The internet will takeover TV distribution

Impetus

The internet is the only pipeline capable of handling next gen TV - ie 4k and 8k. Wireless (DTT), cable and BluRay don’t have the capacity.

Watch what you want, when you want, on demand, online. Movies, news, whatever.

You can set up your own TV content on demand network, as Netflix did, on the back of a content distribution system (CDS) - eg Cachefly, Amazon AWS, etc. Room for lots of choice and competition.

The tools to create the content are already available - eg Red one camera - http://www.red.com/products/red-one

There are dozens of 4K TVs on the market, which used to cost €25,000 last year, and are now more like €2,500 and falling in price. With stunning pictures 3480x2160.

e.g http://www.samsung.com/ie/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/ etc

The only thing that is holding up progress to 4K viewing and content generation is eircom’s half baked Huawei VDSL2 system (fake fibre) and UPC’s overburdened, over-contented cable infrastructure, made worse by traffic shaping.

Two monopolists permitted to control and abuse the broadband market by clueless Comreg, which is empowered in turn by a government that has no plans for the future of the national telecommunications network.


http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5291068/how-netflix-won-ces-4k-streaming

loyatemu

this assumes 4k is a success, which is not guaranteed. Bluray has never really taken off, 3D is struggling & I'm not sure many people will want 50+ inch TVs in their living rooms. 1080P is probably good enough for most people for the next few years at least.

Impetus

loyatemu wrote: »

this assumes 4k is a success, which is not guaranteed. Bluray has never really taken off, 3D is struggling & I'm not sure many people will want 50+ inch TVs in their living rooms. 1080P is probably good enough for most people for the next few years at least.

3D is a non-starter because of the glasses and viewers having to centre their seat position on the TV. BluRay has the same problem as DVD - your house gets littered with disks that have to be managed. Only BluRay disks cost a lot more than CDs.

Anyone who has seen UHD TV will tell you that there is no comparison between it and 3D.

We are not building the net for the "next few years".

Continue with candles and paraffin lamps ... avoid "electrification" at all costs?

AlmightyCushion

I think the internet is definitely going to take over tv content distribution (it's already begun) but it isn't 4K and 8K that will push it, it's convenience, flexibility. Plenty of people watch movies or tv shows via some crappy, low quality stream online just because it's easier than watching it on normal tv or they can watch it now as opposed to at a certain specified time. With things like netflix you can watch what you want (as long as they have it obviously), where you want, when you want. You aren't limited to the tv that cable/satellite box is hooked up to or using a device that has a DVD/Bluray drive (more and more laptops are ditching them). The better quality gets the less the difference is noticeable or even matters, other factors like cost become more important. Would people really pay more for 8K over 4K or 1080P assuming they had the equipment to support it. Some would, sure but the majority wouldn't unless it was a fairly small amount.

watty

Internet can't even deliver SD Broadcast TV. Certainly it can replace Video Rental*.

IPTV needs dedicated infrastructure and video servers for each node of the ISP. It's also only really Pay TV (sometimes included in the Broadband charge).

It's complementary to broadcast. The numbers simply don't work if 100% of viewers used it. *Even "Netflix" and similar are only usable on fibre to the node based networks with over 20Mbps.

Real IPTV needs a different stream for every TV you have watched simultaneously. It won't ever be free either.

NIMAN

loyatemu wrote: »

this assumes 4k is a success, which is not guaranteed. Bluray has never really taken off, 3D is struggling & I'm not sure many people will want 50+ inch TVs in their living rooms. 1080P is probably good enough for most people for the next few years at least.

First off, lets get proper HD into homes before worrying about 4k. Most of the 'HD' we watch is upscaled and not proper HD.

1080p would be more than enough for most people, but only a very small amount of viewing would be done in 1080p at present. You'd be shocked if you got the actual figures for how many people are still watching SD, I'd say most of the population. Let's walk before we run.

As for people wanting 50in+ TVs in your living room, well I know I don't. I have always been into home cinema and my gadgets and all, but most people in Ireland/UK do not have big enough living rooms to cope with 50in TVs.

And on a final note, the internet will not take over TV distribution until 99% of the country can get speeds able to cope with the demands of the technology. I have 2mb fixed line, no chance of fibre, superfast and the likes on the horizon, so for me getting TV off the internet is a long way away.

watty

Using 48fps progressive, or 96fps progressive is more use than 4K. You need to be sitting only 2m away from a 80" + set for 4K to make sense.

30i (especially) or 25i is a bit mad for Film. As film is moving from Film to Electronic 48fps progressive, 25p, 30p even 50p or 60p doesn't make sense.

The Interlace was a clever Analogue 2:1 compression scheme that only fails on fine horizontal detail or quick movement. It can't be frame rate or progress converted without losing quality.

The 30/60 and 25/50 rather than 24fps was for two reasons:
1) Flicker from lighting minimised. Hence USA different to Europe.
2) Early TVs had poor PSU regulation. A static hum bar is less noticable than a rapidly moving one. By late 1950s this wasn't a problem.

Electronic TV was proposed before 1907 and pretty much finalised by 1935. Much of the Early 1930s was solving the camera tube issues (the CRT existed since 1896 or so). Mechanical TV was only ever a short lived fad broadcast on Radio (audio) transmitters after close down and the display driven from existing Radio.

2K is just an attempt to sell overpriced TVs because the Electronics Industry is making almost no money from TV sales now. In longer term probably there will be fewer makers. Already many brands are just badges on OEM boxes.

Built in TV sound is also a serious problem. 1950s TVs had better built in speakers!

There is of course a real agenda to discredit Free To Air TV in general and Terrestrial in Particular. Regulators like Ofcom and Comreg. Companies like DirecTV, Sky, UPC (was Virgin in UK), Netflix, Lovefilm, Apple, Google, Amazon, Tivo, Comcast & Cisco.

There is a LOT of propaganda.

loyatemu

experience with Cassettes and MP3s (both of which were of inferior sound quality to the technology which preceded them) demonstrates that people are generally more interested in convenience than quality. See also the failure of Laserdisc, SuperAudio CD, and the lack of success for BluRay, FLAC and other formats that have been marketed for quality.

80% of households have TVs that are 40" or less, 4K is of no benefit at those sort of screen sizes.

Nermal

Can satellite handle 4K/8K?

GarIT

loyatemu wrote: »

experience with Cassettes and MP3s (both of which were of inferior sound quality to the technology which preceded them) demonstrates that people are generally more interested in convenience than quality. See also the failure of Laserdisc, SuperAudio CD, and the lack of success for BluRay, FLAC and other formats that have been marketed for quality.

80% of households have TVs that are 40" or less, 4K is of no benefit at those sort of screen sizes.

What are MP3s inferior to? Those and CDs are the only media I have ever heard that don't have that staticy background noise. The quality of digital music is far superior to records.

Impetus

Nermal wrote: »

Can satellite handle 4K/8K?

Luxembourg based SES transmits 4K using 20 Mbits/sec - which is a massively compressed signal.

http://www.ses.com/4233325/news/2013/15034396

Impetus

Most of the replies to this thread show that people can't see beyond today or tomorrow. When planning infrastructure systems, one has to think 10 and 20 years ahead. Time moves quickly. Infrastructure takes time to install.

When colour televisions came out first, they were slow to take off, until people saw the benefit of colour, usually by watching TV in a neighbour's house or hotel etc. Who want's a B&W TV today?

The same will happen with 4K and 8K.

dxhound2005

Impetus wrote: »

The internet is the only pipeline capable of handling next gen TV - ie 4k and 8k. Wireless (DTT), cable and BluRay don’t have the capacity.

Watch what you want, when you want, on demand, online. Movies, news, whatever.

You can set up your own TV content on demand network, as Netflix did, on the back of a content distribution system (CDS) - eg Cachefly, Amazon AWS, etc. Room for lots of choice and competition.

The tools to create the content are already available - eg Red one camera - http://www.red.com/products/red-one

There are dozens of 4K TVs on the market, which used to cost €25,000 last year, and are now more like €2,500 and falling in price. With stunning pictures 3480x2160.

e.g http://www.samsung.com/ie/consumer/tv-audio-video/television/ etc

The only thing that is holding up progress to 4K viewing and content generation is eircom’s half baked Huawei VDSL2 system (fake fibre) and UPC’s overburdened, over-contented cable infrastructure, made worse by traffic shaping.

Two monopolists permitted to control and abuse the broadband market by clueless Comreg, which is empowered in turn by a government that has no plans for the future of the national telecommunications network.


http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5291068/how-netflix-won-ces-4k-streaming

Two monopolists? Surely you can have only one monopoly? If you are referring to UPC they don't even have a presence in most counties.

Netflix and the like are not TV stations. I don't see how the thousands of real TV stations around the world can fill their 24/7 broadcasts with 4K content. Regardless of how they are delivered to the audience. In fact a trend I have noticed on the news channels is the increase in Skype and camera phone reportage. Like the recent footage of foolish people getting swept into the ocean. The quality is obviously very ropey but it's all about filling up airtime with something new.

Satellite providers obviously don't think that the internet is the only way to go for 4K. Otherwise why would they be testing the system now? And they can cover all parts of territories including the vast swathes which can't get fibre or cable. There are tests on 4 different satellites that I am aware of.

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2013/01/07/eutelsat-launches-europes-first-4k-channel/

watty

Impetus wrote: »

Most of the replies to this thread show that people can't see beyond today or tomorrow. When planning infrastructure systems, one has to think 10 and 20 years ahead. Time moves quickly. Infrastructure takes time to install.

When colour televisions came out first, they were slow to take off, until people saw the benefit of colour, usually by watching TV in a neighbour's house or hotel etc. Who want's a B&W TV today?

The same will happen with 4K and 8K.

Yes, you have to plan ahead. If there is a market for 4K (or higher frame rate which is far better), then selling off Terrestrial TV spectrum for once off Licence income was short sighted. Maybe in 10 to 20 years time Internet might be able to do SD TV or highly compressed HD for everyone. But it will be far more expensive than Broadcast for Viewer.

Internet based Video is killing Physical Video Rental. But it simply isn't a viable replacement for Satellite, Cable TV and Terrestrial TV, it will always be more expensive that those to deliver and inflexible on location. Internet based video is part of Pay TV / Rental model. A PVR that can record ALL your FTA programs for the last rolling two weeks (with option to mark Keep) is more viable and cheaper than Mainstream IPTV to replace Broadcast. With increasing disk capacity and disk cost that is possible now. Such PVRs have been demonstrated. PVRs in the Cloud again are a TV rental / Pay TV model and are poorer quality and higher cost for users.


Also even for 56" TV for over 80% of people in an average room you can't see the difference between 2K and decent 1080 HD. It's not comparable to B&W vs Colour. Even Digital TV is only better than good Analogue Colour or DVD if it is good content, made for Widescreen without worrying about 4:3 safe area and made for and in HD without worrying about SD.

That's before we even consider how quickly Cinema will remaster or do new releases in 4K for the Home.

BluRay / BD isn't a failure. Early days vs HD TV penetration.
MP3 can be good or bad.

Broadcast Digital Radio though is a failure, and not because of DAB. FM (ease of use, Quality, power, coverage) and even AM (ease of use, power, coverage) is better. The Niche stations on DAB are better served by your own MP3 list (a phone can now carry the average person's entire collection) or by On Demand/Streaming. More than 2% audience share stations better served by AM/FM. In the UK most DAB sets with FM are used for FM. DAB listening has fallen. VHF-FM is 61% and rising.

I used to be a strong supporter of Digital Radio (Digital TV does work). But the very concept of Digital Radio is flawed because Radio has never been used the same way as Video or TV.

On demand mostly gives you what you already know. Broadcast opens your mind wider and provides more fresh ideas than any other medium, especially Radio as you can "do" radio while Driving, Working, Cooking, Hobby, Cleaning etc.
We do need fibre to every premises. But arguing 4K is driver or killer application is daft and illustrates total ignorance about costing to user of IPTV, superfast broadband, 4K content and likely adoption of 84" and larger TVs.

Likely for next 10 years 4K will be only premium pay per view and premium cinema on Satellite. No ISP is going to invest in the infrastructure needed to replace Free To Air Terrestrial and Satellite, ever. Any terrestrial Fibre or cable based On Demand products will require premium priced Broadband product. It's for people with more money than sense.

ED E

watty wrote: »

Real IPTV needs a different stream for every TV you have watched simultaneously. It won't ever be free either.

Are you classing "Real IPTV" as VOD vs multicast broadcast?

bealtine

TV is dead in my opinion...so arguing about distribution or quality is pretty pointless. What's the point of 30 channels all broadcasting "X county has talent" all day long? I long for the day when tv had real content:)

Impetus

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Two monopolists? Surely you can have only one monopoly? If you are referring to UPC they don't even have a presence in most counties.

If UPC does not have a presence in a county it is are not in that market. Call it a bi-nopoly where both operate.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Netflix and the like are not TV stations. I don't see how the thousands of real TV stations around the world can fill their 24/7 broadcasts with 4K content. Regardless of how they are delivered to the audience. In fact a trend I have noticed on the news channels is the increase in Skype and camera phone reportage. Like the recent footage of foolish people getting swept into the ocean. The quality is obviously very ropey but it's all about filling up airtime with something new.

Nobody is suggesting all 4k transmissions will be 24/7. Simply that the infrastructure is engineered to accommodate this option for the programme providers to reach their customer base. Or more importantly that the technology is not engineered in a neglectful manner which makes no provision for the next iteration of technology. Trends are moving to an “on demand” provision of service and entertainment.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Satellite providers obviously don't think that the internet is the only way to go for 4K. Otherwise why would they be testing the system now? And they can cover all parts of territories including the vast swathes which can't get fibre or cable. There are tests on 4 different satellites that I am aware of.

Satellite has many limitations - the customer needs south facing rights to install a parabolic antenna, it is not really two-way, latency, etc. There are no “vast swathes” that can’t potentially receive fibre if a single shared national FTTP network is put in place. 4k is only an example. There are a zillion applications now and will be in the future that need to be able to transport bits, in both directions, between a service provider and the customer. While some applications may need only a low bitrate (eg many M2M* applications) other will require massive bitrates - eg holographic imaging (eg real 3D “tv” that takes over one’s viewing experience). The pipe has to be big enough to take everything in its stride, and open enough to allow entrepreneurs to try out new things.

Most economic growth today is focused on one of four areas. 1) Premium goods and services - aspirational goods and services and toys for rich people - many of which will be delivered, promoted and operated electronically, 2) All forms of technology, including biotech, 3) Cloudization - selling, servicing and delivering content and entertainment over the net - making the DVD/BluRay/CD/in store software/music/ dead tree purchase obsolete etc and 4) clean energy (which requires intelligent metering and control systems on a door to door / wind turbine farm etc basis).

Unfortunately Ireland’s education “system” which appears to have been designed by deadwood has not got the message across.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_to_machine

Impetus

bealtine wrote: »

TV is dead in my opinion...so arguing about distribution or quality is pretty pointless. What's the point of 30 channels all broadcasting "X county has talent" all day long? I long for the day when tv had real content:)

Old fashioned TV, wait for the news at 18h01 is dead.

Getting the content you are interested in, when you are in need of same, is very much alive. I'm advocating a platform that allows that on demand stuff to be delivered to you in mind blowing quality. Look at youtube videos made when the company first started - rubbish quality by today's standards.

bealtine

Impetus wrote: »

Old fashioned TV, wait for the news at 18h01 is dead.

Getting the content you are interested in, when you are in need of same, is very much alive. I'm advocating a platform that allows that on demand stuff to be delivered to you in mind blowing quality. Look at youtube videos made when the company first started - rubbish quality by today's standards.

I disagree:) I find the "content" to be crap and useless but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one....for instance UPC have been falling over themselves to try sell me their premium package but I'm really not interested in wall to wall friends repeats in HD...

However, having said that, the growth of **** content will drive the need for good broadband and here I agree with watty what we have currently just isn't good enough (except for maybe UPC). So now while we are considering what's the right thing to do for the future we should be planning for FTTH in the vast majority of the country (except for a few isolated valleys or remote islands perhaps) but we all know we'll get some crap mobile solution

Impetus

bealtine wrote: »

I disagree:) I find the "content" to be crap and useless but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one....for instance UPC have been falling over themselves to try sell me their premium package but I'm really not interested in wall to wall friends repeats in HD...

However, having said that, the growth of **** content will drive the need for good broadband and here I agree with watty what we have currently just isn't good enough (except for maybe UPC). So now while we are considering what's the right thing to do for the future we should be planning for FTTH in the vast majority of the country (except for a few isolated valleys or remote islands perhaps) but we all know we'll get some crap mobile solution

The problem with "content" at the moment is that the customer is being stuffed with monopoly product deals. The customer can't just buy/view what they are interested in. Cable companies such as UPC are big into selling packages of content, much of which is rubbish.

If you go into a FNAC store in France, Spain etc, and are interested in architecture or horses or whatever specialty, one will find dozens of beautifully produced books of the highest print and production quality on one's topic of interest. ` You only have to buy the book you are interested in, and nobody will force you to "upgrade" to taking some "package". This is because the book production and retailing industry in France is highly competitive. One of the problems with cable TV is the monopoly factor. It tends to keep quality and intelligent thought out of the marketplace.

There is no reason why one shouldn't have access to a 4k "youtube" with content on demand, some of which is free, some of which is payable or subscribable to. To view same at the moment one might have to connect one's PC using HDMI 2 to one's TV, but by the time the ink is dry on this, most manufacturers will be offering 4K TVs with 4K quality IP TV from which one can pick and chose using the remote control. All you will need is a high quality fibre connection to the house.

watty

Impetus wrote: »

There is no reason why one shouldn't have access to a 4k "youtube" with content on demand,

Did you read what I wrote? Even if Google provided the content free a Broadband able to deliver 4K would be much more expensive than Sky or UPC. If such Broadband was available to more than a tiny number of people.

It's delusional, wishful thinking or marketing for 4K tellies. Also pointless unless you want to watch an 84" TV from less than 2m distance.

I don't make this stuff up. I have worked at senior level in an ISP on R&D for IPTV. I have worked in Broadcasting and Video industry as an Engineer. I can do the sums.

ED E

Impetus I have to say across all your posts you seem to really have it out for the Irish market. Twice Ive seen your "google maps loads faster in europe"(Data centres are probably in france, that'd help) and you're needlessly specifying bookstores on the continent when easons work on just the same principle, you buy what you want. The bundling problem isnt a uniquely irish thing.

Time Warner and co in America have been refusing a la cart TV subs forever. Why? Because you buying the 4 channels you like doesnt pay to keep the infrastructure maintained nevermind upgraded. They need you to take 50 channels worth to turn a profit, and if they charged the same for a pick your own of just a few there'd be uproar. Add to that the increased admin of everyone having their own package and its just not in their interest to do it.

The big problem with cable is the TV networks own it. We need separation of ISPs and content distributors. Otherwise they'll always prioritize their own services vs an open pipe that allows any content. When netflix gets a little bigger it will, combined with YT, be a tv replacement for many. For some it already is. That takes any cable companies Tv and Internet sub and reduces it just to the internet sub, half or less. This is something they're really afraid of.

Next issue is the cost of FTTH/FTTP. Having that kind of homogeneous pipe to carry all content to every house is ideal, but that fact is to do that in the short to medium term is gonna cost an arm and a leg. That would fall to subscribers and John Doe likes his Sky sports 1 and 2 and Dave and doesnt give a rats arse about paying a chunk more for a FTTH connection. And even if he did, the likes of Sky and HBO wont licence all their content to a VOD provider.

NIMAN

bealtine wrote: »

TV is dead in my opinion...so arguing about distribution or quality is pretty pointless. What's the point of 30 channels all broadcasting "X county has talent" all day long? I long for the day when tv had real content:)

I am tending towards this train of thought too, bit like Springsteens song "57 channels with nothing on" (except its more like 300 channels now).

Rubbish TV in HD or SuperHD/4K is still rubbish. Crystal clear pictures ain't going to make me watch any more TV if the content isn't there.

jmcc

Impetus wrote: »

Most of the replies to this thread show that people can't see beyond today or tomorrow.

First year media studies student?

When planning infrastructure systems, one has to think 10 and 20 years ahead.

Right. And just what do you know about planning infrastructure or systems? It is easy to make these generalisations when no specific infrastructure or system is under examination.

When colour televisions came out first, they were slow to take off, until people saw the benefit of colour, usually by watching TV in a neighbour's house or hotel etc. Who want's a B&W TV today?

Wrong. It was when the falling prices of colour televisions made them affordable to a mass market that more people bought them or rented them (There was a time when televisions were actually rented but you may not know this.) Initially only a few programmes would be broadcast in colour but gradually it became a standard. However colour television programmes could generally be watched in black and white on a B&W TV. Colour TV was effectively backwards compatible.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

Impetus wrote: »

If you go into a FNAC store in France, Spain etc, and are interested in architecture or horses or whatever specialty, one will find dozens of beautifully produced books of the highest print and production quality on one's topic of interest.

So you've been to a book shop in France or Spain. One marvels at the cosmopolitan nature of such people. But then Amazon is even better.

You only have to buy the book you are interested in, and nobody will force you to "upgrade" to taking some "package".

Actually bookshops, even French and Spanish ones always try to get people to buy more than they had planned. The layouts of the more successful ones are carefully designed to draw customers into areas where they will be hooked with supposedly discounted books and special offers. But then you probably didn't know this. Don't forget that skinny latte - another little upsell for the people who don't realise what is happening.

This is because the book production and retailing industry in France is highly competitive.

Another industry about which you don't know much? The publishing industry (that's how people in the business generally refer to it) is always competitive. France is not unique in this respect. Besides very few people in the English speaking world care about France and its books. We have access to Irish books (published in English), British books (published in English), American books (published in English), Canadian books (published in English), Australian books (published in English), New Zealand books (published in English). So the French language book market is really a a small one globally consisting of France, a few little EU countries, Canadian French market and some colonies/ex-colonies.

One of the problems with cable TV is the monopoly factor. It tends to keep quality and intelligent thought out of the marketplace.

Rubbish! Cable TV is not a monopoly in Ireland or France. There are alternative suppliers (Satellite TV/FTA/DTT).

Now to expand your simplistic "book production" idea, the "books" on television channels are not the channels themselves but rather the programmes. The programmes change with each season and sometimes more often. There are also long-lived programmes such as soap operas and serials. There's even the equivalent of daily newspapers - news programmes.

All you will need is a high quality fibre connection to the house.

That would be nice. The problem for most cable TV subscribers, and others, is that it does not exist yet.

Regards...jmcc

Impetus

ED E wrote: »

Impetus I have to say across all your posts you seem to really have it out for the Irish market. Twice Ive seen your "google maps loads faster in europe"(Data centres are probably in france, that'd help) and you're needlessly specifying bookstores on the continent when easons work on just the same principle, you buy what you want. The bundling problem isnt a uniquely irish thing.

Time Warner and co in America have been refusing a la cart TV subs forever. Why? Because you buying the 4 channels you like doesnt pay to keep the infrastructure maintained nevermind upgraded. They need you to take 50 channels worth to turn a profit, and if they charged the same for a pick your own of just a few there'd be uproar. Add to that the increased admin of everyone having their own package and its just not in their interest to do it.

The big problem with cable is the TV networks own it. We need separation of ISPs and content distributors. Otherwise they'll always prioritize their own services vs an open pipe that allows any content. When netflix gets a little bigger it will, combined with YT, be a tv replacement for many. For some it already is. That takes any cable companies Tv and Internet sub and reduces it just to the internet sub, half or less. This is something they're really afraid of.

Next issue is the cost of FTTH/FTTP. Having that kind of homogeneous pipe to carry all content to every house is ideal, but that fact is to do that in the short to medium term is gonna cost an arm and a leg. That would fall to subscribers and John Doe likes his Sky sports 1 and 2 and Dave and doesn't give a rats arse about paying a chunk more for a FTTH connection. And even if he did, the likes of Sky and HBO wont licence all their content to a VOD provider.

Bundling is not a uniquely Irish problem. It is a big issue in the US and the reason why people are leaving traditional cable TV in droves. Bundles especially apply to old fashioned TV where programmes are broadcast at specific times. Out of date, in terms of planning a broadband network for the next 10 to 20 years.

Look at the trend in the Netflix share price - http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NFLX+Interactive#symbol=nflx;range=2y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined; The writing is on the wall. The netflix model could be used by RTE and their "competitors".

I'm not trying to force 100% of the population to buy-in to FTTP. No cable TV operator does this. I am talking about 99% of houses and businesses having access to a single FTTP network. A shared network that allows the end user to opt for offerings from eircom, UPC, Magnet, and anyone else who cares to enter the market. The more houses a network "passes by", the greater the number of users. The more companies selling services delivered over a shared network, the greater the use of that network.

Having multiple infrastructures in a country is a gross waste of money - DSL, PSTN, ISDN, cable and some fibre. A waste in terms of installation, keeping the infrastructure up to date, fixing damage, etc. In the same way that having multiple competing roads would be stupid.

bmwguy

I agree with most of what is here, for example my home entertainment setup is as follows:

50" TV Sony Bravia (old model but capable of HD)
XBOX 360 as a media player. Use this for Netflix, Youtube, RTE player, playing downloads via USB and it even has internet explorer. I also have the password for my parents Sky so I use the Sky go app if and when I want to watch something on TV (very rarely, just watch rugby on sky sports sometimes). In addition I connect my android tablet to TV sometimes to watch online stuff.

I have no TV subscription, I cancelled my UPC because I never watched it. Everything comes in via broadband and I never have a problem with it. Maybe I couldnt handle stuff that is coming down the line with my current setup but I'm sure I will upgrade if I have to. One thing for sure is I am not subscribing to UPC or SKY again as I dont see any benefit to it. Soon SKY will offer online only subscriptions instead of sky boxes and dishes but maybe infrastructure needs to be upgraded before this is preferred way of subscribing

ED E

Impetus wrote: »

Having multiple infrastructures in a country is a gross waste of money - DSL, PSTN, ISDN, cable and some fibre. A waste in terms of installation, keeping the infrastructure up to date, fixing damage, etc. In the same way that having multiple competing roads would be stupid.

PSTN, DSL and ISDN are essentially the same infrastructure. Cable owns UTP but it wasnt an option when most of the UTP went in back in P&T days. Fibre is currently a backhaul only solution and fills a different role and so isnt competing. Its the motorway and everything else is local roads or "last mile" as they say in the industry.

TBH you're totally in dream land. What would be best would be a municipal fibre network, to the cab if possible. Is ireland capable of such? Not a hope. The council cant fix potholes nevermind maintain a national network. Semi states have shown time and time again they dont work. And the money isnt there.

VDSL is currently a very good solution. It gets FTTC and the local hubs to support such. It'll bring most people from a speed in the 8Mb range to somewhere about 40 or more. Obviously that still limits VOD services, but its a very good step in the right direction. 3-4 years from now when eircom have VDSL with vectoring done across the country and have started to pay back some of the investment it will be possible for them to begin running FTTH from those same cabs.

jmcc

Impetus wrote: »

Bundling is not a uniquely Irish problem. It is a big issue in the US and the reason why people are leaving traditional cable TV in droves.

The US cable TV market has competition from satellite TV. There is always a certain amount of churn between the two. The US market is also quite a large one and one where cable television emerged because, initially TV reception in areas outside of cities was poor. Encryption/scrambling came along later due to people not paying. (But that's a different thing and probably well outside your level of expertise or knowledge.) However C-Band satellite TV (BUDs) began to compete with cable TV in the early 1980s and by the mid 1980s, it was scrambled too. But by the late 1990s, digital TV was making inroads with smaller dishes (DirecTv etc) and more programming.

Bundles especially apply to old fashioned TV where programmes are broadcast at specific times. Out of date, in terms of planning a broadband network for the next 10 to 20 years.

Bundles are what sell best to the most. It is that simple.

Look at the trend in the Netflix share price - http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NFLX+Interactive#symbol=nflx;range=2y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

So now you are comparing a publically floated company that is operating in multiple markets (not just the US or Ireland) with simple cable television companies? Kind of ignores the other content over IP companies such as Amazon.

The writing is on the wall. The netflix model could be used by RTE and their "competitors".

Really? The fact that the infrastructure in many areas isn't able to support >10Mb broadband might have an effect. Then there are the nasty real-world elements of backhauls, contention and consumer technology. All that great technology and programming isn't worth a thing if it can't be delivered to the subscriber and cannot be consumed by the subscriber.

I'm not trying to force 100% of the population to buy-in to FTTP.

I'm sure they are grateful to you. But they probably don't even know what the acronym stands for and have probably no knowledge of your existence either.

No cable TV operator does this.

Such developments require planning and finance. And they generally occur when competition in a market is highest.

I am talking about 99% of houses and businesses having access to a single FTTP network.

Sounds a bit communist. But then the market isn't communist.

A shared network that allows the end user to opt for offerings from eircom, UPC, Magnet, and anyone else who cares to enter the market.

A shared network that would have to cover the entire country and even MMDS and Saorview areas where the return on investment would not be enough to cover expenditure. There's the catch. Most countries are not flat, featureless plains where one technological solution can provide all the access requirements of its population.

The more houses a network "passes by", the greater the number of users.

The greater the number of potential users. That's different to the number of actual users.

The more companies selling services delivered over a shared network, the greater the use of that network.

And the other element of that is that you have not considered the gatekeeper function of the network operator. It decides who gets carriage on the network and how much they pay. What happens to those companies such as UPC that have built their own networks and have significant market shares? How do they fare in your brave new communist world?

Having multiple infrastructures in a country is a gross waste of money - DSL, PSTN, ISDN, cable and some fibre.

ISDN is quite rare these days. I got rid of my ISDN connection a few years ago and many businesses moved to broadband where available. However much of those systems are conceptually "last mile" rather than backbone. There is a considerable reuse and sharing of networks in Ireland. In any market (even the US or at a stretch, the French market) there are multiple networks and multiple options. Otherwise there would be a monopoly and no force (competition) for development and innovation. Indeed most initial European networks emerged from the state monopoly telcos but it was competition that reduced costs for consumers/subscribers and speeded up innovation.

A waste in terms of installation, keeping the infrastructure up to date, fixing damage, etc.

Well that's the way it is in the real world. There is competition and equipment to be repaired and upgraded.

In the same way that having multiple competing roads would be stupid.

Toll bridges do exist.

Regards...jmcc

Zardoz

NIMAN wrote: »

As for people wanting 50in+ TVs in your living room, well I know I don't. I have always been into home cinema and my gadgets and all, but most people in Ireland/UK do not have big enough living rooms to cope with 50in TVs.

I used to think that too ,but not anymore.
When I first got my 50 inch tv it looked huge but after a few weeks I got used to it and now it doesn't look big anymore.
Once you get a big tv there is no going back to a small one ,even a 32 inch tv looks tiny now.

murphaph

I think the internet will take over TV distribution but I don't think it'll have to wait for FTTH to do it. I'm not able to receive traditional TV broadcasts in English where we are, so I use streaming services for TV. The quality to me is remarkable and I "only" have a 50Mb VDSL connection. I use Zattoo and a Sky TV Now box. I tend to use iPlayer because I want to watch my TV when I want to watch it, not when the broadcaster decides. DSL and cable internet will make further leaps in the coming years that will continue to push back the need for FTTH.

Copyerselveson

watty wrote: »

Internet can't even deliver SD Broadcast TV. Certainly it can replace Video Rental*.

IPTV needs dedicated infrastructure and video servers for each node of the ISP. It's also only really Pay TV (sometimes included in the Broadband charge).

It's complementary to broadcast. The numbers simply don't work if 100% of viewers used it. *Even "Netflix" and similar are only usable on fibre to the node based networks with over 20Mbps.

Real IPTV needs a different stream for every TV you have watched simultaneously. It won't ever be free either.

How does BT TV work then? BT Sport 1 & 2 and ESPN are distributed to their subscribers in 1080i HD. I have watched the streams on a BT Youview box and the picture quality is excellent, comparable with satellite.

I have also watched streams of RTE etc on IPTV boxes. The picture quality is the same as on Saorview.

I believe though I stand to be corrected that these are multicast streams, admittedly to a 20MBps+ connection. But surely these aren't one to one streams?