[opendtv] Re: EE Times: Transcoding offers migration path to IP
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 22:04:19 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> Who decides when a channel is allocated to traditional MPEG-2
> delivery versus IP Broadband?
The cable company does, individually in each market. In these cases, they are
also the ISP, so it's all an in-house decision. And they can allocate more
bandwidth to IP access gradually, as they deploy the new STBs, perhaps. Same
sort of transition, for the cable ISPs, as their migration away from analog TV
channels.
> And how many customers could benefit from this unless the cable
> company has routers VERY close to the edge (customer)? If the
> cable company has enough bandwidth to allocate say 20+ Mbps to
> each home, why not move to IP delivery immediately?
Exactly. Why not? The reason in part is that it takes deploying all new STBs. A
big expense. As to the servers, that should be no different from what ISPs
always do, for high volume stuff. Nothing new. Some of these cable companies,
like FiOS, already offer their VOD TV content as IP, and of course any TV
content already on their net's IP broadband slice of spectrum. So I don't see
anything here but a gradual reapportioning of the PON channels, toward IP
service. Probably more mirrored servers, gradually deployed.
> I went back and re-read the article you posted. You missed a
> very important caveat in the article:
>
> "Another thing to keep in mind is the rights' issue. While in-home
> transcoding falls under "fair use" copyright law, service providers
> may need to re-negotiate their agreements with content providers if
> they are to offer content via the Internet. "Each operator has
> different pros and cons related to the amount of unicast bandwidth
> they have, their chosen home-vs.-cloud architecture for content
> storage, and negotiating power they have with their content
> providers, and the age and structure of those content contracts,"
> observed Froehlich."
I ignore the problems with DRM caused by the transcoding solution, BECAUSE I'm
suggesting that solution is unnecessary for cable companies. And, acknowledge
the fact that IPTV schemes are already out there, like AT&T Uverse. Suddenly it
becomes obvious that any DRM issues have solutions already deployed. Not to
mention, a whole lot of people, and I, are using this stuff daily, so somehow
that's been solved.
> "The bad news is that it will be "at least 10-15 years before the
> MPEG-2 digital video switch-off," estimates Stephen Froehlich,
> principal analyst at IHS Electronics & Media. If so, cable guys
> need to find new ways to stay relevant and competitive in the
> meantime--until they can deliver IP packetized video (instead of
> MPEG) to any device."
>
> You might question why it will take so long to kill MPEG-2?
Actually, perhaps it was that clueless quote that made me want to comment to
begin with. That quote was meant as a simplistic sound bite. How much MPEG-2
compression do I watch when I'm watching TV on my PC? None. All of the live or
recorded IP TV streams available today have had MPEG-2 compression "switched
off" years ago. This is nothing like analog TV switch-off. All that's involved
here is reapportioning bandwidth away from one-way streams.
> It is worth noting that the DBS providers have already deployed STBs
> with h.264 decoders to support the increase in local-into-local
> channels delivered across the country.
True. But they are still MPEG-2 TS, one-way, non-IP-routable streams. Only more
reason to downplay this "MPEG-2 switch-off" hype.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
