WISPs want clarity on 3.6 Ghz allocation

bk · 04-08-2015 12:49am

watty wrote: »

This is the future Comreg and Ofcom are aiming for and it will BE FOREVER poorer quality, poorer coverage and Subscription only at Sky / UPC pricing.

Nope, I think we are currently starting to see the smashing of the UPC and Sky duopoly and within the next 5 years, ad supported multichannel TV will basically become free, when bundled with broadband. Similar to how phone services are now basically free when bundled with TV.

We are already starting to see this with Eircom giving it's eVision TV service away for free for 6 months and now UPC has responded to this, giving away their TV service for free for 12 months!

This is only going to accelerate when Vodafone are expected to launch their own IPTV service very soon and we end up with 4 big companies competing aggressively for TV customers.

Add to that the rollout of FTTH by Eircom and SIRO and how stable and good next generation IPTV services will be any those platforms.

Finally look at the rise of Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO, etc.

With the quality of these awesome, on demand TV services, people are wondering why they should be paying €30 per month, for crappy, ad supported, linear TV.

With all these competitive pressure, I will guarantee that ad supported TV will end up becoming free on broadband, but even then it will continue to become less relevant.

watty wrote: »

Don't say I didn't warn you when you or your children can only get decent TV via Sky or UPC, or feed phone / tablet with a subscription broadcast addon to have a lower quality picture on a 42" screen than DVB-T today.

Having a 3 and 5 year old nephews, I can assure you they couldn't care less. Try suggesting to them to sit down and watch TV with adds on even a 50" TV and they look at you like you have two heads!

They spend their time with their heads stuck in iPads watching cartoons and minecraft videos on youtube and netflix!

No one under 30 is watching TV any more and it is only going to get worse.

The Cush · 04-08-2015 1:13am

bk wrote: »

Having a 3 and 5 year old nephews, I can assure you they couldn't care less. Try suggesting to them to sit down and watch TV with adds on even a 50" TV and they look at you like you have two heads!

They spend their time with their heads stuck in iPads watching cartoons and minecraft videos on youtube and netflix!

Have to agree with you there, I have 5 nephews/nieces ranging from 10 down to 2yrs 3 months, all have tablets with the youngest using a nabi passed down from her older 4½ sister recently. When she's with me without her nabi she's on my phone watching Peppa Pig or Frozen on demand, the others are minecraft mad, tv doesn't get a look in.

watty · 04-08-2015 9:59am

There is a problem of content.
US now dominates TV with mid to low quality content.
BBC, ITV, C4 have outsourced too much, closed down too much.

The Streaming services are cherry picking a very limited selection. very little long tail, Netflix removes content. They are the equivalent of video libraries. They also are inaccessible to many, a digital divide based on cap & performance. Also needs fixed infrastructure (any viable TV by Mobile will NEVER be streaming, but live linear broadcast, VOD is simply not scaleable by Wireless Unicast).

The reason for the "success" of streaming is a mix of below cost bundling (eVision free isn't sustainable) and TOTAL COLLAPSE of the quality of content over the last 30 years of tradition channels as they chase emulating Pay TV channels (even though total Pay TV is less than 10% of viewing) and become totally dependant on US imports for all but news and documentary.

No one under 30 is watching TV any more and it is only going to get worse.

I'm well over 30 and barely watch now. The content is garbage.

If I had UPC, I'd not be watching Netflix, anything on it I'd be interested in I'd buy on disc.
I know lots of people that have now cancelled it now that the novelty has worn off.

3 year olds shouldn't be watching much video or computer games. I hope we are not raising a generation of Zombies unable to have non-screen activities. Perhaps they are learning to read, paint, model, play, talk to others, socialise too ...

quality of these awesome, on demand TV services,

They are merely Video libraries, dominated by US mass market garbage. I can't see what is awesome.
Better than a video library.

bk · 04-08-2015 10:57am

watty wrote: »

They are merely Video libraries, dominated by US mass market garbage. I can't see what is awesome.
Better than a video library.

Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, etc.

But your post above proves my point. Broadcast TV is becoming increasingly irrelevant. So Comreg are right to reduce their focus on it and give over more spectrum to mobile data.

As for your comment about eVision being given away free not being sustainable, again I have to disagree.

The cost of running such a service is relatively minuscule once you already have a quality broadband network in place. Lets look at the costs:

- Some multicast servers and routing.
- Cheap and cheerful Mpeg 4 set top boxes

The above costs really aren't significant in the bigger picture, that just leaves licensing the TV channels.

With the exception of the BBC and sports channels, all the other channels make almost all their money off ads. But with people watching much less broadcast TV now, they are becoming desperate. So they will now give you their channels for free to be carried on your IPTV service, so they can reach as many potential viewers as possible. So that isn't a significant cost.

I'll remind you that in France, Free.fr will give you 1Gb/s FTTH, unlimited calls and 200 channel IPTV for just €30 per month!! So clearly it can be done.

People were previously just trapped in thinking that you had to pay €30 per month for pay TV due to the UPC/Sky duopoly. But that looks like it is being broken quickly now and I fully expect we will end up following the French model of TV being free when bundled with broadband for about €40 to €50.

watty · 08-08-2015 10:29am

Broadcast TV is becoming increasingly irrelevant. So Comreg are right to reduce their focus on it and give over more spectrum to mobile data.

No, it's madness, just because the content is poor at the minute. Mobile and Fixed broadband is complementary to Broadcast. IP connectivity, Satellite and Cable can't EVER replace Broadcast Spectrum. It needs to be ring fenced as a strategic, irreplaceable Nation asset. The content and quality is a COMPLETELY separate issue. It's not Comreg's job to do that, their agenda is driven by short term Treasury greed, not Spectrum Management and Protection.

PayTV should naturally be 50% approx. It's crazy high at over 80% in this country. Only a fibre player can at all compete with Sky/UPC and it in the long term will be no cheaper. Satellite costs nearly nothing to deliver compared to TV on cable or Fibre.

Note that over 90% of TV watched on Sky and UPC is actually still the main, free Terrestrial Broacast stations you regard as irrelevant and the majority on non-Cinema content on Streaming is originally on Broadcast TV.

Pay TV needs to drop by about 30% to 50%, any "good deals" from alternates to UPC/Sky are only temporarily cheap. Good content costs money.

Dero · 08-08-2015 10:47am

watty wrote: »

No, it's madness, just because the content is poor at the minute.

There's more to it than the quality of content though. People have adapted (or are adapting) to the fact that online content is 100% on-demand; you watch what you want, when you want. Broadcast can never match that. Even if every TV channel had high quality programming all the time, the idea of just watching whatever happens to be on is dead.

I do agree with regard to the technical quality of broadcast vs. streaming, but I think I'm in a significant minority there. I know people who still profess to being unable to distinguish HD from SD...

watty · 08-08-2015 5:38pm

online content is 100% on-demand; you watch what you want, when you want. Broadcast can never match that

Two different kinds of thing. They are complementary.
Streaming also is 1000s of times more expensive for a mass market, forever than Broadcast.
Broadcast really only needs half a dozen good channels (approx) to cover 90% of viewing, Multichannel actual Pay TV channels (Channels with 0.5% viewing are the more popular ones, even Sky is less than 2%) are a waste of spectrum and dilute and degrade the good ones, Niche channels are better suited to Streaming, which if viewing is less 0.1% can be cheaper than Terrestrial Broadcast. The majority of Satellite channels are actually less than 0.1%!.

bk · 09-08-2015 2:07pm

I'm sorry watty but you are dead wrong on this. I'm afraid you are simply out of touch with the trends of the TV industry around the world that is all quickly switching to streaming.

The fact that broadcasting is technically a 1000 times more efficient is irrelevant when people simply aren't interested in broadcast TV any more! It certainly isn't a 1000 times more efficient if no one is watching it!

People want to watch TV on their terms, not the broadcasters terms. They want to watch what they want, when they want (and where they want).

Good content costs money.

Yes it does! But remember, the majority of the most popular channels (with the obvious exception of BBC) make their money from advertising. Almost non of the money you pay Sky or UPC actually goes to the broadcasters or content producers! It mostly goes to paying Sky and UPC only for their platforms. Most of the money made by broadcasters is made from advertising.

That is why they are very happy to show their channels on upcoming IPTV platforms like eVision and on their on online players & catch up services as over the top services. The more people who see their ads, the better.

They couldn't care less about UPC and Sky and would in fact be very happy to see their duopoly broken up. That is why they are delighted to deliver their channels on Eircom eVision, etc. for almost free. And this is how we are going to see UPC and Sky's duopoly being broken.

The days of paying Sky/UPC €30 for ad-supported TV are over, the TV market is changing to the following two options:

- Ad supported TV is completely free (delivered as an over the top service on broadband).
- You pay for a sub for ad free TV, i.e. Netflix, HBO, etc.

Interestingly this will be a return to how cable TV started out in the US. It started out as a subscription for ad-free pay TV channels as an alternative to the ad infested national over the air network channels.

clohamon · 04-10-2015 12:14pm

ComReg have published the consultation submissions

Most of the FWA providers seem to be working off a common position document. That's BB Net, Digital Forge, Lightnet, permaNET, Ripplecom, WestNet, Ker Net.

Vodafone says this spectrum is not suitable for mobile, and wants more clarity on 2.3Ghz and 2.6 Ghz bands that are coming up.

Everyone thinks the reserve prices are too high.

Real Broadband of Kerry says,

"Additionally the auction process requires a Masters Degree or above to understand how this works, most likely bidders are likely to be bidding against themselves because of a lack of understanding in the bidding process/method"

Ripplecom have provided details of their NBP trial near Clonmel on page 97 and conclude..

The NGA trial conducted by Ripplecom has demonstrated that it is possible to deliver NGA speeds in rural environments using wireless technologies. Radio technology is constantly evolving and considering the roadmap from Cambium Networks the improved features to be delivered in the PMP455 demonstrate that while the PMP450 can deliver the NGA speeds required today as well as those for tomorrow, the progressive changes that are expected beyond the year 2020 will be available in line with technology improvements in the radio equipment.

clohamon · 21-10-2015 8:13pm

In the latest NBP mapping consultation PWC seem to be indicating that spectrum will be found somehow for planned NGA investments by WISPS. Doesn't say what sort of spectrum or how much of it, or even how much it will cost.

Technical plans that propose a solution which is dependent on the use of spectrum not yet secured will be treated on the assumption that the necessary spectrum will be secured by the relevant operator, i.e. potential uncertainty around future spectrum allocation as such will not lead to a negative assessment in the technical test.

There are other criteria affecting wireless including the likelihood of interference, how much optical fibre is in the system and reliability.

For wireless link budgets, the cell edge probability should be 95% and the cell area probability should be 98% or greater in order for the coverage to be mapped

seaniefr · 21-10-2015 9:08pm

clohamon wrote: »

In the latest NBP mapping consultation PWC seem to be indicating that spectrum will be found somehow for planned NGA investments by WISPS. Doesn't say what sort of spectrum or how much of it, or even how much it will cost.

There are other criteria affecting wireless including the likelihood of interference, how much optical fibre is in the system and reliability.

That link doesn't work but this one should..
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/communications/Lists/Consultations%20Documents/NBP%20Process%20for%20Updating%20the%20High%20Speed%20Map%20Consultation/Annex%202%20-%20PwC%20oct%202015%20Report%20Assessment%20Criteria%20Investment%20Plans.pdf

clohamon · 23-12-2015 11:46am

Looking at the Project Information Memorandum* it looks like spectrum availability is going to be the least of their problems.

Any WISP intending to have a go at the NBP will need a large network utility partner with plenty of wholesale experience.

*(available on registration at e-tenders)

Another issue is that any WISP tendering for the NBP will effectively have to disclose (to DCENR) its bid price for the relevant spectrum before the spectrum auction takes place.

rob808 · 23-12-2015 12:16pm

The hard it is for wisp to get a part of NBP.It will mean we have better chance of getting ftth that furture proof and last way pass 25 years.

WISPs want clarity on 3.6 Ghz allocation

Comments