1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

CableCARD: TiVo Fights The Good Fight

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by sbiller, Mar 31, 2014.

  1. May 7, 2014 #221 of 280
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    You really have no idea how much spectrum is out there or what would fit in it.

    Again, with multicast, only ONE copy of any given stream is required to be in the air at any given time. It's basically SDV over IP. With LTE and h.264 or even AVC, there is enough room for dozens of streams per tower, which is more than enough to support the number of users who would likely be watching in a given cell.
     
  2. May 7, 2014 #222 of 280
    CrispyCritter

    CrispyCritter Purple Ribbon Wearer

    3,646
    0
    Feb 28, 2001
    North...
    Assuming everybody is watching it live. Otherwise, there is no sharing of the stream. I don't see people giving up the ability to get instant gratification from their streams; they'll want their own copy.
     
  3. May 7, 2014 #223 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Just an example of the things coming down the road: As of early March Dish Network controls wireless spectrum from 1.9 to 2.2 GHz. Some of this was originally earmarked for satellite telephone use, but Dish has already won approval from the FCC to use this spectrum to deploy a wireless broadband network for both home and mobile connectivity. They have spent over $5 billion to acquire wireless spectrum over the past 6 or 7 years.

    Meanwhile, a company called Artemis is deploying a new broadcasting system called pCell, which will deliver the full bandwith of each cell to EVERY user (pCell stands for 'personal Cell'). Artemis is patnering with Dish Network to deploy pCell on their spectrum, but there is no technical reason pCell technology could not also be used on current cellular frequencies.

    Bottom line, totally wireless broadband that can compete with current wired connections in terms of bandwidth and reliability is coming. Dish Network, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are all trying to position themselves for that reality.
     
  4. May 7, 2014 #224 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
  5. May 7, 2014 #225 of 280
    jwbelcher

    jwbelcher New Member

    489
    0
    Nov 13, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    Agreed, multicast is only a short-term solution that will be obsoleted by the overwhelming demand for instant gratification.

    This is why I feel like linear satellite is also at a disadvantage. While I can't say they'll die-out, and definitely not anytime soon, but as things become more on-demand, they'll have issues that land-line and cellular networks don't worry about. Perhaps AT&T is looking to re-purpose DTV's spectrum in the long run...
     
  6. May 7, 2014 #226 of 280
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,417
    3
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    It is not going to even be possible for the forseeable future to deliver video over wireless at any scale. Maybe Netflix and other supplemental streaming via WiSPs in very rural areas that have a low user density, but in suburbs or cities, forget about it.

    Sprint has by far the most spectrum of any of the wireless providers, and even if they load all of their spectrum full of LTE, you're looking at a few hundred mbps per sector. Cable carries 5.1gbps, and can re-use the VOD and DOCSIS bandwidth on a node basis.

    I understand how multicast works. The only multicast system working at scale today is U-Verse, which is doing the multicast over fiber, with 4 or fewer HD streams going over copper to the individual user. U-Verse only has 20-100mbps per user, but that's dedicated to that user, and it's not shared until it's on a much faster fiber line.

    Discounting the fact that the spectrum currently deployed with LTE is being used for mobile applications, and even looking at Sprint's massive amount of spectrum, you'd be lucky to get a couple of dozen multicast streams in reliably. So we're going to have a few dozen TV channels? Maybe for a mobile service for $5-$10/mo there could be a few channels. Definitely not for home use.

    That's for wireless internet, not TV. Look at Comcast's system. On an 8x4 DOCSIS 3 system, for downstream, they have 48mhz for data, and close to 800mhz for video. Sure, DISH might be able to compete for home internet, but they are not going to be delivering video over LTE. Plus, they are a satellite company, so they are going to deliver video over a regular DBS dish. That's kind of the point, they are getting squeezed by Comcast and other monopoly broadband providers, so if they can come in and have a halfway decent internet service, they can do triple play to compete with the AT&Ts, Verizons, and Comcasts.

    I say *might* here, because it's at least a few years off for DISH to be able to use wireless to be able to compete with a DOCSIS 3 or GPON network for internet access. I think they are trying to price compete for lighter internet users more than truly match the capabilities that Verizon and Comcast have, as well as serve underserved markets where they can some in and grab a huge market share quickly, and become an internet provider to offer bundles and squeeze DirecTV. I see it being successful for people who have no good terrestrial options now, but I don't see it competing with Comcast or Verizon.
     
  7. May 7, 2014 #227 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Did you even bother to look at the Artemis website? Did you read about or watch the video of the demo they did at Columbia (where they delivered 5 different 1080p streams to 5 different devices in the same room over a single channel)? When you can deliver 40MHz of private radio spectrum to every device in a cell, which could EASILY translate into 100 Mbits per second of data throughput, I think you can push anything you want over the connection. While you could have a single pCell client per household, the technology would support each and every device to be a client, delivering 100 Mbits/second to each of them. This being deployed in San Francisco right now...so I guess your idea of "forseeable future" might need some revision. LTE is hardly the last word in wireless.
     
  8. May 7, 2014 #228 of 280
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Satellite actually has an advantage, at least when it comes to non-mobile use. It has extremely high bandwidth. Tens to hundreds of megabits of capacity across the spectrum of satellites and bands in use and about to come into use. They are not very useful for internet service due to latency and poor solutions for return path, but imagine being able to download an entire TV show in seconds. When the day comes that basically all TV is VOD, all DirecTV or Dish have to do is push down shows you've previously "subscribed" to down to your box the instant they're made available. If there's something you want to watch, request it, and it'll be pushed down in seconds.

    If "live" TV goes away to any major extent, satellite is uniquely in a position to fill in high bandwidth, latency doesn't matter niches.
     
  9. May 7, 2014 #229 of 280
    aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    19,155
    19
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    That's a pretty high frequency. It won't penetrate buildings very well. That is what I like about the 700Mhz(or is it 800Mhz?) that Verizon uses for their LTE. I can get a signal just about everywhere. Even when several levels below ground in a building without cellular reinforcement. But with their voice at 1700Mhz or 1900Mhz, I can't get squat in many of those places.
     
  10. May 7, 2014 #230 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    One of design goals is to place the (very small) transmitters close together. That will improve improve indoor reception.
     
  11. May 7, 2014 #231 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Oh...and there's also LTE-Advanced, which is backwards compatible with regular LTE and has been delivering 200 to 300 Mbits/second where it has been deployed.
     
  12. May 7, 2014 #232 of 280
    jwbelcher

    jwbelcher New Member

    489
    0
    Nov 13, 2007
    Orlando, FL
    From a bandwidth perspective, absolutely, but the interactive aspects of on-demand seem to be the issue; things like FF and REW, even Netflix could do better here. Maybe if they can give you the full program locally, like you stated, and not pace delivery, they'll overcome the interactive latency issues with the uplink.
     
  13. May 7, 2014 #233 of 280
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Right, that's what I'm getting at. Hard drives are cheap. It's easy to push down a file that is a gigabyte or so in just a few seconds. In the time it takes a normal VOD to "load" and buffer from the cable company, satellite could push the entire thing and buffer it on the hard drive of your set top box.

    Combine that kind of download bandwidth with LTE modems in every box for guaranteed return path lower latency interactivity and you can see why AT&T might be interested in DirecTV.
     
  14. May 8, 2014 #234 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    DirecTV already pushes PPV titles to their DVRs (an average of 10 or so at any given time). The problem with satellite delivery is that it works fine for linear content, but that bandwidth has to serve the entire country, versus a cable system whose bandwidth only has to serve the local community. There isn't enough bandwidth available to provide every satellite customer with even 1 Mbit/second of dedicated bandwidth. Spot beams help (and the Hughes Spaceway system was designed to use spotbeams to deliver satellite broadband), but the cost of launching satellites to deliver dozens of transponder channels in enough spots to cover the country would be prohibitive. This is what ultimately lead to Spaceway being abandoned and the Spaceway satellites being repurposed for linear video delivery by DirecTV.

    What is very likely is that Dish Network will use their satellite network as a "backhaul" to deliver linear video content to the pCell transmitters.
     
  15. May 8, 2014 #235 of 280
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    One day there will be very little "linear" television. This will also be coupled with vast areas of the country still lacking decent broadband connections.

    Shows will still be released on a schedule, and some will still be released over a period of time instead of an entire season at once. So, popular shows could be pre-loaded to everyone's DVR like they do with PPV now. Or, you could basically subscribe, like a season pass works now, but instead of recording it's just downloaded when it becomes available. Finally, since you're not broadcasting it for viewing, and the width of the pipe is massive, then you could send an entire 1 hour show in a few minutes/seconds. Then you can couple that with spotbeams and other techniques and I think you could build a very useable VOD-style video service using satellite infrastructure.

    Sure, PCells and other mobile technologies will play a role, but not everyone will get covered by that. Literally everyone in the country (yes, I know trees and other line of sight issues) are covered by satellite technology.
     
  16. May 8, 2014 #236 of 280
    Bigg

    Bigg Active Member

    5,417
    3
    Oct 30, 2003
    Hartford-...
    WOW. 5 channels! That's an entire 4% of the way to Comcast's HD lineup, which isn't even that good.

    You're in la-la land. The concept of putting wireless transmitters on every corner of everywhere is ridiculous. It might work in a few very dense urban areas, but outside of that, forget about it. Even AT&T and Verizon are nowhere near that point for mobile data. And TV takes orders of magnitude more bandwidth than mobile data.

    Wireless is already serving low-density rural areas with internet that's better than DSL in many cases, but it just can't scale up to where cable and FIOS are for now. Even an intensive effort to provide better wireless internet service might equal some of the slower cable packages, with video coming in through traditional DBS. Delivering linear video over a wireless data connection to the home is absurd.

    Linear TV is not going away anytime soon, even though some viewing is shifting towards VOD. Some VOD could be made available that way, but even with a lot of recording to the VOD library and several TB of VOD storage, well in excess of anything currently out there, you still wouldn't have more than a small fraction of the content that's available on a cable or IP-based VOD system.

    I think TiVo invented that. In 1999. It's called a season pass. I already use that model of "available at XYZ time" by "download" for most of my TV viewing with Comcast and TiVo.
     
  17. May 9, 2014 #237 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    Again, let's agree to revisit this thread in 5 years and we'll see who is right about the growth of wireless broadband and video delivery over it.
     
  18. May 9, 2014 #238 of 280
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    Except you're not downloading, you're recording. What I'm talking about is suppose FX made the next episode of "The Americans" available on VOD for instant viewing at 9pm every Wednesday instead of airing it on a linear broadcast for an hour at 9pm on Wednesday. So, instead of sitting there for an hour capturing 10mbps of MPEG-4, your DVR would download the entire episode at hundreds of megabits per second in just a few seconds. Functionally, to the customer, it would work the same, but the entire episode would be on your DVR before the first commercial break would normally have aired.
     
  19. May 9, 2014 #239 of 280
    Diana Collins

    Diana Collins Well-Known Member TCF Club

    2,642
    34
    Aug 21, 2002
    New York...
    I see what you are saying, but only about half of all DirecTV subscribers have DVRs. For the other subscribers you still need linear broadcasts or cloud based DVR/VOD service, which puts you back into a bandwidth crunch.

    The problem with satellite internet is that it is really hard to make a profit doing it. Hughes saw that with the earliest incarnation of their service, which is why when DirecTV was sold, the internet business didn't go along, and why the Spaceway satellites ended up getting used for DirecTV's HD service. HughesNet seems to be doing okay now, but it is the broadband service of last resort. The customers are all widely separated and in rather remote locations. This makes installation and service more expensive, the earth station equipment is expensive (since it must transmit as well as receive) to provide and installation is more complicated.
     
  20. May 9, 2014 #240 of 280
    JosephB

    JosephB Member

    680
    0
    Nov 19, 2010
    Birmingham, AL
    In such a system, everyone would have a DVR. You have to completely ignore how anything in the existing system works, because this would be a completely new service.

    It will probably never come down to doing it that way, especially if AT&T buys them. But, it would make sense in 20 years to see a stand alone satellite service like that.
     

Share This Page