[opendtv] Re: Execs see challenges bringing Net video to TV
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:44:58 -0700
There is unlimited bandwidth with fiber. Every year, they come up with new
ways to increase the throughput with existing fiber. The only question is
the cost. If the government is paying the bills by charging you $10 tax on
a Big Mac (just why are they so much more expensive in Japan?) there is no
limit to what you can do.
"But bert didn't mention fiber." It was about ISPs. The only ISPs I know
of that use fiber are AT&T (via u-verse) and FIOS. Everybody else travels
over copper or coax. He was trying to assert that it can be done with
copper or coax, then he went to HFC (a provisional solution, in my mind,
when I first read of it in 1994; the local telco basically 'bargaining'
instead of 'manning up.'
By the way, 1 GBPS in Japan is piker standards. Isn't the standard in S.
Korea something like 12 GBPS nowadays? (1200 bps would be a tremendous
accomplishment in N. Korea.) I would also note that the provider is owned
and operated by the government. I'm not sure of the price of Big Macs in S.
Korea.
You say "compessed ATSC channels." What, exactly is an uncompressed ATSC
channel? By the way, I didn't speak of channels; I spoke of transport
streams. My first customer has three video channels and three andio-channel
in his transport stream.
Sure, anybody can rent T3 capacity from Global Crossing (not cheap, by the
way) to send ATSC transport streams across the ocean of blue. But, the last
time I checked, T3 wasn't synchronous. Sure, you can reconstruct the time
stamps on the other end. Perhaps you meant several bonded DS-3s?
But "assuming no other licensing restrictions" is quite absurd; Japan and
the U.S. are signatories to the Bern Copyright Convention. Nor, is there
much demand for live signals from the U.S. to be distributed in Japan.
So, how far do you want to go out to prove that your life sucks?
It's best to think of broadcast as having a set of characteristics, and
taking advantage of those characteristics. They include instantaneous
transmission via dedicated channels (one way, but that will be changing in
short order) from 0 to infinity in number or receivers, with no increase in
resources in the overhead based on the number of receivers taking advantage
of it. The downsides include: everybody gets access to everything, with no
real ability to customize or unilaterally get content.
Coax, fiber and copper have different chanracteristics and different
advantages and disadvantages.
Then there are the business models ...
Trying to imagine how to make IP distribution to be like broadcast (or
vice-versa) is about as sensible as that fish riding a bicycle. Heck, it's
akin to wanting your existing TV set to receive and render ATSC M/H
transmissions. There is not a single television set in the world that is in
use now that will ever be able to receive ATSC M/H transmissions. Even if
there were, there is not a single TV set in the world in use now that will
ever be able to demultiplex ATSC M/H transmissions. Even if there were,
there is not a single television set in the world in use now that will ever
be able to render ATSC M/H video, audio or "other streams."
Insisting on the alternative as being doable is just typing while drinking.
Want a bottom line? The "congloms" will provide their content primarily
through over the air transmission as long as they can make more money doing
so through their own and affiliated television station more profitably and
more easily than any other form of distribution.
John Willkie
-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Tom Barry
Enviado el: Saturday, September 27, 2008 11:18 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Execs see challenges bringing Net video to TV
But one of the main debates here was whether whether there could
possibly be enough bandwidth on the Internet to compete with broadcasting.
I think you will agree that there certainly is in some places in the world.
And anybody can rent a T3 to send a couple of compressed ATSC channels
across the ocean, assuming no other licensing restrictions or whatever.
- Tom
John Willkie wrote:
> Wow, I guess this digital stuff is just screwing with you all the time,
huh?
>
> I just love people who live with press releases and think no further.
> What's the price of a Big Mac in Japan? (isn't it close to $15?).
>
> I know I didn't say anything about "the last mile". I can't get fiber
> service -- yet -- at my apartment in Tijuana. I have to live with 1.8
> mb/sec for $26. But, they haven't seemed to charge me since February, nor
> have they cut it off.
>
> At the house I was largely raised in (to the extend I was raised) in San
> Diego, there is fiber running through the AT&T manhole 200 feet from the
> house. If my mother wanted to go for AT&T u-verse (she decided not to
last
> week, it's <$90 a month for phone, internet and their TV service. She
> decided not to change due to the hassle of changing her email address. Do
> you think "customer retention" might be an aspect of the pricing of the
KDDI
> service?
>
> Were she to opt for u-Verse, they would run fiber into her home, and
they'd
> put the demark in her home.
>
> And, you have just extended this foolishness to another country. SINCE to
> get that signal to Japan, you have to start with an 8-VSB receiver, a 20
> mb/second (worst case) synchronous pipeline, and a nice bill for the
> transport. Or, you have what I'd call an unwatchable service, or what Bob
> Miller would call "acceptable."
>
> Once again, do you know anybody who has 20 mb/second SPARE capacity --
after
> all their other uses are taken into account -- on their Internet
connection,
> and which provides synchronous service? I think not.
>
> By the way, KDDI is government-owned. We have a different model of
> economics in the U.S. (Being chipped away as we speak.) You have no way
of
> knowing the "true cost" of that connection, nor how much of the cost is
paid
> by all citizens, including those without internet connections. You do
know
> that in the U.S. the cost for Internet, cable TV and even commercial
> broadcasting is not subsidized by the government, so people pay for what
> they get, not for what their neighbors get.
>
> I also suspect that the sun is always shining in Venezuela, even at night,
> and Evo Morales has "non problema."
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de Tom Barry
> Enviado el: Saturday, September 27, 2008 8:21 PM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Execs see challenges bringing Net video to TV
>
> I guess we are going to be very jealous of broadband in some other
> countries then. KDDI in Japan is announcing 1 Gbps Internet service for
> about US $56.50 / mo starting next month. See Slashdot today:
>
> <http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/09/27/1757211.shtml>
>
> Though since it's only the last mile that's a problem maybe only folks
> in other countries will be able to stream American HD broadcasters over
> the Internet, and not us.
>
> - Tom
>
> John Willkie wrote:
>> John;
>>
>> Fiber to homes just isn't on the cable companies screens. Period.
>>
>> They are trying concepts like SDV, and 850-mhz cable (as a trunk
>> replacement; not a full rewiring) due to the fact that just a few years
> ago,
>> the early adopters were able to finish paying off their early 1990's
>> rebuilds.
>>
>> They don't want to do that again if they don't have to. SDV and similar
>> technologies make it so the trunks aren't the bottleneck.
>>
>> The phone companies have a different perspective, since their copper
>> infrastructures don't permit them to throw video services more than a few
>> hundred feet from rather expensive central offices.
>>
>> And, the super bowl is a different matter, since bert never referred to
> live
>> video or sports (live and high-action eat up bits).
>>
>> Then, there's the fact that cable firms see their business model as being
>> centered around being gatekeepers that can charge tolls. Providing
>> unlimited bandwidth is a thing of the past; note Comcast's and
> Time-Warner's
>> different responses to manage expectations and bandwidth utilization.
>>
>> IP HDTV video will kill them. FIOS and AT&T U-verse are different
> matters.
>> Both are telcos, and they can actually recycle their copper, unless the
>> thieves get to it first.
>>
>> John Willkie
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
>> nombre de John Shutt
>> Enviado el: Saturday, September 27, 2008 5:04 PM
>> Para: OpenDTV
>> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: Execs see challenges bringing Net video to TV
>>
>> Kon,
>>
>> I think you're missing the point. Bert supposed:
>>
>> "If the networks make all of their shows available online, say 30 minutes
>> after the show was aired, and if the ISPs' core nets can handle the
>> demand without too many glitches, pretty soon it makes one wonder why
>> the networks need to depend on broadcasters and MVPDs. All they need is
>> ISPs.
>>
>> "Proper HDTV this way is already possible for those with Verizon FiOS,
>> and cable companies (acting as ISPs primarily) will no doubt catch up,
>> as they deploy fiber closer and closer to homes.
>>
>> "The networks would then have the option of delivering TV programs free
>> or for PPV, real time stream or VOD, or download. Looks to me like the
>> ISPs have the most difficult job in all of this, to ramp up their
>> networks to support really massive, simultaneous demand."
>>
>> There were 97.5 million viewers of last year's Super Bowl in the US.
> Let's
>> be generous and say there were ten people watching per television. Now,
>> Kon, can your company's infrastructure serve 10 million streams of even
> 4.5
>> Mbps AVC 720p video simultaneously? If not, then it will never be a
>> substitute for mass broadcasting. Which was my counterpoint.
>>
>> Yes, some day the infrastructure will catch up and be able to do this.
> But
>> by that time UHTV, perhaps in 3D or smell-o-vision, will be the gold
>> standard in entertainment, and require 100 Mbps per program.
>>
>> John
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kon Wilms" <konfoo@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> Well, you're missing the point. It's almost like there is this
>>> mentality on this thread that you either have postage size Youtube
>>> cr*p, or you have 18Mbit HD, and nothing in between. Therefore,
>>> internet video will never be viable. That is complete nonsense.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
