Satellite BB Costs . . .

tak

Suppose it's a dumb question but I've wondered about it.

TV by broadband needs 10 - 20 Mbps we're told.
But all of us getting satellite TV can get a number of channels simultaneously for just €22 a month. That's effectively a download of n x 10 Mbps each.
So, in satellite BB, why should the upload leg of the journey result in such high costs for such modest speeds ?
Would it be much more viable if say 30,000 households/businesses in one town used the same groundstation for the uploading instead of each using their own individual transmitters?

crawler

tak wrote: »

Suppose it's a dumb question but I've wondered about it.

TV by broadband needs 10 - 20 Mbps we're told.
But all of us getting satellite TV can get a number of channels simultaneously for just €22 a month. That's effectively a download of n x 10 Mbps each.
So, in satellite BB, why should the upload leg of the journey result in such high costs for such modest speeds ?
Would it be much more viable if say 30,000 households/businesses in one town used the same groundstation for the uploading instead of each using their own individual transmitters?

It's because with TV everyone (more or less) watches the same thing at the same time therefore only one slot is needed to broadcast the signal to everyone

If everyone on the Internet using satellite did exactly the same thing at the same time then this would make it cost effective....

Same arguement for upload...

tak

But if only a part of the spectrum is needed for (scheduled) TV then why are we quoted a figure of 10 - 20 Mbps for having normal TV on broadband ?
Wouldn't 1 - 3 Mbps do for the usual stations plus an OU-type station.

crawler

tak wrote: »

But if only a part of the spectrum is needed for (scheduled) TV then why are we quoted a figure of 10 - 20 Mbps for having normal TV on broadband ?
Wouldn't 1 - 3 Mbps do for the usual stations plus an OU-type station.

I think 10-20Mbps is a generalisation...

For example using MPEG2 encoding a standard definition TV signal will use about 6Mbps, depending on exactly how it is delivered....but if you have 2 TV's in the house watching 2 different channels you need 6Mbps X 2. HD over MPEG2 uses about 10-12Mbps (agian depending on type of HD etc).

Things get better with MPEG4.

It simply down to 1) quality 2) how it is encoded and 3) how many stream of broadcast and/or VOD that is required....

tak

If we are all watching that 1 channel via internet is it really necessary to have as much bandwidth as that ?

If so that means that a man watching Sky News is in the process of receiving a download (admittedly restricted to his TV set and with limited possibility to change what he receives) with an effective speed of 6 Mbps or better from the Sky satellite.

Which brings us back to the original question -
if it's that cheap downloading why is it so dear uploading ?
I suppose that these Sky satellites are purpose-built for TV so they would not have built in much capability for upwards data reception.
But - in principle, since it's seldom undertaken - is it going to be that much more plant intensive to have hardware on a comms satellite to manage heavy uploads?

crawler

tak wrote: »

If we are all watching that 1 channel via internet is it really necessary to have as much bandwidth as that ?

If so that means that a man watching Sky News is in the process of receiving a download (admittedly restricted to his TV set and with limited possibility to change what he receives) with an effective speed of 6 Mbps or better from the Sky satellite.

Which brings us back to the original question -
if it's that cheap downloading why is it so dear uploading ?
I suppose that these Sky satellites are purpose-built for TV so they would not have built in much capability for upwards data reception.
But - in principle, since it's seldom undertaken - is it going to be that much more plant intensive to have hardware on a comms satellite to manage heavy uploads?

No - Sky news takes up one slot on the transponder for EVERYONE watching. It is a single broadcast domain almost. IP is not the same as broadcast TV - you are interchanging them both...

Watching TV is not downloading...TV is BROADCAST (unless you are watching VDO, which for the same reason is hard to do on satellite)

Space segment is VERY expensive and Sky pay Astra and others very well for transponder space, but then they have lots of customers.

Broadband is expensive on satellite as it is not efficient for transponders....

tak

Okay, BB is expensive via satellite.
But satellite broadcasting is not so bad if one has a large collection of receivers.
Now - how about broadcasting TV (to a fixed schedule) via IP ?
That ought be much cheaper and no more demanding in terms of bandwidth than broadcasting via satellite, assuming the IP infrastructure exists, right ?

watty

Digital TV is all aready IP based. DVB is a Broadcast IP system.
Casablanca (now gone) was an experimental Broadcast only Data Channel. It's like the Teletext carousel, except content can be RSS, email, MP3s, Videos, Web pages. But everyone gets the the same and you need a 2Gbyte to 500GByte cache filled by the broadcast.

A Web Catalogue is updated by the process that is updating the Cache. You can express preferences so only the content you like is stored.

Given PVRs then 10Mbps of broadcast to fill disk 24x7 silently and then your "IPTV" portal is really the hidden disk content makes more sense than real IPTV for 50,000 users which needs 250,000Mbps of bandwidth.

Individual connections via satellite is incredibly more expensive.

I've used Casablanca, 2 x different 2 way satellite and have broadcast satellite distribution systems.

Sky is now using the reserved space on Sky+ and SkyHD for Video On Demand as I describe, and as I described years before anyone did it. I'm sure Crawler remembers me arguing that IPTV was pointless if you could get people to buy PVRs and reserve part of the storage.

Nehaxak

Transmission over Satellite is a bit more complicated than the OP mentions but reception only of broadband internet is dead easy. Used to have a 20mb download via EutelSat couple of years back myself and uploaded (or more requested) via the mobile phone at 9600 bps

Anyway, it's no way near as expensive as it used to be and very soon it will be even easier for home users to install and use themselves at cheap costs

http://www.tooway.net/index.html

^^ The above is currently being trialled in France and Germany (KU and newer KA service). EutelSat have the spot beam centered directly over Ireland and the UK so the KA service (smaller dish) will be perfectly capable for this. Piss easy to install and Horizontal or Vertical polarisation is done via just turning the dish on it's side (lovely design btw).

Cost for equipment up-front will be roughly 350 Euro (ex VAT) all-in including modem, dish, cable, etc.,etc., the full deal. Installation can be done by users if they wish.

Costs per month have yet to be determined and will be set by whichever Irish distributor is chosen by EutelSat/SkyLogic - that's the bad part though, you know how it is here with rip off Ireland I'm told though it should be around 40 euro per month ex VAT.

Yes there will be high latency, yes the modems have TCP acceleration but still atency will play a part and not make this an option for gamers really but it is still an option for those in the country who the other providers can't be arsed to service.

Should be available in December this year, depending on whether or not the Irish distributor is ready and EutelSat decide to switch on the service for Ireland/UK.

Latest January next year anyway.

watty

Really what we need is more real broadband. There is no shortage of Satellite vendors already, but the more reliable solutions cost more.

Astra also has a cheaper 2 way sat system, but it's really more designed for UK/Europe mainland and doesn't cover the country evenly. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the Eutelsat one is better.

Ultimately terrestrial broadband beats Satellite stupid for performance and cost. Satellite Broadcast beats IPTV on broadband stupid.

tak

Costs per month have yet to be determined and will be set by whichever Irish distributor is chosen by EutelSat/SkyLogic - that's the bad part though, you know how it is here with rip off Ireland I'm told though it should be around 40 euro per month ex VAT.

Got this description from the Tooway website:-

Bronze Down 600 kbps Up 100 kps
Silver Down 1024 kbps Up 128/200 kps
Gold Down 2048 kbps Up 156/384 kbps



It does not give prices.
If €40 is for bronze or even silver it's a non-runner.

Nothing is said about contention or base level speeds, something so important.

tak

Ultimately terrestrial broadband beats Satellite stupid for performance and cost. Satellite Broadcast beats IPTV on broadband stupid.


Watty,

Could you elaborate on this ^^, please - or send a good reference .

Are you saying that the satellite TV stations have nothing much to gain by investing in FTTH distribution, as their direct beam-in is always more efficient ?
They did FTTH in a lot of suburban areas in England over 12 years ago.
I admit they offered cheap local phone calls also.
But even without the phone savings they'd have had plenty of takers.

watty

Fibre to the street maybe.

If you are doing broadcast, Satellite to cover all of europe is cheap. Cheaper than the same bandwidth between Galway & Dublin probabily on non-broadcast backhaul IP.

If you are doing Broadband at 10Mbps, for all of Europe, via satellite you need 200,000,000Mbps. That does not exist. But if it is all on separate networks all interlinked then everyone can have 10Mps.

TV stations have no interest in Fibre, only broadband companies. The labour is very expensive. The Cable company method of Cable Broadband / TV for 20 houses via coax fed by a fibre is very much more economic than fibre to the home.

Fibre or Coax cable to home can just about compete with Satellite, but only if broadband is paying for install. It's so expensive to dig trenches.

There is very very little FTTH in UK and less in Ireland. It's never going to happen outside of cities.

So DSL, + Wireless BB is best for Broadband outside towns. Outside towns Broadcast DTT and/or satellite for TV.

Towns can have cable/fibre competing with Broadcast TV, but not likely to be free. Terrestrial Digital & Satellite does have free TV channels.
Satellite is even cheaper than Terrestrial Digital for Broadcast.