How Amsterdam was wired for open access fibre

probe

The city of Amsterdam has been building an open FTTP (fibre to the premises) network for the past four years or so. The infrastructure they deployed gives each household their own fibre - which allows "unbundling" from the outset - ie all service providers can access the fibre - it is up to the customer to decide which service provider to use.

This gets rid of two problems associated with cable TV type networks - (1) you end up with a single monopoly cable provider in each city or region - high price and zero choice and arrogance towards the customer - as one sees with UPC and (2) the internet carrying capacity of shared coaxial is limited - when cable internet usage increases and more people use their connections for multi-media, cable has big problems. Just like wireless.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars/

Citynet - http://www.citynet.nl/

(if you don't speak Dutch):
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citynet.nl%2F&sl=nl&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

bk

Interesting reading probe.

I found an interesting blog about a guy in the Netherlands who is a FTTH fan, with details of how the FTTH install was done to his home:

http://internetthought.blogspot.com/search/label/ftth

But it is interesting to note that despite getting FTTH, he has now switched to UPC 60mb cable service as it offers higher speeds and cheaper pricing!

He also makes an interesting comment about UPC, which sounds very true here in Ireland and explains a lot:

Invest in Fiber or UPC / Liberty Global will move into your country.

Last week I wrote that the end of DSL is nigh. In reaction a compadre of mine told me, that he had followed UPC (Liberty Global) for a while and he got the feeling that they were moving out of countries where there was a strong threat of FTTH (Slovenia and France). In his opinion they were moving into countries with a slow moving incumbent that had bet the house on VDSL2 (ie Germany hat tip to Dirk for the link). Very interesting idea, might be something to it.

We can certainly see that here in Ireland where Eircom can barely do ADSL2+, never mind VDSL2

Also it makes me cry to think of countries like Slovenia actually getting FTTH and the Czech Republic with 120mb UPC cable already, while our politicians prattle on about us having a knowledge based society and needing to build NGN's. Lads wake up, everyone else is already busily building theirs.

dub45

Even if UPC were the nicest and most efficient company in the world the postion of strength they are being allowed to build up in the cities is simply very wrong.

bk

dub45 wrote: »

Even if UPC were the nicest and most efficient company in the world the postion of strength they are being allowed to build up in the cities is simply very wrong.

That is competition for you, UPC have spent a fortune upgrading their network and are offering high speeds and low prices and loads of people are signing up for it, go figure!

The only way to stop them * is for the other providers like Eircom to stop fannying about and upgrade their network and compete.

I've long said you reap what you sow and that what Eircom was doing would hurt them in the long term. We are now seeing the results of that.

* We certainly don't want to see any sort of regulatory interference on UPC to help Eircom out.

Sponge Bob

All above Board in what passes for a market here

UPC only have to stay a bit ahead of eircom which is nowhere near what UPC have to offer in Amsterdam in order to remain competitive there.

It is not that policy should be to keep UPC out or in check. It is that policy should realise that the very entry of and presence of UPC says that your telecommunications is CRAP overall. Then again, Chorus was always worse

We will eventually end up with a Global UPC index of crap countries only and with us underperforming the mean

bk

Sponge Bob wrote: »

UPC only have to stay a bit ahead of eircom which is nowhere near what UPC have to offer in Amsterdam in order to remain competitive there.

True, but I don't believe they are dragging their feet like that, I believe they will launch DOCSIS 3 and 120mb BB as soon as they can.

The thing to remember is that UPC don't consider Eircom to be their main competitor, Sky is. UPC need to make their triple play product as attractive as possible to stop the bleeding of valuable TV customers to Sky.

120mb DOCSIS 3 at affordable prices, plus the recent rollout of HD, will go a long way to doing that. And given that upgrading to DOCSIS 3 is relatively cheap to do, it is a good way to retain and gain customers. So really no reason not to launch it.

The damage they will do to Eircom is inconsequential, it isn't their main goal.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It is not that policy should be to keep UPC out or in check. It is that policy should realise that the very entry of and presence of UPC says that your telecommunications is CRAP overall. Then again, Chorus was always worse

We will eventually end up with a Global UPC index of crap countries only and with us underperforming the mean

Agreed, but at least it is better then nothing.

Imagine what the market would look like if UPC hadn't entered the market, 3mb would probably still be the fastest speed you could get.

dub45

bk wrote: »

True, but I don't believe they are dragging their feet like that, I believe they will launch DOCSIS 3 and 120mb BB as soon as they can.

The thing to remember is that UPC don't consider Eircom to be their main competitor, Sky is. UPC need to make their triple play product as attractive as possible to stop the bleeding of valuable TV customers to Sky.

120mb DOCSIS 3 at affordable prices, plus the recent rollout of HD, will go a long way to doing that. And given that upgrading to DOCSIS 3 is relatively cheap to do, it is a good way to retain and gain customers. So really no reason not to launch it.

The damage they will do to Eircom is inconsequential, it isn't their main goal.



Agreed, but at least it is better then nothing.

Imagine what the market would look like if UPC hadn't entered the market, 3mb would probably still be the fastest speed you could get.

You really appear to be mindbogglingly blind in your devotion to UPC. You were even incapable of reading a thread properly which absolutely castigated them for incompetence and lousy customer service.

Looking beyond the 'fast' speeds for the moment they are an appalling company which since UPC took over has offered lousy customer service consistently. They have complete contempt for their customers. They dont abide by their own Terms and Conditions (look at their behaviour in relation to the recent price increases) they dont abide by the rules of the direct debit system. They operate a very iffy phone service for probs which supposedly are not theirs.

They are not investing to do us a favour they are investing to make money which of course they are entitled to do. They are extremely profitable in Ireland.

Even allowing for all that it is wrong to allow one company to gain the power they are gaining in the cities. We are replacing one Eircom with another one.

And it is wrong to compare Eircom with them. Eircom have been laden with debt by various owners and simply cannot compete because of that.

kmick

I would have upgraded to UPC ages ago if they had a customer service worth talking about. Also they wanted to charge me 6 euro extra for not taking their TV package.

Then they wanted to run two wires into my house one for BB and one for TV and the TV line came straight from another persons house across a busy road so I told them to take a hike. They were trying to bamboozle me talking about ring networks and when i told them I worked in IT they lost heart and buggered off.

Finally and most dammingly they pretended to be from Dublin City Council to get a my wife to sign a waiver that they could run a wire along the top of my front wall.

They may be offering the fastest speeds but their methods of operation are very half assed.

Sponge Bob

bk wrote: »

The thing to remember is that UPC don't consider Eircom to be their main competitor, Sky is. UPC need to make their triple play product as attractive as possible to stop the bleeding of valuable TV customers to Sky.

Historically yes. Not too many years ago UPC had 400k+ customers of whom 40k took broadband.

Now it has 350k customer of whom 150k take broadband. The latter is growing at a fair clip .....at around 60k a near net adds and their telephone service is adding around 30k new customers a year and seeing as 'line rental' is only €6 a month that is rather unsurprising.

paulm17781

dub45 wrote: »

Even allowing for all that it is wrong to allow one company to gain the power they are gaining in the cities. We are replacing one Eircom with another one.

And it is wrong to compare Eircom with them. Eircom have been laden with debt by various owners and simply cannot compete because of that.

Well thought out rant there.

We'll try this again. UPC are investing heavily, they are gaining customers because of this. As BK said, you'll reap what you sow.

Eircom have for years banked on there never being any competition. One could argue, it was these stupid moves, which I'm pretty certain weren't in the customers interests either. That have led to this.

I'm not fan of UPC or their appalling CS but this board can be so tedious. "After years of underinvestment a company is changing things for the better rabble rabble rabble."

Mister Gooey

I have had UPC (NTL) tv service for about 5 years and always found their customer seervice excellent. Any minor problem I had with a digibox or a bill was remedied immediately over the phone. I got their broadband in recently. There were a few problems with the initial connection. This was resolved with excellent response times and communications from their customer services and technical services. Previously, I was with UTV and you could be waiting days (if not weeks) for a response. UPC are the only large company who have a visible strategy to improve broadband speeds and should be recognised for that.

probe

bk wrote: »

True, but I don't believe they are dragging their feet like that, I believe they will launch DOCSIS 3 and 120mb BB as soon as they can.

DOCSIS3 does not address the fundamental engineering issue in relation to broadband - you still have x subscribers in a street or district sharing a "chunk" of broadband capacity. As BB use becomes more media intensive, and more people in the street wake up to same, it will grind to a halt. In the same way as if everyone on the street takes out their car(s) at 8 in the morning. There is a traffic jam. Fibre on the other hand gives each household their own exclusive road to the motorway system.

The thing to remember is that UPC don't consider Eircom to be their main competitor, Sky is. UPC need to make their triple play product as attractive as possible to stop the bleeding of valuable TV customers to Sky.

All cable companies are the same - they see themselves as being in the cable TV business - not to provide excellent broadband. They make lots of money from people paying extra to subscribe to channel packages, movies, sports, etc. They make nothing if you subscribe to The Economist or other web based media, and read the publication over the internet. They make nothing if you watch Vimeo or Youtube or Dailymotion. They don't want you to use the internet - a token internet service is being provided by cable ISPs to shut you up!

....plus the recent rollout of HD, will go a long way to doing that.

What about 3D? Several video camera manufacturers have 3D video cameras coming out shortly in the $600 to $1,200 range that can produce better quality videos that Avatar the movie. 3D TV takes 2x the bandwidth of HD. Offering a few 3D channels will stretch cable to the limit on top of all the other stuff people expect. Several satellite TV companies have 3D services starting in the coming months with the arrival of 3D TVs in the shops.

Cabaal

probe wrote: »

What about 3D? Several video camera manufacturers have 3D video cameras coming out shortly in the $600 to $1,200 range that can produce better quality videos that Avatar the movie. 3D TV takes 2x the bandwidth of HD. Offering a few 3D channels will stretch cable to the limit on top of all the other stuff people expect. Several satellite TV companies have 3D services starting in the coming months with the arrival of 3D TVs in the shops.

What about it?, some consider it a big scam in the industry
http://gizmodo.com/5493832/the-movie-studios-big-3d-scam

imho its still a gimmick to just sell new TV's/devices as they've pretty much milked what they can from the likes of HD.

They need a new cash cow even if its not actually any good they can still make people think they "need" it.

Mister Gooey

3D will take years to become the norm, if it ever does! We still have not switched off analogue in this country (and others). The uptake of HD is minimal due to the cost and lack of programing and the cost/programming issue will also hold back 3D. Just TV manufacturers hoping to make more money!

Nody

probe wrote: »

DOCSIS3 does not address the fundamental engineering issue in relation to broadband - you still have x subscribers in a street or district sharing a "chunk" of broadband capacity. As BB use becomes more media intensive, and more people in the street wake up to same, it will grind to a halt. In the same way as if everyone on the street takes out their car(s) at 8 in the morning. There is a traffic jam. Fibre on the other hand gives each household their own exclusive road to the motorway system.

Nor does Fibre because it will go bundled out at one point or another in the ISP network as well or are you seriously thinking that it will be different this time around?

bk

probe wrote: »

DOCSIS3 does not address the fundamental engineering issue in relation to broadband - you still have x subscribers in a street or district sharing a "chunk" of broadband capacity. As BB use becomes more media intensive, and more people in the street wake up to same, it will grind to a halt. In the same way as if everyone on the street takes out their car(s) at 8 in the morning. There is a traffic jam.

Probe, there is no need to talk to me like a five year old, I understand the technical details of contention better then most people. And what UPC offer, despite contention, is still vastly better then any other broadband product available in Ireland. Don't forget Eircom's new 24mb ADSL2+ product has a contention of 48:1 !

Also if you read the blog I linked to, you will see that even in the Netherlands, UPC can hold it's own, with people with FTTH actually switching to UPC as it currently offers higher speeds and lower prices versus FTTH.

However I do agree in the long term, fibre should offer higher speeds and greater flexibility.

probe wrote: »

Fibre on the other hand gives each household their own exclusive road to the motorway system.

Well, actually it depends, if it is PON, like is installed in most FTTH setups (but in fairness not in the Amsterdam example), then it is also shared with up to 32 other users.

And secondly I will be quiet happy to take FTTH just as soon as someone starts doing it here in Ireland. That is the point, there isn't the slightest indication that Eircom or anyone else will do FTTH. In the meantime, UPC is actually available right now, offering relatively good speeds for low prices and will hopefully soon roll out DOCSIS 3.

probe wrote: »

All cable companies are the same - they see themselves as being in the cable TV business - not to provide excellent broadband. They make lots of money from people paying extra to subscribe to channel packages, movies, sports, etc. They make nothing if you subscribe to The Economist or other web based media, and read the publication over the internet. They make nothing if you watch Vimeo or Youtube or Dailymotion. They don't want you to use the internet - a token internet service is being provided by cable ISPs to shut you up!

Yes and so what?

This is actually an advantage for cable companies over telcos. UPC had to upgrade their network in order to offer better TV services (more channels, HD, etc.) to remain competitive with Sky. The TV customers pretty much already paid for the network, broadband is a happy bonus of the network upgrades for TV. But that means UPC can charge far less for broadband as their costs are lower, while telcos main product is broadband, so they have to make enough from broadband to upgrade the network.

Either way it is a win for the customers.

probe wrote: »

What about 3D? Several video camera manufacturers have 3D video cameras coming out shortly in the $600 to $1,200 range that can produce better quality videos that Avatar the movie. 3D TV takes 2x the bandwidth of HD. Offering a few 3D channels will stretch cable to the limit on top of all the other stuff people expect. Several satellite TV companies have 3D services starting in the coming months with the arrival of 3D TVs in the shops.

3D is a gimmick, see the excellent gizmodo article already posted for why.

It will take many years for 3D to take off and when it does, it won't be that difficult to support. By then UPC will likely have switched off the analogue channels, which should free up massive amounts of bandwidth for faster BB, HD and 3D. Also UPC could switch to a clever multicast IPTV system which would likely save a lot of bandwidth (only transmit the actual channels being watched on a particular node).

3D won't stretch things too much. The trickier bit will be if everyone moves over to VoD for all their TV viewing, but even that can be handled.

bk

dub45 wrote: »

You really appear to be mindbogglingly blind in your devotion to UPC. You were even incapable of reading a thread properly which absolutely castigated them for incompetence and lousy customer service.

dub45, that is completely unfair, I'm well aware of UPC's weaknesses and I'm certainly not a blind fanboy.

The reason why I like them is because I've long said, since IrelandOffLine was first formed, that we needed a strong cable TV operator to spur competition with Eircom and that is exactly what we are getting now and I'm very happy about that.

It is now Eircoms move.

dub45 wrote: »

They are not investing to do us a favour they are investing to make money which of course they are entitled to do. They are extremely profitable in Ireland.

So?

Lets see, a company investing to give people want they want and then make money off it, what a novel idea!

I suppose it is a pretty foreign idea to Irish people who are use to just being ripped off by companies like Eircom (highest line rental in the world anyone).

dub45 wrote: »

Even allowing for all that it is wrong to allow one company to gain the power they are gaining in the cities. We are replacing one Eircom with another one.

Perhaps, but it is up to Eircom and the other ISP's to respond to it, Eircom doesn't have a god given right to their monopoly.

What would you suggest we do to stop UPC taking over the cities?

dub45 wrote: »

And it is wrong to compare Eircom with them. Eircom have been laden with debt by various owners and simply cannot compete because of that.

WTF, now I've heard it all. Eircom have no one but themselves to blame for this (and perhpas the government for leaving it happen). When Eircom went public, it was debt free, it was it's owners who piled on the debt.

Of course we are going to compare them with Eircom, everyone who is making the decision on what bb and phone package to get is going to make this comparison.

What do you suggest, we don't leave UPC roll out fast new speeds and low prices, because poor little old Eircom can't afford to compete

paulm17781

bk wrote: »

I suppose it is a pretty foreign idea to Irish people who are use to just being ripped off by cpWhat do you suggest, we don't leave UPC roll out fast new speeds and low prices, because poor little old Eircom can't afford to compete

I remember a time when Eircom could pretty much cap us at 0.5Mb because poor little NTL couldn't afford to compete. People here were complaining about that. Now UPC have blown Eircom out of the water, people here are complaining about that. :rolleyes:

bk

Very interesting article here comparing UPC to KPN FTTH in the Netherlands:

http://internetthought.blogspot.com/2009/04/upc-fiber-power-triumphant-over-kpn.html

The conclusion is that UPC offers much better value for money and faster speeds.

Now I'm not saying this to disparage fibre or heap praise on UPC.

Of course fibre is a better technology with more potential, but I wonder about the ability of the old style monopoly telcos to really make the most of it and really deliver great products on it.

I suppose my suspicion comes from the fact that unlike most people on this forum I've actually experienced Fibre To The Basement and IPTV over the last three years from Smart Telecom and I have to say it sucks.

The maximum speed I can get is 5mb and I'm paying more today then I was for my 6mb UPC product three years ago, which would be 30mb today.

So that explains why I'm suspicious of FTTH, UPC actually delivers today, while FTTH is something that we might get some time off in the future and which may or may not be as good.

paulm17781

Unless someone like Verizon decides to come along and invest massively in FTTH (I can imagine everyone hating that too), I don't see it happening for quite a while.

zeris

probe wrote: »

Fibre on the other hand gives each household their own exclusive road to the motorway system.

Your analogy is wrong. FTTH gives everyone a private driveway. Unless all the content you want is hosted locally by the ISP once you reach the core network you have to queue for the on ramp to the motorway.

paulm17781

zeris wrote: »

Your analogy is wrong. FTTH gives everyone a private driveway.

This is true, DSL also works this way. Cable doesn't, the contention is on the copper. The contention on fibre would be far less.

Kensington

paulm17781 wrote: »

This is true, DSL also works this way. Cable doesn't, the contention is on the copper. The contention on fibre would be far less.

Enough transport streams combined with good implementation of channel bonding can minimise the effects of contention on the copper.

probe wrote:

DOCSIS3 does not address the fundamental engineering issue in relation to broadband - you still have x subscribers in a street or district sharing a "chunk" of broadband capacity.

The internet by it's very nature is contended. Fibre to the Home won't change that.

dub45 wrote:

Even allowing for all that it is wrong to allow one company to gain the power they are gaining in the cities. We are replacing one Eircom with another one.

Oh come on, people have whinged and moaned about Eircom and their monopoly for years. Now that someone has come in, forced prices way down and forced speeds up, and we have people whinging because they are quickly becoming a main player in the market?! :rolleyes:

UPC will not have the monopoly Eircom has had for so long. They don't have the network and it's not feasible to extend the network beyond cities and towns.

Wcool

Did anyone notice that UPC tried to stop this project in 2006 but lost the lawsuit? The accused citynet of government subsidy, but lost the case...
You can find it half way on the page on the citynet.nl link. Check the translation by Google if you don't know Dutch.

And that is exactly the feeling that I share with some people here: UPC looks cool at the moment but I think they can be a bigger brute than Eircom soon.

I hope that broadband is not a 'winner takes all' market because then we are in for some rough rides in the future.
Also, I can't just see UPC rolling out cable everywhere, leaving Ireland with a very skewed broandband service. ie some city folks are lucky others won't. But maybe that is due to geography I have to admit.

Anyway, the future will tell. I am not holding my breath

paulm17781

Wcool wrote: »

Did anyone notice that UPC tried to stop this project in 2006 but lost the lawsuit? The accused citynet of government subsidy, but lost the case...
You can find it half way on the page on the citynet.nl link.

All companies do what they can to stop competition, it is the nature of it, sadly.

Wcool wrote: »

And that is exactly the feeling that I share with some people here: UPC looks cool at the moment but I think they can be a bigger brute than Eircom soon.

They may well, however they'll never have the monopoly Eircom had. Hopefully market forces will prevent this happening.

probe

bk wrote: »

Probe, there is no need to talk to me like a five year old, I understand the technical details of contention better then most people. And what UPC offer, despite contention, is still vastly better then any other broadband product available in Ireland. Don't forget Eircom's new 24mb ADSL2+ product has a contention of 48:1 !

Also if you read the blog I linked to, you will see that even in the Netherlands, UPC can hold it's own, with people with FTTH actually switching to UPC as it currently offers higher speeds and lower prices versus FTTH.

However I do agree in the long term, fibre should offer higher speeds and greater flexibility.

In the long term we are all dead… Time is of the essence when investing in new technology. Do it too soon and you get less performance for more €€€. Do it too late, and you get left out of the loop in terms of developing business opportunities from new technologies.

The mistake the Dutch made is to have multiple competing fibre platforms. KPN has 100 Mbits/sec fibre for €90 per month. They use their own fibre. NL also has urban fibre initiatives that KPN doesn’t participate in (citynet etc). And you have UPC stretched to the limit coax offering “up to 120 Mbits/sec” for €87.30 per month. It is like having three competing Merrion Roads in D4 (one decked on top of the other) – each charging a toll to get you to the same place. It would do nothing except mess up the environment. In France you can get 100 Mbits/sec for about EUR 20 a month – because there is so much competition. Ireland doesn’t have the population to support the number of competing operators and networks that France has. But it can afford a single state of the art, self-financing infrastructure platform that is open to all competitors from Eircom and UPS down to local community based operations.

Eircom AFAIR has indicated a willingness to participate in a shared fibre infrastructure for FTTH – and I suspect their competitors have similar thoughts (if they don’t, they will die in an open fibre environment). Ireland has invested millions in urban fibre rings – much of the capacity is lying idle because there is no plan to bring it (the fibre link) over the last km to the home. It is like putting in a motorway network (thousands of lanes wide!) with ring roads everywhere, but no junctions to get on and off and connect with local and regional roads.

While the citynet in Amsterdam have the right plumbing in place (the fibre structure) – they don’t have the marketing clout of multiple service providers (like KPN and UPC etc) to turn open fibre into a dominant platform. It eircom decided to build its own FTTH network – there would be no point in local authorities in Ireland or anyone else setting up open fibre initiatives to compete.

FTTH routers have got a lot faster and cheaper – making Gigabit internet to the home a reality in 2010. Eg the Cisco CRS-3* router can handle 322 Tbits/sec and costs from €66,000, depending on spec. That is enough bandwidth for over 300,000 households each running flat out with a 1 Gibts/sec connection into each home. That kit didn’t exist two years ago. Storage costs are also dropping like a stone – be they conventional hard disk or SSDs. Gigabit FTTH shelf-life is good for the life of the routers and other hardware involved. The fibre will probably last for 50 years or more.

A plan for fibre needs to be put in place – in the same way as cities, towns and the countryside all require long term plans. A single fibre to the home platform used by all operators would be self financing – all it requires is direction and a plan to get it moving.

Cable can’t compete with Gigabit FTTH in terms of providing an open competitive platform. UPC is a media 1.0 company. Living in the 1990s, an era where people turned up at time x to view programme Y or Z on their cathode ray TV set. Expensively made programming by monopoly TV and film production companies. Modelled on the US cable TV monopoly focused on delivering trash TV. To hell with the customer. Arrogant. Slow moving. Bureaucratic. Sell advertising (or get a cut of the ad-revenues from content providers). Rubbish set-top boxes, with tiny hard drives (if any). Collect monthly fees. And spew forth propaganda for the owner of the cable system and content providers. Keep the customer fat, dumb and stupid.

Hardly the optimum situation in a country that is trying to promote business innovation and sell its educated workforce to the world!

Television 2.0 is far more diverse, specialised, and is available on demand. MacBreak Weekly is a TV programme for people who are into Apple. You can watch it live while it is being made, or catch up with the latest issue here, anywhere in the world:

http://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp4/twit.cachefly.net/video/mbw/mbw0185/mbw0185_h264b_864x480_500.mp4

If you use Windows – your Windows Weekly TV programme is here:

http://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp4/twit.cachefly.net/video/ww/ww0148/ww0148_h264b_864x480_500.mp4

As more people consume content on demand at higher definitions - 1080p, 2k and 4k..... fibre is the only medium that can support the demand.

We have millions of books in every language on the planet written by as many authors. Why should cable TV operators be allowed to block customers’ choice to a shop with at most 100 books for sale? Most of which are tabloid crap that people don’t want anyway – they are just thrown into packages to create advertising revenues for British media companies.

While I used to subscribe to the view that 3D video would have a short-lived existence, I now think it could be a “must have” for sports TV coverage, among other content types. 3D TV will take off faster than HD did because it delivers a close to an “at the event” experience in the living room. As more video material becomes user generated, and $600 3D video cameras become the norm, it is only a matter of months before dailymotion.com, vimeo.com and youtube.com (all of whom are generating significant cash from pre-roll advertising etc. start offering 3D video) – viewable on a PC or TV.

*http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5763/index.html

bk

Probe I actually agree with most of what you said above about sharing fibre, I've always said the same.

The model I'd like to see develop is a single company who owns all the fibre, 51% owned by the government, 49% owned by all the other ISP's with their share of the company depending on how much of their fibre network they turn over to the control of this company.

All government agencies turn over control of their fiber to this company, ESB, Borad Gais, Dublin City Council networks, etc. I assume Eircom, Vodafone, o2, 3, BT, Digiweb and Magnet would enthusiastically join.

UPC would probably grudgingly join.

BTW there is no reason why a cable company can't become a FTTH company, after all Verizon in the US use FTTH for their FiOS service, but use standard DOCSIS over the Fibre connection and then standard caox cables and standard cable TV boxes in peoples homes. No reason why any cable company can't copy that approach.

I completely agree with all that, it really makes no sense for each of these companies and government agencies to build their own networks, complete waste of money.

However then you went off on another irrelevant rant about UPC!

I don't get why you are so vehemently opposed to UPC. Were you fired by them or do you work for one of their competitors? I can't think of any other reason why anyone would feel the way you do.

Why do you never rant about Eircom who are a hundred times worse then UPC?

At least UPC is one of the only companies in Ireland actually investing in their network and actually delivering fast new products and at pretty decent prices. Bringing exciting new competition to a stalled market and forcing Eircom to compete and probably eventually invest in their network.

Honestly I can't see any reason why anyone would feel like you do about them. In the end they are just another company, offering products to the market. The more companies doing so the better.

While the above talk of FTTH is a lovely dream and I will do whatever I can to see it happen. It is still a pipe dream with little evidence on the ground that it will ever happen. Until I've a FTTH connection running into my home *, I'll be very glad UPC are here to offer an alternative to crappy DSL.

BTW there isn't quite 100mb FTTH for €20 in France, it is 50mb for €35 (scrap that, just checked, it seems Free are offering 100mb for €30 now, nice) in Paris, ironically the best value for money connection in France AFAIK is on cable DOCSIS 3 from Numericable, 100mb for €30 and it is available to far more people then FTTH

BBTW Cable has plenty of bandwidth to cope with future IPTV video demands. UPC has been upgrading it's network to minimum 800 MHz (1000MHz now). 800 MHz gives you a combined bandwidth of 5gb/s. That is enough bandwidth for 166 30mb/s 1080p full bluray quality video streams! :cool:

Yes those 166 streams would need to be shared on the local node, but most nodes would be well under 166 users, so no problem there.

Of course you need to move to a completely IPTV system to do that, but that is certainly possible.

* Ironically I almost do, I've FTTB and it is crap, I can only get 5mb BB and the IPTV service on it use to be crap and has since been replaced by Sky HD :rolleyes:

probe

bk wrote: »

I don't get why you are so vehemently opposed to UPC. Were you fired by them or do you work for one of their competitors? I can't think of any other reason why anyone would feel the way you do.

I have no connection with UPC or any related company (or competitor), never had. I see a UPC monopoly train coming rapidly down the tracks unless the entire telecommunications/ISP industry has access to FTTP. I see evidence of arrogance and poor customer service from UPC all over the place. I see numerous complaints about their service here and elsewhere.

BBTW Cable has plenty of bandwidth to cope with future IPTV video demands. UPC has been upgrading it's network to minimum 800 MHz (1000MHz now). 800 MHz gives you a combined bandwidth of 5gb/s. That is enough bandwidth for 166 30mb/s 1080p full bluray quality video streams! :cool:

Yes those 166 streams would need to be shared on the local node, but most nodes would be well under 166 users, so no problem there.

I also see the limitations of their cable network infrastructure - because each home has/will increasingly have multiple TVs, PCs and other consumers of bandwidth (eg iPads and their competitors). 5GB/sec might look interesting today in the context of 166 clients - but in a decade's time (the time it will take to for Ireland to start fiddling with GB FTTH with luck), it will be like FRIACO!

Less than a decade ago, probe was "ranting" for broadband, and most people around here and in other fora thought FRIACO was heaven - and they didn't appear to need broadband...

Why do you never rant about Eircom who are a hundred times worse then UPC?

I've been ranting about eircom since I was seven years of age!

BTW there isn't quite 100mb FTTH for €20 in France, it is 50mb for €35 (scrap that, just checked, it seems Free are offering 100mb for €30 now, nice) in Paris, ironically the best value for money connection in France AFAIK is on cable DOCSIS 3 from Numericable, 100mb for €30 and it is available to far more people then FTTH

€19,90 actually - http://offres.numericable.fr/internet-tres-haut-debit-wifi-box.php

Quote, in the interest of full disclosure: (I've put the key limitations of the 19,90 offer in bold)

OFFRES SOUMISES A CONDITIONS RESERVEES AUX NOUVEAUX CLIENTS PARTICULIERS. DISPONIBILITE SELON ZONES GEOGRAPHIQUES ET ELIGIBILITE TECHNIQUE. ENGAGEMENT DE 12 MOIS. TARIFS TTC AU 28/02/2010. FRAIS D OUVERTURE DE SERVICE 40€. FRAIS DE RESILIATION 40€.

1. Téléphonie fixe France et International : appels illimités vers les postes fixes (hors numéros courts, spéciaux, vers serveurs vocaux et via satellites) en France métropolitaine et vers 53 destinations dont les 26 autres pays de l’Union Européenne. Durée maximum pour chaque appel : 2h00 en continu.
2. Numericable est signataire de la Charte pour le développement de l'offre légale de musique en ligne conclue avec l'Industrie du disque le 28 juillet 2004. Les échanges illicites d'enregistrements et d'oeuvres protégés sur les réseaux génèrent un préjudice majeur pour les ayants droit et nuisent à la création artistique, c'est pourquoi Numericable vous recommande de ne pas procéder à des téléchargements illégaux.
3. En cas de souscription de Service à distance, conformément aux articles L121-20 et suivants du code de la consommation, vous disposez d’un délai de sept jours francs à compter de l'acceptation de l'offre pour changer d'avis, en adressant à NUMERICABLE SERVICE CLIENT – TSA 61000 – 92894 NANTERRE CEDEX 9 un courrier recommandé avec avis de réception faisant état de l'exercice de votre droit de rétractation. Si ce délai de 7 jours expire un samedi, dimanche ou jour férié, il est prorogé jusqu'au premier jour ouvrable suivant. Toute installation et/ou d'utilisation du (des) service(s) avant l'expiration du délai de sept (7) jours vaut renonciation au droit de rétractation.
4. Les appels sont facturés à l'abonné selon le tarif en vigueur de son offre téléphone.
5. Pack Net + Tel fixe à 19.90€/mois. A partir du 07/12/09, pour une souscription au pack via numericable.fr : accès aux chaînes de la TNT gratuite selon zones géographiques et sous réserve d'éligibilité technique du domicile. Tester votre éligibilité. NECESSITE DE DISPOSER D'UN DECODEUR TNT.
6. Chaines locales accessibles selon votre région et éligibilité TNT. Au total près de 26 chaines disponibles pour l’ensemble du territoire.
7. Chaînes HD disponibles selon éligibilité TNT et matériel compatible.
8. Visuel non contractuel
9. Le pack Sécurité protège des virus et logiciels espions connus et répertoriés, compatible PC uniquement.
10. Promotion valable pour toute souscription au service jusqu'au 11/04/2010, mois en cours inclus.
11. Modem Routeur Wi-Fi : comprend 1 routeur, 4 ports Ethernet, un accès Wi-Fi 802.11g (débit théorique maximum atteignable en Wi-Fi de 54 Mbit/sec.) ; il permet une portée optimale de plusieurs dizaines de mètre sans obstacle. En fonction du nombre et des matériaux des murs entre le modem et l’ordinateur, la portée sera plus ou moins diminuée. L’adaptateur Wi-Fi pour unité distante n’est pas fourni.

France Telecom charge 44,90€ for fibre - don't know why anybody uses them. The only benefit they offer is free calls to 74 countries, compared with 53 for Numericable.
http://abonnez-vous.orange.fr/Fibre/Avoirlafibre/Default.aspx?rdt=o

paulm17781

Bk, are you sure Verizon use docsis? I know they broadcast the TV channels but is it docsis for broadband?

Probe, multiple TVs don't take more bandwidth, one of the advantages of cable is it that is broadcast unlike IP.

bk

paulm17781 wrote: »

Bk, are you sure Verizon use docsis? I know they broadcast the TV channels but is it docsis for broadband?

You are absolutely right, long day.

They don't use DOCSIS, that would make no sense. They do however use standard digital QAM, cable set top boxes and head ends like most cable TV operators.

paulm17781 wrote: »

Probe, multiple TVs don't take more bandwidth, one of the advantages of cable is it that is broadcast unlike IP.

Yes, which is one of the reasons Verizon use it for the FTTH service.

Probe, you do realise Numericable is cable and DOCSIS 3, sort of spoils your point, no?

5GB/s will me more then enough for a very long time to come. Remember the node can be subdivided over time reducing contention. That is the beauty of cable, it has a lot of potential and it can be gradually reconfigured to offer faster speeds, as consumer demands increase, without massive cost.

Telcos on the other hand are stuck, they either stay on the dead end DSL technology or spend a fortune upgrading to FTTH.

As for your fear of UPC becoming a monopoly, you have to be kidding, right?

UPC have only 20% of the wired market, Eircom have just shy of 80%. UPC have a very long way to go to become a monopoly and Eircom certainly isn't going to stand aside and let them do it, not over the long term.

And even if it was true, then the only alternative is we continue with the Eircom monopoly, only with much higher prices and much lower speeds! :rolleyes:

Unless you have another alternative to suggest?

Sorry Probe, you are just not making any sense.

NullZer0

Just to add to whats been said here about the support at UPC.

Although its not perfect the engineers seem to know alot more than the guys over at Eircom! :-D The also seem to have alot more visibility of the network in their roles.

probe

bk wrote: »

Probe, you do realise Numericable is cable and DOCSIS 3, sort of spoils your point, no?

BK – you are living in the past – TV 1.0 era!

No it doesn’t spoil my point. France doesn’t have a Gigabit FTTP infrastructure shared among all the carriers. It has numerous independent fibre platforms that arose out of unbundling the local loop. Eg Iliad (ie free.fr) offers DSL with internet, TV and phone. Lots of households use it for TV and are aware that when TV is being watched, broadband speeds slow down. Iliad is a profitable company and decided to roll out fibre to replace the copper loop to remove the speed problems caused by TV watching. It also removes their dependency on France Telecom loops. France is a big country with long copper loops in many areas – making fibre to the premises the only option for the future.

5GB/s will me more then enough for a very long time to come. Remember the node can be subdivided over time reducing contention. That is the beauty of cable, it has a lot of potential and it can be gradually reconfigured to offer faster speeds, as consumer demands increase, without massive cost.

While you can tinker with it, cable is still going to be a monopoly in the absence of an open fibre platform. The copper loop is incapable of competing as use of the net gets more multi-media oriented. If you have 3 TV sets in the house, you need a bandwidth allocation for each channel or VoD title they are watching. In a previous posting above, you stated that UPC's capacity will allow "166 30mb/s 1080p full bluray quality video streams!" 3D BluRay requires about 50 Mbits/sec per video stream. If the father is watching a sporting event in 3D, and the wife is watching a movie, there will be precious little capacity for the children to surf the net. And your local UPC node is going to be super-saturated. People will get really pissed off if they can't watch certain sporting events. Others will be equally pissed off it they can't do what they want online - due to system inadequacies.

Telcos on the other hand are stuck, they either stay on the dead end DSL technology or spend a fortune upgrading to FTTH.

Precisely my point. Which is why Ireland needs a planned FTTH platform for the 21st century. I can see iterations of good money being thrown after bad with half baked interim technologies that have no long-term shelf life. Otherwise you will have high prices, and UPC’s anglo-saxon monoculture tabloid TV, leading to further generations of multilingually illiterate Irish. A population incapable of competing in a multi-lingual Europe.

As for your fear of UPC becoming a monopoly, you have to be kidding, right?

They (UPC) have only been playing with broadband for a few years, and already have 150,000 broadband users. Ireland is very dozy and slow to adopt new technologies – but when the word of mouth finally gets out, people typically go out like sheep and buy from the biggest monopoly!

UPC have only 20% of the wired market, Eircom have just shy of 80%. UPC have a very long way to go to become a monopoly and Eircom certainly isn't going to stand aside and let them do it, not over the long term.

If you started an open FTTP programme tomorrow, by the time 25 to 30% of premises had access to FTTP in say five years time, UPC will probably have close to 70% share of broadband market in the areas they operate in. I'd call that a monopoly.

And even if it was true, then the only alternative is we continue with the Eircom monopoly, only with much higher prices and much lower speeds!

Unless you have another alternative to suggest?

I have suggested the alternative, which would be open to eircom, upc, bt, digiweb, imagine, the mobile phone networks, and anyone else interested.

I suspect you are just spamming my posts for some ulterior motive! Who do you work for? Or do we have to guess!

paulm17781

probe wrote: »

BK – you are living in the past – TV 1.0 era!

No it doesn’t spoil my point. France doesn’t have a Gigabit FTTP infrastructure shared among all the carriers. It has numerous independent fibre platforms that arose out of unbundling the local loop. Eg Iliad (ie free.fr) offers DSL with internet, TV and phone. <snip>

Again, cable doesn't work that way.

bk

probe wrote: »

BK – you are living in the past – TV 1.0 era!

LOL, would you like to talk about my setup:

- Top of the range, reference level, 50" Pioneer Kuro 1080P Plasma
- Full 5.1 surround sound setup
- Sky+ HD
- Playstation 3 (BluRay)
- Nettop attached to TV, running XBMC, connected via gigabit ethenet to media server in study with 4 TB's of storage!.

I've been playing with media centers for years (MythTV, Windows Media Center, etc.) and I was one of the first people in Ireland with a TiVo (hacked Linux Series 1) years before Sky+ arrived.

I've also suffered with supposedly brilliant NGN IPTV over FTTB for two years, having tried out both an MPEG 2 system and MPEG 4 system

So trust me I'm well beyond TV 1.0 :rolleyes:

probe wrote: »

While you can tinker with it, cable is still going to be a monopoly in the absence of an open fibre platform. The copper loop is incapable of competing as use of the net gets more multi-media oriented. If you have 3 TV sets in the house, you need a bandwidth allocation for each channel or VoD title they are watching. In a previous posting above, you stated that UPC's capacity will allow "166 30mb/s 1080p full bluray quality video streams!" 3D BluRay requires about 50 Mbits/sec per video stream.

No it doesn't. I went to an extreme specing it out based on 30mb/s, that being the norm for BluRay, but the actual highest bit rate for normal HD TV is actually about 14mb/s for BBC. Remember broadcast TV is normally 1080i, rather then 1080p. Sky's 3D TV broadcasts are about 20mb/s

probe wrote: »

If the father is watching a sporting event in 3D, and the wife is watching a movie, there will be precious little capacity for the children to surf the net. And your local UPC node is going to be super-saturated. People will get really pissed off if they can't watch certain sporting events. Others will be equally pissed off it they can't do what they want online - due to system inadequacies.

But not everyone will be watching the TV at the same time, some will be at the pub, work, school, gym, on holidays, etc.

Also you could use multicasting or a hybrid QAM/IPTV system to share the bandwidth for the most popular channels.

And again remember nodes can be sub divided as demand increases. Eventually the cable company can go FTTH eventually themselves when the need arises, and for much cheaper then the telcos as their existing HFC network is much closer to peoples homes then telcos exchanges.

That is the massive advantage of cable, a nice steady, clear, cost effective upgrade path to meet customers needs.

probe wrote: »

They (UPC) have only been playing with broadband for a few years, and already have 150,000 broadband users. Ireland is very dozy and slow to adopt new technologies – but when the word of mouth finally gets out, people typically go out like sheep and buy from the biggest monopoly!

Yes, people are doozy sheep for picking the fastest and cheapest product available to them :rolleyes:

They would be much better off paying twice the price for half the speed from Eircom!

You are making so much sense now Probe.

probe wrote: »

If you started an open FTTP programme tomorrow, by the time 25 to 30% of premises had access to FTTP in say five years time, UPC will probably have close to 70% share of broadband market in the areas they operate in.

So we would end up with a situation where Eircom et al are forced together to roll out FTTH, with a product offering superior in both features and price to UPC in order to win back customers, which in turn forces UPC to drop prices to remain competitive.

Sounds like the ideal scenario to me, competition at it's best.

probe wrote: »

I have suggested the alternative, which would be open to eircom, upc, bt, digiweb, imagine, the mobile phone networks, and anyone else interested.

Which I would also love to see. But their is currently no sign of this happening and until it does, I'm glad UPC are here offering real compeition to Eircoms rubbish products.

probe wrote: »

I suspect you are just spamming my posts for some ulterior motive! Who do you work for? Or do we have to guess!

No particular secret, lots of regular boardsies know me in the real world. I was originally a committee member of IrelandOffLine when it was originally formed as a result of the Esat No Limits controversy and that is the reason for my knowledge and interest in the area.

I've never worked for any ISP, telco, cableco, etc. I work as a software engineer for a large US multinational IT company.

The only reason I'm responding to your posts is to bring some balance to your frankly crazy and illogical rantings.

probe

bk wrote: »

LOL, would you like to talk about my setup:

- Top of the range, reference level, 50" Pioneer Kuro 1080P Plasma
- Full 5.1 surround sound setup
- Sky+ HD
- Playstation 3 (BluRay)
- Nettop attached to TV, running XBMC, connected via gigabit ethenet to media server in study with 4 TB's of storage!.

I've been playing with media centers for years (MythTV, Windows Media Center, etc.) and I was one of the first people in Ireland with a TiVo (hacked Linux Series 1) years before Sky+ arrived.

I've also suffered with supposedly brilliant NGN IPTV over FTTB for two years, having tried out both an MPEG 2 system and MPEG 4 system

So trust me I'm well beyond TV 1.0

Your thinking is no different to the B&W broadcast TV era!

While one couldn’t fault your Pioneer Kuro plasma (as a 2D display device), your set-up is Television 1.3 in my books (1.0 = monochrome analog, 1.1 colour analog, 1.2 = digital, 1.3 = HD, 1.4 = 3D).

Let’s put your and my set-ups to one side for the moment. They are irrelevant in the global scheme of things for the future.

When you are hunting for content online, you go to a search engine – let’s assume Google. Using keywords, you generally find the stuff you are looking for.

My starting point for TV 2.0 would be a google type search for the video content you are looking for – be it a particular movie, an item on the RTE 21h00 news on date x, y or z, live, or near live coverage or a horse race be it in Dubai or Leopardstown or wherever, or some sporting event that is taking place or took place anywhere on the planet. The item of content is either free or you pay per view or is included in some type of subscription package (which includes TV “licenses”). If it includes advertising, the advertisements are relevant to you and the advertiser.

The content comes in high quality – eg 1080p, 3D, 4K whatever (over an HDMI 1.4 connection into a TV or your PC depending on where you are) – rather than todays typical youtube quality.

Google appears to have a set-top box in the works

http://gizmodo.com/5495856/a-google-tv-set+top-box-is-coming

A set-top-box is only a transition device – the TV will probably evolve to be an HTML5 browser based IPTV client. It will be open - anybody can provide links to video content, in the same way as anybody can set-up a website. If www.rte.ie is your TV's "homepage" EPG, that would be your default starting point for video and audio content. RTE could incorporate DTT URLs within their code, causing your TV to switch over to a conventional DTT channel to get a live programme rather than downloading it over the net.

It will give opportunities to small content producers to sell their programming material directly to the customer – like itunes – or provide it free, and get paid by advertising. If you see an interesting TV programme, you can email a link to it (even though it is an hour long 1080p HD MPEG4 file) to a friend who might be interested – allowing viral marketing of content. Or give a gift of a BluRay quality copy of a movie to a friend – simply by emailing a url to the individual.

The remote control could well be one’s mobile phone (working over Bluetooth with the set-top-box). If you pause a programme to go out, the system will retain your settings. Meanwhile someone else can use the same TV with their mobile phone and their settings.

No it doesn't. I went to an extreme specing it out based on 30mb/s, that being the norm for BluRay, but the actual highest bit rate for normal HD TV is actually about 14mb/s for BBC. Remember broadcast TV is normally 1080i, rather then 1080p. Sky's 3D TV broadcasts are about 20mb/s

Sky is a non-standard walled garden service that uses a proprietary conditional access system. You are locked into buying a sub-standard box ordained by Sky incorporating their card technology. Most other satellite TV systems in Europe use a standard access card (eg Viaaccess) (like a GSM mobile phone card – you can plug it into any brand of phone) giving you a large choice of good quality satellite receivers that can pick up multiple platforms. Sky’s “3D” broadcasts will not be BD quality – you need about 50 Mbits/sec to deliver BluRay 3D. The audio quality on Sky is poor – I get live broadcasts of concerts on Astra 1 in AC3 sound from several German radio stations and the sound is as good or better than DVD audio. Sky is the equivalent of an internet that only allows you to access websites based in Britain.

But not everyone will be watching the TV at the same time, some will be at the pub, work, school, gym, on holidays, etc.

Of course – but there will be times when everybody will be in the house wanting to do their own thing – each consuming lots of bandwidth.

Also you could use multicasting or a hybrid QAM/IPTV system to share the bandwidth for the most popular channels.

This will only work within your TV 1.0 frame of mind. Would you wait for a website where the page you wanted was “broadcast” only once an hour ? :-)

That is the massive advantage of cable, a nice steady, clear, cost effective upgrade path to meet customers needs.

You are sounding like the cable guy again – someone who has a vested interest in cable and whose mindset is stuck in 1.0 era.

Have a listen to Daisy Whitney’s This Week in Media – she covers the dirty tricks that the old media getting up to against Google video services – among other related topics. Old media - content producers and cable just don't get it.

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/media.libsyn.com/media/thisweekinmedia/twim_176_aud.mp3

Here are the exhibits in support of Google video -v- Viacom:
http://www.google.com/press/youtube_viacom_documents.html

Archive of This Week in Media netcasts:
http://www.pixelcorps.tv/this_week_in_media

bk

BTW I do a lot of the TV 2.0 things you talk about here, XBMC, Boxee, Orb to my Iphone, youtube on my iPhone and will probably add a Slingbox and iPad to my arsenal of devices soon.

I'm completely sold on all that and I'm as close as possible to having that sort of setup as any consumer can currently be. So it really was a little disingenuous of you to accuse me of 1.0 thinking when you know nothing about me.

The only area we differ on is that I'm more of a realist. I don't think the majority of these technologies will become a reality for Joe Public for many years to come. Many of them are still a little too geeky, unpolished, unintegrated and hard to setup for the general public. They need a lot of work on integration and human interface design.

Really the only area we disagree on Probe, is that I'm happy that UPC are in the market now at least offering some competition to Eircom, while you are off dreaming about FTTH that there is currently no sign of happening and will take many years to rollout when it does.

Interestingly UPC's presence in the market is likely to force Eircom to work with the other ISP's to create a combined FTTH network much sooner then if UPC weren't in the market. If we didn't have UPC, Eircom would probably just sit back and relax, selling 8mb ADSL and not bother rolling out FTTH. Now that UPC is offering such competition to them, Eircom will be forced to rollout FTTH to compete, but since they can't afford to do it on their own, they will be forced to join with the other ISP's and telcos to form a shared open access network.

Probe you will get exactly what you want, ironically due to the presence of UPC, the company you hate so much.

You see, I don't love UPC, I don't even have them, I just like open and fair competition, as I believe it drives innovation and better products and pricing for consumers, something that has always been liking in the Irish ISP market. It is just a pity it didn't happen 8 years ago, we might have FTTH and a high quality DOCSIS 3 cable network aggressively competing by now if it did.

Ash.J.Williams

I have a fibre line running past my City centre door. Smart Telecom quoted me 25,000 euro to bring the line into our premises. The cost included closing down a lane of taffic, and out of hours work for the council to carry out the dig!!

probe

bk wrote: »

The only area we differ on is that I'm more of a realist. I don't think the majority of these technologies will become a reality for Joe Public for many years to come. Many of them are still a little too geeky, unpolished, unintegrated and hard to setup for the general public. They need a lot of work on integration and human interface design.

The key issue is not “unpolished” or “geeky”. Rather it is control by a country over its media (in the cultural sense). Ireland has lost control of the electronic media to purveyors of the Anglo-Saxon lowest common denominator – ie Murdoch and UPC, peddling their Bart Simpson society sponsored by a crap Pizza company (a company that wouldn’t exist in a city with a decent Italian pizzeria!) No other country in Europe allows a single neighbouring country to dominate its media to anything like the extent that Ireland does.

It is anything but “geeky”, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Google will be selling set-top boxes in several countries within 12 months. Google makes its money from advertising. The more eyeballs interacting with services via Google, the more ad clicks are sold. When Google does it, every TV network in the world will have to have their own html EPG box/setup – or else Google will take control of the space and other channels (ie their channels) might become hard to find…. on page 23 after 5 or more clicks…

There are three markets – conventional internet, mobile phone and television/video. Google wants to own them all in terms of advertising control.

The concept I described IS integrated, and it is up to the people designing the IP based EPGs (electronic programme guides) to polish the design. Given that the design is based on a webpage, it is easy to polish and there are millions of people out there capable of working with html and related standards. Unlike proprietary code behind the appallingly bland, almost DOS-like, legacy set-top boxes of today.

There is nothing “geeky” about switching on the TV and seeing an RTE web based EPG. Click here for RTE1 live, there for TnaG live. Click “what’s on now” to see a prog. listing across channels. Click somewhere else to watch a video on demand – featuring “Iron Man2” this hour, (brought to you by Dunnes Stores – with their awfully irritating advertising every 5 minutes!) – unless you pay an extra €2 for the advertising-free version of the movie….

You can put anything on the home page of an EPG, and before long, grannies who have never used the internet in their life will be playing interactive bridge on their TV screens. All they need to prompt them is a “Play Bridge” icon on their TV screen and if they are into playing bridge they will get around to clicking on it sooner or later… And if granny A finds bridge on the family TV set, she will tell granny B to get a Google box. Granny B might live in the next village (she also plays bridge, but lives alone). Viral marketing.

All it takes is a user-friendly interface and a bit of creative thinking. The controller of an EPG home page doesn’t have to deliver all the services offered – the online movie rental button could be “outsourced” – ie clicks on it sold to video download companies. When Google started off, it was purely a search engine – email, maps, videos, news, etc were added later.

An interface builder could start with http://www.rte.ie/player/# on a set-top box EPG model on peoples’ TV screens - add in the options for movies on demand [€], online games [€] (kids to grannies), websearch and navigation (ie general browser functionality access), educational courseware [€], integrated email/voicemail/fax [€], Yellow and white pages, Pay per view sporting events [€], etc etc. The VT4 TV channel in Belgium has a good website (running on Drupal) which would make a good EPG starting point from a design perspective when one switches the TV on. http://www.vt4.be


One of the biggest mistakes that Irish indigenous companies make is that they under-estimate the sophistication of their customers. This is why there is such a gap in export performance and other KPIs between Irish companies and multi-nationals.

Really the only area we disagree on Probe, is that I'm happy that UPC are in the market now at least offering some competition to Eircom, while you are off dreaming about FTTH that there is currently no sign of happening and will take many years to rollout when it does.

You are thinking in terms of 2010. I’m thinking five years down the road. It takes time to install new infrastructure and time for monopolies to roll their tentacles out into every home. Eircom and other companies that rely on DSL will have declining revenues and a greatly reduced customer base – aside from big corporate clients and similar. You might think that 4G mobile will provide competition to cable. The reality is that 4G is even slower than 3G in the real world, unless you are right next to a 4G cellsite.

It would cost about €2 billion to get Gigabit FTTP on the road. It could be half funded by government and half by the industry. Rollout work could be outsourced competitively – in the same way as motorways are built by private companies and the tolls are collected by private companies – but the gov still controls the motorway system.

The system could offer perhaps two speed options to the end user – 100 Mbits/sec up and down and 1 GB up and down for a higher monthly fee. There could be buy-in options where people or entities could pay for the capital cost of their end of the infrastructure – and benefit from reduced monthly charges – analogous to one either renting an apartment or buying an apartment and paying service charges.

Ireland is supposed to be focusing on being an innovative society. FTTP is at the core of any movement in this direction.

probe

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I have a fibre line running past my City centre door. Smart Telecom quoted me 25,000 euro to bring the line into our premises. The cost included closing down a lane of taffic, and out of hours work for the council to carry out the dig!!

You could be living on the side of a road anywhere, with fibre running by (eg a fibre cable that carries all the telecommunications traffic between two towns or cities) - and if you wanted to break it outside your door and provide service into your house -it would cost €25,000 - perhaps a lot more.

FTTP is a planned firbre infrastructure designed to bring fibre connectivity to your home.

This is no different to living next to a natural gas pipeline carrying gas between Russia and Germany at very high pressure. It would probably cost millions to provide a domestic gas supply to your home from this pipe...

paulm17781

bk wrote: »

Eircom would probably just sit back and relax, selling 8mb ADSL and not bother rolling out FTTH.

You're totally wrong, there is nothing to imply we'd even have 8Mb DSL if it wasn't for UPC's presence.

As for Probe's fantasy rambles, I'm not even reading them anymore. He made a good point at one stage but now it sounds like Dungeon and Dragons or something.

probe

paulm17781 wrote: »

You're totally wrong, there is nothing to imply we'd even have 8Mb DSL if it wasn't for UPC's presence.

As for Probe's fantasy rambles, I'm not even reading them anymore. He made a good point at one stage but now it sounds like Dungeon and Dragons or something.

Probe can't help wondering who palum17781's sugar daddy might be.... :-)

French fries and Dunn, (Roberto to his friends) spring to mind.... as possible candidates. Bedfellows of Rupert Murdoch.

paulm17781

probe wrote: »

Probe can't help wondering who palum17781's sugar daddy might be.... :-)

Look through my history and see how critical I am of UPC where they deserve to be criticized. Be warned though, my telephone 9.2 is far more powerful than your TV 1.4.

jor el

probe wrote: »

Probe can't help wondering who palum17781's sugar daddy might be.... :-)

I suggest you cop on with the mindless accusations.

bk

probe, look at what Eircom announced today as so called Next Generation Broadband, "upto" 8mb/s ADSL (not even ADSL2+) with a 10 GB cap for frankly outrageous prices.

Basically a big price hike, dressed up in marketing bs.

Right now UPC offer 30mb/s for less money then any of Eircom's joke products and UPC will likely offer 120mb/s by the end of the year.

I for one am very glad UPC are here, otherwise things would be completely hopeless.

If you seriously think Eircom is going to even think about rolling out FTTH in the next 5 years, you are seriously mistaken.

Here is how it will go, they will advertise "upto" 24mb/s BB, which will only be available in a small number of ADSL2+ exchange and even then no guarantee of a decent speed due to line quality and length, while actually selling this crappy "upto" 8mb capped product to the majority of people who will end up really only getting 1 to 3mb/s.

Then in about a years time they will lob some VDSL2+ DSLAMS in a couple of exchanges (not FTTC), allowing them to advertise "upto" 100mb/s BB, while in reality most people won't get speeds any faster then they currently have.

In a couple of years time, when they are really under pressure from UPC, they will then start thinking about slowly rolling out FTTH.

In the meantime, UPC will be our only hope for good speeds and decent prices. I wish and hope that I'm wrong, really I do, but I fear I'm not.

BTW I don't consider 4G as much of a competitor to wired bb. It will make for decent mobile internet experience, like it was designed to do, in particular due to it's low latency characteristics, but nothing more. It would be painfully ironic if Eircom came to depend on 4G because they couldn't afford to upgrade their wired network.

probe

bk wrote: »

probe, look at what Eircom announced today as so called Next Generation Broadband, "upto" 8mb/s ADSL (not even ADSL2+) with a 10 GB cap for frankly outrageous prices.

Basically a big price hike, dressed up in marketing bs.

One would tend to agree. There is nothing “next generation” about it that offer I can see, other than next gen price inflation and “smaller product size”. The “next gen” eircom bar of chocolate is now 75g (down from 300g in the old packaging). Useless for virtually any form of multi-media interaction, aside from Skype calls, which no doubt they see as a very eircom-friendly application!

Shared FTTH is the best solution for 2010. If you have multiple networks competing and duplicating their infrastructure – house A uses network X, house B uses network Y and house C uses network Z. X Y and Z have to run their networks past each door to provide coverage in an area. You are tripling the cost of the last km – which is the most expensive part of any network. Each network is effectively paying about three times as much per premises served in terms of network costs – compared with a shared last km FTTP solution. Each network has to be maintained separately. The consumer ends up paying for this needless waste in infrastructure, and gets a poorer quality product if it is not FTTP.

It is far more expensive to install FTTP in phases – by starting off with FTTC and later on taking the fibre to the set top box.

FTTP has to be planned like a motorway network, by a government agency. Government doesn’t build the motorways – it uses contractors, it doesn’t perform the toll collection task – this is outsourced, and the cars, trucks and buses that use the motorways are not owned by government (most of them anyway). But government has to get the show on the road – if they didn’t, the private sector would not take it upon themselves to build the infrastructure. The cost of FTTP is tiny relative to the cost of building the road network. The benefits are similar (to a road network).

Anyone who doesn’t believe that IPTV HD video on demand won’t be increasingly viewed on the TV set (at ever higher bit rates) might take time to watch this pleasant film on the future of the planet, funded by PPR group (http://www.ppr.com) and made the French multi-mediaorgrapher Yann Arthus Bertrand*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU (English language sountrack version)

(It would be even better in 3D using HTML5 video support coming down a platform that could support 50 Mbits/sec MPEG4!)

Intel and Nokia have announced a new Linux open source based operating system for TVs and set top boxes – among other devices - Meego. The TV is going to be another internet appliance in every house – a very hungry one when it comes to bandwidth.

http://meego.com/devices/connected-tv


* http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org

bk

probe wrote: »

One would tend to agree. There is nothing “next generation” about it that offer I can see, other than next gen price inflation and “smaller product size”. The “next gen” eircom bar of chocolate is now 75g (down from 300g in the old packaging). Useless for virtually any form of multi-media interaction, aside from Skype calls, which no doubt they see as a very eircom-friendly application!

Yup, it really is scandalous what they are doing.

probe wrote: »

Shared FTTH is the best solution for 2010. If you have multiple networks competing and duplicating their infrastructure – house A uses network X, house B uses network Y and house C uses network Z. X Y and Z have to run their networks past each door to provide coverage in an area. You are tripling the cost of the last km – which is the most expensive part of any network. Each network is effectively paying about three times as much per premises served in terms of network costs – compared with a shared last km FTTP solution. Each network has to be maintained separately. The consumer ends up paying for this needless waste in infrastructure, and gets a poorer quality product if it is not FTTP.

Yup, but what is the betting that Eircom eventually decide to roll out PON rather then Point to Point fibre in order to make it harder for LLU fibre to happen.

probe wrote: »

It is far more expensive to install FTTP in phases – by starting off with FTTC and later on taking the fibre to the set top box.

Yup, that is why KPN has canceled there original planned FTTC/VDSL2+. Not that much cheaper then FTTH, while a lot less future proof.

They are now just doing VDSL2+ in the exchange (wouldn't be much benefit to most people) and then FTTH.

probe wrote: »

FTTP has to be planned like a motorway network, by a government agency. Government doesn’t build the motorways – it uses contractors, it doesn’t perform the toll collection task – this is outsourced, and the cars, trucks and buses that use the motorways are not owned by government (most of them anyway). But government has to get the show on the road – if they didn’t, the private sector would not take it upon themselves to build the infrastructure. The cost of FTTP is tiny relative to the cost of building the road network. The benefits are similar (to a road network).

Agreed, but the question is will the government do it, when and how do we get them to do it?

Talking about it here is all well and good, how do we actually achieve this?