Slashdot Mirror
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"
...how much will something like this cost to the consumer?
I wonder how the broadcast flag, Microsoft, HD-TV, and DRM are going to play out.
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...
So this is how they're getting around the godforsaken regulatory hell that is telecommunincations in the USA. Clever. And by partnering like this, Microsoft begins its battle to take over the digital TV distribution industry.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
Maybe they should string a fiber or two to their own servers.
For me HDTV isn't too exciting. Higher resolution. Ok. I never noticed my TV's resolution was not adequate. Don't we have too much TV anyway? With the added possibility to record (Tivo) 40 hours / week of shows that I don't have time to listen to... TV is a productivity and social interaction sink.
Hurray for the 'turn all TVs off' device!
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Is there some sort of regulatory problem in America that restricts users to such low (25Mbps) DSL speeds?
Well, Powell is a bad example, as is Bush Jr., but would it really be fair to say that just because you are someones son you really aren't able to do your job?
1. Yay! Now SBC will have another reason to call me at home 5 times a week and ask me if I'd like fries with my telephone service.
2. Yay! Is Microsoft in control of fucking everything now?
think about how exciting this would be if you replace the word Microsoft in that article with any number of other companies..Sony, Apple, Viacom.
While no corporation is altrusitic, I wouldn't immediately jump to the "how are they going to screw me on this one" conclusion.
Sad state of affairs.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
Already happening, here and here.
Get your Unix fortune now!
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!?
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.
Letter To Iran
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
A friend of mine worked at a TV station that I am not permitted to reveal (but is right in MS's backyard somewhere). They had a multimillion dollar pilot project to use Microsoft software to deliver digital signals between the studio and the transmitter (and cable distro point) with dedicated, unlimited bandwidth digital circuits. Microsoft threw millions of dollars of research money into the project, it was to be their showpiece, to demonstrate how MS could provide end-to-end digital infrastructure for TV stations.
It was an utter failure. Despite the use of supposedly uncompressed video, everyone started complaining the picture was fuzzy and the audio didn't sync perfectly. The station abandoned the project after millions of dollars of their own investment, MS lost even more money.
And this was plain old NTSC video, not even HDTV. If MS couldn't get this project to work with the entire company behind it, what in the HELL makes people think they could succeed at HDTV?
Yes, it's called ADSL2 and I have it at my house in St. Louis, MO right now. Granted I'm on SBC's trial program for the next 3 months, but the speeds can reach as high as 24Mb/s which is enough for HDTV. They just installed the new DSL modem last week and are going to be ramping up speed over the next few weeks. Currently I'm at about 5Mb/s.
Celebrate the finer things in life
SBC is still stonewalling on allowing Naked DSL. And our gov't lets them get away with it. Why?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Badly.
sulli
RTFJ.
And they announced it back in 2003 "We plan to hit about one million lines by the end of 2003".
And they announced it back in 2002.
Stay tuned for another announcement in 2005.
This time they're paying back the Bush adminstration for the FCC deal that permits them to keep third-party ISPs from using their lines. The telcos have been lobbying for this for years, so that consumers don't have a choice of ISPs. It's an election year move, not a new development.
SBC has talked up a few fibre-to-the home trials, but even the small scale trials never seem to happen.
I'm afraid this totally rocks. This is why Microsoft is so rich... they keep doing things that totally rock. Wow. It greives me to say it ... but wow.
It doesn't matter if Linux can do HDTV over a network and do it better (as if it could). It doesn't matter because Microsoft will be there first for the most people. They'll be there the most. They'll have all the deals locked in from server to client. They'll totally shut out HDTV over IP competition before it gets born. If you read Cringely at all then you know that at least one if not a few Linux hackers have done this type of thing in the small.
But it doesn't matter now. Microsoft is a true kung-foo master. Unless the world changes radically and it becomes illegal to force people to use whatever EULA you want or to force out competition from your market place by using innovative and strategic business deals... Microsoft is unstoppable. It's like a dinosaur. What could stop the dinosaurs?
[signature]
Whilst developing all these new television technologies, perhaps someone will eventually consider that the majority of television programs are terrible regardless of their high quality sound and pictures etc.
Whether the program is interactive or on demand, or how it's delievered, doesn't matter to me so much as what I'm actually watching. and I'm getting less and less impressed every year.
I find myself watching less and less television, and using the Internet more and more. As for the phone, most people I know use it mainly to talk about television. I'm getting close to the point where I almost solely use email.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
My predictions:
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.
Douglas P. Price
Companies like Minerva and Pace have TV over IP stuff that works and is deployed today. Microsoft is going to have to offer something either cheaper or better if they want to take over the TV over IP market.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The details on speed and price are not quite correct in the parent post. You can read them here:
i os /root/package.asp
http://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/f
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?
Given that MS even has a reboot button on their latest mouse, I can see this MS-HDTVoIP scenario being what one might call "sub-fun". Sounds like there are going to be a lot more non-TV-watchers in the future.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
15-25 Mbps is enough for one HDTV stream to one location.. I would hope that a jump in technology like this would at least support something equal to current technology (many people have 2 or three cable or satellite receivers today).
Hopefully they are using multicast.. it would almost have to be, otherwise the network and server resources for streaming a huge number of HDTV streams would be immense.
Obviously, there is a possibility for a bunch of restrictions to be placed on what would otherwise be an incredibly powerful concept. But, they could also make really powerful changes that could change the competitive landscape.
If they look at it as a general communications platform, with additional services sold on top of it (Internet, VOIP, TV, PPV, etc.), ala-carte pricing might be more feasible. I would be very happy if I could just pay for HBO-HD, EPSN-HD, Comedy Central, and my locals. And, that would be a big blow to their cable/satellite competitors.
Based on past history, It will most likely be next to free until all other providers are gone. Then it will be anywhere from 4x to 100x, what you would normally pay.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You wrote: I've always wondered how Republicans could possibly justify their insanse political views. The only reasonable conclusion is that they are mentally ill, you know retarded like.
e (take the word of your choice) most Americans. And of course Big Media is controlled and managed by Big Money.
No, not true. I used to be a Republican. Voted for Reagan in 84, Bush Sr in 88. But over the last few years, I became a Leftist. I now see that the Democratic party is quite conservative, at least compared to most parties in other Western nations.
What Republicans are is ignorant and brainwashed. We are all brainwashed to a certain degree. Or you could substiture the word "socialized" if you prefer. One thing that leads to Republicanism is that these people were first introduced to Leftist ideas via operatives of the Right. The reach of the Right is FAR more powerful and pervasive than that of the Left. They have FAR more money. Indeed, the Right is the machine of Big Money.
And the Right characterizes the ideas of the Left not as Rightwingers, or even as partisan actors, but instead the operatives of the Right portray themselves as neutral. And most Republicans accept these operatives as neutral.
Once you internalize the Right's characterization of the Left, they likely will never really get a clear understanding of the Left's thesis.
THe Rightwing propaganda machine is decades old. It really goes back to around just after the turn of the century, but they REALLY got going about 30 years ago. What happened then was the atomization of much of America, and the disappearance of old channels of political information. Many Americans became politically isolated.
The TV and radio became by far the most powerful avenues of political thought dissemination. This gave the opening that Big Money needed to brainwash/propagandize/socialize/convince/persuad
As a result, we have a huge chunk of American that is politically ignorant.
Well, there is more to this story, including religion, educational-cultural class warfare, and other aspects, and filters, and social vs economic liberalism, etc., but time's winged chariot draws nigh, or whatever....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
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.
Cause that fiber runs from CO to CO or Data Center to Data Center. This is going to have to be fiber to the curb, or at the very least, fiber to the SLIC that services the neighborhood.
HDTVoIP with its far bigger hunger for hbandwidth.
(disclaimer : I spent 3 years as the dev lead/manager for a large streaming media company)
The bandwidth for streaming is never as high as people think. Once you start to control the whole network it gets a lot easier. If you can place caching servers in each major subscriber area and most importantly enable multi-case (which you can finaly do because you control all the routing and switches) it will drop a lot. Sure movies that are truely "on-demand" will have to be served on an individual basis, but again, local caching servers would reduce bandwidth requirements to just the last 1-2 hops.
The problem is that the output streams are all coming from a single point. Although a post below suggests that caching at various points on the network could go a long way to alleviate this problem. Why not distribute movies via P2P?
Some major broadcasters are considering this method already. Have a look at the BBC's interactive Media Player (iMP).
OK, so this may not be true streaming in the generally accepted sense, but it will still produce pretty much on demand titles that you source from a node close to you. Set your PVR to download the titles you want and away you go.
The size of HD files are possibly the biggest issue here. Some recent investigation I did revealed that WMV 9 HD files will end up at about 16 MB for 20 seconds of 24fps at a resolution of 1280x720. That's about 4GB for a 90 minute movie. You'll need a pretty big pipe into your home no matter where the file is served from.
Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
Please be so kind to tell me if (and why) I am mistaken.
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?
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.
I think this is why they are pairing it with a new high speed network they are building.
Douglas P. Price