SBC and Microsoft to Provide HDTV Over IP
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...
Maybe they should string a fiber or two to their own servers.
Is there some sort of regulatory problem in America that restricts users to such low (25Mbps) DSL speeds?
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!
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
/)
TV is a productivity and social interaction sink
/.
Posted on
'Nuff said...
This space for rent
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.