# Microsoft Leading the Pack in an area where apple should be excelling



## DJ Rep (Feb 12, 2005)

Three words...Video on Demand or IPTV as it has become to known is nothing short of stunning, if anyone watched the CES keynote where the Senior Vice President of SBC Broadcasting came on and demonstrated the ability to rent videos directly to your tv, have upto 4 videos in one screen at once, mutli angle sports channels, programming/preview anywhere from your cell phone, HDTV support...the list goes on it was unbeliveable I was actually very impressed and the funny thing is that microsoft technology is driving the whole thing. Apple needs to watch this, it may have got ahead with the online music industry but if it doesn't introduce some kind of major IPTV service I can see MS ruling the roost, IPTV is probably an even bigger potential digital explosion than online music so apple get off your ass and do something quick!!!
Oh and btw for ms the way that it worked was actually suprisingly simple.
My thoughts are that apple with the advent of H264 being integrated into quicktime in tiger will bring along a iFlix video store, this may happen, but it will not be enough. MS and SBC already have a better solution as shown at SBC, the ability to rent and buy movies from the comfort of your sofa is not to be sniffed at, and it's instant HDTV. What apple will have to do is to release a Media Edition Mac - or they will be out of the game altogether, the mac mini is a perfect potential for that but unfortunatley is the wrong type of hardware, it is very much a mac not a PVR or Media Box, perhaps when tiger is released they will release another mac mini with a hardware H264 video decoder, HDTV support, 7.1 Digital Optical sound, and some glorious software to power it all, but I can't really see this. What _may_ happen though would be that SONY would produce the STB to compliment the media stored on the mac, apple would provide the VOD, the interface and the technological ins and outs, and sony would create the box that would interact with the mac getting content from the mac as well as connecting to the apple VOD service, saving the movies in the box or on you mac like a PVR and having the hardware H264 decoder and the above mentioned connectios and en/decoders. Anyway thats enough rambling it's just that I was stunned how far ahead of the field MS are in this


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 12, 2005)

I was equally impressed with the stuff Bill was showing at CES.  Then I realized, if this takes off, it's going to be compatible with only Microsoft stuff and you will only be able to take advantage of it with Microsoft media center boxes, Windows XP, etc.

I hope Apple does something like this as well because Microsoft has a leg up on them as of now.


----------



## TommyWillB (Feb 12, 2005)

Dude!

Just wait for Apple to announce thier Tiger + Mac Mini + Sony TV based TiVo/NetFlix killer...

You can cobble the peices & parts together today, but Apple will make it simple enough for grandma.

The guy from Sony was not at MacWorld for nothin'...


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 12, 2005)

I have a suspicion that Apple has something planned that has not yet been announced.  Mr. Jobs announced this as the year of HD yet at present very few Apple systems can play HD.  We have editing software but it is a little weak.

I do not know what, but I suspect something hardware related will be released around the time of WWDC to help Apple along the theme of "the year of HD".  Nothing directly in Tiger seems to point to any surprises on the software front unless core video or QT allows something not in the current beta release. 

On the other hand, just to play Devil's Advocate, Apple was late to the portable music player market as well...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 12, 2005)

Hmmm... makes you wonder about that rumored "Asteroid" project... from what I've heard, it's a Firewire-Audio breakout box, but perhaps it'll have video support as well... we can hope!


----------



## cq107 (Feb 12, 2005)

One of the most facinating features of IPTV is Video on Demand. The whole experience is video on demand, which means higher quality than cable or satalite combined. This also means you can watch WHATEVER WHENEVER. And this technology is RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER: 



> "SBC Labs has been testing an IP-based television service built on the Microsoft TV IPTV Edition platform since June 2004. SBC companies and Microsoft will begin field trials in mid 2005 and plan commercial availability of the IP-based television platform in late 2005."
> http://www.microsoft.com/tv/content/Press/SBC04_IPTV.mspx


----------



## opus66 (Feb 13, 2005)

Guys... be careful with making assumptions about where Apple is with their programs. I'm a huge Apple fan and big hater of Microsoft... but you can't dismiss them. Microsoft has prodiced the best game system (xbox) on the market, and had the absolute best DVR device EVER in their now abandoned Ultimate TV. It's been years, and Tivo and all of the other players STILL have yet to make something better... It has me worried.
Jobs has never been a TV guy... it'd be real easy for him to overlook this.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 13, 2005)

Opus66 I agree, as much as MS is vilified they have upon occasion been innovators.  Personally I don't even dislke Windows, though I have rarely used it for the last 3 years in favor of Linux and recently OS X.

It is quite possible that Apple has been caught napping again but something does not seem to add up about the "year of HD".  Why make it a major part of the keynote and invitate the President of Sony otherwise?  It might simply be politics or smoke and mirrors like the whole "year of the Laptop"  which really did not amount to much I suppose.


----------



## Quicksilver (Feb 13, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> I was equally impressed with the stuff Bill was showing at CES.  Then I realized, if this takes off, it's going to be compatible with only Microsoft stuff and you will only be able to take advantage of it with Microsoft media center boxes, Windows XP, etc.
> 
> I hope Apple does something like this as well because Microsoft has a leg up on them as of now.



Captain Code is totally right. My questions are, What is going on at apple? What are they going to do about it?

It was video who killed the radio star! so will this MS IPTV kill the iTunes star?


----------



## fryke (Feb 13, 2005)

No new medium has ever vanquished an older one completely. We still have papers, we still have radio. So: No, MS IPTV is certainly not a replacement for downloading songs off the 'net. (And how would it...)

I guess, right now, it looks like Apple's not the least interested in TV. At all. It's been a long, long, long time since Apple last had a TV tuner card in a Mac.


----------



## symphonix (Feb 13, 2005)

It's hardly "leading the pack" when they don't have a product, only a demonstration.

The IPTV group has been doing the rounds for a couple of years now, and I doubt that Microsoft are going to be the big name when it does take off, but rather that it will be a standard picked up by a number of companies.

Sony and Apple's open support of the open-standard H.234 would suggest that both of those companies will be sticking with that standard as opposed to anything Microsoft has to offer. And both the BluRay and HD-DVD groups are supporting H.234 as well, in the latter case abandoning an MS owned codec aout 6 months ago because it "did not meet the needs" of HD-DVD.

That means that big name video equipment companies like JVC, Hitachi, Toshiba, Panasonic and others are all backing the open standard - H234 - as opposed to Microsoft's yet-to-be-released offerings.

Believe me, if the HD-DVD group had stuck with MS's codec, Bill Gates would have been giving the speech about how 2005 will be the year of HD, and Steve's MacWorld speech wouldn't have even made mention of video codecs.

Also, if you stop to think about what we can expect in December this year - Sony's Playstation 3 being released more than half a year before the XBox 2 is ready - it seems likely that Sony will have the advantage on this market. We already know the PS3 will have a G5-derived Cell processor, and will support video transfer to the Playstation Portable. Anything else is speculation, but I won't be expecting MS to have any impact on the market until they actually _release a product!_


----------



## DJ Rep (Feb 13, 2005)

but the real thing is that they did have a product, did you actually watch the MS CES Keynote? It was there, working (the bits that i'm talking about) they were there with SBC demonstrating all these VOD demand and IPTV features live, it doesn't matter whether High Def DVD are supporting H264 (not H234 btw) becuase if MS gets this in everyones living room first it doesn't matter whether their it's Blu-Ray or HD-DVD becuase everyone will be using the easier option that MS has of VOD and the point is that MS and its partners have a system that Just Works. Where as apple has a system that Just doesn't exsist...yet.


----------



## baldprof (Feb 13, 2005)

If Apple has something ready to be released soon, I think it will be at this show: http://www.nabshow.com/

As far as video on demand goes, well my cable company already has that. One of the satellite providers is adding this. Of course this isn't all HD yet.

But here's the problem: how is someone going to get video on demand, courtesy of this M$ product? It will have to come through their broadband connections, which is either through their cable company or DSL. Compression aside, all of that will take bandwidth. Have any of you seen what happens to cable internet access during peak hours? Can you imagine what will happen if you have video downloads (even compressed) added to that load? Have you tried driving on a major road at 5 p.m.? 

Even more crucial to all of this is the creation of HD content. As a current HDTV owner, I can tell you there isn't much out there yet. HBO HD and others don't give much, if any noticeable improvement. Why? Well unless the movies were shot digitally (and most aren't yet), you are either limited to DVD quality, or it's an analog to digital conversion from fill, Bleech!

That is why the creation of content has to come first, which is where Apple is heading. I recently attended a demonstration of Final Cut Pro HD and one of those Sony HD video cams. Impressive. There were some from local TV stations there who are under a conversion to digital deadline. They were floored. 
For the cost of a PowerMac, the Sony camera, and Final Cut Pro HD, they have a video editing system that is much less than the cost of an Avid system.

Well that's my two cents.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

Well, they are rolling it out this year in SBC territory over ADSL2 which provides 24Mbps.  That is enough for 3 or 4 compressed HDTV streams at once plus one standard def. tv stream.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 13, 2005)

symphonix said:
			
		

> We already know the PS3 will have a G5-derived Cell processor, and will support video transfer to the Playstation Portable. Anything else is speculation, but I won't be expecting MS to have any impact on the market until they actually _release a product!_



Sorry to go a little off toopic but the Cell is not a G5 derived product.  The PPC core used in the Cell is a 64bit processor with VMX but it was based on a different project from the G5 with different design considerations.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

Mephisto said:
			
		

> Sorry to go a little off toopic but the Cell is not a G5 derived product.  The PPC core used in the Cell is a 64bit processor with VMX but it was based on a different project from the G5 with different design considerations.



I've read it's based on the POWER5 processor, not the G5.

http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell1.html
See the "The Processor Unit (PU)" part.


----------



## Mephisto (Feb 13, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> I've read it's based on the POWER5 processor, not the G5.
> 
> http://www.blachford.info/computer/Cells/Cell1.html
> See the "The Processor Unit (PU)" part.



Correct, that was what I said... I think. Well not quite since it is not Power5 based either.  That was a misconception based upon the patent application that was not cleared up till the ISSCC last week.

Further reading for those interested:

The "simple" version
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-1.ars

The not so simple version
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT021005084318

Mr. Blachford's article is interesting and approachable as well. He based his on the patent applications and is a little too enthusiastic at times but other than that it is pretty good stuff.  The two articles above are based on the information released at the ISSC conference early last week.

EDIT: Go to the "POWERPC Processing Element" section of the realWorldTech article.  That section is only 2 paragraphs long and a fairly easy to understand explanation of what the PPE is derived from.


----------



## baldprof (Feb 13, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Well, they are rolling it out this year in SBC territory over ADSL2 which provides 24Mbps.  That is enough for 3 or 4 compressed HDTV streams at once plus one standard def. tv stream.



That's interesting. You are fortunate to be ahead of many areas. Maybe the market for this will expand sooner than I thought. My DSL provider, Bellsouth, has been one of the more aggressive providers. Their ads imply that this is in the future. Perhaps this future will be here sooner than I thought. Great.

This could be very good for Apple. They are in a good position to become a major player in content development. All that capacity is going to need programming.

Besides, I wouldn't mind being able to ditch Time Warner Cable. Their service sucks locally. <I won't get started on that.> But my DSL is always up, except during a general power outage. I wouldn't mind getting video from Bellsouth too.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

Mephisto said:
			
		

> The not so simple version
> http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT021005084318



Thanks, very interesting.


----------



## TommyWillB (Feb 13, 2005)

Aparently I don't have the same idea of what "video on demand" is as the rest of you...

The implication here is that it is some sort of real-time bandwidth-intensive streaming process.

I tend to think it's more like a dowloadable version of Netflix... i.e. you have "queue" of movies, and they are downloaded and stored on your TiVo-like DVR. These could download overnight .vs in realtime... (Faster than shipping DVD's via US Mail, but slower than "real time".)

The machine can always be 2-3-4 steps ahead of you in your queue... meaning the movie might already be downloaded, and just waiting to be "unlocked". This could enable very close to real-time, but not require streaming.

Combined with both a Cable TV and Internet connection, this device could record both "broadcast" television (TiVo) as well as download internet content (NetFlix).

This is why I think the Mac Mini with a digital (DVI) connection to a Sony TV could be the Netflix/TiVo killer... This is also why I think they are not bothering with keyboard/mice for these machines... They'll just have some sort of nice Bluetooth remote control.

My 2 cents...


----------



## mindbend (Feb 13, 2005)

I do think the point of this thread is on target. It APPEARS Apple is following in this area. However, we don't really know what's going on behind closed doors. I've got to believe Apple had enough foresight to see the writing on the wall with video on demand. I imagine they're just waiting in the wings for h.264, broadband and their own infrastructure to come together to make it all doable. Apple will want to do it very well. They're not going to throw out some half-ass junky product/service. I just hope they can do it in time to be a big factor.

The problem may end up being with the cable providers. If my cable company provides VOD at a very reasonable price, I may ever see a need for anything else.

Whatever it ends up being, it needs to be the iTunes of VOD. Super easy to use. Fairly priced. Semi-instant gratification. Large library. And so on.


----------



## baldprof (Feb 13, 2005)

TommyWillB said:
			
		

> I tend to think it's more like a dowloadable version of Netflix... i.e. you have "queue" of movies, and they are downloaded and stored on your TiVo-like DVR. These could download overnight .vs in realtime... (Faster than shipping DVD's via US Mail, but slower than "real time".)



This idea has merit. It is the type of thing I would subscribe to. I think what had gotten me (us) off track was that we were thinking of something that might mimic what cable companies currently offer.



			
				mindbend said:
			
		

> The problem may end up being with the cable providers. If my cable company provides VOD at a very reasonable price, I may ever see a need for anything else.



Well of course it would be different. Consider iTunes offers a library of that goes beyond the most popular current music. This new service would have to do the same for films, otherwise it would be no different than what cable currently offers ,a lot of stuff I would never pay to see  >


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

baldprof said:
			
		

> This idea has merit. It is the type of thing I would subscribe to. I think what had gotten me (us) off track was that we were thinking of something that might mimic what cable companies currently offer.



It depends on how they do it.   Microsoft is working with the telco companies and isn't providing any content.  The telco will provide the content and Microsoft provides the software, like what they do for mostly everything they are in.

The TV product is VOD, but it's live.  You aren't downloading anything for a few hours and then watching it.  The bandwidth of ADSL 2 is enough that you can watch the show/movie right then and there.

They even showed at the CES keynote, that you can instantly rent movies and watch them right at the time of purchase.  

All of this of course requires more bandwidth and this is what the telcos are starting to provide.  

I don't know how Apple would do if they were just selling movies that you can get over the span of a few hours for 2 or 3 dollars.  What I'd really like to see, and is really the point of IPTV is instantaneous stuff like what SBC is doing.  

It's entirely possible to do with H.264 and ADSL2, and let the telco's provide the content.  Apple could just supply the set top box and compresson software.  OR, they don't even have to supply anything really.  If there were just some company coming out with IPTV that used an open codec for which you could use any box you wanted, then there wouldn't really be a problem IMO.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Feb 13, 2005)

Apple should work with the makers of BowFlex. Then maybe the kids here can go outside. Even you old timers can take a break from the forums.I can imagine it now, "How does an overworked programmer gets rock hard abs and steel toned legs? He uses the Apple BowFlex. Just listen to some of our testimonials"

I used to sleep, eat, and crunch numbers and I became jaded reading about HDTV and Video On Demand. Then Apple Computer released BowFlex. Now I can check my email lifting 50 lbs and browse the web lifting 80 lbs. I couldn't believe how easy it is to use Apple products. - Tim

We live in a 8 room house and all I hear from the kids is, "I want an iPod Shuffle! I want an iPod Shuffle!", so I ordered 4 of them and the new Apple BowFlex. Now they can listen to britney spears without breaking a sweat. My daughter kelly is on all the sports teams at home. She is really enjoying her digital life! - Xanadu


----------



## MisterMe (Feb 13, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> It's entirely possible to do with H.264 and ADSL2, and let the telco's provide the content. Apple could just supply the set top box and compresson software. OR, they don't even have to supply anything really. If there were just some company coming out with IPTV that used an open codec for which you could use any box you wanted, then there wouldn't really be a problem IMO.


And the fact that ADSL 2 is for now a pipe dream does not enter into your thinking?


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> And the fact that ADSL 2 is for now a pipe dream does not enter into your thinking?




Why would it?  It's being deployed already.  It may only be in a few places but it's starting to be deployed.  Bell Canada is also deploying ADSL2 or VDSL this year.

You can even read about it here
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20050213/D887Q9U03.html
SBC Communications Inc. (SBC), the dominant local phone company from the Midwest to California, is deploying a full-blown IPTV system that it plans to launch by year-end in at least a few undisclosed markets.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 13, 2005)

Great.  Now all these new-age technophiles will be sucking mega/gigabytes of bandwidth an hour watching IPTV while my internet slows to a crawl trying to do my damn homework.

Brilliant!  Let's bog down the internet even more!


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Great.  Now all these new-age technophiles will be sucking mega/gigabytes of bandwidth an hour watching IPTV while my internet slows to a crawl trying to do my damn homework.
> 
> Brilliant!  Let's bog down the internet even more!




Not really.  As it is now, IPTV is local to the provider's network, and each house has the full 24Mbps to their house for the TV and internet connection.  The way it works, you aren't sharing anything with other subscribers.


----------



## MisterMe (Feb 13, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Not really. As it is now, IPTV is local to the provider's network, and each house has the full 24Mbps to their house for the TV and internet connection. The way it works, you aren't sharing anything with other subscribers.


Not true. You and your next door neighbor don't share bandwidth to your residence. However, you do share everything upstream of the central office.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 13, 2005)

The entire internet is being shared for the most part.  If every internet subscriber in California suddenly starts using the entirety of their bandwidth, you'd better belive we'd "feel" the effects all the way over in Texas.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> Not true. You and your next door neighbor don't share bandwidth to your residence. However, you do share everything upstream of the central office.



Right, but in this case, the telco installs enough fiber to the node to handle it.  So it's not a problem.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 13, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> The entire internet is being shared for the most part.  If every internet subscriber in California suddenly starts using the entirety of their bandwidth, you'd better belive we'd "feel" the effects all the way over in Texas.



With IPTV, the TV is only carried on the local network of the provider so it wouldn't have any effect on the internet.  

There are a lot of people on my ISP who do >200GB a month in transfer and I can still max out my connection no problem any time of the day.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 13, 2005)

So how is the signal delivered?  Over the internet?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there has been a lot of hooplah over the congestion of the internet in general.  Home users make up a large portion of those using the internet, and if a lot of those home users were to get IPTV and the content was delivered over IP on the internet, that's a huge spike in usage -- those home users would go from a 1.5mb - 3.0mb connection to pretty much saturating a ~20mb connection.

So is the network that IPTV is delivered on piggy-backed on the internet, or is it separate?  Maybe I'm just underestimating what the internet in general can handle...


----------



## MisterMe (Feb 14, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Right, but in this case, the telco installs enough fiber to the node to handle it. So it's not a problem.


Oh, come on. You don't just go out and lay two or three extra fiber cables in an afternoon.


			
				ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> So how is the signal delivered? Over the internet?


You have it about right. Certainly *I*nternet *P*rotocol *T*ele*V*ison goes over the Internet. You can get a summary of it on Wikipedia. At any rate, the people promoting IPTV and its fans see this as the next step in the evolution of the Web. They don't seem to see it as the next step in the evolution of television. The television model implies a TV set in every room. With home networking, this is fast becoming the way families surf the Web, as well. If your family uses IPTV this way, your puny 24 Mbps bandwidth will be gone in no time flat.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 14, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> So how is the signal delivered?  Over the internet?
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that there has been a lot of hooplah over the congestion of the internet in general.  Home users make up a large portion of those using the internet, and if a lot of those home users were to get IPTV and the content was delivered over IP on the internet, that's a huge spike in usage -- those home users would go from a 1.5mb - 3.0mb connection to pretty much saturating a ~20mb connection.
> 
> So is the network that IPTV is delivered on piggy-backed on the internet, or is it separate?  Maybe I'm just underestimating what the internet in general can handle...



It's not going over the internet.  It uses TCP/IP but it's on the ISP's network.  Like you transfering 10GB on your local LAN to simulate someone on your ISP's network watching a few hours of TV.  That's not going to affect the internet if you transfer stuff on a local network, just as watching TV on the provider's network isn't going to slow down the internet.

The internet is considered if you are going from your ISP to another network, say across the country.  If you are doing that, your data goes over the internet.  If your data is streaming from a machine on the other end of your TV receiver then you are not going over the internet.  You can still use the Internet Protocol, but it can be used for lots of things.



			
				MisterMe said:
			
		

> Oh, come on. You don't just go out and lay two or three extra fiber cables in an afternoon.



No, but they're not releasing it to all areas all at once.  They are spending a billion dollars deploying remote terminals and fiber to those terminals.  They aren't going to oversell that service because every TV subscriber needs dedicated bandwidth to watch the TV.  If it was oversold they wouldn't be able to watch TV and that'd be a problem.  

Each remote terminal already has fiber going to it, and they can up the bandwidth to that terminal whenever they want to, to the physical max of the fiber.


----------



## MisterMe (Feb 14, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> It's not going over the internet. It uses TCP/IP but it's on the ISP's network. Like you transfering 10GB on your local LAN to simulate someone on your ISP's network watching a few hours of TV. That's not going to affect the internet if you transfer stuff on a local network, just as watching TV on the provider's network isn't going to slow down the internet.
> 
> The internet is considered if you are going from your ISP to another network, say across the country. If you are doing that, your data goes over the internet. If your data is streaming from a machine on the other end of your TV receiver then you are not going over the internet. You can still use the Internet Protocol, but it can be used for lots of things.
> 
> ...


You starting to loose all credibility with me. First you don't respond to the context of my previous post. Now, you are saying that the telcos are going to lay another line to our homes. With electricity, TV cable, and telephone, this makes at least a fourth. Let me give you a reality check. Currently, I subscribe to digital cable which is distributed in my community by optical fiber. The fiber does not come into my home. Presumeably, it goes into terminals at curbside. Coaxial cable brings the signal into my home. At any rate, the rollout for this service has been years. Had the cable company replaced its copper wire with a fiber loop to my home, it would have taken many years more. I began receiving the digital cable service approximately seven years ago at approximately $80/month--closer to $90/month now. For my $90/month, I receive an average collection of analog channels and selection of digital channels. The digital channels are packaged remotely--probably in Denver, CO--and beamed by satellite to my local provider, which sends the package to my neighbors and me.

Although, I did not live here when my cable provider started its digital service, it has taken the company at least nine years to get where it is today. You claim that the IPTV service will be rolled out slowly. Well, duh! You are talking about an order of magnitude greater complexity at the source end, an order of magnitude greater complexity in the middle, and an order of magnitude greater complexity at the receiving end. Compared to my digital cable service, you are also talking about a new network and everything that _new_ implies. I think that it would be optimistic to plan for a 15-year rollout. And then there is the issue of construction costs and the price paid by the subscriber. Digital cable represents a $30-40/month premium over my high-end analog service. Can the provider make a profit at $250/month?


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 14, 2005)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> You starting to loose all credibility with me. First you don't respond to the context of my previous post. Now, you are saying that the telcos are going to lay another line to our homes. With electricity, TV cable, and telephone, this makes at least a fourth.



Show me where I said they were laying new lines to your home.  I never said that.  I said they are deploying remote terminals that service many hundreds of homes, which already have fiber optics to them.  They already have phone lines going through the ground to your house which IPTV will run over.

I don't know where you got any of the stuff you said from, but I didn't say that.

I was also replying to someone else, not just you which you can see from my post.

The complexity you state is somewhat exagerated.  Your phone lines are already there, the fiber is already there at the remote terminals.  They need to put the boxes on the other end of the fiber for the set top boxes to connect to.  

The dedicated line to your house is already there in the form of your phone line.

You seem to think I'm making this up.   Read the link I posted earlier.  Read this slashdot story http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/13/2220247&tid=129&tid=1
Read the posts about people who have this in Alberta, etc.  There are condos in Toronto which you can get this service from Bell Canada.  They have a remote terminal installed in the basements of condo buildings and phone lines throughout the condo building.  A condo owner installs a box in their place and gets TV over their phone lines.
  This is not a pipe dream, it's starting to happen.
Here's a nice quote: "SBC Communications, the dominant local phone company from the Midwest to California, *is deploying a full-blown IPTV system* that it plans to launch by year-end *in at least a few undisclosed markets.*" Emphasis mine.

It's well known that you don't get a profit on your investments in the first few years.  The telcos didn't make any money right away as they were putting in phone lines all over the place.  They were somewhat subsidized by the governments for that though, but still, you aren't making profit in the first few years no matter what.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 14, 2005)

There is also a difference between what SBC and Verizon are doing. Verizon is installing fiber to your house in limited markets right now.  SBC on the other hand is relying on their existing copper in the ground to provide IPTV.

We'll see who wins, and which one will end up being better in the long run.  Probably Verizon will win in the long run because fiber can outgrow the copper loops installed for phone lines, but SBC is really just trying this as a stop gap until they can roll out fiber or until better technology can extend the bandwidth of a phone line.


----------



## jeb1138 (Feb 14, 2005)

It's totally believable that SBC could do what Captain Code is talking about.  And like he said, if SBC themselves is hosting the material inside their network then the internet beyond SBC would not see one bit of a load increase.

Even if they did want to install more fiber, and Captain Code says they do not, for an example of quick fiber rollout see Provo Utah's iProvo project.
"The city launched a small pilot program, and in January of 2004 received approval from the city council to raise a $40 million bond to extend fiber directly to 27,000 homes and 4,100 businesses in the city. Organizers of iProvo are expecting about 30 percent of the city's residents and businesses to sign up for a service."
(http://news.com.com/City-owned+network+moves+forward/2100-1034_3-5272638.html)

Currently in Provo, many neighborhoods already have working fiber to their house and are on schedule to have the entire city connected with fiber before the end of the year.  That's a turn-around time of less than a year for many people.


----------



## Captain Code (Feb 14, 2005)

More info from Bell Canada
http://www.bce.ca/en/news/releases/bce/2004/12/15/71898.html

" Bell has launched a $1.2 billion, five-year program to extend the reach
and speed of its broadband network to serve some 4.3 million households by
2008. This represents 85 per cent of urban households in the Québec
City/Windsor corridor.
    "We are extending the reach of our fibre network into "local nodes" in
neighbourhoods and directly into multiple-dwelling buildings," said Eugene
Roman, Group President, Bell Systems and Technology. "The network is our
conduit into the broadband home which by 2006 will be able to provide up to 26 Mbps capability. It is 'broadband you can count on' because it is always on, never shared and highly reliable."
    The power and reach of that network will provide the technological
foundation to greatly expand the market for Bell's video and high-speed
Internet services."

Now, that's Bell Canada, but SBC is under a similar program.


----------

