Slashdot Mirror
Students Use 802.11g To Save Cable Industry
LiquidFun writes "Business undergraduates at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business have written an e-business case for one of their case competitions that describes how to use 802.11g wireless technology to distribute cable content, both interactive and broadcast, throughout the home. They mention features like video-on-demand, cable gaming, etc. and even provide enough of the technical specifications necessary to start believing that this could work. They even make available their PowerPoint presentation that they presented to judges from both Cisco & Deloitte Consulting. I'd say a pretty good job for third-year undergrads."
This seems like just another technology that's neat, but not very usefull. Sure on some campuses it would be helpfull, but other than that, i see no End User marketability. Not many people want to broadcast their own TV. Neat technology though...
OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
Students bring peace to the Middle East, and an end to war and world hunger in a single session at the Mock UN.
No film as 11 because we all to happy to watch TV
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I don't want all my porn to be picked up by some alien Seti project.
"Radio killed the video star"
:-P
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
The 'future of cable' seems pretty neat, but with the people currently in charge, how long would it take before it's regulated and the consumer products have encryption (or some other way to keep you out and keep them in control) built-in?
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Lines like these might perk the interest of regulators.
Ryan Fenton
Introduction
This project is a plan to incorporate the three primary uses of the existing nationwide cable network, voice, data and video, into one convenient and easy-to-use package that will satisfy most consumers' communication needs at a
fair price.
The long term goal of this project is to maximize shareholder return by becoming the standard by which both urban and suburban American people access these communications mediums. In the short term, the goal is to maintain and increase existing market share by creating a competitive advantage over competitors with overlapping markets using the existing infrastructure.
Detailed Background of Subject
Much money and time has been invested in setting up the infrastructure for a nationwide, high-speed cable network. However, market share has been fragmented between many competitors. Today, the cable industry is fighting a battle with the satellite TV, high-speed DSL internet access, and telco phone service companies. Most of these competitors are more formidable in size and financial health.
Currently, cable is the only medium that can simultaneously offer all three means of communication whereas every other competitor is only able to offer one or two means of communication using its existing infrastructure. Therefore, the cable infrastructure has enormous potential. Despite the possible marketing alliances between satellite television and internet (dial-up and DSL services) companies to provide all three services in conjunction to the consumer, they are still unable to provide these services through a single infrastructure. However, the virtual bundling of these services offered by cable competitors still poses a threat to existing cable market share.
Detailed Problem Explanation
If the cable industry were to continue in its current ways, it would face high churn and a relatively shrinking customer base. Furthermore, the cable industry would lose its opportunity to create a competitive advantage. Factors that contribute to this problem include:
DSL will continue growing twice as fast as cable modems.
Satellite TV would continue convincing cable customers to switch over with more attractive packages.
Cable would never enter the telephone industry due to the customer being used to their existing regional phone services.
While cable operators can expect steep competition from satellite and telecom vendors, Cable currently is the only network architecture of its kind capable of offering not only digital video, high-speed data, and telephony, but other interactive services such as home networking, remote home security monitoring, video conferencing, interactive TV/games, and others. With millions already invested in cable and plant upgrades, many believe that Cable operators are positioned for success if the right decisions are made.
Cable companies must recognize the fact that their infrastructure already contains large amounts of unused capital. This, in effect, translates into a "free" investment, that is, it can use all this extra bandwidth that it has to offer great services at a very low marginal cost.
Competitors have reduced prices of packages which then, combined with free equipment promotions, free installation promotions, and multi-receivers, are compelling packages that are eating up more market share.
Objectives
We envision...
Using the huge infrastructure and bandwidth muscle to eliminate satellite TV from the urban and suburban areas by adding more content-rich and interactive features beyond the bandwidth that satellite TV is capable of handling.
Delivering cable TV, high-speed internet access, telephone with video conferencing, static-free radio, on-demand games and movies, and more through one single medium. Essentially, the cable line becomes the only link needed between the home and the outside world for all cable subscribers.
Offering a local wireless network within each household by which content is distributed, e
Well, it is good to see we are at least producing students that can actually put something together. Working in the consulting field myself, I seldom see people actually able to pull together a presentation.
On the other hand, 802.11g, like all wireless standards are cooperative shared bandwidth. From what I saw, there was a lot of bandwidth need in the presentation.
Also, with any technology that you are going to drop into the home, there are lots of hidden costs, support, hardware, etc as well as distributing and developing the devices necessary to enable not only wireless but VoiP, VOD, etc, etc... so I would say the cost model is a bit flawed.
Also, 802.11g is overkill for current cable modem speeds (upto 800Mbp/s is what I understand). I am not sure you can get that much more over cable at current cable quality (most houses are RG56 and not even RG8, which is what is recommended).
Also, there is a desire (altough draconian) for cable to use cable and telco to use copper and so on and so on...
Keep up the good thoughts though!
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
you have to write a case study to do that? isn't that like general knowledge?
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
I'm inherently distrustful of the ability of Berkeley students to grasp the hard realities of the real-world when it comes to business. I went to a less idealistic (and more politically/culturally moderate) business school, and I didn't grasp them well enough until I had a few years of reality under my belt. The technology might all be there, but that's rarely ever been the problem with any business.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
pleeez....they're business majors. the presentation is just screaming the obviousities
What about in denser neighborhoods, or apartments. Where could be many different channels being watched , and open internet connections at the same time. Seems like the "54Mbps" would be used up pretty quickly.
And is it really even 54 Mbps? I seem to recall that the actual transmission rate is much lower.
openoffice can display most .ppt's just try it and see if it will open
They want to have the cable companies to combine with the telephone company and game companies and assign everyone a unique ID.
Ya know, a business case is always gonna look good if you're advocating a total media monopoly. Yes, if one company controls every possible communications mechanism we have, they will make lots of money.
This is an evil idea. Regulatory committees exist solely to prevent this from ever happening as it would destroy our way of life.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
OpenOffice Impress will open that document just fine.
My experience with the cable industry has been that they have huge opportunity, but are too risk-averse technologically to make these things happen. They are still, today, ham-strung by the GI/SA encryption duopoly that has made their settop boxes an embarassment in the CE industry.
Wireless doesn't provide the cable industry with any competitive advantage over a telco/satellite alliance. Both can offer the same improved services w/ or w/o wireless. Wireless scares both cable and DSL providers because it will make sharing of broadband that much easier, so they will make efforts to delay its deployment (although I doubt they can have much effect there).
Finally, offering "remote game-play terminals" as suggested in the ppt slides seems like an interesting idea, but ignores the bandwidth/compression costs of 30fps 1920x1080 low-lateny gaming that will be prevalent by the time this idea is executed. HDTV streams are 13-19Mbit/sec, but compressed-on-the-fly game content will be much higher bandwidth. It will also be continuous for the hours of game console usage/day. There's a good reason to put a powerful computer or a game console on the other end of the wire: 3D graphics are a GREAT compression mechanism.
So now I dont need to go out to the switchbox or build a complicated cable descrambler, just airsnort and get to work on cracking encryption ^_^
I wonder how secure is their system is for thier cable system over the wi-fi system I think it would be funny if you and your friends can access free porn off a local wi-fi network. Since their is a great demise to the cable black box people have to look for alternitives besides paying your local cable operator.
DSL is growing 2x as fast as cable modems? Says who?
Satellite offers more attractive packages? Like?
Cable is already into telephony, both older Circuit Based RF Telephony and newer Voice Over IP using DOCSIS.
good job for third year undergrads? What's that supposed to mean? I hope they didn't mean that in terms of creativity and ideas. College kids are certainly creative in their ideas; some of the best ideas come from students.
I don't have 802.11g. I wonder if I can somehow use my cable modem connection to download this "cable content".
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
The PowerPoint presentation is amateur at best. I hope they had a lot to say when they actually presented it.
This is just a bunch of hoo-ha-hullably that will blow over much like Fiber to the door or Internet via power outlets.
Besides, how would this type of cable service be managed? Illegally reconnecting your wireless cable would really end up being illegal! This due to that fact that it would require 'hacking' and not simply reconnecting a coax cable.
"To all slashdotters, if you were denied admission to a top school in the past, today you can reduce your frustration by moderating me up!"
Personally I think the matrix code background says professional much louder than words like "monotonic", "inelastic" and "valuation".
_nfotxn
"Students Use 802.11g To Save Cable Industry"
With the current batch of state-mandated monopolies abusing their customers with captive-audience pricing, I'd rather not see the cable industry saved, thank you very much...
...and other high-bandwidth LANs: vobStreamer
Incidentally, analog cable channels are 8MHz wide. Not that it's part of this discussion, but DOCSIS cable uses that 8MHz and gets max theoretical peak speeds of 45Mbps. Just for comparison.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you think the Haas School of Business is politically/culturally/ideology wise in any way similar to the majority of the other departments on campus, sorry, it's not.
Most of the (undergrads & grads) are more concerned about landing a job at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey than righting any worldly injustices. Not to say that the majority of the undergrads are smarter than students in other departments (I got a minor there 3 years ago), but they'll work their ass off to impress the right people.
The Ethnic Studies department on the other hand could be counted on to explain how 11g is the tool of the white devil to keep the gay-american-indian-married-to-latinos movement in check by promoting cancer with CIA/FBI/NSA funding.
OK, now flip your argument over to the analog realm. Somewere out there is a service point were all the analog broadcasts are coming from. One, why isn't anyone DDoSing it? Two, why isn't anyone hacking it?
Good question, but the answer's kind of obvious. The equipment necessary to hack a digital system over IP is cheap and commoditized (that is, a personal computer). Millions of people have capability (maybe thousands have the know-how?). The equipment needed to hack the analog signal is prohibitively expensive (transponders, distribution amplifiers, etc. etc.). Plus, the interface for hacking in the digital realm is all via software, whereas you have to engineer the hardware to accomplish the same in the analog domain.
This isn't to say that analog "hacking" isn't done. Phreaking? Pirate radio, pirate television? The infamous "Captain Midnight" overtaking HBO's uplink in 1986?
uCentric has built their business doing this. They've already tested 802.11g over cable & recently launched a trial with Comcast, both of which are
Does it work with linux?
...yet?
RG8 is used for old school ethernet networks and is 50 ohm while RG6 is 75 ohm. Television equipment in the U.S. is tuned for 75 ohms so you definitely don't want to use RG8, you'd actually weaken your signal.
You wouldn't need to send the entire cable signal through wireless, only the channels being used at the time.
Not Found
The requested URL
Ooops... my mistake... my cable numbers got goofed up in my head...
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
Ignoring when some idiot contractor decides to dig through the wire (which usually is not either the cable or phone companies fault), when is the last time you picked up your phone and didn't get dial tone?
Now consider how often your cable goes out?
Personally, I can't recall when I last had to call the phone company, yet I find I am calling the cable company at least 6 times a year because either the cable is out or the reception so bad nothing works (and lets not even talk about the number of times the cable modem has no signal).
While the Internet being unaccessible for 30 minutes periodically is not the end of the world, being unable to dial 911 because you cable is acting up again does not sound like an acceptable risk merely to have 1 company provide all 3 services.
A compressed MPEG-2 HD stream requires anywhere from 10 to 19.2Mbit/s. So at most I could fit only two HD streams on 802.11G. If you figure that with TVs all over a large house, you'd probably be running the system at 36Mb/s for 48mbit/s. Still not a lot of BW for HD content.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
The Moxi Media Center is an old idea. It was designed to use 802.11a. The only difference is these students switched the .a to the .g...
Why are we supposed to be impressed again?
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
This project is a plan to incorporate the three primary uses of the existing nationwide cable network, voice, data and video, into one convenient and easy-to-use package that will satisfy most consumers' communication needs at a fair price.
Business school translator: turn cable internet into propriatory equivalent of cable TV and pay per minute phone service. Don't believe me? Read on.
# A better infrastructure in the future that will act as a stronger barrier to entry for new and existing competitors.
No competitors, self explanatory. I suppose they mean monopoly rape when they say "fair price".
Also built into the new digital cable box is a small camera which would allow for video conferencing, perhaps with other cable customers, over the cable network.
Ha Ha we will be seeing more of these clowns, I'm sure.
Phone service will also be delivered through the cable network. The existing cable network can easily accommodate the added bandwidth for several voice-data devices, such as telephones, which currently operates over an RJ-45 line. With a nationwide network, the cost of providing long distance phone calls for consumers is greatly reduced. Essentially, calls to anywhere inside the US would essentially be "local calls" as it would not cost anymore on the side of cable companies to offer the service. However, cable companies can still charge competitive rates for local and long distance calling.
What a grasp of technology they have. Voice over IP paid by the minute, just like the expensive antiquated system it will replace. Let's pay for infrastructure we don't have!
Oh yeah, they want to own internet gamming too. I wonder if they recomend only letting xbox connect? No, not that smart, they recomend developing IR joy sticks.
I love their mathematical proof of profit. Was a large business venture ever launched without such promisses? As Ikaos pointed out, a total media monopoly would make money. It's just funny to see them write it out they way they did without considering operating costs! The great power point using brains who thought this up would probably recomend M$/intel to hit the estimated cost of $650/house. Way to go guys.
Here's a clue stick: all of the above services are available now at no additional cost besides privately owned equipment. Figure out ways to offer these services without fucking your customers, who you so deridingly call "consumers" of the shit you would like to push.
PS, Star Office can save your M$ presentation as HTML and your .DOC paper in PDF or HTML so that anyone can look at it and you won't have to rewrite your work in Front Page. It's cheaper than all that monopoly priced Micro$oft stuff too.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Operating costs! Wiizzz-bang!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Packet loss rates for 802.11 can become atrocious when you do something as simple as close a door. It might not be so great if every TV in the house needed line-of-sight to the 802.11 transmitter to get decent picture quality.
Problem 1: UDP and Congestion
One of the benefits of using a protocol like TCP is that congestion control can (and has been) added in. UDP, on the other hand, has no means of congestion control. The morale of the story is that all programs in your entire neighborhood using TCP could grind to a halt if your neighbor decides to use all 3 of his TVs at the same time.
Problem 2: Privacy
So, now anyone with a 802.11-equipped laptop and a packet sniffer can figure out what I'm watching? Even if it's "encrypted" as they say it is, what algorithms are they using? How are they handling key distribution?
Problem 3: Security/Theft
"Security is taken into account to ensure that no bandwidth that consumers pay for is stolen. The signal broadcasted by the wireless router to all devices would be encrypted to the receiver. Each receiver would have a unique identification address that associates it with a specific receiver. Therefore, if one receiver is reported missing by a customer, that receiver is able to be deactivated before the cable company replaces it. For computers, a closed Access point could easily be setup to ensure that data bandwidth is not misappropriated. This security system makes certain that only paying customers have access to appropriate content."
What in God's name does the above mean? Once the signal is out over wireless, anyone can grab it. And, once it's over ip, you can tunnel it to any of your neighbors.
Also, what if someone packet spoofs the video server with your address to start sending a new channel? How could you even detect that this was happening? Or, if someone wants to DoS you, they can just spoof a request for a whole bunch of channels.
Some of these problems are sovable, but there is not nearly enough "technical detail."
Blatant Fallacy: Cable Gaming
Move all the processing to the server and just broadcast the image? In the current model, server and client exchange minimal information about the state of the world in very compact formats. In their model, the client sends minimal information and server sends streaming video! This is hardly more efficient, especially since the cable company now has to have a gaming-class computer sitting in their office for every single customer who wants to play games at the same time! Oh, and what about lag? Do you really want to wait 100ms-1s for the command to be sent, processed and sent back? The lag would be horrific. I'm afraid that with current prices and technology, distributing tasks like graphics rendering are cheaper.
Grar, I can't stand these guys who dream up this crap and then pretend its possible.
The cable industry's problems are of their own making. The consolidators (Time Warner, Comcast, Charter, etc.) WAY OVERPAID for the systems they own and now they can't afford to run (or even maintain) them. Add the Rigas greed of Adelphia to the recipe too. Now they try to pass their bad business decisions off onto their consumers? I don't think so! Here in Santa Monica, CA you will pay over 40 bucks a month for basic analog service. Over half the channels on this service are over the air stations. Dish TV offers more 'premium' (that is not over the air channels) then cable does...for about HALF the price! So, I pay 50 bucks for an antenna one time, 22 bucks for 55 channels of Dish, and say SCREW CABLE! Not only that, cable's big advantage used to be that you got a better picture with their product. Not any more! Their picture SUCKS, with herringbones and left sided ghosts (both a result of bad system design and especially maintenance) on over half the channels (including HBO). They put out a lousy product at an overinflated price and I shall not shed a single tear when they all go into bankruptcy. Look, if I pay $250,000 for a house that's worth $50,000 that's MY problem. If I try to make it my tenants' problem, they'll leave...which is exactly what's happening with cable.
I'm a little confused... You're saying that Haas is an idealistic and politically/culturally extreme business school?
Considering the MBA program is ranked highly in entrepenuership and that undergrads go into practically any field from non-profit to investment banking, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from.
Sure, the undergrad program is 65% Asian, but that's only about as much as the Econ department has.
*yawn* This is a business case and not even the one that won. Possible reasons: unrealistic bandwidth assumptions, overly techy powerpoint background, setting in an idealistic world. In any case, this isn't even a very interesting topic. Must be a slow news day.
Your idea does not make hbo/intel/AOLTW/sony /RIAA/MS/at&t/comcast/HP/etc etc etc happy, plus your planned 'eliminated' satellite companies won't be happy with ur idea.
All in all it sounds nice but you'll kill yourself trying to do everything at once over cable, don't forget all the abovementioned companies run various amounts of your government so good luck getting yourself off the ground.
da!!as
Never.
Actually, Cox cable in Southern California already packages up the three main services (cable, phone, and internet) and sells them to you at a discounted price. AND with a set top box with digital cable.
It's happened already. Just not wireless yet.
I think the wires will be around for a while yet. If I was building a house today I would still insist two (of each) coax, Cat5 and telephone lines be bundled to a distribution box in each room (via PVC conduits, no less, so that the runs can be upgraded without poking any more holes). I have two WiFi-equipped computers in my house (connected to a cable-modem equipped Linux server hidden in the basement), but still find myself moving the WAP around to try and eliminate the dead spots. If my house had decent wiring I'd be able to put the WAP in the attic....
Yeah, I agree with you. I noted in their text that they discussed the inability of cable to have voice. Bull, I have digital cable, digital phone, and a cable modem all coming through my cable. The biggest problem, however, with only one connection is that if you lose it, you're sunk! This could work right now with off-the-shelf components (sure it's a little shoddy) but I'm wary of wifi due to the complete disregard for security.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
I went to a less idealistic (and more politically/culturally moderate) business school
I don't think that one's political leanings affects their ability to succeed in business.
Full disclosure, Haas MBA '97 -- I had never realized until tonight that it was the school's idealism (career center listings) to blame for the dot-com bubble. Damn us farkers and our idealism!
Okay Quattrone, you're free to go home now. Okay Andersen, sorry about all that commotion.
Yeah, it was our idealism of the Berkeley Business School to blame. In the face of a history of defeats to the well heeled landlording bourgeois, we remained loyal to the underdog. Go Bears! Give 'em the AXE, Right in the Neck!
Ignore the guys from Harvard and Wall Street. Presumably Berkeley is to blame because of its location. Oh yeah, except that Berkeley isn't even in the heart of the Silicon Valley and presumably that other business school, at the Jr. University holds less than idealistic views. Or maybe they are idealistic but in ways that conform to poster Shoten's viewpoints making them non-idealistic.
Huh? WTF? I want my last five minutes back. The parent's post is one non-sequitur after another.
Insightful? Or just a full bong?
It speaks of broadcasting channels with UDP whether someone is listening or not. This is impossible. There is over 1gbps of video data alone coming over your cable-TV cable. So that's WAY too much data for 802.11g. 802.11g can only transmit at 27mpbs (each way).
Never underestimate the data capacity of a cheap coaxial cable.
This is the typical psuedo-science breakthrough we see far too often on this "news for nerds" site.
Would it be asking too much for some actual technical editors to filter the articles?
Hello, I am a Cisco certified individual who witness first hand the concepts that were presented by the Berkeley undergrad team. I was personally impressed and very excited to see such elite people among already intelligent folk. They surely do stand out against the rest of the crowd.
Was it really necessary to specify that she was Puerto Rican? Do you really think we care about details like that?
Read again, they say they would broadcast the channels, whether anyone is listening or not. So your neighbor turning on or off their TV makes no difference. It also means that you cannot use TCP, as you cannot broadcast a point-to-point protocol.
This solution is unworkable.
The first bit made sense: Students Use 802.11g To Save Cable. After that it went downhill a little.
There's a cable company that's doing the same.
I'm sure either could bundle gaming and/or a 801.11g wireless access point if they felt like it.
However, they didn't ask the most important question, why do people pick DSL over cablemodem when both are available in the same area, and the more technically knowledgable they are, the more likely they are to pick DSL?
The cable company is too interested in telling people what we can and can't do with our bandwidth, and even that restricted-use bandwidth is shared between all the cablemodem users in a neighborhood, putting users at the mercy of their neighbors when trying to get the download speed one is paying for.
The business model discussed here is one I'd be even less likely to buy as an end user than the current one.
The other obvious point is. . . while I can imagine using broadband for VoIP local toll and LD calling and probably will when I am in an area where DSL is available, I can't imagine it as my only telephone access, if the cable breaks down and takes my phone out with it, just how am I going to report the problem to the cable company?
Cable is less reliable than phones are and putting all my electronic communication ability in one basket doesn't really appeal to me.
Not bad for a bunch of college students, I guess, but while I could imagine this getting funded and those kids becoming the new suits at a new startup, one would hope that VCs have more sense now.
Tech Public Policy stuff
They still won't fit into 802.11G, but not by the factor that you suggest.
Um, no. 802.11g has a raw bitrate of 54 Mbps, which should give around 30Mbps effective TCP throughput. Plenty of bandwidth even for MPEG2.
And I can already stream divx over 802.11b, it only takes 2 Mbps or so for the standard 700 MB movies.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Using 802.11g to save cable industry? 802.11g... wireless... saving cable... no, it must be a joke.
The students' proposal was for broadcasting unused, as well as watched, channels over the 802.11g. What you suggest is more sensible, but would require the cable box to act as a smarter server. I was pointing out that the student paper did not address this issue appropriately.
In North America, channels are 6 Mbps wide; 8 Mbps is European-standard, both video and DOCSIS. Digital Cable takes a 6 Mbps channel, runs QAM in it to get about 20 Mbps, and then feeds about ten MPEG streams through it (bit rate of each can be adjusted depending on content).
Real cable is typically a mix of analog and digital channels. Digitizing is costly, so putting analog channels onto digital wireless would take some effort.
... although Apple, Linksys, Netgear, and everybody else on the planet has released their own version of same.
REPORT ALL OBSCENE MESSAGES TO YOUR POTSMASTER
Hmmm, must be a new XP feature. Star Office 6.0 works fine for me on Debian and I imagine it works on any Linux distro. Sun is reasonable proof that you don't have to be evil to make a profit.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
surprise! young people are smart! YES THEY ARE - for anyone so say, "not bad for a group of third year undergrads" is to BELITTLE their intelligence. they can do it - don't belittle them with your lowsy expectations.
why was this piece even posted? so some bright students read a bunch of hype material from the wireless industry and did an excellent job actually anayzing and developing the idea - this isn't what business economics majors do every semester?
Yeah. You can do ONE or TWO streams over 802.11g. They're talking about broadcasting a full cable network over 802.11g, which won't work except at extremely compromised bitrates (less than VCD.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How is digitizing costly? I don't know anything about the hardware THEY use, but for example a box from Sony to convert S-Video (I know, I know, not quite on par with the level of quality we're looking for) to a DV/1394 stream is $500 and works in realtime. I'm sure someone else makes them cheaper. Hell, that functionality is available in a $450 camcorder. I therefore presume the cost for pro gear to perform similar functions should be under $5000 per stream and be 1U rackmountable, which would make it fit nicely in the space the UP converter took up before...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My wonderful 8e6 X-Stop won't let me see the site:
http://www.magmafrog.com/misc/tripleplay.ppt
Just love how well these filters work!
802.11b/g is amazing in its variability. Turn on a microwave in the house, and you're in trounble.
So, how do you send video over wireless? My employer (ViXS www.vixs.com) has a solution. Jump on over to www.vixs.com and have a look.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I think this was an exercise in business and powerpoint presentation. I don't think it was for the technical stuff IN IT guys. As far as the technicals is concerned, it's obviously riddled with holes. Just enough to LOOK like they knew what they were talking about, but not quite enough to convince the /. crowd I see.
:)
The scarey thing is the reason why alot of our technology is bungled by the time we get it is precisely because projects acquiring management approval in this manner. Scare, E.
The presentation did lack a few things though.
[1] Objectives for the project seem to be there. What are the objectives of this presentation? What are they trying to accomplish with this presentation? Is this informational? Is this a sales pitch? Is this training?
[2] Some sentences were FAR too long. Your captive audience is not a captive attention. People, especially in meetings, won't concentrate and remember Powerpoint slides larger than half a dozen items on a page. I wasn't there so I don't know, but I hope their delivery was more cohesive.
[3] We could sit here all day line by line (which is what these fellas might want to do before making another presentation) but here is a sample.
"This project is a plan to incorporate the three primary uses...".
A project isn't a plan.
A project plan is a plan.
This plan is to incorporate.
This project is to incorporate.
This is a plan to a implement a project that incorporates.
This is a project to build a plan that incorporates.
But
This project is NOT a plan to incorporate.
"The long term goal of this project is to maximize shareholder return by becoming the standard by which both urban and suburban American people access these communications mediums."
Standardizing communications access will maximize shareholder return? I see. It's all so clear to me now.
"In the short term, the goal is to maintain and increase existing market share by creating a competitive advantage over competitors with overlapping markets using the existing infrastructure."
Maintain. AND increase. At the same time? Wow.
By competitive advantage. over competitors? really? No shit?
This smells of zine lifting. Lots of buzz words, visionary statements and instant actualization, just add water. But not to worry. As long as you got a friend in high places, this presentation will do just fine
Just curious Michael (poster), what school did you go to?
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Not to mention the mpeg4 standard was only recently finalized so people could implement it without worries of being incompatible with the final specification. You don't design a highly optimizaed appliance chip just for it to be out of spec as you start fabrication.
.11g for video broadcast and the idea that you can use thin clients for playing graphics intensive games that triggered my bogon meter.
Point. Aren't most of these decoder chips somewhat general DSPs, with most of the decoder smarts in firmware? Or does the economics of video decoder chips make it more cost effective to hardwire the algorithms?
There is sufficient bandwidth in coax to deliver this kind of content and anything else you'd want to send
True. Just like fiber, though, it really depends on how advanced the transmitter and receiver connected to the cable is. Anyway, I'n not worried about the bandwidth of the coax. It is the use of
Now, 802.11 isn't coax, though. I seriously doubt its ability to deliver mpeg2, but mpeg4 should be no problem. An mpeg2 stream at 6mbps could be done with 800kbps of mpeg4 or less using appropriately high quality source material and encoding algorithms. Is there probability for artifacts? Yeah, of course. But there's artifacts in DVD and current digital cable or satellite TV so nobody would tell the difference anyway.
They were talking about 802.11g *broadcast* frames. Point to point traffic over 802.11 is ack'ed, so that the frame can be resent if the receiver missed it (sort of the WiFi equivalent of how good old half duplex ethernet handle collisions). Not so for broadcast frames.
802.11 broadcast frames are not ack'ed. UDP is a non-ack protocol. No ack, neither on L2 nor L3. I don't know how resilient MPEG4 is to packet loss, but I doubt that your TV will be very happy when someone calls you on your 2.4GHz wireless DECT phone.
Sure, you can replace the 802.11 MAC with something that is better suited for stream broadcast. But then they can't use commodity hardware for the implementation.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
The stuff that cable head ends use costs around $10k/channel. Or more, depending on the model. Yeah, I know it is sometimes done cheaper, but broadcast-grade gear isn't cheap. I think it could be done (at consumer grade) cheaply enough in a cable box, if it were for say one channel at a time, and mass-produced.
My original point was that the students didn't take everything they should have into account.
These guys make a good, comprehensive case for their business class as far as a model for making their vision realized.
However, the biggest flaw in their theory is that it does not take into account consumer behavior. People are getting smarter, not dumber (although trends prove me wrong) about their technology toys. Why would I want one company controlling and monitoring everything that everyone in my household is doing. In addition, although the cable provider may boast a mountain of channels, I am still limited to what they and their partners provide. (Some choose to exclude the bikini-rich Travel channel, other do not receive bloomberg, TechTV, etc.) Even their gaming initiative sounds like a heap of crap. 15-20 games?! I'd get sick of it in a month (unless they can license CS and online poker/blackjack).
My point is, this business model can in no way work once people realize that while the profits may be boosting economic figures, it promotes clustering of all media services under one roof. We are now down to about 6 major companies controlling 99% of the world's media, this will result in 2-3. Choice will become a thing of the past, and our lives will become over-saturated with information fed to us from these few companies, and the cable providers that ultimately make it work.
100% content free. I'm sure Toilette Conslutting loved it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."