TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-22-2014, 06:39 PM   #181
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
It's wishful thinking at this point. Considering they can't even manage the basic upgrades like all-860mhz plants and MPEG-4 HD, I don't forsee IP for a long, long time. Linear TV also isn't going anywhere.

IPTV is already in use. Just not for linear channels on an HFC system. A universal gateway is a good idea for all providers. But CableCard is going to be around for years and probably decades to come.
If you think CableCard will be around for decades, with an emphasis on more than one decade, you are simply delusional. Multiple, large cable companies have said that they are going to IP. Not that they want to or wish they could or it would be nice, they are doing it. Even TiVo agrees CableCard needs to die. The problem is what do you replace it with that doesn't completely screw customers with retail devices.

I know it's easy to think that cable companies are incompetent and just morons who fell into their jobs and you know more than they do, but things like upgrades to 860mhz (which why you picked that arbitrary number and keep harping on it I have no idea) or MPEG-4 cost money. It's not like the folks who run these things are morons. They often, very often, make decisions that are hostile to their customers but it's not because they don't know what they *should* be doing.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:05 PM   #182
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by nooneuknow View Post
No freaking comment... ...again...
What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
If you think CableCard will be around for decades, with an emphasis on more than one decade, you are simply delusional. Multiple, large cable companies have said that they are going to IP. Not that they want to or wish they could or it would be nice, they are doing it. Even TiVo agrees CableCard needs to die. The problem is what do you replace it with that doesn't completely screw customers with retail devices.
Maybe a cable company somewhere will go IPTV in the next 30 years, but Comcast/TWC isn't. They are going to be running Sci Atlanta and Moto systems for decades. The install base is too big to do anything beyond 860mhz/MPEG-4 and maybe SDV. They have a lot of upgrades yet to do before they even think about IPTV. They need to standardize their whole system on 860mhz, switch HD to MPEG-4, and regionalize/centralize their modulation/distribution a la Verizon with SHEs and VHOs, which are currently a disorganized system of miniature feudal domains that someone shoestringed and bubble-gummed into a national "network". If Comcast wasn't gobbling up TWC, I would add a full Moto conversion to the list, since Comcast is almost all Moto, but TWC is Sci Atlanta, so Comcast's oddball Sci Atlanta systems will fit in nicely with TWC's Sci Atlanta infrastructure.

Quote:
I know it's easy to think that cable companies are incompetent and just morons who fell into their jobs and you know more than they do, but things like upgrades to 860mhz (which why you picked that arbitrary number and keep harping on it I have no idea) or MPEG-4 cost money. It's not like the folks who run these things are morons. They often, very often, make decisions that are hostile to their customers but it's not because they don't know what they *should* be doing.
MPEG-4 is relatively cheap. Most boxes already support it, and the few that don't are already way beyond EOL anyways. 860mhz is big bucks, but it needs to be done. They announced that all systems were getting upgraded, and then halfway through the upgrades, they just gave up. They [Comcast] are a disorganized mess. They are homogenizing their offerings from market to market through sheer brute force, by making the same virtual channel numbers that line up (except for some markets not having enough room for all the channels), instead of actually generating the signal for an entire region at one location like Verizon does. Admittedly, Verizon built their entire QAM plant from scratch in the 2000's, and didn't inherit a bunch of hodge-podge systems from predecessors, but still, Comcast should get their **** together and rebuild what needs to be rebuilt. And instead of actually finishing the upgrades, they have made their website impossible to navigate, so it's really hard to see what channels you or another system actually gets.

860mhz an arbitrary number? Do you have any clue where it came from? It's a 135-channel system. Most analog TV tuners only went to 125 channels, or 800mhz, but with digital systems, most tuned to 860mhz, and later 1ghz. D2 modems can handle up to 860mhz, and a ton of gear was made that specifically handles 860mhz. It's the common upper limit of digital cable systems nationwide, and what Comcast set out to rebuild their entire system to. A number of systems did get rebuilt to 860mhz, then they got lazy and stopped rebuilding. 1ghz is tough to implement, although all D3 modems and every MPEG-4 capable cable box I've ever seen, including TiVo Premiere and Roamio, can handle signals up to 1ghz. Few systems nationwide use 1ghz. Even FIOS's QAM side is spec'ed to either 860mhz or 870mhz.

The bottom line is that Comcast is a lazy incumbent that doesn't follow through, doesn't care, and is willing to just coast along and lose customers because they know that at the end of the day, they are still basically a monopoly, and they can use anti-competitive de-bundling surcharges where they are an ironclad HSI monopoly to make money one way or another. They've gotten a lot better since the 2008-2011 period, when all the systems around here were stuck with an HD channel selection that looked like DirecTV's in 2005, but they've still got quite a way to go. I find it ironic that my local system, one of the systems that Comcast chose not to rebuild, is overbuilt by a local provider that used to be city-owned. When the local overbuilder wakes up from being asleep at the wheel for 10 years and nukes analog, all of the sudden, they will actually have the full capacity of their 860mhz system and can blow Comcast right out of the water. It also makes it basically impossible for Comcast to use anti-competitive de-bundling surcharges to keep market share, as the overbuilder will sell unbundled internet at a far more reasonable price, making DirecTV a more attractive option as well.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:07 PM   #183
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,224
Comcast is pathetic. I would switch to DirecTV in a heartbeat if they had a legitimate TiVo option.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:41 PM   #184
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
What?
Maybe a cable company somewhere will go IPTV in the next 30 years, but Comcast/TWC isn't. They are going to be running Sci Atlanta and Moto systems for decades. The install base is too big to do anything beyond 860mhz/MPEG-4 and maybe SDV. They have a lot of upgrades yet to do before they even think about IPTV. They need to standardize their whole system on 860mhz, switch HD to MPEG-4, and regionalize/centralize their modulation/distribution a la Verizon with SHEs and VHOs, which are currently a disorganized system of miniature feudal domains that someone shoestringed and bubble-gummed into a national "network". If Comcast wasn't gobbling up TWC, I would add a full Moto conversion to the list, since Comcast is almost all Moto, but TWC is Sci Atlanta, so Comcast's oddball Sci Atlanta systems will fit in nicely with TWC's Sci Atlanta infrastructure.
If they have so much work to do and so many upgrades to make and so much infrastructure to rip out and replace, why on EARTH would they ever replace it with the same stuff they just got rid of? Do you not think it would be economical to do the switch to IP now (and by now, I mean, over the next 10 years or so) instead of doing all the crap you just said and then immediately be behind everyone else in the industry and need to rip it out again?

They're in the situation they are now because of 30-50 years of piecemealing systems together and a hodgepodge mess. If they need to go national, with a new platform, why wouldn't they do it with the newest technology, that they have said they are going to do?

Either you're a retired cable exec who is 80 years old or you just have no grasp on the state of technology today.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 05:50 PM   #185
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
MPEG-4 is relatively cheap. Most boxes already support it, and the few that don't are already way beyond EOL anyways.
Don't forget that they also need the encoders. MSOs don't just pass along the signal as-is from the satellite. They have encoders that convert them, both audio and video, to a consumer friendly format. These encoders cost thousands of dollars each. There is also a bunch of other head end equipment for doing overlays, local ad insertion, etc... that would likely also need to be upgraded. It's much more expensive to make the switch then you might think.

SDV by contrast is basically free. It uses the same technology as VOD, so very little equipment needs to be replaced to get it working.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:41 PM   #186
truman861
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Tampa FL
Posts: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
If they have so much work to do and so many upgrades to make and so much infrastructure to rip out and replace, why on EARTH would they ever replace it with the same stuff they just got rid of? Do you not think it would be economical to do the switch to IP now (and by now, I mean, over the next 10 years or so) instead of doing all the crap you just said and then immediately be behind everyone else in the industry and need to rip it out again?

They're in the situation they are now because of 30-50 years of piecemealing systems together and a hodgepodge mess. If they need to go national, with a new platform, why wouldn't they do it with the newest technology, that they have said they are going to do?

Either you're a retired cable exec who is 80 years old or you just have no grasp on the state of technology today.
This is basically what the verizon fios installer explained to me as to why they are no longer expanding the fios market. Basically the ceo doesnt want to dump more money into fios when they will be launching DLNA IP boxes. Makes perfect sense honestly spend the money upgrading customers who dont have fios once to DLNA not twice - fios and then DLNA
truman861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 07:00 AM   #187
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by truman861 View Post
This is basically what the verizon fios installer explained to me as to why they are no longer expanding the fios market. Basically the ceo doesnt want to dump more money into fios when they will be launching DLNA IP boxes. Makes perfect sense honestly spend the money upgrading customers who dont have fios once to DLNA not twice - fios and then DLNA
Well, that doesn't make sense because only half of FiOS is video. The other half is high speed fiber internet, which is exactly what you need for a Video over IP service.

Verizon has stopped rolling out FiOS because they've gotten cheap and burying fiber costs money.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 04:33 PM   #188
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
If they have so much work to do and so many upgrades to make and so much infrastructure to rip out and replace, why on EARTH would they ever replace it with the same stuff they just got rid of? Do you not think it would be economical to do the switch to IP now (and by now, I mean, over the next 10 years or so) instead of doing all the crap you just said and then immediately be behind everyone else in the industry and need to rip it out again?
Once you rebuild a system to 860mhz, you can run whatever over it. Once you centralize the distribution, future switches in technology, whether it's HEVC or IPTV or anything else related to distributing TV becomes a lot easier. Switching Comcast's whole system to IPTV would be a completely nightmare. You'd need almost entirely new STBs for almost all the customers, including all those DTAs they just pushed out. Going MPEG-2 for SDs, MPEG-4 for HDs, and adding D3 channels just makes sense, as the equipment impact for most customers is absolutely nothing. For the few people that still have DCHs and DCTs, they need to be swapped out, but that's orders of magnitude smaller than swapping everyone's equipment out for something that has QAM and IP capabilities. And they still would have to have QAM tuners and CableCards to work during the transition, since there's no way that there's enough bandwidth to run two different systems over one physical cable plant at once.

You seem to have this fantasy that their plan is to switch to IPTV. Guess what? That's not their plan. Their plan is to do NOTHING for the foreseeable future. They think that what they have now is "good enough" and they can continue to coast along, and unfortunately, most of their idiot customers have poorly configured, cheap TVs and don't notice the heavy MPEG-2 macroblocking, or realize how many channels they are missing.

Quote:
They're in the situation they are now because of 30-50 years of piecemealing systems together and a hodgepodge mess. If they need to go national, with a new platform, why wouldn't they do it with the newest technology, that they have said they are going to do?

Either you're a retired cable exec who is 80 years old or you just have no grasp on the state of technology today.
If they were to rebuild today, they'd pretty much build an MPEG-4 version of what Verizon has. QAM is here to stay. No one has yet articulated any benefit to IPTV over QAM for an HFC system, and yet IPTV has massive switching costs that in some markets quite literally amounts to replacing everything except the physical wire in people's houses. Now we'll see if Verizon can make the switch to MPEG-4, they started to, and then they sort of gave up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
Don't forget that they also need the encoders. MSOs don't just pass along the signal as-is from the satellite. They have encoders that convert them, both audio and video, to a consumer friendly format. These encoders cost thousands of dollars each. There is also a bunch of other head end equipment for doing overlays, local ad insertion, etc... that would likely also need to be upgraded. It's much more expensive to make the switch then you might think.

SDV by contrast is basically free. It uses the same technology as VOD, so very little equipment needs to be replaced to get it working.
They compress nationally, so it's relatively easy to do from Comcast's side of things. Maybe if they centralized their equipment, they would have an easier time with some of the ancillary stuff like ad insertion.

In terms of the end user equipment, they could send out a letter, which no one will read, telling people that they need to swap their boxes out, and then to make the transition smooth, go a few QAMs at a time, starting with the least watched channels so that people slowly notice old boxes not getting certain HD channels and get most people who still have the old boxes upgraded over a period of time before doing the major channels. And every time they swap out a QAM, they would have 5 channels of capacity gained for 3 channels lost, netting 2 new channels per QAM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
Verizon has stopped rolling out FiOS because they've gotten cheap and burying fiber costs money.
Exactly. To expand on that further, they are not expanding FIOS because they and their idiotic investors have the attention span of a 2-year-old who is saying "I WANT IT NOW" and they have lost the ability to see an ROI that might be 20 or 30 years long, even though fiber puts them in the dominant position to compete. It's incredible that they have a service that people will check for before moving somewhere, and yet they are refusing to expand it to new markets.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 06:12 PM   #189
telemark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
No one has yet articulated any benefit to IPTV over QAM for an HFC system
Are you arguing there's no advantage to IPTV? IPTV is the end-game. I can agree there's a lot of argument around how, when, what intermediate tech should be adopted to get there, etc. but not adopting IPTV ever, I don't think is defensible.
__________________
Premiere + Logitech Revue
on Comcast-CableCard + OTA
telemark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 07:30 PM   #190
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
Actually, I've articulated the benefit over and over, but I think Bigg thinks it's still 1996.

The bottom line is there are obvious benefits, and the cable companies have said publicly that is the direction they're going. As for us TiVo fans it's important to know how open these systems will be and how they are standardized.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2014, 10:24 PM   #191
jwbelcher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
Are you arguing there's no advantage to IPTV? IPTV is the end-game. I can agree there's a lot of argument around how, when, what intermediate tech should be adopted to get there, etc. but not adopting IPTV ever, I don't think is defensible.
I've read they're able to actually cram more in with channel bonding. Instead of putting 10 digital SD channels or 2 digital HD on a single frequency, they're able to bond across multiple channels and amortize (span) streams across the bonded group. Apparently they're able get greater efficiency that way and can pack more data into the larger virtual pipe.

This is a pretty good presentation (pg 19) that does a better job explaining it.
__________________
Roamio Pro + Minis
TivoHD
Hughes SD-DVR40 (Retired)
Sony SAT-T60 + Turbonet (Retired)
jwbelcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 01:41 PM   #192
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
...Verizon has stopped rolling out FiOS because they've gotten cheap and burying fiber costs money.
They never buried it around here, they strung it between poles (as they did everyplace else I have seen it). Verizon has stopped expanding FiOS because Verizon has decided that Verizon Wirelesss is the future (particularly since they bought out Deutsche Telecom). They may roll out IP based video distribution, but it will be over 4g-LTE (or something even faster) not over fiber.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 02:48 PM   #193
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
As for us TiVo fans it's important to know how open these systems will be and how they are standardized.
This is key. The regulation requires that they use an "open" technology, but if they don't standardize on a single technology then TiVo would be required to support multiple technologies in a single box to maintain national portability.

That's the point of the AllVid/gateway system. It pushes all the MSO specific technology into a single gateway device and then uses a single standard for other devices to be able to talk to the gateway.

At this point it appears that cable companies are leaning toward DLNA CVP-2, which would be great for users unless they figure out a way to force the RUI on all devices, then we're going to have a problem.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 05:00 PM   #194
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
Are you arguing there's no advantage to IPTV? IPTV is the end-game. I can agree there's a lot of argument around how, when, what intermediate tech should be adopted to get there, etc. but not adopting IPTV ever, I don't think is defensible.
So if I'm Comcast, what's my upside to IP? I'm looking at QAM, and QAM works, and it would be billion of dollars more to upgrade to IP than even to build out QAM more with MPEG-4 and 860mhz everywhere, and SDV and all that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwbelcher View Post
I've read they're able to actually cram more in with channel bonding. Instead of putting 10 digital SD channels or 2 digital HD on a single frequency, they're able to bond across multiple channels and amortize (span) streams across the bonded group. Apparently they're able get greater efficiency that way and can pack more data into the larger virtual pipe.

This is a pretty good presentation (pg 19) that does a better job explaining it.
It would help you with SDV, as you'd no longer be limited to a CBR situation per channel, but if you want to run straight linear on QAM, IPTV offers you no advantage. They could easily provide better PQ than today with 5 channels per QAM in MPEG-4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
They never buried it around here, they strung it between poles (as they did everyplace else I have seen it). Verizon has stopped expanding FiOS because Verizon has decided that Verizon Wirelesss is the future (particularly since they bought out Deutsche Telecom). They may roll out IP based video distribution, but it will be over 4g-LTE (or something even faster) not over fiber.
Verizon is the one wildcard, as they could already switch some or all content to IPTV with limited disruption to their equipment. The CEO, like many of their childish investors, has the attention span of a gnat, and can't look forward to a 20- or 30-year ROI for fiber, and thus is putting all the eggs in wireless. However, wireless cannot provide TV services, so it's not really relevant to say that it is instead of FIOS technologically. It's two different things. Even home internet access would be nearly impossible to scale over LTE.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 09:39 AM   #195
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...Verizon is the one wildcard, as they could already switch some or all content to IPTV with limited disruption to their equipment. The CEO, like many of their childish investors, has the attention span of a gnat, and can't look forward to a 20- or 30-year ROI for fiber, and thus is putting all the eggs in wireless. However, wireless cannot provide TV services, so it's not really relevant to say that it is instead of FIOS technologically. It's two different things. Even home internet access would be nearly impossible to scale over LTE.
Tell that to Dish Network, who has been running around buying wireless licenses and partnering with a company that can deliver hundred megabit speeds over wireless and negotiating distribution agreements that include wireless IP based delivery rights. Verizon sees FiOS as not much different from traditional wireline technology. They want to be a wireless company.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 09:47 AM   #196
slowbiscuit
FUBAR
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
They never buried it around here, they strung it between poles (as they did everyplace else I have seen it). Verizon has stopped expanding FiOS because Verizon has decided that Verizon Wirelesss is the future (particularly since they bought out Deutsche Telecom).
Yep, the future where everyone pays out the ass for broadband usage over wireless.
slowbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 12:18 PM   #197
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Tell that to Dish Network, who has been running around buying wireless licenses and partnering with a company that can deliver hundred megabit speeds over wireless and negotiating distribution agreements that include wireless IP based delivery rights. Verizon sees FiOS as not much different from traditional wireline technology. They want to be a wireless company.
That's for low-density rural internet delivery. It won't scale in urban areas, and it certainly won't deliver video.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 06:53 AM   #198
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
That's for low-density rural internet delivery. It won't scale in urban areas, and it certainly won't deliver video.
Why not? LTE can deliver multi-megabit speeds and we are far from maxing out the potential. WiMAX can deliver gigabit speeds.

The future of video entertainment is a much more varied place than what we have today. Viewing is not restricted to big screens but includes portable devices - not just as accessories or add on devices but has primary deliver platforms. There will be fewer and fewer linear broadcasts as well, as more and more content moves to on-demand. If there is one thing the last 10 years have taught us it is that the size of the data pipe is a very temporary obstacle.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 07:51 AM   #199
jwbelcher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Why not? LTE can deliver multi-megabit speeds and we are far from maxing out the potential. WiMAX can deliver gigabit speeds.

The future of video entertainment is a much more varied place than what we have today. Viewing is not restricted to big screens but includes portable devices - not just as accessories or add on devices but has primary deliver platforms. There will be fewer and fewer linear broadcasts as well, as more and more content moves to on-demand. If there is one thing the last 10 years have taught us it is that the size of the data pipe is a very temporary obstacle.
No your right, its called LTE Multicast. Its specifically designed to scale for high density areas. Instead of sending multiple copies, it shares one copy of the data over LTE.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/...wer-house.html

Btw, this is not for on-demand, this would be more akin to linear broadcast, like FiOS, but over LTE.
__________________
Roamio Pro + Minis
TivoHD
Hughes SD-DVR40 (Retired)
Sony SAT-T60 + Turbonet (Retired)

Last edited by jwbelcher : 04-30-2014 at 08:01 AM.
jwbelcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 10:32 AM   #200
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
As long as mobile wireless has draconian usage caps, it will NEVER be a substitute for wireline broadband or current MVPDs.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 11:17 AM   #201
slowbiscuit
FUBAR
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In the ATL
Posts: 2,459
Exactly, and is a point that should always be remembered when folks throw out the 'wireless will solve the HSI competition issue' line (not singling out anyone here). And of course there's the latency issue that makes life crappy for gamers and VOIP users.
slowbiscuit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 11:37 AM   #202
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,333
Well, I suspect that once Verizon is offering subscription video services via wireless, those transmissions will not apply to your mobile data cap. Nor will wireless replace wired internet for some applications, at least in the near to mid term. But ultimately things like latency will be addressed (granted, it will require something new to replace the current GSM & CDMA technologies).
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2014, 08:21 PM   #203
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Why not? LTE can deliver multi-megabit speeds and we are far from maxing out the potential. WiMAX can deliver gigabit speeds.

The future of video entertainment is a much more varied place than what we have today. Viewing is not restricted to big screens but includes portable devices - not just as accessories or add on devices but has primary deliver platforms. There will be fewer and fewer linear broadcasts as well, as more and more content moves to on-demand. If there is one thing the last 10 years have taught us it is that the size of the data pipe is a very temporary obstacle.
That doesn't make any sense. You could make deliver a couple of video streams before you're maxed out. The spectrum just isn't there for that type of use. WiMAX is not delivering gigabit anything. LTE-A probably will in the 2.5 band with enough channels aggregated through CA, but even then, it won't be able to handle high levels of demand.

Linear isn't going anywhere. On Demand is growing and will continue to grow, but it's not going to completely replace linear. Also, those devices are supplementary. They can't replace having a 70" TV or a 100" screen with 7.1 channel surround and the like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwbelcher View Post
No your right, its called LTE Multicast. Its specifically designed to scale for high density areas. Instead of sending multiple copies, it shares one copy of the data over LTE.
That's great for a pair or quartet of video streams at a football game. That doesn't help you to deliver TV to a home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Well, I suspect that once Verizon is offering subscription video services via wireless, those transmissions will not apply to your mobile data cap. Nor will wireless replace wired internet for some applications, at least in the near to mid term. But ultimately things like latency will be addressed (granted, it will require something new to replace the current GSM & CDMA technologies).
The issue is bandwidth. You need wired. I could see LTE providing rural internet access where there's relatively few users, but in any sort of suburban or urban area, forget about it. Wireless networks have been struggling just with smartphone demand for a number of years, and that's with half the data already offloaded to wifi.

If Verizon does a video service over LTE, it will be a mobile-oriented service, and not something that in any way competes with cable TV. However, I still don't see the use case for mobile video more than short clips like through Vine or YouTube. It's just a poor user experience.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 01:00 PM   #204
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
... However, I still don't see the use case for mobile video more than short clips like through Vine or YouTube. It's just a poor user experience.
Let's make a date to come back here in 3 to 5 years and we'll see where mobile video is then.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 01:38 PM   #205
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Let's make a date to come back here in 3 to 5 years and we'll see where mobile video is then.
I think it depends on how you define mobile video.

Do you count tablets or just phones?

Do you count computers? How do you differentiate between laptops and desktops?

And, most importantly, do you include watching at home or just when you're away from home?

A lot of people are probably watching a lot of video on tablets and phones, but probably at home. It's not a clear delineation, and the delivery of the video differs where you are when you watch it.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 01:42 PM   #206
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephB View Post
I think it depends on how you define mobile video.

Do you count tablets or just phones?

Do you count computers? How do you differentiate between laptops and desktops?

And, most importantly, do you include watching at home or just when you're away from home?

A lot of people are probably watching a lot of video on tablets and phones, but probably at home. It's not a clear delineation, and the delivery of the video differs where you are when you watch it.
I define "mobile video" not by the type of device being used but rather the network being used. If you are receiving the video content over a "mobile network" (i.e. cellular network, though I suppose satellite might also qualify) then that is "mobile video". If you are receiving the content over a fixed-line network (even if the last few feet is over wifi) then that is not "mobile video".
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 02:07 PM   #207
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelblue32 View Post
I define "mobile video" not by the type of device being used but rather the network being used. If you are receiving the video content over a "mobile network" (i.e. cellular network, though I suppose satellite might also qualify) then that is "mobile video". If you are receiving the content over a fixed-line network (even if the last few feet is over wifi) then that is not "mobile video".
If I watch a video on the wifi at the airport on my phone while waiting for my plane, that's not mobile video?

There's a sliding scale, and eventually there won't be any difference. When the cable companies go all-IP, it will all come from the same place and be delivered by the same devices and applications (which, unfortunately, I doubt will include TiVo in its current form)
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 02:48 PM   #208
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,333
Personally, I would classify anything that doesn't pass through another, user owned, gateway device before going wireless as "mobile" for the purposes of this discussion. Or, put another way, if the wireless signal is coming from a 3rd party provider (whether that's LTE, public WiFi or something else) that qualifies as mobile in my book.

When you start to combine the speed increases in wireless technologies, the improved robustness of MIMO and deployment in a cell-based topology, it is quite easy to envision delivering 50 to 60 distinct video channels per cell. That is pretty close to what you'd need for TV service, since each cell would only need to carry the content currently being viewed within that cell.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 05:21 PM   #209
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Personally, I would classify anything that doesn't pass through another, user owned, gateway device before going wireless as "mobile" for the purposes of this discussion. Or, put another way, if the wireless signal is coming from a 3rd party provider (whether that's LTE, public WiFi or something else) that qualifies as mobile in my book.

When you start to combine the speed increases in wireless technologies, the improved robustness of MIMO and deployment in a cell-based topology, it is quite easy to envision delivering 50 to 60 distinct video channels per cell. That is pretty close to what you'd need for TV service, since each cell would only need to carry the content currently being viewed within that cell.
I largely agree with your definition, which would effectively mean if you're viewing video on a mobile device at home, that's not really "mobile" (I would extend this to say even if you're at home but using your cell data connection, that's not truly mobile).

The line will continue to blur, though, as cable companies roll out wifi hotspots along their wireline network and as cell providers work on LTE Multicast. With an app on your phone or your Xbox or TV, there will be no difference.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2014, 06:43 PM   #210
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Let's make a date to come back here in 3 to 5 years and we'll see where mobile video is then.
I have a 60" TV now, I'm hoping to have a 120" or larger 4K projection screen with a more powerful 7.1 channel surround sound system by then. Even if I have a Galaxy S 10, it's still going to look like crap compared to the 120" 4K screen...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
When you start to combine the speed increases in wireless technologies, the improved robustness of MIMO and deployment in a cell-based topology, it is quite easy to envision delivering 50 to 60 distinct video channels per cell. That is pretty close to what you'd need for TV service, since each cell would only need to carry the content currently being viewed within that cell.
A tower would need to support thousands to replace cable tv with some sort of wireless TV, and that's not going to be possible in the forseeable future.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |