Slashdot Mirror
Undisclosed Markets to Participate in IPTV Trial
prostoalex writes "Associated Press has the story that three communications corporations are doing test trials of IP-based television in undisclosed markets. From the article: "SBC Communications, the dominant local phone company from the Midwest to California, is deploying a full-blown IPTV system that it plans to launch by year-end in at least a few undisclosed markets. Verizon Communications plans to offer some interactive IP-based features on top of a conventional digital cable service... BellSouth has expressed doubt about whether a cable rollout makes financial sense, the company sees enough potential to trial IPTV technology in undisclosed markets." Currently about 1 mln Europeans get their television via phone line."
It's sorely disappointing to continue to see this attitude. Many of us "bemoan" Microsoft because their software doesn't work, exactly what this analyst claims they're trying to avoid. Do you get fired if you choose Microsoft and it doesn't work? What's wrong with this picture?
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
This is why Verizon is rolling out fiber to the home (http://www.verizon.net/fios/). They're afraid of the cable companies with their one stop shop for phone, TV, and internet, and the telcos need to do the same to avoid extinction.
So we'll get the crappy content you get on TV; combined with the poor consistency in quality of service and poor customer support you get from an ISP; combined with the restrictive DRM, poor interoperability, and vendor lock-in you get from Microsoft software (they're providing the tech, look at the article).
It's the worst of all possible worlds. I sure can't wait until they find a way to make it mandatory.
This sounds like client server or multicast....but what we really need is something that can help launch p2p iptv or that can be morphed into p2p iptv.
The problem with this SBC proposal is that the content is still corporate-controlled.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
My Daughter will never get off the phone line. Ever.
TELUS has been trialing IP based TV in Edmonton. It will launch soon in Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver.
Wake me onces TV companies begin to distribute shows (either paid or free w/ commercials) over something like BitTorrent. If they release an "offical" video file onto the web and then attack anyone who distributes a version without commercials, then there won't be that big of a problem with P2P sites since everyone who watches the show will also see the commercials. The only people who would object would be cable TV providers since they no longer have a purpose. This would also get around any FCC problems.
To make sure people watch the commercials, you can use a custom player/P2P app that disable fast forwarding during commercials the first time it is downloaded or some other method to make sure they watch X seconds commercials for every Y minutes of the show.
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof
Here in Canada, at least in Manitoba, they've had TV over the phone line for a little while now.
Here's their website.
I don't know first hand what people's experiences have been with it though.
Buffering (30%)... ... ....
Buffering (40%)...
Buffering (100%)
Playing 10s
Buffering (10%)
Enough said...
or via bittorrent :p
The Mothership
But how much exatcly does it take to send a proper HDTV signal?
Anywhere from 4 to 37mbps. 4 mbps would assume the low end of a DTV (that's SD signal), encoded using the normal MPEG-2 DTV standard. 37mbps is the highest HD feed I know of; it's the bitrate found on the D-Theater D-VHS source tapes. More realistically, a proper HD (720p or 1080i) signal over the airwaves is between 20 and 27 mbps. So we are talking about a decent amount of bandwidth here.
Of course, it's more likely that they're encoding in an MPEG-4 or Windows Media 9 format, given that the use of a set-top box eliminates the need for maintaining the HD standard of MPEG-2 video plus Dolby Digital audio.
Champaign Telephone http://www.ctcn.net/tv.htm/ has been doing this for a while now. The way it was explained to me, each TV channel is an ATM network. Changing channels on the remote issues commands to drop the current network, and join the new one. Yes, there is a lag when changing channels, but not huge. If you hit the "channel up" button 25 times, it doesn't join then drop 25 channels in a row, it goes directly to the final one selected.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
I work for the local Telco/ISP, and we rolled this out over 3 years ago.
Runing a Myrio system. Hardware is MainStreets or something like that.
It's ADSL to the house with a modem. From there, the customer can have up to 2 STB, and unlimited PCs with 3M down, 128k up bandwidth for internet.
Each STB requires 3M, so if they have low quality lines, they can only have one box.
The STB is a linux based PC booting from the NIC, with software loaded on a smart card type drive.
We even have a PPV video on demand system. You can choose the movie you want, and it's streamed from our servers to you. You can stop it, rewind, fast forward, etc. for up to 24 hours. Each movie is streamed out individually to each customer.
I work for a small publicly-owned ISP serving an island in Southeast Alaska and we're currently selecting vendors for our own IPTV offering. Many, many small telcos all over the country are in the same initial stages of IPTV projects -- either evaluating or getting ready to make the leap.
Most of the hardware we've been looking at uses MPEG2 encoding but in the near future the standard is likely to be either MPEG4 or some form of WMV. Microsoft has been aggressively pushing its video codecs and they seem to be gaining traction in the marketplace. However, they're not gaining as much acceptance as they otherwise might in the video world because at this point their reputation precedes them.
To a small player like us their previous behavior in other markets is more than a little alarming. A Comcast- or SBC-sized provider presumably might have some amount of leverage with Microsoft but what kind of consideration can you expect when you're a tiny little speck on the map in a place few people even know exists? Choosing a proprietary Microsoft standard over a reasonably open industry standard could leave you at Microsoft's mercy and, well, they're not known for mercy, are they?
Exactly. I think that the cable companies are the ones that should be afraid right now. Fiber to the door will blow them away.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Iowa Public Television has always been an awesome station.
Allendale Communications in Allendale, Michigan is already providing IPTV. Pannaway is providing the 'triple play' solution with voice, data, and tv at the local telco.
I think it's good that local telco's are adapting so quickly to stay in the race. With the lines already there for use, it makes it easy to dominate the local area. Personally, I would like to see more competition, instead of one massive provider ruling the IPTV market --not that companies like microsoft are bad for anyone... [sorry, low blow]
Add that with the usual rather limited bitrate that IPTV uses, and perhaps licensing issues (seeing how VC1 has 12 companies that popped up saying they're violating their IP, and that VC1 is WM9 based). Add that microsft just singed up a deal with Macrovision (taking some possibilities away from you - and also passing you the licensing fees to pay). And from what I recall, WM Audio isn't such a great codec either. It's probably adequate for boring TV stuff, but still sucks to settle for "less".
The DVB standard is calling for iso mpeg-4 (the AVC kind, with AAC audio) for the next set top boxes. It's also going to be used (or at least the codecs can be used) on upcoming HD DVD solutions (both), and it's starting to get more popular amongst "encoders". But i guess they wouldn't want to use something that's not heavily DRM'ed.
I hope they settle for something else, but I bet microsoft will somwhoe make it attractive to them (and not for their customers) so they can sell thousands of boxes, and have them all forced to stay with them, no matter what's happens next, as changing the existing setup (both on broadcaster side and all customer's boxes) would be expensive and troublesome.
And I'm starting to get a bit worried about everything coming to my house by IP means. I already have a lot of things depending on it, and dozens of ports in use. I wonder where their box would fit on my network, and how it would connect/interact with my router/NAT/firewall, VoIP "adapter" and home lan in general. QoS could become an issue as well.
///<sig
Will Americans who come over to Australia for 12months as exchange students be able to still watch their shows thanks to VoIP? How about us aussies? We often don't get American shows, will we be able to sign up for American VoIP and get it while in Australia?
You're probably right. Chances are, we're all going to be seeing HDTV in MPEG-4 part 10 -- also known as H.264 or AVC. It'll be in Blu-Ray, HD DVD, DirecTV, and QuickTime 7... not to mention a whole slew of other applications. I wouldn't be surprised to see cable companies using it... plus the telecos.
It's an amazing codec since it actually allows stellar HD at surprisingly low bitrates.
You're also right that Mircosoft has an uphill battle to fight considering nobody really wants to give them control over what will be the future of video. Microsoft's only playing card seems to be licensing. If they can undercut MPEGLA, companies will chose it over AVC.
But for simplicity's sake... I hope Microsoft loses. They have just as much a right as any other organization at submitting a standard... but what's better about WMV? If the current incarnation is any indication, it'll be Windows-centric and will leave everyone outside of the platform left virtually stranded. In the grand scheme of things, Microsoft will use it as leverage for future Windows purchases... great for them.. but what about everyone else?
From the two articles, i don't get everything.
First, why do you need IP for TV ? over ADSL, it's a lot better to send it in raw ATM. Of course, you can use IP to broadcast TV to the DSLAMs. And if it's IPTV to play TV on the computer, what exactly is the use ? Isn't it better to get it directly on TV ?
Then, why do you need Microsoft for that ? Are these Bells not using MPEG2 or MPEG4 for TV ?
And, 1mln users in Europe for TV over ADSL ? It's very very low ! There are about 700 000-800 000 only in France: France #2 ISP provides TV over ADSL as part of their triple play solution, and they have reached 600 000 people subscribed to the triple play offer.
Also, their triple play offer, and especially the freebox, is running Linux, like most of their whole architecture, so how exactly the Bells' choice is a coup for Microsoft: thet are entering a market very late. In France, all of it has already been taken, with the 3 major ISPs already offering TV over ADSL. And I can't see how Italy could top that, with their currently expensive ADSL.
Moreover, they're already working on providing HDTV through their triple play offering.
So i think either i missed the point, or both articles are (at least partially) wrong: some other people explain here that several ISPs are also offering triple play offers in the US or Canada. Can someone explain me ?
Since apparently you've been investigating Microsoft, I am curious to understand what they truly have.
I watched Microsoft's keynote at CES 2005 and I have been present at several broadcast tradeshows. (Click the link "100 K" or "300 K", the IPTV demo is 47'30 into the stream).
I really felt uncomfortable with all the lies. One of them is that by design "IPTV allows instantaneous channel change". What Microsoft is showing is probably a set-top box that decodes 4 streams at the same time. What amount bandwidth does that use? Probably more than you're willing to spend. And, the fact that it's IP doesn't bring anything new here.
What you will never hear from Microsoft is how much power is required to run their applications. I suppose a quite powerful PC.
I'm interested in knowing how does that affect your thinking. Apart from the codec and DRM matters, do you think that Microsoft is a serious actor in the IPTV world?
> First, why do you need IP for TV ? over ADSL, it's a lot better to send it in raw ATM
What everyone expects from TV over DSL is interactivity. People want video-on-demand, they want to pause or record live, they want to provision their account, etc. At the same time, broadcasters and telcos are looking for new revenue streams. Without IPTV, the features mentioned above would only work if you add a hard-drive to each set-top box (STB). However, for deployments to hundreds of thousands of subscribers, the cost per STB is too high.
The two-way communication between the set-top box and the server is what IPTV brings. And for that, HTTP and RTSP are example of protocols to use. (HTTP for sophisticated client/server transactions, and RTSP for fine control over the real-time streaming). I don't know how the sophisticated features would work without the IP, HTTP, RTSP, and RTP layers.
One of the nearby cities, Kingston upon Hull (or just Hull as it's generally known) has had IPTV for some years. The hardware uses an ARM processor and the set top box version of RISC OS.
Interesting you can thank the privatisation of the telephone system for this development. The telephone system here in the UK used to be run and managed by the Post Office. Then when it was sold off the whole lot was bought by British Telecom (now BT) except for the network around Hull which was bought by the local Council (local government). Eventually the was privatised and became Kingston Communications who were for a while, the only phone company that wasn't BT. So the government restrictions on BT supplying television didn't apply and Kingston set up their own digital television service.
Aliant / NBTel engineered this technology with a company they spun-off called iMagicTV. I would almost bet if anyone in Canada is getting tv over DSL, the technology came from iMagicTV in Saint John.
... we had those feature long before anyone else as we were pretty much a testbed because of the advanced architecture here at that time.
I think as soon as Aliant was formed, they scrapped all the DSL-cable-tv and gave people Bell ExpressVu because *shock* Bell owns Aliant now. NBTel used to truely be a telephone pioneer. They were pretty deep in bed with Nortel which is why I always chuckled when I saw tv ads for US carriers advertising *69