Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Contention is the dirty word.

  • 08-01-2009 5:46pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭


    Well of course people a lot of the time won't get the package speed. The current contention ratios of 48:1 etc date from a bygone era when people had a life away from the PC, no facebook/bebo/boards/YouTube/BBC etc. Maybe even on ISDN/Analogue Dialup
    Ofcom's new hardware-based broadband monitoring system found that despite the fact more than 60 per cent are subscribed to "up to" 8Mbit/s packages, on average the top speed ever achieved was only 4.3Mbit/s.

    Of course someone is telling porkies even assuming contention or there is a lot of P2P 24x7 if people NEVER get the upto speed on real Broadband. (As I have written before, the "up to" speed of Mobile "Broadband" is a nonsense).

    From
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/08/ofcom_speed_survey/
    Only two thirds were satisfied by how their internet connection performed while watching web video, for example
    Strangely put. Only 1/3rd unhappy. However.

    BBC and others need to STOP pumping expectations of the Internet as video Medium. Again as said before, Broadcast is ALWAYS going to be superior even to IPTV, never mind Web Video. More emphasis on "smart" recording set boxes so you are not tied to TV schedule and not using iPlayer to catch up.

    Internet Radio only just makes sense as a volume activity. TV needs 500x the bandwidth. HD TV needs 2,500 the bandwidth. It's not there on the backbone or the last mile.

    P2P needs to be either rate limited to about 1/5th or 1/10th of package speed, or else people pay 10x for an unlimited cap to do P2P and then ISPs can afford to carry it. 24x7 traffic at "Package Speed" would ruin every ISP at current pricing, and maybe 80% of people don't need it. The heavy users should pay more or per Gigabyte. A Flat rate model for such heavy users isn't sustainable.

    BBC report
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7817748.stm


«1

Comments

  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,439 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I've been saying this for ages, if people want uncapped lines with speed that never drops they better be ready to pay ALOT more then they are right now. Current business model does not allow it.

    This is outlined in the FAQ in the Broadband forum - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58094826&postcount=11


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭smellslikeshoes


    watty wrote: »
    BBC and others need to STOP pumping expectations of the Internet as video Medium. Again as said before, Broadcast is ALWAYS going to be superior even to IPTV, never mind Web Video. More emphasis on "smart" recording set boxes so you are not tied to TV schedule and not using iPlayer to catch up.

    Can you give me a go at your crystal ball Watty? I'd like to see next weeks lotto numbers if possible.

    The way broadband technology is moving there is no reason why BBC and others shouldn't push the internet as a video medium. At this stage we all should be realizing that the internet is what people make of it and if the demand is there it can and will be done. The internet being used for video more and more is inevitable, it can't be stopped and should be embraced by broadcasters like BBC and Isp's alike.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Unfortunately the arithmetic will never work to deliver 1500 channels to 4 set boxes in 20M households at once. Never mind HD.

    It's a staggeringly expensive, poor quality method to deliver Broadcast Video Content.

    Video On Demand is the one really compelling feature of IPTV and it is 1000x to 10,000x more expensive to deliver in real time than Broadcast on Broadband per person. Go x5 for HD.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 kingkane


    watty wrote: »
    Unfortunately the arithmetic will never work to deliver 1500 channels to 4 set boxes in 20M households at once. Never mind HD.

    It's a staggeringly expensive, poor quality method to deliver Broadcast Video Content.

    Video On Demand is the one really compelling feature of IPTV and it is 1000x to 10,000x more expensive to deliver in real time than Broadcast on Broadband per person. Go x5 for HD.

    VoD is potentially feasible if the real estate under the telly is used as a form of distributed storage so that you're not using a spoke distribution system from the exchange or central storage but rather from your neighbours. This would work best for recent/popular video content as you might well be pulling from a house just down the road and they would be pulling from another house just further along.

    To be honest, I would have half expected Apple or someone to have gone after the Tivo type market with a product that facilitates a local peer to peer distribution system by now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Use a broadcast channel and have the hidden partition only record stuff people have expressed a preference for.

    500kbps broacast does one HD film every other day or two regular films a day. That's about 1/1,000,000 the cost of Internet real time VOD for HD for these Islands if delivered by Cable/ FOIS/Satellite or DTT.

    Then when you browse the VOD "portal" you only see what has succesfully arrived and can express preferences and have flawless playback even at peak 25Mbps.

    About a month's worth of rolling content with oldest/ least liked content getting overwritten. You never have to put ordinary programming on the VOD channel as the box automatically records programs you usually watch if you arn't there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Apple have done 4 things since the AppleII in 1978:

    GUI: Lisa to Mac OS9
    UNIX based OS X
    iPod
    iPhone

    The Apple TV box is stupid and pointless.

    (I had an Apple II , but no Apple Mac of my own since as they are overpriced.).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Well Video on Demand is the future anyway. I for one rarely watch the scheduled channels anymore and just download something if I want to watch it. If this means torrents then so be it. My life is too busy to wait around for the time its own. I want to watch it when I have time to not make time for when they want to broadcast it.

    Its time they caught up to what Internet users actually want TBH. RTE's system is quite good if only used a better format than Real Player, argh! People will take a quality drop for on demand or at least I will. Then the technology can be developed to allow better quality versions over time.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,439 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I have to agree RTE's system is "ok'ish" but far from great when compared to BBC iPlayer or 4oD, realplayer is hardly anyone's player of choice and the picture quality is not as good as iPlayer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭crawler


    HDTV is sooooo noughties....

    3DTV - now that's a proper bandwidth hog - 50-60Mbps per channel :D AT&T, Veriozn and Sky all looking at this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,046 ✭✭✭bealtine


    crawler wrote: »
    HDTV is sooooo noughties....

    3DTV - now that's a proper bandwidth hog - 50-60Mbps per channel :D AT&T, Veriozn and Sky all looking at this.

    Just an aside, I found a website that allows me to me to watch various tv shows in low resolution, so I watched a few, quite a few, and now I find I'm throttled. That's a big issue.
    If the ISP's want to blame their customers for watching Inet TV, instead of looking at the elephant in the room, and take punitive action when they do the Inet TV revolution won't get very far.
    The ISPs need to update their infrastructure too and in this climate that's very unlikely to happen. They'll just keep on blaming their customers for using too much bandwidth.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 49 kingkane


    bealtine wrote: »
    Just an aside, I found a website that allows me to me to watch various tv shows in low resolution, so I watched a few, quite a few, and now I find I'm throttled. That's a big issue.
    If the ISP's want to blame their customers for watching Inet TV, instead of looking at the elephant in the room, and take punitive action when they do the Inet TV revolution won't get very far.
    The ISPs need to update their infrastructure too and in this climate that's very unlikely to happen. They'll just keep on blaming their customers for using too much bandwidth.

    But surely it makes sense given that it (the holy pipe) is a finite resource that some means is found that there enough of it for everyone. What you seem to be saying is that you want loads of bandwidth, plenty of speed but you're not interested in paying based on how much you use?


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Cost of 50 decent channels via Satellite (or DTT after ASO) = 0 (free)
    Cost of setbox with big hardrive so you are not locked to a schedule (Smart VOD from Broadcast) < €300 once off.
    Supports perfect quality SD and HD.

    Cost of Broadband with 500Gbyte capacity per user per month and 20Mbps (needed for IP based VOD/ broadcast quality TV) = €250 per month approx
    2,500Gbyte capacity and 40Mbps Broadband per month = €1,800 per month.

    The amount of data needed for broadcast quality TV on realtime IPTV true VOD, if it replaced DVDs and Broadcast is frightening. People simply are not doing the maths. Even a MODEST amount of NON-HD TV is 160Gbyte a month. HD is FIVE times the datarate.

    Also Broadcast can statistically multiples so with MPEG4 the average data rate is maybe under 1.5Mbps but to maintain quality peaks at 5Mbps. IPTV/VOD can't do that. It needs the capacity for the peaks (27Mbps for HD) on top of any download traffic you have.

    Also for IPTV you need a MUCH bigger buffer for jitter. If there is packet loss on IPTV the quality is very poor, yet it has to be engineered assuming very low packet loss. Broadcast can use 3/4 FEC and laugh at data errors.




    A 500G PVR can record speculatively everything via broadcast you might want to watch and a low bit background non-realtime stream for additional VOD content.

    Tivo nearly gets it right. Sky Anytime doesn't as it deliberately records what you have no sub for to get you to upgrade a sub.

    The next generation of Freesat HD PVRs will do it. IPTV is a holy grail for telcos with DSL. It makes no sense for Cable, fibre, DTT or Satellite customers. The VOD and "watch anytime" can now be done cheaply and better by the PVR.

    You know what speed of Internet there will be when Analogue is off and DTT can have 50 SD and 10HD or a Satellite/DTT Combo PVR with 2,000 Gbyte drive and DVD player costs under €400? I'd bet less than 15Mbps on average with less than 30G cap. You need a MINIMUM of 200G cap for sensible IPTV.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,046 ✭✭✭bealtine


    kingkane wrote: »
    But surely it makes sense given that it (the holy pipe) is a finite resource that some means is found that there enough of it for everyone. What you seem to be saying is that you want loads of bandwidth, plenty of speed but you're not interested in paying based on how much you use?

    Well what I'm saying is that if we want IPTV we/they need to upgrade their pipes and stop blaming and penalising the customers for using them.
    All this it's the customers fault is just a way of hiding inefficiencies and price gouging. We already pay enough for essentially very little.

    Your opinion on this may vary but that's ok.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    There is a lack of transparency. No ISP wants to be the 1st to admit than anything over 250kbps is not really "always on" flat rate.

    higher speed packages are very misleading as you could max out the capacity in a day.

    They can't actually offer true unlimited at a reasonable price as virtually non-one can support it. If they did invest to support it then the Broadband would cost x5 to x10 more for everyone, yet currently only 10% to 20% actually need that capacity.

    maybe I'll think of an equitable solution, but if the light users paid what they pay now, then the heavy users to get "true unlimited" and good QOS for real Video, they would have to pay 30x to 50x more than today. That's not feasible.

    The ISPs are not coining it. eircom might be if they did not have so much debt. After them maybe only a couple out of 30 are genuinely profitable. It's no secret what IBB lost before Imagine bought them, or 17m Perlico loss before Vodaphone bought them, or Smart eating 50M and getting disconnected by eircom.

    Expect more price rises.

    There are fundamental structural and resource and infrastructure issues that ISPs don't like to talk about publically (for various good reasons) and that Comreg and the Government know about but won't admit publically for other reasons.

    And now the Giant Crunchy Bar has struck. Where are the ISPs to get the money to invest?

    First we need decent universal low latency (<50ms) real Broadband (3Mbps down, 384k up 20G cap as a minimum USO). We can look at comparison of how to have Universal 20Mbps down, 5Mbps up and 300GByte cap and compare the costs. Maybe I'm wrong and the second not the 1st should be the USO.

    But I think we can all agree that > 120ms latency, 150kbps upto 7.2Mbps HSDPA (that might not connect) is not a solution at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    A factor in favour of broadband over other mechanisms is that the capacity is increasing all the time whereas TV tends to change every 20 years or so. When broadband was first trialled by Eircom the product envisaged by them was 512k with a 1 gigcap. Even in Ireland we have come a long way and we still have a lot of catching up with other countries to do.

    Also we need to regard broadband as more than just fast internet. General internet should be regarded as just one application of broadband.

    If we are to compare broadband with satellite broadcasts + harddrive then we need to duplicate the harddrive at the and of the broadband connection also. There's no reason why 20 users receiving the same broadcast need 20 streams back to the source. In reality you would provide one stream to the exchange or equivalent and then split it out to each of the users who would then record it on their harddrive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    My satellite system has 8000MHz BW (4 satellites with fast switch). Using DVB-2 it's possible to have 32Gbps bandwidth on that. Or 8Gbps on one dish.

    In 2010 they are adding Ka Spot for Ireland. A Ka Satellite has 1000 times the capacity of a current Ku satellite.

    What the Internet is good at, which satellite is terrible at, is individual streams, different data for every user. Most of the Internet doesn't even support true broadcast IP.

    So ironically it's LIVE REAL-TIME individual VOP, not Scheduled Broadcast TV that IPTV is best for. Unfortunately that's what is precisely the most expensive thing as outlined above. It needs engineering for 1:1 contention when the best today is 10:1

    If it's not live (background broadcast to disk) or Live Broadcast it's always going to be Cable/Fibre/DTT/Satellite.
    Most IPTV is not VOD at all (too expensive) but a copy of Cable TV where the DSL or IP fibre is like a "video sender" between the exchange (virtual set box) and you. With MS version do you know what happens when everyone channel flicks at end of Coronation St or in an Ad break?

    Ask people on Smart or Magnet that have had Sky or FTA satellite what they think :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    At the end of the day the user doesn't care how the services are delivered. If an adequate service can be delivered over, say, DSL (note not necessarily streaming over the internet back to some central location like the BBC) then that is what they will go for.

    Cable TV isn't as good as satellite TV for delivering vast numbers of channels yet large numbers of people are happy with the range provided by the cable companies and don't feel the need to change. In any case commercial considerations such as packages and prices kick in long before the technological ones.

    I don't like the mindset that says that certain technologies should be limited to specific applications just because they are primarily suited to that purpose. If that were the case then cable would still be exclusively for TV (no cable broadband) and the telephone network would be exclusively for voice (again no broadband). For example, it has been argued by others that cable, due to its inherently shared bandwidth at the last mile, is inferior to DSL which provides an exclusive channel for broadband internet. Therefore, the argument goes, it should only be used for broadcast TV since that is what it is best for. Yet, despite this, cable networks were the first to provide broadband internet thereby forcing the telcos to introduce DSL.

    I would agree that things like the BBC's iplayer might not suit all broadband technologies but there are some like DSL that I believe could be modified to handle it without excessive bandwidth over the backbone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Cable is very very good potentially for TV and phone and Broadband. With FTTC or FTTK, cable can deliver as many channels as Satellite, HD, VOD and 5:1 or better 50Mbps or upto 200Mbps at 20:1.


    DSL is very very limited as no matter if you use ADSL2+, VDSL or whatever speeds are going to drop rapidly beyond 1.5km.

    It's not feasible to have more than one video stream on ADSL beyond 1.5km, and at that it would be poor quality and seriously hit your download speed if QOS managed. A single HD channel stream is not really feasible beyond 1km.

    Two HD set boxes isn't possible on DSL at all.

    Fixed Wireless is pretty much the only geographic expansion once UPC has finished upgrading. We are near saturation on DSL geographic coverage. On fixed Wireless the only feasible method of TV is adjacent channel Broadcast. With 4MHz spectrum you can give near 20Mbps shared to 6 users at 1:1 3Mbps. i.e. 6 people can have VOD. OR you can have 180 users at a reasonable 20:1 contention and feed 50,000 people 14 TV channels + 1 background channel for PVR to do VOD from local disk, in 4MHz.

    The mathematics of IPTV are brutal. It only suits Cable and Fibre, both of which support superior quality HD Broadcast (or even 60Mbps 3D broadcast). Cable and Fibre can EASILY do real live VOD and Broadband and Satellite Quality HD TV. UPC will get there. They "inherited" a poor network, but when they have finished upgrading they will be very competitive to Sky and Fibre.

    BT Vision in UK is a Hybrid solution for DSL. It actually uses Aerial and Freeview for most of the channels. More use will be made of hard Drive and background feed of VOD content via DSL and/or Broadcast as many people find the single real time VOD very poor. Forget Multiroom on DSL.
    I don't like the mindset that says that certain technologies should be limited to specific applications just because they are primarily suited to that purpose.
    Only true up to a point.

    Even though cable is shared, it's only at less than 500m that DSL can compete at all. DSL has about 1/30th the bandwidth of coax at 500m. At 8km DSL has 1/2000th the bandwidth of coax.

    While a 160km long shared coax cable (with repeater amps) is technically possible, most Cable systems are now hybrid. The Coax only serves a 1/4 street to 4 streets and that is fibre fed.

    You can't play Video sensibly on CD technology (VCD = 384 x288 x25i at best, about 1/2 the quality of VHS and nearly 1/4 of S-VHS quality). DVD lets you have real broadcast quality.
    At the end of the day the user doesn't care how the services are delivered.
    Indeed. And it's only Telcos with DSL only that are seriously behind real IPTV. Few offer any decent catalogue of VOD. They do poor quality copy of Cable services.


    We need a SERIOUS infrastructure plan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Bottom line is does IPTV add to the choice available to the Irish consumer? I would argue yes it does. If cable can do it better great, let cable go ahead and provide a competing service. If satellite can do it great. Let the satellite companies go ahead and compete.

    Discussions about the purely technical capabilities of the various platforms miss the point. The worst thing for Ireland would be government or regulation deciding that VOD or whatever other is to be provided on platform X simply because it was in theory better than platform Y.

    Eircom have in the past been prevented by the then ODTR from providing television services. Now, it is quite likely that this service may not have been as good as TV over other mechanisms available at that time, but so what? If it doesn't work, don't subscribe to it.

    A lot of the problems in Ireland in this area have been due to well-meaning but ill-advised decisions on behalf of the consumer when it should have been the consumer making the decisions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    I understand where you are coming from, but basically on DSL it's two tier, About 10% to 20% of DSL users could have decent VOD, but only one set box and mostly not HD.

    Fixed Wireless Users can't have it at all.

    The NBS ("3" contract) can hardly ensure YouTube, never mind TV quality VOD.

    So my argument is not that VOD /IPTV should be somehow forbidden because it eats too much, but if IPTV/VOD is deemed important, that without a major upgrade and new infrastructure it's actually only physically possible for all subscribers on Cable or Fibre. Of about 500,000 approx DSL customers it's genuinely possible properly for about 50,000 to 100,000 at best. Too many Irish lines are too long and/or too poor.

    The 150,000 projected users of Internet via existing HSDPA/3G and NBS can't do it all.

    The 80,000 to 450,000 (in future) fixed wireless customers can't have it at all.

    Then there is the cost. You must put a very expensive IPTV server at each cable segment and exchange as the VOD needs 1:1 contention.

    Obviously the NBS is a disaster.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,357 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    This is a great post in general. Some very real and logical information being posted on the various media and options available to the irish consumer.
    From what I can see the advent of true IP TV is a long long way away and may never happen for the masses due to the advent of the next generation PVR's and the relative poor quality of BB infrastructure in this and other countries.
    Again, thanks for the posts so far, very informative.
    Kippy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    watty wrote: »
    Then there is the cost. You must put a very expensive IPTV server at each cable segment and exchange as the VOD needs 1:1 contention.

    Obviously the NBS is a disaster.
    I think the issue here is a difference of perspective. From the consumer's perspective the more services by the greatest number of providers the better. The consumer has the power and can choose between competing offerings. The pressure is on the provider to supply what the consumer wants as the consumer can move their business elsewhere.

    From the providers perspective the less expectations the user has the better - this thread started as a complaint about expectations being raised by the BBC's iPlayer - and the user is unreasonable to expect more.

    I tend to get suspicious when providers tell me things can't be done. What they really mean is things can't be done without some expenditure, effort or imagination.

    VOD over the telephone system is possible in Ireland. It would not be perfect but if a dedicated 2.5 Mb/s path can be provided then reasonable standard definition pictures can be sent with mpeg4. The limitation, of course, is only one box, but every system has limitations. You might have a TV in several rooms with a basic cable package but be happy for the VOD box to be in one room.

    Now providers will only do this if there is a commercial return but it is this that is the key factor. Do people want VOD? If it is a case of installing a VOD server or some sort of node for iPlayer streams in order to gain market share from competing platforms then it is possible that operators will see it in their interest to provide it.

    I hope it is clear from this that the vast amount of bandwidth available to satellite is largely irrelevant. I have a satellite dish with potential access to thousands of channels but if Eircom or another operator were to offer a VOD service I might consider going for that in addition to satellite. I would only care about cable being a superior platform if UPC actually offered such a service, which they don't.

    With regard the relative importance of iptv, I think it is a nice thing to have after you have basic standard broadband. For things like the NBS I don't think it should be top priority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭useruser


    Well put SkepticOne. The technical merits and demerits of IPTV have been argued several times here but the fact remains that IPTV is (albeit slowly) gaining market share worldwide in both DSL and fibre deployments. Is IPTV better or worse than cable and satellite TV? certainly, but as you point out, it is possible to deliver a viable alternative with IPTV and people do buy it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    VOD over the telephone system is possible in Ireland. It would not be perfect but if a dedicated 2.5 Mb/s path can be provided then reasonable standard definition pictures can be sent with mpeg4. The limitation, of course, is only one box, but every system has limitations. You might have a TV in several rooms with a basic cable package but be happy for the VOD box to be in one room.

    Now providers will only do this if there is a commercial return but it is this that is the key factor. Do people want VOD? If it is a case of installing a VOD server or some sort of node for iPlayer streams in order to gain market share from competing platforms then it is possible that operators will see it in their interest to provide it.

    Actually VOD is only possible on a minority of Irish phone lines. Even at degraded quality. Forget HD except for a very tiny number.

    1) You missing my points. The AVERAGE MPEG4 can actually be 1.5Mbps. But you need to meet the peaks. You need at least 4.5Mbps with no packet loss. Plus whatever speed the user has for download. You could do it with maybe 7Mbps or 8Mbps and adaptive QOS where the user gets ON AVERAGE 5.5Mbps, but it can drop to 1.5Mbps or less at any time. HD needs x5 the bandwidth. Less than 1/3 the phone lines can do even this. Constant Bitrate (which is what IP Network Planners want) is savage on TV unless it's close to peak of VBR. i.e. you need 4.5Mbps to compete with Multiplex stat mux 1.5Mbps. Network planners hate variable bitrate codecs. VBR IPTV would cause huge jitter on VOIP.

    Gameplay via BB would be very erratic performance as ping varied from 40ms to 80ms and speed from 6Mbps down to 1.5Mbps suddenly.


    2) The commercial costs are huge. Do BB users want to pay an extra €30 for a service much poorer than Sky or UPC or even FTA? It's so expensive to do properly and so poor compared with Satellite that if heavily promoted the UPC and Sky could put up their prices and still grow. It's not viable competition.

    Why do you want a two tier DSL service that is more costly for everyone to deliver a poor copy of Cable TV for an elite? It also distracts from the #1 priority of real universal Broadband.

    Tell me how many % of total Irish phone lines can do really poor VOD + BB, i.e. a 7Mbps, at all. Tell me how many 7Mbps lines can have sensible latency, (Interleaving issue).

    You know at 1:1 contention needed for VOD, the interleaving has to be higher?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    While I don't agree with a lot of the above, I feel further technical discussion along these lines is getting away from the issue.

    No one says that these things will be easy. No one says they will be cheap or will cover all users in the country. No one says there aren't technically superior solutions theoretically available.

    Anything worth undertaking involve some degree of difficulty and usually the solution is not perfect but involves compromises of some sort and for each of those compromises someone will object.

    If you or your company feels these problems are insurmountable then no one is forcing you to provide this or indeed any other service.

    What I have a problem with is your assertion that: "BBC and others need to STOP pumping expectations of the Internet as video Medium."

    It seems to me that the big problem in Ireland is the ultra-low expectation we have for our service providers (not just in telecommunications and broadband). I've heard in the past loads of arguments by experts about why broadband wasn't really feasible in Ireland and or that it would only be available in the big cities or that anything about a 3 GB cap was unreasonable or that there would never be wireless internet of any quality etc., but then someone goes ahead and provides these things.

    As an example, wireless broadband. Say you work for Eircom, then it is in your interest to spread FUD about it and there's no shortage of arguments against it (interference, obstacles such as trees, fresnel zones, lack of the right frequency bands and plenty more). When examined more closely, however, two things become apparent: 1) the importance of these things is often exagerated; and 2) the object is not to create a perfect service free of all possible defects but rather provide something that is better than not having it at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭useruser


    Well put again SkepticOne. Watty, you seem to miss the bigger picture, as SkepticOne points out it is not about perfection (cf VHS vs Betamax). A layman coming to your posts might draw the conclusion that IPTV is complete snake oil, rather than a widely deployed technology that actually works! (perhaps 19 or 20 million subscribers worldwide end 2008, $4.5billion revenue http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/gartner-sees-almost-20-million-iptv-users-year/2008-09-25).


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    Of course it works.
    But not at all for over half of phone line users. It's simply not viable technology to market and deploy on Irish DSL.

    Yes your line passes for DSL but not IPTV and it will quadruple your BB subscription cost if it did and because we have deployed it your non-IPTV DSL is twice as expensive.

    Some aspects of IPTV nearly are snake oil. I've spent over 5 years researching it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭useruser


    watty wrote: »
    Of course it works.
    But not at all for over half of phone line users. It's simply not viable technology to market and deploy on Irish DSL.

    Let's imagine that %50 of the 1.5 million or so lines in the Republic could get some kind of IPTV service (single room, standard definition, perhaps VoD only along the lines of BT Vision). You're claiming this is not a large enough addressable market?
    Yes your line passes for DSL but not IPTV and it will quadruple your BB subscription cost if it did and because we have deployed it your non-IPTV DSL is twice as expensive.

    Quadruple the subscription cost you think? Rubbish, who would pay that much? The market and regulator dictate the price of DSL, it's nonsense to suggest that providing IPTV could inflate that price.
    Some aspects of IPTV nearly are snake oil. I've spent over 5 years researching it.

    Ah, sorry, I didn't realise you were an authority on the topic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    I'm not saying it should be forbidden. I'm only pointing out the issues that DSL providers and IPTV vendors won't talk about.

    Channel changing beleive it or not is a huge problem. If everyone (or a significant number) change channel at once the delay goes up from merely a little slower than cable/Satellite/DTT (which is slower than Analogue) to very slow. One of the market leading IPTV servers can even "crash".

    The regulator only regulates Bitstream wholesale and Wholesale LLU. Any extra service has to be paid for (e.g. VOIP phone). Why would a DSL operator (eircom or LLU as IPTV can't really work on Bitstream unless it's eircom provided) do IPTV investment (server every exchange maybe 50,000 euro also headend 600,000 to 2,000,000) and the huge investment to change from 48:1 contention to 1:1 Contention.

    BT hasn't done any kind of full, comprehensive VOD/IPTV system with BT Vision:
    BT has spent over £100M in 2007. Spent more in 2008. Will be changing all the setboxs!

    http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/news/733754/Profile---Marks-sees-big-future-BT-Vision/
    http://www.telecompaper.com/news/article.aspx?cid=652162

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/4125586/BT-Vision-vows-to-tackle-slow-take-up.html

    After 2 years:
    According to the latest figures released by Ofcom, the communications regulator, BSkyB now has more than 9m pay-TV subscribers and Virgin Media is also streaks ahead with 3.6m households signed up.

    Mr Marks finally concedes that 350,000 is "not that many customers", but "I don't know of any way of getting to half a million without first going through the 350,000 mark first. I feel the criticism of our growth is unjustified". The BT Vision logo recently graced the front cover of advertising magazine sprayed on the side of a snail. "I'm glad they [Marketing Week] feel frustrated, I feel frustrated, we should use that frustration to be compelled to do better for our customers."

    ...

    At the launch of BT Vision in December 2006 Mr Marks set himself the target of building a subscriber base of two to three million in three to five years
    After two years it has 350,000 customers. BT vision to avoid many of the problems (especially channel change) is hybrid using DTT freeview for all the main channels (over 29). This would reduce the actual IPTV to only 1% to 20% of viewing time, dramatically reducing server load at each exchange. Has no effect on backhaul and DSL performance, they still need to have same spec as a 100% IPTV system.
    The IPTV server load, especially for channel change and VOD is a serious challenge and cost for IPTV.


    Some doubt it will ever satisfy customers or make money.

    A significant proportion of customers are unhappy with it. Some people here stuck with Smart or Magnet IPTV (which uses fibre, none of the DSL problems) are unhappy with service and unhappy that they can't avail of TV aerial, Dish or UPC.

    Magnet started doing IPTV with DSL but since too often they have to turn customers down or a poor customer experience they only now do fibre based IPTV.
    I've not heard much praise of Homevision

    Two years ago at the big Cable/Broadcast Exhibition at Amsterdam I saw nearly working well IPTV and the claims were that all the problems of scale solved (but no HD). The Cable & Satellite guys:
    Look at our perfect HD and also VOD via the PVR. Oh... look at the Demo of UltraHD (2500 lines) and 3D Tv (without glasses) over here. That HD is old hat.

    This year the IPTV people at ANGA making exactly the same claims :( and no HD.
    The Sat/Cable/DTT boxes all HD, all PVR, home media centre etc etc... Combos with Sat and DTT etc ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    IPTV on DSL is a distraction.

    We need lower contention DSL
    Higher Cap
    ( Both those need a lot of Infrastucture upgrade)

    We need MUCH MORE fixed wirelss spectrum to give people that can't have decent DSL or Cable (maybe 1/3 of population), broadband comparable to good DSL or Cable. Not a 1M/128k service. But at least 3Mbps/512k <50ms latency and no worse than 20:1 contention. Spectrum doesn't exist to do 1:1 and much less than 15:1 gets too expensive in numbers of masts and spectrum etc.

    You can't do traditional VOD/IPTV at all on Fixed Wireless Broadband. You need to use Broadcast Wireless. But any Broadcast system with a 320G HDD PVR can do pretty good VOD at better quality than IPTV, for ANY number of TV sets/rooms in the house. At HD too.


Advertisement