IPTV

bk

useruser, I notice you still haven't answered my question as to why would a Sky user would change to IPTV?

What benefits would a Sky user gain from IPTV over sat?

useruser

bk wrote: »

useruser, I notice you still haven't answered my question as to why would a Sky user would change to IPTV?

What benefits would a Sky user gain from IPTV over sat?

Why indeed. Those 15 million idiots have been duped. Duped I tell ya'!

bk

useruser wrote: »

Why indeed. Those 15 million idiots have been duped. Duped I tell ya'!

Again, you still haven't answered my question, it is a very simple question, stop avoiding it.

What benefit would a Sky subscriber gain from changing to IPTV?

markpb

bk wrote: »

Again, you still haven't answered my question, it is a very simple question, stop avoiding it.

What benefit would a Sky subscriber gain from changing to IPTV?

useruser won't answer so I'll take a stab. The only reason I can think of is people living in managed estates or preserved houses where satellite dishes aren't an option.

useruser wrote: »

%10? I think you are way out, that's certainly not true worldwide, what is your estimate based on? My guess is that there are other reasons for Magnet promoting fibre over DSL.

The reason is the problems and cost associated with LLU. Why bother putting up with the hassle of dealing with a company like Eircom who really don't want other telcos competing with them when you can focus on your core competency. It also helps that IPTV over fiber is simpler and more cost efficient than DSL.

Snaga

IPTV is just a different distribution method.

For basic TV service though you should not care if you are watching TV distributed by sattelite or IPTV or cable.

IPTV gives the advantage of interactivity (The STB is a network device afterall), but it seems to be taking a while to get useful features implemented and deployed.

Sky have a very full featured service, as their middleware/backend systems have been in development for a lot longer than 5 years.

IPTV systems will get better, 5 years is not long at all for a whole new distribution platform to find its feet and set top box/middleware solutions based on two-way networks are getting better all the time.

watty

Or no UPC cable (or DTT is a flop)...

There will be continued growth in IPTV, entirely driven by fibre/copper pair only Telcos who think they must have triple play. Not whatsoever driven by consumer demand as the big VOD catalogue promised 10 years ago hasn't happened.

PVRs now allow background broadcast file save and flawless instant playback at upto BluRay quality HD and upto 200 films. Just fed by a variable bitrate non-realtime Broadcast (Cable, DTT or Satellite) or even IP multicast data. Much superior experiance to realtime IPTV VOD. Unless the 100,000 title catalogue materialises.

IPTV on DSL offers less than cable, DTT or Satellite in user experience, multiroom and quality. VDSL is not the solution as the high speeds are only close to the exchange. At 1km there is some marginal improvement between DSL ADSL2+ and VDSL, on poorer lines, more than 1.5km or lines with high crosstalk there is no advantage.

Crosstalk on multipair cables near exchange is now a big limit to adding customers. With a few you can have 20Mbps. But if every customer has xDSL, the crosstalk reduces max speed to maybe 8Mbps or less where you did have 20Mbps.

IPTV is actually as old as SkyDigital. Unless there is fibre it is not a replacement for traditional broadcast. What percent of families only have one TV? In Ireland the DSL version of IPTV has no future. Magnet was first and now they mostly only do new IPTV customers via fibre. This is even after an expensive upgrade to MPEG4 from MPEG2.

It's easy to have 100% growth from an almost nothing user base (IPTV). Satellite (Sky + Free) and UPC have together maybe over a million Irish households. They can rob from each other, but 100% growth is physically impossible. Within 2 years DTT will go from officially 1000 trial users to perhaps 400,000 households (maybe more), that's 200,000% growth per year

DTT will have gone from nothing to 30% by the time IPTV is still under 8%

People will pay more for Broadband than for TV, yet for a Telco, IPTV provision costs about x10 as much per user!

bk

It is telling that useruser won't answer my question.

Here is how I think a sales call by a IPTV sales man (IP) to a Sky customer (SC) would go:

IP: Hi, would you like to sign up to our new next generation ADSL IPTV service.

SC: Cool, will it be cheaper then Sky?

IP: Sorry no [1]

SC: OK will it offer better picture and sound quality then Sky?

IP: Sorry no [2]

SC: Ok, can I get it in three rooms?

IP: Sorry no, max 2 rooms

SC: So how about HD?

IP: Sorry no, we can't do HD [3]

SC: If I later cancel the IPTV service, can I continue to get over 100 free channels, like I can on satellite?

IP: Sorry, no

SC: Will it effect my current ADSL BB speed?

IP: Yes, your BB speed and all your torrents etc. will significantly slow down.

SC: Right, so what exactly is the benefit of IPTV to me?

[1] TV costs in Ireland/UK are mostly controlled by the content owners (Sky, etc.) if UPC can't go cheaper then Sky, no IPTV service will.

[2] More bandwidth available so better picture and sound quality.

[3] Minimum 10mb/s when most people can only get 12mb on average over ADSL2+

ADSL IPTV is only of interest to telecos, it has little or no benefit for ordinary people.

useruser

bk wrote: »

It is telling that useruser won't answer my question.

Very telling indeed, you have me bk. I'm just an IPTV shill and you have caught me out. Clearly no IPTV operator is able to compete successfully, they are losing market share continually and subscriber numbers are reducing all the time.

You haven't answered any of my questions so I don't feel obligated to answer yours, however, there is a wealth of material freely available on the net should anyone like to understand IPTV operator business cases. A good starting point might be: www.fierceiptv.com

watty

useruser wrote: »

should anyone like to understand IPTV operator business cases. [/url]

But pointless for Operators with broadcast capability, or without fibre.

Of course they will get more customers than they had, but as percent of Digital Multichannel market including free channel systems the DSL market share is falling and will continue to do so. New broadcast based startups with and without broadband/phone will zoom past any real growth in DSL IPTV. In Ireland especially with low exchange density (= longer lines) and higher DSL line failure rate it can't ever reach more than a small percentage of DSL users, which will in the future be a minority of BB users (fibre, Metro, Cable, WiMax and other fixed wireless, Mobile etc).

The main DSL owner (eircom) is trialling IPTV and has done before years ago. Smart and Magnet have tried it since the begining of LLU and both now prefer fibre. No operator with broadcast spectrum is likely to invest in a 2nd best failed technology.

I don't understand who you are trying to sell the dying horse to, UserUser. Only a DSL only telco would be interested and the main one hasn't the money to roll it out even though they periodically "test" it.

useruser

watty wrote: »

I don't understand who you are trying to sell the dying horse to, UserUser. Only a DSL only telco would be interested and the main one hasn't the money to roll it out even though they periodically "test" it.

You obviously know best watty. That's some deep insight: "only a DSL telco would be interested" [in DSL IPTV], well, duh!

Let's wait and see what another couple of years brings. My bet is (and the current trend seems to show) that you are way off the money.

watty

I didn't mention fibre since that is almost of the radar and likely to remain so for home users. Which leaves DSL.

I don't bet. I've never even done the Lottery.

bk

useruser wrote: »

You haven't answered any of my questions so I don't feel obligated to answer yours, however, there is a wealth of material freely available on the net should anyone like to understand IPTV operator business cases. A good starting point might be: www.fierceiptv.com

I'll happily answer any questions you ask, please ask them?

Now will you answer my question, what benefit would a Sky subscriber gain from switching to IPTV?

useruser

watty wrote: »

I don't bet.

Probably for the best ;-)

useruser

bk wrote: »

I'll happily answer any questions you ask, please ask them?

There are a whole slew of them up above bk, take your pick.

Now will you answer my question, what benefit would a Sky subscriber gain from switching to IPTV?

I'm not sure why you are so fixated on this bk. The simple fact is that, for whatever reason, customers are choosing to sign up to IPTV services. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

bk

useruser wrote: »

Yes of course, all IPTV is IP based. I assume you are aware that one common FTTH technology allows RF TV to be broadcast in a separate frequency band from the data traffic? Verizon FiOS is not IPTV.

Ahem, on the frontpage of the site you pointed me to:
http://www.fierceiptv.com/story/verizon-continues-analog-phase-out/2008-07-15

So yes, Verizon customers are included as IPTV customers.

useruser wrote: »

All large deployments are multicast for broadcast TV (obviously VoD is unicast). The user does not "receive all channels at the same time" I guess you must have mistyped this as you seem to have missed the whole point of multicast. The customer's STB requests individual channels using IGMP as and when needed, the stream is then relayed to the STB.

Of course I'm aware of this, I tried simplifying the language for people who aren't network experts.

useruser wrote: »

Well this remains to be seen. All commercial deployments use multicast for broadcast channels. The % of VoD and hence unicast traffic is expected to increase rapidly as more content becomes available.

While VoD is pretty much the only compelling reason for IPTV, it is a nightmare for telecos and they are very slow to roll it out. If VoD really takes off, then the telcos will almost need an encoder per customer and massive amounts of core bandwidth for all the unicast streams.

Ironically most of the VoD deployments in the world are actually on cable!!

useruser wrote: »

Which is why nobody would propose such an architecture, have you ever seen something like this?

Of course not, I was just trying to explain the different ways of doing IPTV. However the reason why I mention it, is that the only compelling reason I see for people to sign up to IPTV is for VoD and if they really use VoD, this is what you are going to end up with.

This is why the telcos are in a catch 22, there is almost no reason why someone who is on cable or satellite would bother to sign up to IPTV, unless the telco provides an excellent VoD service, but then the teleco ends up with pretty much a unicast network.

useruser wrote: »

This is absolutely wrong bk. Any large IPTV deployment always uses multicast for broadcast channels, with all streams going as far as the DSLAM or an aggregation point just before the DSLAM. Encoders are not distributed (they will be at the headend(s)). Unicast VoD servers may be distributed closer to the end user (they are relatively cheap commodity servers).

Of course, again I was just putting it in language that a layman can understand.

useruser wrote: »

That's a silly statement bk. Do you think the user gives a toss what codec is in use? Of course I am comparing like with like - one TV service with another.

Yes, but from what I've seen MPEG2 sat still ends up looking better then MPEG4 over DSL IPTV. And it still doesn't fix the problem that on most lines you can probably only squeeze two streams down a DSL line and no HD.

useruser wrote: »

Really? Is there any research to back up this claim?

It is all about the bit rates, very simple. The higher the bitrate, the better the picture and sound quality. DSL IPTV is bit rate constrant, fibre, sat and cable aren't.

As an example BluRay discs are typically encoded at 35 to 40mb/s in MPEG4. So when we talk about HD at 10mb/s, it isn't even a quarter of the quality of a BluRay movie.

In my experience HD services (like Xbox 360) are only slightly better then DVD.

useruser wrote: »

12 million subscribers say you're wrong, although I guess that's a pathetic number really.

Yes, it is a pathetic number. I mean I'm one of those 12 million and I hate IPTV. I wonder how many of those other 12 million are like me, trapped in a monopoly where I've no other choice?

Also, you do now that many if not most of those IPTV users are actually getting the IPTV part for free?

France has the most IPTV users in the world, over 3 million.

Why is that, does it have anything to do with Free Telecom offering 24mp BB, free calls and free IPTV for just €30 per month.

Everyone who signs up to BB from Free in France automatically gets the IPTV service, even if they don't want the IPTV part. Personally I'd happily take IPTV if I got 24mb BB for €30 per month. Many people in the industry question how many of these users actually bother to use the IPTV service and are instead just getting it for the BB:

http://telcotv-view.blogspot.com/2007/03/free-grows-to-17-m-iptv-subs-in-france.html

Some more interesting commentary on free IPTV here (scroll down to the comments):

http://telcotv-view.blogspot.com/2007/04/telia-offers-free-iptv-in-sweden.html

So given that many of the 12m are actually getting IPTV for free as part of their BB package, it makes 12m look even more pathetic.

And no wonder IPTV has grown 100% when Free and other companies bundle it be default with their very cheap and good BB products. It is just a free add on that you can ignore if you want.

It is also interesting to note that Free is now upgrading it's network to FTTH. Why are Free, the largest DSL IPTV provider in the world going FTTH, if DSL IPTV works so well?

So now, will you answer my question?

useruser

bk wrote: »

So now, will you answer my question?

No.

bk

useruser wrote: »

No.

Haha, ROFLOL :rolleyes:

AntiVirus

I can't believe all the posts of people arguing over IPTV. Face it, if it wasn't needed it wouldn't be there. It will just get bigger.

If you search on this forum you'll probably find these are the same people who were arguing a few years ago about not needing internet speeds over 1mb. lol

Othello

Some Market Data points about IPTV over mainly DSL

Belgacom reported in Q1 2008 that 349K of their 817K consumer BB customers had IPTV

FT reported in Q1 2008 that 1.3M of their 7.6M consumer BB customers had IPTV.

Iliad (Free) in France reported in Q4 2007 that 2.3M of their 2.9M BB customers had IPTV

PCCW in Hong Kong in Q4 2007 reported that 882K of their 1.1M customers had IPTV

Those ain't shabby numbers!

bk

AntiVirus wrote: »

If you search on this forum you'll probably find these are the same people who were arguing a few years ago about not needing internet speeds over 1mb. lol

I think if you go back a few years on this forum, you will find I was a member of Ireland Off Line right from the start and I fought very hard to get BB introduced in Ireland and I've always argued for and did what I could for us to get faster and faster BB speeds.

I'm critical of ADSL IPTV, because of what I know of it and my own personal experience of it.

useruser

AntiVirus wrote: »

If you search on this forum you'll probably find these are the same people who were arguing a few years ago about not needing internet speeds over 1mb. lol

Actually, we had nearly the same debate here just over 2 years ago: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054901852&page=3 Subscriber numbers have increased nearly 10 fold since then. It will be interesting to see what another 2 years brings.

bk is right about one thing though: Verizon's FiOS service does include IPTV, something I wasn't aware of. They provide a hybrid set top box that takes all broadcast channels and PPV from the RF signal (over fibre) but is also capable of receiving IPTV VoD through the data path. I don't know if this is a new development or has always been the case.

bk

Othello wrote: »

Some Market Data points about IPTV over mainly DSL

FT reported in Q1 2008 that 1.3M of their 7.6M consumer BB customers had IPTV.

Iliad (Free) in France reported in Q4 2007 that 2.3M of their 2.9M BB customers had IPTV

Both package basic IPTV service for free with their €30 BB package along with 18 to 24m BB and unlimited phone calls. You can't get BB from Free without taking their IPTV service. Many people question how many of these people actually make use of the IPTV service.

Does anyone expect to get IPTV + 24m BB + free calls in Ireland from Eircom, et al?

Plus both of these companies are now rushing to rollout FTTH. Why do this if DSL IPTV is so great.

Othello wrote: »

Belgacom reported in Q1 2008 that 349K of their 817K consumer BB customers had IPTV

IPTV + BB + phone for just €30, however in fairness they do have non IPTV packages, so it is a bit more relevant then the French above.

Othello wrote: »

PCCW in Hong Kong in Q4 2007 reported that 882K of their 1.1M customers had IPTV

Most of their network is FTTH or FTTB, they offer 100m BB to peoples homes!!! This is Hong Kong after all, this is an example of where IPTV does work, over high speed fibre.

useruser

bk wrote: »

Most of their network is FTTH or FTTB, they offer 100m BB to peoples homes!!! This is Hong Kong after all, this is an example of where IPTV does work, over high speed fibre.

More than %50 of PCCWs' broadband subscribers are on exchange launched ADSL (not ADSL2+).

bk

useruser wrote: »

More than %50 of PCCWs' broadband subscribers are on exchange launched ADSL (not ADSL2+).

I point out that the majority of your 12 million IPTV users are actually getting it for free as part of their BB service and this is the best you can come up with is this, weak.

By the way the vast majority of people living in Hong Kong are on Fibre, I've got a few friends living there and this is what they tell me. It makes sense as Honk Kong is very high density, mostly very tall apartment buildings, so most have FTTB.

Now that I've answered all your questions, will you answer mine, what benefit would a sky customer gain from moving to IPTV?

useruser

bk wrote: »

I point out that the majority of your 12 million IPTV users are actually getting it for free as part of their BB service and this is the best you can come up with is this, weak.

Huh? PCCW have been doing IPTV over DSL longer than anyone else, the majority of their customers are still on DSL. I'm just correcting your misapprehension.

Anyway, I'm sure you are right. I now realise that all IPTV subscribers in the world get the service for free (in fact, they are forced to take it), none of them use it and even if they did it doesn't work. Thanks for clearing that up.

By the way the vast majority of people living in Hong Kong are on Fibre, I've got a few friends living there and this is what they tell me. It makes sense as Honk Kong is very high density, mostly very tall apartment buildings, so most have FTTB.

The figures I have for Hong Kong (FTTH Council, mid 2007) are: 2 million broadband subscribers total, 500k FTTH/B subscribers, 7m households. But I guess your friends know best.

Now that I've answered all your questions, will you answer mine, what benefit would a sky customer gain from moving to IPTV?

I already said "no" didn't I?

bk

useruser wrote: »

I already said "no" didn't I?

Well, that pretty much answers my question, if you can't even come up with a good reason for a Sky subscriber to switch to DSL IPTV, then clearly it is a non starter in Ireland.

It is interesting, with all this sudden interest in DSL IPTV, I assume one of the Irish telcos must be getting ready to roll out IPTV over DSL.

Othello

Hi BK,

I don't think any IPTV operator would target Sky customers as they are the blue riband provider for broadcast video. However, their charges start to rack up if you have choose Sky Sports, Sky Movies, multiroom and/or HD.

You say that in France people get free IPTV. It would be more correct to say that IPTV is part of the bundle of voice+TV+broadband (and at a kicker price of €30 one wonders if service providers are they making any money!)

In the Irish context if one has a need for voice, broadband and TV and don't need all the frills is it easier to buy all from one provider? Could that be ntl, Magnet, Smart or eircom? May, if it all works!!

Now PCCW are worth looking at. It seems that are enabling their customers to consume content (broadcast, VOD, user generated etc) at home (on ADSL BB) on both TV and PC, on the move (on mobile device & mobile BB) and on public WiFi. You can 'logon' on to 'your subscribed services' in any of these environments and the content is rendered to suit your device. This opens completely new business and advertising models & revenue streams.
All goes to keeping customers happy - broadband churn at an unheard of 1%!! http://www.pccw.com/eng/Investors/Presentations.html

useruser

bk wrote: »

Well, that pretty much answers my question, if you can't even come up with a good reason for a Sky subscriber to switch to DSL IPTV, then clearly it is a non starter in Ireland.

Are you listening out there Mr. Telecom's man? I have (not) spoken. There is no possible way for you to compete in the Irish TV marketplace. QED.

I'm flattered bk but I don't think it necessarily follows that because I have not given you an answer to your question that IPTV is a non-starter.

watty

Of course it's not a non-starter. But the potential full market is about 200,000 in Ireland on IPTV DSL. With only about 25% of those reliably able to have a 2nd set box and 10% to have real HD. Maybe 20,000 fibre IPTV. It's unlikely to reach anything like full theoretical percentage of population due to better DTT, Cable, MMDS/Wireless and Satellite products.


Non-IPTV, higher quality services:

Potential for Cable is maybe 500,000+ with any number of rooms TV /Set box and over 30 HD channel and over 200 SD channels and hidden Push VOD, with phone and Broadband.

Potential for Satellite is maybe 2,500,000+ households with any number of rooms TV /Set box and over 50 HD channel and over 800 SD channels and hidden Push VOD.

Potential for MMDS is 250,000+ with any number of rooms TV /Set box and over 30 HD channel and over 200 SD channels and hidden Push VOD. Phone and Broadband would have to be a separate Wireless supplier or phone/DSL

Potential for DTT is 2,700,000 Households with with any number of rooms TV /Set box and about 5 HD channel and over 25 SD channels and hidden Push VOD. Broadband & phone by any method available.

Potential for Some Wireless Providers to do Digtial TV: Up to 800,000 households with any number of rooms TV /Set box and over 20 HD channel and over 150 SD channels and hidden Push VOD.

So All IPTV (and DSL IPTV in particular) will never be more than a small percentage. it has a high growth because the installed base is so tiny. The average copper line length in Ireland is too long for the speeds.

Other than the minority on good lines within 1.2km of exchange, DSL will be left behind over the next year by Cable and Wireless, not just Fibre.

Cable is likely to reach more than 50% of it's passed households. DTT will go from zero to 70% population in less than two years. Satellite is at about 1/3rd and will easily grow to 1/2 of population fuelled by HD, better PVR, quality, breadth/quantity and wide availability (not all will be paying customers. Free users may reach 10% to 20%). I'll be very very surprised if IPTV on DSL ever ever reaches 10%.

DSL is close to peak of speed and penetration in Ireland due to line length. Rather than quadruple the number of exchanges which would make higher speeds and IPTV more available the NGN plan is fibre to cabinet on existing deployments, then VDSL at 100Mbps. Less exchanges. But eircom has the infrastructure and no money to do that. In the unlikely event it did happen then IPTV might reach 15% to 20%. Satellite will be 50% to 60% by then! Ka band is only 3 years away and is 1000x capacity per satellite.


I'm being very generous on my DSL figures.

useruser

watty wrote: »

Of course it's not a non-starter.

That's a bit of a turnaround from your earlier claim that "In Ireland the DSL version of IPTV has no future," and that "The only viable alternative to aerial, Satellite and Cable TV is fibre."

Potential for Some Wireless Providers to do Digtial TV: Up to 800,000 households with any number of rooms TV /Set box and over 20 HD channel and over 150 SD channels and hidden Push VOD.

I remember you hinting at this 2 years ago, is Digiweb actually going to launch anything? Can you describe how this will be delivered?

Other than the minority on good lines within 1.2km of exchange, DSL will be left behind over the next year by Cable and Wireless, not just Fibre.

That's a bold prediction watty, I'll come back to you in a years time and we'll see if there are more Cable, Wireless and Fibre broadband subscribers in Ireland than DSL. It's a pity you're not a betting man.

I'm being very generous on my DSL figures.

Good man. Where do you get them from by the way?