloads Via DTV

Posted by chrisd on from the something-newish dept.

NYCadAdept writes " E-insight reports that Clear Channel Communications has begun to provide high speed downloads in Cincinnati, via the broadcast DTV signal of WKRC-TV. You have to use proprietary hardware/software; and you still need a modem for up-stream communications, but it is an interesting alternative for those beyond the reach of xDSL."I don't want to sound rigid, but these frequencies were given in exchange for the analog ones, so I don't see how they can do this without breaking thier agreement with the FCC.

6 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Won't Work by elbles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only problem I can see with the service is that it relies on a 56k connection for an uplink. Does this work? Yes, but it won't satisfy the requirements of many users. I could imagine the latency could become a problem, especially when gaming, and performing other tasks requiring high speeds in both directions. Back in the day, cable providers tried this, and it didn't work for them; what makes them think it will work now?

    1. Re:Won't Work by AgTiger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consider that it's Clear Channel communications, one of the big five groups that own an ungodly amount of radio stations. They don't want people who want high speed communications between each other because that means one of them is a content provider, and that's the entertainment cartel's turf. So, by setting up the system such that the only speedy direction is "down", they better their odds that everyone subscribing to their service will be a good little _consumer_. Okay, so I'm a cynic.

  2. An innovative advancement in technology? by pjbass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and you still need a modem for up-stream communications, but it is an interesting alternative for those beyond the reach of xDSL

    When I lived in northeastern PA, I could get a cable modem with one-way download through the cable and then upload through my phone line. That was about 8 years ago. And even then I didn't see the benefit. Sure, I would potentially get fast download rates, and it was the only broadband available in the area. But even then, many people who get broadband need low upload latency (computer games sending a constant stream to the servers) and unfortunately that just doesn't cut it.

    However, my point is this isn't a new solution to people with no xDSL service in their area; it's just a new way to sell the same old crap. If they wanted to really make the money, I think they just need to suck it up and help build the fiber backbones and get telecommunications in those areas up to par with the rest of the world. After all, this would probably give the telecom sector a nice boost. My two cents though...

  3. What a load of crap by -tji · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Check out this quote from the article:

    "As broadcasters, we saw the opportunity to provide a service to the unserved users in those areas while delivering free, high definition television to the viewing public."

    How the hell do they propose to offer both HDTV and data at the same time? A 1080i video stream can easily take the full 20Mbps 8VSB channel.

    The truth is, they have no intention of carrying HDTV programming, because that would take up all the bandwidth. They will only provide a highly compressed SDTV signal, to keep the FCC off their back, and sell the more profitable internet access as their main business.

    This will greatly hurt the DTV conversion process. Who will bother to convert to a digital TV if it offers no advantage over their current cable or satellite service.

  4. Out of bandwidth by betagoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assuming they run just one SD channel @ 4 Mbits/sec, they will be left with about 15 Mbits/sec remaining. At 256K per user, even with multiplexing giving them about 10x more capacity, they will run out of capacity between 500 to 1000 users, depending on how many concurrent downloads there are at a given moment. Since there is no way to provision more bandwidth from their spectrum allocation. Plus, it looks like they are giving away the receivers / routers for free on their web page.

    Since they are billing it as a free service, how much value do they expect to derive from delivering fat files to a 1K user base? Not surprisingly, I'm pretty skeptical about their "plan".

  5. God forbid... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... they use the extra bandwidth and digital broadcasting technology to, say, put more tv stations and programming into a channel. I get few enough broadcast channels as it is (many of which are televangelists), and Clear Channel (the people who make satellite radio look so damned tempting) is wasting perfectly good television bandwidth for this gimmick, this DirecPC wanna-be? And at least satellite internet doesn't rob potential viewing bandwidth from an entire broadcast area (customers of the service or not).

    The more I hear about the cluster-fuck HDTV is turning out to be in the US, the more I think that the hundreds or thousands of dollars I'm expected to pay to upgrade my receivers for it will instead go into a 6' C-band dish in the back yard. Broadcasters, cable companies and TV manufacturers can do what they want, I'll still be able to watch the whole thing collapse on C-SPAN and the BBC.