SBC and Microsoft to Provide HDTV Over IP

Chroniton writes "SBC Communications (The #1 DSL provider in the US) is announcing new plans for broadband deployment, including internet, HDTV, and VOIP service: "With today's announcement, SBC will significantly accelerate its previously planned deployment pace and now plans to reach 18 million homes by year-end 2007. Through Project Lightspeed, the company will deploy 38,800 miles of fiber - double the amount used to build out the company's DSL network - at a cost of $4 billion to $6 billion."

This comes in response to an FCC ruling which shields IP-based networks from traditional telecom regulation. Speeds are expected to reach 15-25 Mbps, enough for HDTV: "To take advantage of this new network, SBC companies and Microsoft have begun testing an IP-based switched television service based on the Microsoft TV IPTV platform. This infrastructure would enable features such as standard and high-definition programming, customizable channel lineups, video on demand, digital video recording, multimedia interactive program guides and event notifications. IP-based television services will also allow TVs to interact with other devices in the home, including computers and PDAs." More details available here and here"

Comments

Not to mention...

[Izago909]

I wonder how the broadcast flag, Microsoft, HD-TV, and DRM are going to play out.

Re:Not to mention...

[Wesley Felter]

The broadcast flag doesn't apply to TV over IP, so it's easy to predict that the broadcast flag will have no effect here.

Cable and satellite are totally DRM'ed today, so DRM'ed TV over IP is not really any worse.

Glad I gave up on tv...

[Yaa 101]

Time proves over and over again that things can get worse, and they do... I can't wait for the first stale DRM'ed virus stuck in their systems...

Michael Powell to change this ruling in 5...4...

[ferrocene]

I saw him on CSPAN once. Evil. Why do we allow father-son relationships in public offices? It doesn't rub right with me.

80-100Mbps in Japan and Korea

[Dancin_Santa]

Is there some sort of regulatory problem in America that restricts users to such low (25Mbps) DSL speeds?

Re:80-100Mbps in Japan and Korea

[Dancin_Santa]

So there couldn't be a slow buildout from high-population centers like NY or LA? I'd think that in those areas you'd be on par with cities like Seoul or Tokyo.

But it doesn't seem to be the case.

HDTV over IP?

[ImaLamer]

Already happening, here and here.

This is good for me...

[mrgreen4242]

because today I was wondering wether or not there is a cell phone that has a built in wifi system for VoIP... I want a single phone that lets me use unlimited VoIP service if I am at home or somewhere I am authorized to get on a standard wireless network and then when I am not in range of a wireless AP switches over to a regular cell phone network (keeping the same number) and bills me with on a regular wireless phone plan.

I think that a decent phone, with some basic web/email/chat features, as well as the cell and wifi connectivity would be worth about $150 (with contract discounts) and $60-70/month (with free long distance all the time, unlimited VoIP service, 500 or so 'anytime' cell minutes, and voicemail, call waiting, etc) to me.

Is there any sign of this in the near future!?

I want it now

[DumbSwede]

Over the air HDTV is just not robust enough, and in this area only one Station has any anyway. This is the future of not just TV but Movies as well. A good HDTV program on a good projection system is often a better view experience than the vast majority of crappy multiplexes, most of whom can't seem to get the focus right.

Broadcast is dying, I think this year is the tipping point (at least it is for me). With the exception of live events like Sports and News why would you need simultaneous broadcast over the air? Storage is large and cheap and getting more so. Download your favorite programs and watch them at leisure on a portable player.

I had thought this was at least 10 years away, but inevitable. Perhaps it is now only 4 or 5 years away.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The cure for TV

[Anonymous Coward]

In many ways HDTV will fix some of the major problems that currently plague TV. One of the big problems is that with a standard TV you can't see the blemishes and wrinkles that are present on any normal person's face.

I've watched HDTV newscasts at the store. It becomes very clear that the newscasters are human. They still have a lot of makeup, but their skin has that texture that *says* they have a lot of makeup.

On a similar note, reality programming on HDTV is quite raw. You can see how someone's anorexia has her virtually falling apart. Widescreen reduces the extent to which "the camera adds ten pounds." Someone like Ron Popeil comes across as an intolerable vampire of a man.

Another problem with current televisions is that you can't display very much text. The CNN crawlers significantly distort news to fit an antire item into 100 characters. This has always been a problem with headlines, but its gotten worse with crawlers because a) editors don't have as much time to check them and b) the actual story does not follow to flesh things out. Crawlers with even twice as many words will twist the meaning less.

So the question isn't whether you'll be sitting there watching TV and marvelling at how much more real it is. The question is what the effect of TV that's less removed from reality will be. For many people, TV is the only window on the world.

So it's starting

[nmb3000]

As much as I wonder how this is going to play out in terms of cost and DRM issues, I'm glad to see at least a few introductory steps taking us in the direction.

I really look forward to getting rid of the old standard twisted-pair copper wire infrastructure that we're currently using and moving towards a "one connection for everything" system. Assuming we don't run into issues with monopoly-dictated pricing and/or start revisiting the old problems with massive telecoms, I'd love to get all my services through a single cable and a single provider, not to mention a kickass Internet connection.

How much federal regulation will eventually need to come into play to prevent history from repeating itself as with the telecoms? Should something as huge and important as the nation's information infrastructure be regulated directly by the government as the railroads were for a time?

SBC will still be too expensive w/o Naked DSL

[Cryofan]

SBC is still stonewalling on allowing Naked DSL. And our gov't lets them get away with it. Why?

Re:Too much TV

[Anonymous Coward]

i have trouble watching standard def tv now.
with a plasma 50" tv and the hidef tivo, the picture quality on shows like CSI, Law & Order, Lost, and all the hidef hbo films...it's unbelievable.
PBS in HD is incredible. watching great nature documentaries with the fully lifelike saturation and tonal quality that ntsc cannot deliver is pure goodness.

I'm not sure I follow their reasoning....

[SpecBear]

So let me get this straight: SBC and Microsoft want to invest billions of dollars so they can show up late to the HDTV party and compete with cable and satellite TV? This is great for me as a consumer, more competition is better. But what's their upside? I must be missing something here.

My predictions:

• The project will be plagued by delays and cost overruns.
• Both companies will try to use the network as a means of pushing their own product and service agendas and wind up building something that nobody wants to buy.
• SBC and Microsoft will bring their established customer service prowess to the table. People rapidly flock to service providers that actually pick up the goddam phone.
• They get creamed by the competition. These are both companies that only do well when they have a tight enough grip on the market that they can screw any potential competition.

Re:I'm not sure I follow their reasoning....

[pha777]

Hey it's $250 of investment per customer, not that bad !!! I don't know if MS will succed with this, but SBC will have a lot of fiber out there, only for $250 per house.

Headline sounds pretty cryptic

[ICECommander]

SBC & MS -> HDTV/IP ?

Re:The other question: how crap will this be?

[kinzillah]

Those problems are mainly because you're trying to establish a connection between two people going through god knows how many service providers.

streaming video like this is set up only on one provider, where they can control all the variables, down to the box they put in the person's living room.

Yuck

[ScrewMaster]

Offhand, I can't think of two companies that I dislike more than Microsoft or SBC.

Here's an example of SBC's customer service. I moved recently and was forced to go back to SBC for local phone service (I had Comcast Digital Phone in my old place and was pretty happy with it.) I just got my first bill from the Southern Boys Club: $322.69 for installation, and all the guy did was come in for ten minutes to make sure all the jacks worked. And at that, he got the two lines backwards. Then, to top it all off, I signed up for this "ALL DISTANCE(R)" plan, that is supposed to give me unlimited local and long distance anywhere in the U.S., and instead I got billed $34.27 for long distance. None of those numbers include the regular monthly service charges, either.

Sorry for the rant. This just really, really pisses me off.

Re:speaking of which

[warnerpr]

The details on speed and price are not quite correct in the parent post. You can read them here:

http://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fi os /root/package.asp

Verizon plans to cover 3 million homes next year, which probably requires a bit more fiber than SBC's 40K miles! Plus, while speeds are limited to about 20-30Mbps per home today with the electronics Verizon is deploying, the fiber in place will support MUCH more, 1Gbps / house is being worked on in the labs. Sort of makes DSL and wireless sound like stop gap measures doesn it?

Re:MS failed at this before, with plain old NTSC

[sakusha]

IIRC, this was about a year, maybe 18 months ago. Nothing has changed that much between now and then. It's not a matter of codec development, this was an uncompressed video transmission system. The other vendors involved (Cisco, a couple of others) were mighty pissed at MS as well, they were depending on MS getting this off the ground.
The TV station learned one valuable lesson: Microsoft can't deliver what they promise. That's why I can't identify the station, MS forced them to keep quiet under an NDA. With the potential future money involved, I wouldn't be suprised if MS was willing to whack people to keep them quiet about this failure.

hahahaaaa - SBC and MS doing HD ovr IP?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

What a cruel joke.

I was BEGGING SBC to get DSL to my house since 1999. I live (literally) in the middle of San Francisco, and they refused to hook me up. "Too far".

Finally, about 2 years ago they got our neighbourhood wired up with DSL, but the fastest I can get is 384. (I live in a weird little neighbourhood just west of Twin Peaks. I have to drive just to get a cup of coffee.)

And now they say they're going to be putting HD over IP? If my previous experience is any indication, I'll be getting MP4 from them at a reduced framerate around 2012...

RS

Re:The other question: how crap will this be?

[mr_gerbik]

The problem with VoIP has nothing to do with bandwidth problems, and everything to do with poor latency due to software switches along the way. VoIP needs to get data end to end with no hiccups at real time.

Re:The other question: how crap will this be?

[alext]

But if it it does make it to Windows without hiccups Windows is likely to have hiccups of its own as it was never intended to be a real-time OS.

Pity Linus isn't keen on adding an RT foundation - is his objection based on principle or just the offered code?

I'd like to see their BW calculation

[SleezyG]

Let me walk through this and see what /. readers think.

HDTV addressability is:
1,080 scan lines x 1,920 pixels/line = 2,073,600 pixels

Assuming 24-bit color:
2,073,600 pixels/frame x 24 bits/pixel = 49,766,400 bits/frame

Next, we know the human eye needs about 30 frames/second:
49,766,400 bits/frame x 30 frames/second = 1,492,992,000 bits

The raw, uncompressed bandwidth is:
about 1493 Mbit/sec

Obviously, they will deliver this data compressed. Let's assume 40:1 MPEG-2 compression ratio:
1493 Mbps / 40 = 37.3 Mbps

I'm going to stop now because I think everyone gets my point. 37.3 Mbps required for JUST television. What happens when the TV is on, a VoIP call comes in, and your kids are playing Couterstrike: Source? End-of-year 2007 is too soon. I just don't believe that a consumer-oriented WAN of this magnitude could be implemented in just 3 years.