The Beginning of the End?

[ezeitler]

FWIW, here is my expectations; The content providers are moving to distribution via the internet. Apple has introducted the iTV. Soon we will have a STB that connects to the content providers via the net and cable&DSL&FIOS will only be delivering IP to the home.
Now how we pay the content providers remains to be seen. Advertising (Google) which supports ABC,CBS,etc now or subscription (iTunes).
The Google server farms would provide a method of distribution. And they offer a lot of video already with a very nice viewer.
My 2 cents worth.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by ezeitler

FWIW, here is my expectations; The content providers are moving to distribution via the internet. Apple has introducted the iTV. Soon we will have a STB that connects to the content providers via the net and cable&DSL&FIOS will only be delivering IP to the home.
Now how we pay the content providers remains to be seen. Advertising (Google) which supports ABC,CBS,etc now or subscription (iTunes).
The Google server farms would provide a method of distribution. And they offer a lot of video already with a very nice viewer.
My 2 cents worth.

I think your right, but internet distribution is still many years away. Apple iTV has gotten some less than stellar reviews, because the pic quality is quite low. In order to receive real-time HD quality video (and I demand no less) would take atleast 6mbps (@ 720p using x264). Then factor in multiple TV households, 3 TV's would take 18mbps! Fiber-optic rollout has been very slow in the US. Theres still plenty of rural areas stuck on 56k. And many major cities with nothing better than 1.5mbps DSL, or cable internet with "less than advertised" rates at peak hours.

And then lets not forget DRM issues, I wont really get into that.

[wvpolekat]

Something to remember is that cable has alot more bandwidth than what they sell customers, it's just occupied by TV signal right now.

Think of it this way, right now, via digital cable, they are broacasting say 200 channels all the time, to everyone.

If they switch to an IP based box where it only has to use the bandwidth for the channel it is watching at that moment, that should significantly increase the amount of available bandwidth they have for the last mile. Maybe, I could be way off here.

This still doesnt overcome any upstream bandwidth problems they may have, but there is plenty of dark fiber to go around for that.

What I DO know is that what drove DSL for the telcos was NOT getting high speed internet to the customer, that just helped pay for it. What did drive it was to get their backbones to ATM instead of analog. DSL was just a side effect of this.

With newer compression schemes and more distributed content alot more can be done with current infrastructure.

Heck, all it would take is an IPTV "proxy" in your town to cut the upstream bandwidth usage to the equivilent of one user watching each channel. Or, get away from the model of "scheduled" TV all together and do all the networks in a quasi VOD format. They could control when shows were released to make sure that the soonest anyone can watch the show is it's traditional airtime.

IP networks have been coping with this kind of issue for a long time. TV is just a layer on top of it.

And, yes DRM will be a huge pain in the butt.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by ezeitler

FWIW, here is my expectations; The content providers are moving to distribution via the internet. Apple has introducted the iTV. Soon we will have a STB that connects to the content providers via the net and cable&DSL&FIOS will only be delivering IP to the home.
Now how we pay the content providers remains to be seen. Advertising (Google) which supports ABC,CBS,etc now or subscription (iTunes).
The Google server farms would provide a method of distribution. And they offer a lot of video already with a very nice viewer.
My 2 cents worth.

I agree with this to a degree. The way TV is distributed is going to change, it's started already. I disagree that "Internet" distributed TV will ever take off though. There are just far too many negative connotations associated with it (buffering/downloading/jumps/etc).

However, IP based delivery (or something similar like switched digital for Cable) is the way of the future. As noted above, current delivery systems waste massive amounts of bandwidth, using on the order of 100x the required bandwidth.

IP based delivery is different from Internet distribution even though they share the same foundation. Internet delivery is at the mercy of the entire net, and the many servers content bounces across on it's way to you. IP based delivery is basically provider to you, direct, only it uses IP instead of an RF waveform to get it to you.

IMO, internet distribution (iTunes, Movielink, Netflix, etc) are just a stop-gap until real IP delivery infrastructure is in place.

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I think your right, but internet distribution is still many years away. Apple iTV has gotten some less than stellar reviews, because the pic quality is quite low. In order to receive real-time HD quality video (and I demand no less) would take atleast 6mbps (@ 720p using x264). Then factor in multiple TV households, 3 TV's would take 18mbps!

FWIW, I've got DSL in the midwest (not a major metro area), and I can almost stream 1080p (which can be done in 8Mbps well), I can definitely stream 720p.

Fiber-optic rollout has been very slow in the US.

True, but fiber isn't really necessary.

Theres still plenty of rural areas stuck on 56k.

The number is rapidly decreasing, my grandparents have Cable internet available. And futher, rural areas make up a very small % of the population.

And many major cities with nothing better than 1.5mbps DSL, or cable internet with "less than advertised" rates at peak hours.

We've got 7Mbps DSL here, and cable up to 10Mbps (though yes, less than advertised much of the time).

And then lets not forget DRM issues, I wont really get into that.

Yes and no, DRM has it's place, that place is for services, things like Neflix's Watch Now, VOD, PPV, etc. The problem with DRM in general, is that content owners are attempting to push it into places where it hasn't been traditionally, and where it doesn't belong (eg on "purchased" items).

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by stanger89

We've got 7Mbps DSL here, and cable up to 10Mbps (though yes, less than advertised much of the time).

So do we actually (from QWEST). However, I'm apparently slightly too far from a CO for it. The best I can (and do) get is 1.5mpbs.

And even 7Mbps just isnt enough. One HD channel needs at least 6 Mbps (OK maybe 5). So your entire household can only watch 1 channel at a time?

Fiber is the best bet at getting the kind of bandwidth to residents needed for TV. I have also heard of some experimental hi capacity DSL. There was a test market in Arizona I think.

[stevech]

It'll be interesting to see how well AT&T does with vDSL. 30Mbps for 1000 ft to a new vDSL mux in your neighborhood. They seem to be spending $$$$ deploying this in many cities; some have service now. They just did my neighborhood but i don't know when the launch date is.

The vDSL mux boxes are about 4 ft square and are brown.

Marketing term is part of "U-Life" and the "Lightspeed" service.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

So do we actually (from QWEST). However, I'm apparently slightly too far from a CO for it. The best I can (and do) get is 1.5mpbs.

And even 7Mbps just isnt enough. One HD channel needs at least 6 Mbps (OK maybe 5). So your entire household can only watch 1 channel at a time?

I've seen "good enough" HD at about 3.5 Mbps using H.264 with 448k AC3 audio, and by "good enough" I mean 720p that looks just about as good as the native broadcast. And for SD, you can get "digital-cable-quality" at probably 1Mbps easy.

Heck with MPEG-2, cable and sat providers are known to run SD down to 2Mbps and HD down to 10-12Mbps.

Fiber is the best bet at getting the kind of bandwidth to residents needed for TV. I have also heard of some experimental hi capacity DSL. There was a test market in Arizona I think.

Qwest has deployed VDSL for their TV/internet package in Phoenix, Denver and Omaha, That's 26Mbps down 3Mbps up, and delivers TV and internet.

[wvpolekat]

The other thing to keep in mind about bandwidth is that the "shortage" we see is artificial. Meaning it's created by the ISPs to keep costs and profits up.

The cable provider here does 3mb, but throttles you down to 256k for an hour if you download more than 30mb in 10 min. They state that if you hit this, you are "abusing" the service. While 99% of the people around here never see it happen, I see it as abusive behavior by the ISP. Verizon does 3mb DSL with none of that mess. As much as a hate Verizon, since I work from home, the traffic shaping was killing me.

Time Warner in Houston is doing 10mb across the board now I am told. And this is without any upgrade in the last mile.

So, there is room for them to go faster I am sure, they just need the profit to motivate them to do it.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Heck with MPEG-2, cable and sat providers are known to run SD down to 2Mbps and HD down to 10-12Mbps.

The lowest I saw with Comcast was 2.5Mbps for SDTV, actually quite a lot of channels were @ 2.5Mbps. The lowest I saw HDTV was 8Mbps, tons of blocking.

[coryking]

I'm a hardcore nerd and even for me HD is scary. Considering a new high-def television is a $1,000->$4,000 investment:

1) DRM. I refuse to bow to RIAA/MPAA.
2) There is much confusion around cabling, mostly because of #1.
3) SD is an honest to god *standard* that means something. HD is what, exactly? 780p? 780i? 1080i? 1080p? Ain't there various codecs to dish all that out as well?
4) Will I get screwed down the road when they decide to pull the plug on my <cable format/resolution/???>
5) Will it work with my SageTV setup, even if it means new hardware. I keep reading about #1 and how I'm basically screwed.

So basically, I *know* that my SD television will work now and forever. I really cannot say the same about the vaugly defined world of "High Definition".

[toricred]

First of all, you can get an HDTV for significantly less than $1K depending on the size you want.

3. All of those are HD (except possibly for 780p and 780i, I've never heard of either and I'm assuming you mean 720p which is HD). You don't need different codecs for any of them. You just need a TV that will support at least one. Your output from Sage would either downconvert or upconvert as necessary.

Finally, no SD won't work forever. It is mandated by law to go away in the not too distant future.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by coryking

I'm a hardcore nerd and even for me HD is scary. Considering a new high-def television is a $1,000->$4,000 investment:

1) DRM. I refuse to bow to RIAA/MPAA.
2) There is much confusion around cabling, mostly because of #1.
3) SD is an honest to god *standard* that means something. HD is what, exactly? 780p? 780i? 1080i? 1080p? Ain't there various codecs to dish all that out as well?
4) Will I get screwed down the road when they decide to pull the plug on my <cable format/resolution/???>
5) Will it work with my SageTV setup, even if it means new hardware. I keep reading about #1 and how I'm basically screwed.

So basically, I *know* that my SD television will work now and forever. I really cannot say the same about the vaugly defined world of "High Definition".

HDTV's are no longer that expensive. I have a 32"er I got from newegg for $500 after shipping.

1) I hear you brother, but you dont have to with OTA-HDTV. And what does the RIAA have to do with anything?

2) DVI and HDMI are digital signals. HDMI can carry audio. A setup box (cable/sat) that sends signals thru these can decide if the device connected to it is "a trusted device". There is currently no feasible way to take this data and send it to a capture card anyways, the data coming thru is uncompressed, like several GB a second. Component cables are analog and therefore always work, they also send giant uncompressed signals. Some people say you get a better quality signal thru DVI/HDMI, i dont see it.

3) In the US the minimum to be considered HD is 720p. I've heard conflicting reports on if 720i is even a standard. And if so, its very rare. 720p/1080i are the only two HDTV broadcast standards in use in the US. I've never heard of an HDTV that cant display both (and 480i/p as well). 1080p is a newer standard for TV resolutions, and used for Blu-ray/HD-DVD.

4) You will get screwed one day if you depend on analog (straight from the wall) cable, or ota.

5) Depends on your hardware. OTA is by far the simplest to setup. For sat, theres the r5000.

If your truely happy with the TV setup you have now, then I'd say dont bother upgrading. Just be prepared, you will someday.

Originally Posted by toricred

Finally, no SD won't work forever. It is mandated by law to go away in the not too distant future.

Dont get SD confused with analog. Analog is going away, SDTV over digital TV will be around for a very long time, like after were all dead.

[wvpolekat]

Originally Posted by toricred

Finally, no SD won't work forever. It is mandated by law to go away in the not too distant future.

Incorrect. ANALOG OTA is mandated to go away. It has nothing to do with SD vs HD. You can send either over digital.

[toricred]

Dont get SD confused with analog. Analog is going away, SDTV over digital TV will be around for a very long time, like after were all dead.

Actually the point I was trying to make was that an SD only TV won't be able to tune OTA in the future. It will need a digital tuner.

[wvpolekat]

Originally Posted by toricred

Actually the point I was trying to make was that an SD only TV won't be able to tune OTA in the future. It will need a digital tuner.

Your confusing quality/definition with medium. SD or HD has nothing to do with analog or digital. You can certainly get SD over digital or analog, and I imagine, you could technically get HD over analog as well given enough spectrum.

An SD TV could very well have a digital tuner, I don't know of any technical reason that someone could not produce one, although it is unlikely and silly in the current market. I would not be too shocked to see one in the future.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by wvpolekat

An SD TV could very well have a digital tuner, I don't know of any technical reason that someone could not produce one, although it is unlikely and silly in the current market. I would not be too shocked to see one in the future.

They already exist, in fact I think all (or at least all large ones) TVs now must have digital tuners by FCC mandate.

[toricred]

My bad. I was mixing up analog and SD in my decaying brain. But I still stand by all my other statements in my original post......... I think.