bk wrote: » Will only work in areas upgraded to FTTH or FTTC. It will probably be IPTV, so that means it will eat into your bandwidth, unlike with UPC. That means for instance, on their 40Mb/s FTTC service, a single HD channel will use about 8 to 10Mb/s. Watch one channel while recording another, it will use 16 to 20Mb/s. That means you could be down to just 20Mb/s of internet bandwidth.
Mongarra wrote: » And they cannot supply me with Broadband on my existing line.
Hibrasil wrote: » Irish Times Business News reports today that Eircom is to spend €100m+ in a fibre based network that will provide faster broadband speeds...plans also to offer TV services via a STB...competing directly with UPC and BSkyB. Anyone who is unhappy with UPC....no real need to get mad (just yet).....lay your plans...to get even UPC. Hurt them where it really counts...in their pockets! And who says competition is "not good"...
Red Alert wrote: » IPTV was tried in Smithfield and Parkwest on new-builds with new wiring and it still failed.
Red Alert wrote: » Look at the threads on Neighbours.ie and you'll see... both of these developments got communal Sky dishes in the end.
Red Alert wrote: » BT in the UK are trying a new TV service that uses multicast IP for some stations, but that needs a pretty big investment in routers and setup. It's still using encrypted DVB-T for the most popular channels.
Tomtata wrote: » Another waste of time - just look at Magnet - They have a number of Fiber to the home estates (I live in one of them) I have 50mb fiber to my house, the TV service which works over the same fiber is terrible, everyone I know in the estate uses Sky or NTL.
Carter P Fly wrote: » This is not true. Telecoms companies that deliver IPTV services elsewhere reserve bandwidth for their TV offerings as a constant data stream must be ensured. In essence you will have two connections running together to your house which come in on the one line and are split at house.
Hibrasil wrote: » And who says competition is "not good"...
bk wrote: » Actually it is true. Unlike most people here, I've actually had two different IPTV services. I live in an apartment with Smart Telecom Fibre To The Premises and IPTV. I've experienced (and helped them test) first their MPEG 2 based IPTV platform, followed by their newer MPEG 4 based platform. The MPEG2 platform was absolutely rubbish. The MPEG 4 was a lot better, but in the end it was still scrapped and replaced by Sky Communal dish service, which is WAY better. Here is a few facts about IPTV: - SD MPEG4 is about 3Mb/s per stream - HD MPEG4 is about 8 - 10Mb/s per stream - For each channel you watch or record, you use a stream. So if you are recording one HD channel while watching another (like Sky+) then you would be using 16 to 20Mb/s of bandwidth. Wife watching a different HD channel in the bedroom, add another 8 to 10Mb/s to the above numbers, understand? As for reserved bandwidth, that is a bad joke. Lets say the total bandwidth of your connection is 50Mb/s, sure they might reserve 30Mb/s for TV service, which means you'll only ever have 20Mb/s for you internet service. With Smart, they, rightfully, didn't "reserve" any bandwidth. I use to get about 13Mb/s from my internet connection, when I switched on the TV box, that internet connection would drop to about 10Mb/s, start recording a channel, it would drop down to 7Mb/s. Sure VDSL2+ has a lot more bandwidth then Smarts ADSL2+, but then people are increasingly expecting and using HD, which uses far more bandwidth then SD. Of course if Eircom gives point to point fibre connections to every house, then they will have plenty of bandwidth capacity. But this would cost about 2 billion euro to do the whole country, so not a chance of that happening. More likely they will use VDSL2+ for individual homes and fibre to the building in apartment buildings which in turn would be distributed by either cat5e or VDSL2+ to each apartment. BTW of course UPC also has theoretical bandwidth limits, but they are actually much higher. Coax cable is a much higher quality cable then telephone cable, a new UPC coax cable is capable of about 800Mhz to 1GHz of radio frequency, which equates to about 5Gb/s of bandwidth!! Of course some of that bandwidth is used for TV services, etc. but this is the reason that UPC can deliver 100Mb/s so easily and will be able to deliver even faster speeds in the future. In other words, don't expect much from this announcement. I wish I was wrong, I'd love to see Eircom offer some competition to UPC, but it is very unlikely. You are much more likely to see improvements in UPC's TV service, with the introduction of VoD, Catch UP TV services, etc.
Carter P Fly wrote: » None of the Irish operators have IPTV implemented in a workable way, which is pretty much why they dont work. I was referring to telcos in other countries and how it is implemented there which I have first hand knowledge of as I was involved in the design and rollout of these systems.
who is this wrote: » Yes please do tell. I'd be fascinated to hear who says that Make no mistake eircom are not the saviours here, UPC are. It is UPC's competition forcing eircom's hand to improve. UPC are in a much better position infrastructure-wise, so to dress it up that they will be forced into extreme competition by eircom is nonsense. The only positive eircom is providing is possibly providing some competition for UPC. Right now they're no match
Carter P Fly wrote: » This is not true. Telecoms companies that deliver IPTV services elsewhere reserve bandwidth for their TV offerings as a constant data stream must be ensured. In essence you will have two connections running together to your house which come in on the one line and are split at house. bk wrote: » Will only work in areas upgraded to FTTH or FTTC. It will probably be IPTV, so that means it will eat into your bandwidth, unlike with UPC. That means for instance, on their 40Mb/s FTTC service, a single HD channel will use about 8 to 10Mb/s. Watch one channel while recording another, it will use 16 to 20Mb/s. That means you could be down to just 20Mb/s of internet bandwidth.
Paxmanwithinfo wrote: » Eircom gave me a box (which I still have + remote incidentally) and then they gave me a number of months testing. (No Sky channels but they did give me Setanta). To be honest it wasn't bad at all - picture quality etc. though the GUI was painfully slow and glitchy when an update was due (sound like UPC I know..) and support was not local. Where it also fell short was not the channels available but the pay per view material available which I know was only for test purposes but "The Presidio" under new releases... but they did have "The Office - Season 2". When asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire at the end I said that I would seriously contemplate signing-up for it but was not attracted to the particular bundles offered.
Elmo wrote: » Upc should use satellite broadband/telephone in mmds areas coupled with its pay mmds service, how many hd services could the put on mmds alone?
bk wrote: » Ideally UPC should use satellite to deliver TV services including HD in rural areas, perhaps using the new k-sat RTE are using for Saorsat and then use the MMDS frequencies to deliver phone and broadband to those people in rural areas. Great idea, but very unlikely to happen.
