UK: LLU done right

watty

Foxwood wrote:

Broadband is a luxury commodity. Joe Public will pay a lot more for TV and "added value" services such as VOD than he will for broadband. Sky Digital Sports & Movies costs over £40/month. HD service costs an extra £10. That's over £50/month.

That's a lot more revenue than you'll get for just broadband and telephony on your LLU copper.

But the cost [Of VOD services] on Broadband is disproprotionaly higher. Why should that investment be done for 10% of people in ireland when maybe >50% can't get ANY DSL broadband?

And really is more than 10% of TV content WORTH spending money on? PVRs with 1tera byte will be common so broadcast and your ow VOD server (PVR) is the future for consumers. Realtime VOD /IP is driven by PAY TV and equipment vendors. Not by what consumers want.

Your own Terabyte VOD (PVR) works when no broadcast or broadband is available. You can archive. Heavily DRM'd IPTV content you pay EVERY VIEWING and in a year may be off the catalogue.

Foxwood

damien.m wrote:

When people in the present can't get the most basic forms of broadband I have little time for fanboys describing their waking technological wetdreams and arguing moot points just so they can massage their own egos.

By that logic, Ireland Offline should stick to campaigning for universal 56K dialup, as even 1Mb broadband is still a "technological wetdream" for more than a few people in Ireland.

If IOFFL had waited until everyone had "decent" dialup speeds before it started to focus on Broadband, it'd still be talking (to itself) about dialup. If it waits to talk about the technologies in use in other EU countries until everyone has 1Mb DSL, then it won't have much of a support base left by the time it decides to upgrade it's objectives.

watty

Foxwood wrote:

By that logic, Ireland Offline should stick to campaigning for universal 56K dialup, as even 1Mb broadband is still a "technological wetdream" for more than a few people in Ireland.

If IOFFL had waited until everyone had "decent" dialup speeds before it started to focus on Broadband, it'd still be talking (to itself) about dialup. If it waits to talk about the technologies in use in other EU countries until everyone has 1Mb DSL, then it won't have much of a support base left by the time it decides to upgrade it's objectives.

But VOD/IPTV on 20Mbps is more about PayTV and corporate control than real consumer choice or need. The big back catalogue of material on VOD is a myth. VOD content is more like Xtra vision or Sky PPV box office. The closest you can get to back catalog VOD is to buildup your own DVD library, scouring Internet for limited back catalog releases that don't make it to the High Street. But even Virign, Golden Discs or HMV in high street has more choice than any current VOD systems.

Broadcast (esp. FTA channels) + DVDs and a big PVR is always going to make VOD look like an eliteist Corporate controlled toy.

The 56K dialup vs 1Mbps broadband and Broadband Vs IPTV/VOD arguement does not hold water, it is not comparable.

There is NO sensible alternative to Broadband. Broadcast + PVR + DVD is better than IPTV will ever be.

I'm shortly & cheaply upgrading to HDTV + HDTV sat (PVR) and next year probabily get HD or BD HD DVD player upgrade. That combo gives more quality and more choice at a lower cost than Comcast Fibre IPTV or French IPTV. The DVD & PVR give me VOD.

Foxwood

watty wrote:

But the cost [Of VOD services] on Broadband is disproprotionaly higher. Why should that investment be done for 10% of people in ireland when maybe >50% can't get ANY DSL broadband?

Why should any investment be made in any broadband at all? Because it'll make money for someone. NTL are never going to deliver cable TV to lots of people in Ireland - does that mean that they shouldn't be allowed to deliver it to the people that it makes economic sense for them to deliver it to?

Why should eircom be investing in ANY DSL equipment when there are people who can't even get V92 dialup speeds? Should everyone wait for the lowest common denominator before moving, in lock step, up to the next level? That attitude delayed DSL rollout in Ireland by 3 years, because Telecom Eireann was afraid of the political backlash if it rolled out DSL in affluent Dublin 4 (where it made economic sense) and didn't roll it out in less affluent areas. As a result, the first commercial availability of DSL in Ireland occurred almost 5 years after the technlogy was available in the US (in affluent suburbs)

And really is more than 10% of TV content WORTH spending money on? PVRs with 1tera byte will be common so broadcast and your ow VOD server (PVR) is the future for consumers. Realtime VOD /IP is driven by PAY TV and equipment vendors. Not by what consumers want.

It doesn't matter what consumers want - it only matters what they are willing to pay for. (That's not my personal opinion, by the way, it's just the way the market works, whether I like it or not). I love my Tivo, but Tivo might just kill ad-supported "free" broadcasting, so pay to view (whether it's a bundle of 50 channels for 30 euro, or a single progam for 3 euro) is going to be playing an increasing role in everyones future.

Your own Terabyte VOD (PVR) works when no broadcast or broadband is available. You can archive. Heavily DRM'd IPTV content you pay EVERY VIEWING and in a year may be off the catalogue.

Do you honestly think that kids who grow up spending 10c to send a 10 character text message will have any difficulty with paying per view? We're in a minority, Watty. The services won't be built to serve customers like us.

watty

It's depressing. Foxwood. You might be right.

However I'll keep beavering away "behind the scenes" for more broadband coverage and quality and more TV services with real choice and quality.

Anyhow my point about VOD is that anyone can make more money easier out of actual broadband than VOD. Though VOD brings in more revenue, the costs are disproportionaly higher. Some companies have fallen for the hype and not done the sums properly.

Foxwood

watty wrote:

Anyhow my point about VOD is that anyone can make more money easier out of actual broadband than VOD. Though VOD brings in more revenue, the costs are disproportionaly higher. Some companies have fallen for the hype and not done the sums properly.

It doesn't cost 10,000 times as much to deliver TV to 10,000 people than it does to deliver it to 1 person. While there are economies of scale in delivering broadband, they are dwarfed by the economies of scale in delivering TV - after a certain point, every extra customer is gravy, pure profit. In an area that's sufficiently densely populated and where the existing copper infrastructure is up to the job, the sums work out very nicely. Whether they'll work out nicely in Ireland is another question, but the lack of Digital Terrestrial, the price of Sky, and the presence of 100,000 Poles who might pay for Polish TV definitely makes it worth considering. And a company like Magnet doesn't have to even pretend that it's aiming for nation-wide coverage, because nobody expects it of them.

watty

Leaving out Content costs:
Broadcast costs almost exactly the same for 4Million as 1.
True realtime VOD *DOES* almost cost 10,000x more for 10,000 people and non-watching users of Broadband end up slightly subsidizing the network costs.

Much more Polish TV is on satellite than ANY IPTV or cable company will offer, including some FTA. The Cyfra+ subs are inexpensive and widespread in Limerick.

Satellite has nationwide coverage and nearly 100 languages. Magnet is unlikely to do more than cherrypick expensive developments. 10% coverage max with a tiny line up compared even with NTL. They may be IPTV, but a poorer choice, poorer quality clone of cable TV. Magent are not a good example of IPTV. Comcast who have a big catalogue or real VOD as well as the standard cable channels is a better example.

On Terrestrial & Satellite each extra customer once you are in profit, *is* nearly pure profit (apart from 200 Euro to 400 Euro install cost). Ordinay Cable TV is less profitable as more cable needs run as well as box install and box cost.

IPTV/VOD has more expensive cable costs, similar box/install costs and added extra backhaul costs than per user always. There is no gravey. CableTV is much cheaper and Satellite cheaper still.

Satellite companies particularly love online/phone orders from those with a self installed or subscription renewal as the install cost is zero. IPTV and Cable will always have install cost, usually a renewal involves install/replacement box.

The PayTV is a very hard buisness model compared with selling broadband. IPTV pay TV over broadband is harder per customer forever compared with Broadcast, and also worse than cable broadcast.

IPTV can be on dsl copper, fibre or cable TV coax. It really needs fibre as far as each street at least to be viable amount of bandwidth.

At least Magnet have very deep pockets, but it is hard to see how they can make money unless they charge many times more than Sky or NTL.

oscarBravo

*cough*

probe

If IPTV is so expensive to deliver, one has to wonder how Iliad made an operating profit of €89.5 m on revenues of €448 million (http://www.iliad.fr/en/finances/2006/CP20060907_Eng.pdf), virtually of all of which is earned from their 1.9 million DSL subscribers in France, of which 1.26 million use the free TV that comes with their DSL modem and 273,000 pay for extra optional TV programming? After all they only charge €29.99 per month for the 28 Mbits/sec broadband, phone (including unlimited free calls to 28 countries) and TV (adsl.free.fr/tv).

Satellite will never be able to deliver video on demand. Neither will DTT. Cable TV is dead unless it goes total FTTP – and even then the cable architecture has severe VoD limitations. In effect, cable will have to become like DSL – which implies an upgrade to fibre and links running directly from street cabinets to each premises (rather than house to house coax).

IPTV can use HD caching at various points in the network – depending on the popularity of the content, user preferences etc. Some content could be stored on a HD in the set-top box (i.e. very user specific stuff). More stored at the service access node on HDs shared by 100 to 200 households in a neighbourhood (e.g. popular programming – the latest news and the last four or five hours of content on popular channels for people who are playing catch-up. Even more VoD content (less in demand stuff) can be stored at a central point and streamed when requested. The good old 80:20 rule.

Swisscom’s DSL service offers a useful set top box that can be accessed over the internet from anywhere. It can store up to 200 hours of programmes from any cable service.
http://fr.bluewin.ch/services/index.php/tv/
To use it, you go into the website (eg from home, at the office, from your mobile phone), enter your user ID and password, surf through the TV guide and click on the ones you plan to watch.

The next stage in this scenario is you get home, go into the web based TV guide, and see a programme listing for an item that you have missed – click on it and it is streamed to your TV immediately either from the HD in the MSAN box that serves your home (located on the curb side, in the RSU or from the service centre) – depending on where the URL for that programme points to.

Iliad isn’t standing still with their €29.99 everything offer. On 5 October they announced some VoIP mobile phone convergence products – including a WiFi GSM mobile phone that allows you to call 28 countries free when you are within a WiFi coverage zone. It can also work with the rip-off cellular network Mafiosi when you only have GSM coverage available to you.
http://www.iliad.fr/en/presse/2006/CP_051006_Eng.pdf

Iliad also announced that their new Paris-wide fibre to the premises network will be open to all operators to “unbundle” to provide their own services over this infrastructure.
http://www.iliad.fr/en/presse/2006/CP_11092006_cp4_eng.pdf
No doubt they recognise the benefit of having lots of guys creating and selling products and services which ends up travelling over their pipe.

A refreshing difference from the head in the sand approach generally found in Ireland.

.probe

bk

probe wrote:

If IPTV is so expensive to deliver

He didn't say that IPTV was expensive to deliver (it isn't it can easily be multicast, like Verizon does in the US), he said a true VoD system, where people get all their content via VoD is expensive to deliver.

In reality no true VoD system exists anywhere in the world. In reality most services deliver TV by normal broadcasting methods (over DTT, cable, Sat, IPTV multicast) and only deliver a very small percentage of TV viewing via VoD.

probe wrote:

Cable TV is dead unless it goes total FTTP – and even then the cable architecture has severe VoD limitations. In effect, cable will have to become like DSL – which implies an upgrade to fibre and links running directly from street cabinets to each premises (rather than house to house coax).

The Coax cable running to the house is capable of up to 8.5Gbit/s and is excellently suited to being used for data networks. In fact it is much the same as the cable used in Cat5.

And in most cases of well developed cable networks, the Fibre is already run very close to the home. Fibre To The Node tends to be much closer to the homes then telephone exchanges and DSL. That is why modern cable networks are called Hybrid Fibre Coax networks.

I also find it funny that you mock cable like this, yet probably the most successful VoD network in the world is the Comcast cable network in Boston, which has an excellent VoD service that I've had the pleasure to use.

Liam Byrne

Forgive me if technology has overtaken me, but I seem to remember that coax was only feasible for something like 22 metres, after which CAT5 was the only option ?

Admittedly this was back in 1992, when I was involved in such things, so maybe this doesn't apply anymore ?

bk

Liam Byrne wrote:

Forgive me if technology has overtaken me, but I seem to remember that coax was only feasible for something like 22 metres, after which CAT5 was the only option ?

You are probably thinking of 10BASE2, which used RG-58 coaxial cable , which has far less well shielded.

Cable industry usually uses RG-6 or RG-11 coaxial cable which have far better shielding and can be used over very far distances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coax

watty

It wasn't the coax that is the problem but the CDCA algorthim. It isn't to do with shielding either. The 10base2 is a BUS system, up to 100m. Each tap affects the quality and any can try talking at same time. On Twisted pair you only have your own "conversation" if it is a swtich. If it is a Hub, it really like 10base2 with all the transeivers onto the bus inside the box, instead of on NIC (in cheapernet, RG58) or on vampire tap (The thicker RG213 style).

The distance increase in Cable TV and DOCSIS is more to do with a different kind of signal than the cable.

probe

bk wrote:

The Coax cable running to the house is capable of up to 8.5Gbit/s and is excellently suited to being used for data networks. In fact it is much the same as the cable used in Cat5.

And in most cases of well developed cable networks, the Fibre is already run very close to the home. Fibre To The Node tends to be much closer to the homes then telephone exchanges and DSL. That is why modern cable networks are called Hybrid Fibre Coax networks.

I also find it funny that you mock cable like this, yet probably the most successful VoD network in the world is the Comcast cable network in Boston, which has an excellent VoD service that I've had the pleasure to use.

Probe is not "mocking" cable! It has had its day and the cable companies do not appear willing to bring it up to date in Ireland. In the town I live in, cable was upgraded for HDTV 2 years ago and we have had stereo sound for decades. Chorus is still delivering mono sound (ie not NICAM) and no cable in Ireland has been upgraded to HD. And the choice of channels in Ireland on cable is appallingly narrow. Endless Simpsons. British sports and soap operas. No specialist channels - such as Mezzo (www.mezzo.tv), Meteo, www.hd-1.tv,
Deutsche Welle TV, Arte, etc.

Anyway it’s not the speed of the coax that is the key limiting factor - it is the architecture of the cable TV networks in Ireland which generally run the cable from house to house to house. The bandwidth has to be shared by all the houses en route. Not a problem with broadcast TV – providing one has enough bandwidth to carry the required number of channels at an acceptable bitrate to deliver a good quality sound/picture.

This cable architecture does not lend itself to VoD because each VoD stream requires a separate TV channel running back to the service provision node. Internet access over cable is also limited in terms of the max speed and contention ratios deliverable to each subscriber. Security alarm services over cable have other problems – chop the cable at the right point and you can break into every house in the street without an alarm being reported to the control centre.

While the cable companies could fix that problem by re-wiring every house individually to a curb side MSAN, it would be akin to VDSL running at 5 Gbits/sec rather than 50 Mbits/sec and wouldn’t provide much in the line of extra benefits over using the copper pair.

.probe

bk

probe wrote:

Probe is not "mocking" cable! It has had its day and the cable companies do not appear willing to bring it up to date in Ireland. In the town I live in, cable was upgraded for HDTV 2 years ago and we have had stereo sound for decades. Chorus is still delivering mono sound (ie not NICAM) and no cable in Ireland has been upgraded to HD. And the choice of channels in Ireland on cable is appallingly narrow. Endless Simpsons. British sports and soap operas. No specialist channels - such as Mezzo (www.mezzo.tv), Meteo, www.hd-1.tv,
Deutsche Welle TV, Arte, etc.

Anyway it’s not the speed of the coax that is the key limiting factor - it is the architecture of the cable TV networks in Ireland which generally run the cable from house to house to house. The bandwidth has to be shared by all the houses en route. Not a problem with broadcast TV – providing one has enough bandwidth to carry the required number of channels at an acceptable bitrate to deliver a good quality sound/picture.

When you specify Ireland, what you say above is fine. I agree that the cable network in Ireland is bad (but getting better), but what you say above is certainly not true of most modern cable networks around the world.

probe wrote:

This cable architecture does not lend itself to VoD because each VoD stream requires a separate TV channel running back to the service provision node. Internet access over cable is also limited in terms of the max speed and contention ratios deliverable to each subscriber.

As I said the most successful (has something like 80% of all VoD streams last year) is Comcasts cable network in the US.

Cable has plenty of bandwidth, as long as the network is well designed, it will well be much more then VDSL and equal to residential fibre. Take a look at this article (andkeep in mind that in the US they carry 70 or so analogue channels including HD channels, using far more bandwidth then in Ireland):
http://blog.cabledigitalnews.com/index.php?id=570

Actually this is great site for lots of news and analysis of the cable industry.

probe wrote:

While the cable companies could fix that problem by re-wiring every house individually to a curb side MSAN, it would be akin to VDSL running at 5 Gbits/sec rather than 50 Mbits/sec and wouldn’t provide much in the line of extra benefits over using the copper pair.

Most modern HFC networks are already very like what curb side MSAN's would become.