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

[mindbend]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

So how is the signal delivered? Over the internet?

You have it about right. Certainly Internet Protocol TeleVison 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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.