Wimax?

geordief · 12-03-2006 2:16pm #1

I heard that Wimax was coming closer.(might be something to do with developing chip technology) Does anyone have an idea of how long it would take to roll out.Would it have a range of 5 miles as the crow flies in the country and would the lie of the land come into it?

djmarkus · 12-03-2006 2:26pm

i hope that it has a range of more than 5 miles, ordinary wireless has a range better than that

aidan_walsh · 12-03-2006 2:28pm

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

Wikipedia wrote:

IEEE 802.16 provides up to 50 km (31 miles) of linear service area range and allows connectivity between users without a direct line of sight. Note that this should not be taken to mean that users 50 km (31 miles) away without line of sight will have connectivity. Practical limits from real world tests seem to be around "3 to 5 miles" (5 to 8 kilometers). The technology has been claimed to provide shared data rates up to 70 Mbit/s, which, according to WiMAX proponents, is enough bandwidth to simultaneously support more than 60 businesses with T1-type connectivity and well over a thousand homes at 1Mbit/s DSL-level connectivity. Real world tests, however, show practical maximum data rates between 500kbit/s and 2 Mbit/s, depending on conditions at a given site.

Villain · 12-03-2006 2:31pm

Intel Ireland are testing wimax at the moment, optimal range is 4-6 miles, but it can cover up to 30 miles.

bk · 12-03-2006 2:55pm

irish1 wrote:

Intel Ireland are testing wimax at the moment, optimal range is 4-6 miles, but it can cover up to 30 miles.

Is the 4-6 miles non-line of sight (good) or line of sight (not good).

The technology Digiweb is using for Metro seems to be 15 miles line of sight and seems to offer higher speeds.

The one advantage of a standard like wimax is that lots of different companies will make gear for it, driving down prices.

Villain · 12-03-2006 3:07pm

I believe its non-line of sight.

watty · 12-03-2006 4:55pm

It is an excuse for Intel to sell chips.

Other standards the chips are available from companies with track record designing RF chips.

Wimax LOS or not depends on the band. On the 6GHz to 10Ghz bands it performs no different to Digiweb Metro with similar outdoor aerial and range.

It may perfom slightly less LOS on 3.5GHz, but then the system Digiweb is using would too (and is avaibable for that band), but AFAIK, Eircom has most of the licence for 3.5GHz and Digiweb hasn't.

The Wimax integrated to Notebooks or on PCMCIA cards may perform better than Wifi, but won't break the laws of Physics either, it would compter with the IBB indoor plastic box product, assuming anyone gets suitable spectrum licence.

The more I study Wimax I feel it is over sold. It won't solve Ireland's BB access problems on its own. Unless Eircom mysteriously decides to use it on 3.5GHz and sell 2Mb at 20Euro a month with 100 Euro install. But they could do that without Wimax too.

useruser · 12-03-2006 5:39pm

watty wrote:

It may perfom slightly less LOS on 3.5GHz, but then the system Digiweb is using would too (and is avaibable for that band), but AFAIK, Eircom has most of the licence for 3.5GHz and Digiweb hasn't.

The more I study Wimax I feel it is over sold. It won't solve Ireland's BB access problems on its own. Unless Eircom mysteriously decides to use it on 3.5GHz and sell 2Mb at 20Euro a month with 100 Euro install. But they could do that without Wimax too.

You're right on the money watty, Wimax is just an improvement on the currently available fixed wireless technologies (no mobile Wimax available yet). Whether it can cover 30miles+ or not is irrelevant, plenty of stuff can do that but it would be a big waste of spectrum except in completely rural areas (where operators probably aren't going to have the population density to bother).

Ireland has a big imbalance in the % of wireless broadband users because DSL is expensive here. If/when the wireline prices come down or we see more cable penetration then wireless will be forgotten. Fixed wireless is expensive to roll out and is always capacity constrained by availability of spectrum.

Villain · 12-03-2006 5:45pm

watty wrote:

It is an excuse for Intel to sell chips.

Well I hope it works and helps create a another few thousand jobs in Ireland.

DonegalMan · 12-03-2006 5:47pm

useruser wrote:

Ireland has a big imbalance in the % of wireless broadband users because DSL is expensive here.

Probably more to do with the lack of availability rather than price.

useruser · 12-03-2006 6:02pm

DonegalMan wrote:

Probably more to do with the lack of availability rather than price.

Don't think so - the wireless operators are (in the main) targeting the same areas as the wireline guys, rural users are left out in the cold by both technologies.

watty · 12-03-2006 6:12pm

The wireless operators go for the denser areas first then start adding lower denmsity that the cable / adsl won't do.

Fixed Wimax has same range as the services you can buy today.

Intel releasing mobile wimax maybe this autumn, but don't expect any BB on it in Ireland except in city centres/ Wifi hotspot type locations.

useruser · 12-03-2006 6:28pm

watty wrote:

The wireless operators go for the denser areas first then start adding lower denmsity that the cable / adsl won't do.

Fixed Wimax has same range as the services you can buy today.

Intel releasing mobile wimax maybe this autumn, but don't expect any BB on it in Ireland except in city centres/ Wifi hotspot type locations.

Wireless operators here have no incentive to move into lower density areas (DSL is at a high enough price that it is possible to compete with it using fixed wireless - I think we are unique in Europe in this regard?). In other countries wireless is confined to lower density areas that are not well served by DSL & cable.

If/when naked DSL reaches €9.99/month I can't see Wimax being able to compete.

bk · 13-03-2006 12:10am

With the exception of Ripwave, which you can hardly call bb, most wireless is more expensive then DSL or cable. Therefore the success of wireless in Irish urban areas, isn't based on price, rather it is based on the lack of wireline BB availabilty in urban areas.

Interestingly another I believe another reason for wireless success in Ireland is Eircom!! Let me explain, Eircom stopped the introduction of residential bb in Ireland for many years. In other countries like the UK, BB DSL went mainstrem years ago, when wireless BB technology wasn't mature and know it is much harder for wireless to gain marketshare in those mature markets. But since BB is only going mainstream in Ireland now and wireless tech is mature, then it has a much better chance to hain a significant niche in the Irish BB market.

However as wireline BB increases in availability and continues to drop in price, you are correct, wireless companies will be pushed into less dense rural areas not served by wireline BB.

On the other hand with the support of companies like Intel I could easily see wireless BB become as ubiqutous as mobile phones, people increasingly want good BB on the move anywhere at afordable prices. Neither WiFi nor 3G can really give us that, but Wimax might just do it. I believe wireless BB will become incredibly important over the next few years and will be everywhere in 5. It is ironic that Cablelabs (Cablt TV and BB standards body) is currently frantically developing standards for wireless BB for the cable industry!

useruser · 13-03-2006 8:54am

bk wrote:

With the exception of Ripwave, which you can hardly call bb, most wireless is more expensive then DSL or cable. Therefore the success of wireless in Irish urban areas, isn't based on price, rather it is based on the lack of wireline BB availabilty in urban areas.

You missed the point - the wireless operators are competing head to head against DSL because DSL is so expensive. In other countries this is not possible, DSL is too cheap for wireless to compete.

Interestingly another I believe another reason for wireless success in Ireland is Eircom!! Let me explain, Eircom stopped the introduction of residential bb in Ireland for many years. In other countries like the UK, BB DSL went mainstrem years ago, when wireless BB technology wasn't mature and know it is much harder for wireless to gain marketshare in those mature markets. But since BB is only going mainstream in Ireland now and wireless tech is mature, then it has a much better chance to hain a significant niche in the Irish BB market.

This would make sense if wireless was being provided (predominately) to areas that aren't served by wired operators. Of course Eircom is ultimately responsible for the delay in broadband roll-out but wireless is not helping availability (much).

"Mature?" Navini's Ripwave (and Clearwire's Nextnet) are state of the art for NLOS - do you really think those are mature technologies? Wimax can't touch either of these products at the moment for NLOS performance. I just don't see the demand for mobile broadband (> 3G anyway). It might be nice to have but with DSL and WiFi and 3G(coverage) becoming ubiquitous what applications are there for Wimax?

However as wireline BB increases in availability and continues to drop in price, you are correct, wireless companies will be pushed into less dense rural areas not served by wireline BB.

Or, more likely will disappear altogether as their profits dwindle to nothing. They don't want to have to sell broadband to low density areas any more than the DSL guys.

On the other hand with the support of companies like Intel I could easily see wireless BB become as ubiqutous as mobile phones, people increasingly want good BB on the move anywhere at afordable prices. Neither WiFi nor 3G can really give us that, but Wimax might just do it. I believe wireless BB will become incredibly important over the next few years and will be everywhere in 5. It is ironic that Cablelabs (Cablt TV and BB standards body) is currently frantically developing standards for wireless BB for the cable industry!

I expect wireless to peter out when we start seeing DSL VoD and IPTV - something that Wireless cannot deliver. Just my opinion of course - I'm very interested to hear an alternate point of view, particularly where you see the demand for this product.

watty · 13-03-2006 10:46am

No, Wireless is here to stay and can in less dense rural areas deleiver same performance as aDSL in urband areas.

I'm skeptical about mobile Wimax.

I'm very skeptical about true VOD. Fake VOD where many videos are downloaded in background via broadcast to HardDrive (usually hidden cache) and then instantly available will always deliver a better experience, cost less and better quality. The catalogue you browse is in reality disk content, not network content.

IPTV is always going to be much inferior to DVB formats or the "fake VOD" described above. Again Wireless can actually do IPTV and VOD as well as aDSl and of course more efficently do background broadcast for fake VOD, or "foreground" true DVB standards.

I'm actually designing a Wireless system that does background broadcast to cache for VOD, foreground DVB and also side by side TCP/IP TCP/UDP traffic.

Digiweb Metro is actually DOCSIS cable via microwave and supports phone thus is cheaper than aDSL as you can save on phone line rental. It can support VOD, IPTV, fake VOD (better IMO) and in theory Broadcast HDTV.

A Wireless cell/base unit in a rural area can cover upto 30km diameter, thus as econimical as a Wireless base in a city centre area. For most of Ireland, too, outside of city the LOS required for 10GHz Wireless is easier to obtain.

The 3.5KHz will manage limited non-LOS and it is very sad the under utilisation of it. Using DOCSIS over wireless a 60km diameter cell for very sparse area will work for 3.5GHz, with typically 2M download and 512K upload. Very much better than the Eircom FWA.

Wimax is an interesting option, but at fixed system offers no advantage to existing systems and mobile is only a bit better than Ripwave, depending on band (frequency) used and environment. Unless it can get into 400MHz to 900MHz band then mobile will be poorer than exsiting and planned technologies for those frequencies. Unless Eircom adopts it, it can't be used on 3.5GHz.

I suppose if we turned off MMDS that would free up 100MHz at 2.5MHz

watty · 13-03-2006 10:51am

I think may 40% or more households of Ireland is unlikely to ever see cabled aDSL. Don't for get even if a 100% of exchanges have aDSL many lines are outside the operational distance and many lines close enough will fail. So Eircom's percentages are not percent of households.

bk · 13-03-2006 11:10am

useruser wrote:

This would make sense if wireless was being provided (predominately) to areas that aren't served by wired operators. Of course Eircom is ultimately responsible for the delay in broadband roll-out but wireless is not helping availability (much).

Did you actually bother to read what I said? What I said is Because Eircom has been holding back DSL BB for years, instead of dominating the BB market like BT did in the UK years ago, they have left the door open for mature wireless BB technologies like Digiwebs Metro to gain a foothold, they have no one but themselves to blame.

useruser wrote:

"Mature?" Navini's Ripwave (and Clearwire's Nextnet) are state of the art for NLOS - do you really think those are mature technologies? Wimax can't touch either of these products at the moment for NLOS performance.

Where did I say anything about NLOS wireless, I was talking about LOS wireless technology like Digiweb Metro which is very mature.

useruser wrote:

I just don't see the demand for mobile broadband (> 3G anyway). It might be nice to have but with DSL and WiFi and 3G(coverage) becoming ubiquitous what applications are there for Wimax?

3G is already recognised in the industry as a failure, too expensive and too slow. Wimax is considered a 4G technology, it is likely to be pushed by companies like teclos and cablecos and wirelesscos who don't have a mobile arm and therefore don't have anything to lose by pushing Wimax over 3G.

Wimax will be sold as significantly faster then 3G, but more importantly it will be sold as an all you can eat BB product compared to the very expensive per kb plans for 3G from the cellcos. There is a great opportunity for Wimax to eat into the 3G market.

useruser wrote:

Or, more likely will disappear altogether as their profits dwindle to nothing. They don't want to have to sell broadband to low density areas any more than the DSL guys.

Very unlikely and not true, wireless can easily be sold to low density areas, the capital costs are far lower then wireline BB and therefore it can be supported by much lower density areas. The wireless companies do want to sell it to these areas, just look at the fierce competition last year for the wireless licenses that were snapped up by Digiweb and Clearwire all over the country.

Yes, the wireless companies will rollout to the higher density areas first, but over time they will also rollout to lower density areas. Just look at Digiweb, after successfully rolling out Metro to the major Urban areas, they are now rolling it out to another 20 areas outside the urban areas.

useruser wrote:

I expect wireless to peter out when we start seeing DSL VoD and IPTV - something that Wireless cannot deliver. Just my opinion of course - I'm very interested to hear an alternate point of view, particularly where you see the demand for this product.

DSL just doesn't have the bandwidth to do VoD or IPTV to the quality that people expect, specially with HD coming. Cable and fibre, yes, they can do it, but not DSL.

Once DSL and cable are widely available (still a long way away) and cheap (if ever with the jokers at Eircom) then there are three likely markets for wireless:

1) The obvious one is to deliver BB to rural areas not served by wireline BB. The cost of rolling out wireless BB isn't that expensive (only a fraction of the cost of wireline BB) and it can be supported by very low density population areas as long as the wireless can reach far.

2) People in urban areas who can't get DSL (too far from the exchange are bad quality line). Many such people still exist and will continue to exist.

3) As a faster, cheaper alternative to 3G for mobile BB on the go, anytime, anywhere. There really is a strong growing demand for this kind of service, with more and more people buying laptops. WiFi just doesn't do it, it is too limited in distances, too complicated for people to get working and often expensive (look at o2's prices).

I can see that in the future many people might have two BB accounts, a wireline fibre or cable BB for very high speed services like IPTV at home and a second account for the laptop and tablet PC for on the go BB.

Possible killer applications for wireless BB is hand-held gaming like the DS and PSP, which are currently WiFi, but future versions are likely to be Wimax. Also tablet PC devices are likely to take off in the future (when they come down to €500 and 12 hour battery's) which allow you to watch shows and browse the web while commuting.

Look why else would the cablecos in the US be spending millions of dollars buying up wireless spectrum and developing wireless technology, after all they have one of the highest speed wireline BB networks in the US, unless they thought there was a market for it.

Blaster99 · 13-03-2006 11:25am

ADSL is cheap in Ireland. BT does 3Mbps for an effective €25 a month, Smart for an effective (give or take) €20. Even with line rental included, both of them are cheaper than the vast majority of wireless competition and works let's say a million times better. My expectation is for FWA to die once the superior alternatives are widely available.

watty · 13-03-2006 3:19pm

Metro 3Mbps is 42 Euro. Subtract 26 Euro Eircom line rental= 16Euro per month equivelant.

$25 Euro isn't that cheap internationally. $9 per month in India

bk · 13-03-2006 3:36pm

watty wrote:

Metro 3Mbps is 42 Euro. Subtract 26 Euro Eircom line rental= 16Euro per month equivelant.

$25 Euro isn't that cheap internationally. $9 per month in India

And how much does the average person in India get paid?

With the exception of the line rental, BB really is about average with the rest of Europe nowadays, as long as you are willing to shop around.

zuma · 13-03-2006 7:00pm

bk wrote:

With the exception of the line rental, BB really is about average with the rest of Europe nowadays, as long as you are willing to shop around.

Not in terms of connection speed as ADSL2+ is almost a standard throughout a lot of Europe....France has been using it as standard for years now!
We still use ADSL here....if we can actually get connected over our "vintage" telco network!

useruser · 13-03-2006 7:15pm

bk wrote:

Did you actually bother to read what I said? What I said is Because Eircom has been holding back DSL BB for years, instead of dominating the BB market like BT did in the UK years ago, they have left the door open for mature wireless BB technologies like Digiwebs Metro to gain a foothold, they have no one but themselves to blame.

I did bother to read it, I just disagree with you, that's all! Don't be so touchy.
I think I could summarise your position as "Wireless broadband is unusually successful in Ireland because of lack of availability of DSL." My position is that wireless broadband is unusually successful in Ireland because DSL is over-priced and when the price inevitably drops wireless operators will be unable to compete head to head with wireline products.

Where did I say anything about NLOS wireless, I was talking about LOS wireless technology like Digiweb Metro which is very mature.

You didn't mention NLOS wireless, but fixed wireless hasn't a hope in hell of competing on price with DSL so self-install NLOS products are the only ones that have a chance. The truck-roll alone is more expensive than the per-port charge to the operator for DSL.

3G is already recognised in the industry as a failure, too expensive and too slow. Wimax is considered a 4G technology, it is likely to be pushed by companies like teclos and cablecos and wirelesscos who don't have a mobile arm and therefore don't have anything to lose by pushing Wimax over 3G.
Wimax will be sold as significantly faster then 3G, but more importantly it will be sold as an all you can eat BB product compared to the very expensive per kb plans for 3G from the cellcos. There is a great opportunity for Wimax to eat into the 3G market.

Hmmm. HSDPA? 1xEVDO? Mobile Wimax doesn't exist yet, UMTS will provide 300-400kbps today, where are the multi-megabit mobile applications? There are already flat-rate HSDPA packages available from Cingular.

Very unlikely and not true, wireless can easily be sold to low density areas, the capital costs are far lower then wireline BB and therefore it can be supported by much lower density areas. The wireless companies do want to sell it to these areas, just look at the fierce competition last year for the wireless licenses that were snapped up by Digiweb and Clearwire all over the country.

Fixed wireless is not far less expensive to deploy than DSL (unless you are including the cost of running the copper!). Obviously there are subscribers that cannot be reached by DSL in which case wireless may be the answer.

DSL just doesn't have the bandwidth to do VoD or IPTV to the quality that people expect, specially with HD coming. Cable and fibre, yes, they can do it, but not DSL.

Nonsense, I can think of 4 companies off the top of my head with 1m+ (combined) IPTV subscribers (PCCW, Free, Neuf, Fastweb). Why do you think it's not possible?

Once DSL and cable are widely available (still a long way away) and cheap (if ever with the jokers at Eircom) then there are three likely markets for wireless:

DSL is already widely available (not widely enough obviously!).

1) The obvious one is to deliver BB to rural areas not served by wireline BB. The cost of rolling out wireless BB isn't that expensive (only a fraction of the cost of wireline BB) and it can be supported by very low density population areas as long as the wireless can reach far.

I bet all the wireless operators just can't wait to get into this lucrative market - there must be tens of thousands of euro in it.

2) People in urban areas who can't get DSL (too far from the exchange are bad quality line). Many such people still exist and will continue to exist.

Another great market, that will pay for the CEOs' lunches.

3) As a faster, cheaper alternative to 3G for mobile BB on the go, anytime, anywhere. There really is a strong growing demand for this kind of service, with more and more people buying laptops. WiFi just doesn't do it, it is too limited in distances, too complicated for people to get working and often expensive (look at o2's prices).

And all of those people who just have to have broadband when they're on the go - they must number in the thousands! Must draw up a business plan, there's money to be made!

So, once the DSL prices come down (9.99 for naked DSL in France at the moment) and the services come along (TV, VoD, VoIP) where does that leave the wireless operator?

I can see that in the future many people might have two BB accounts, a wireline fibre or cable BB for very high speed services like IPTV at home and a second account for the laptop and tablet PC for on the go BB.

Or, more likely, most people will have one fixed triple-play provider and there will be a small market for mobile high-speed broadband.

Possible killer applications for wireless BB is hand-held gaming like the DS and PSP, which are currently WiFi, but future versions are likely to be Wimax. Also tablet PC devices are likely to take off in the future (when they come down to €500 and 12 hour battery's) which allow you to watch shows and browse the web while commuting.

I'm sure these will all be possible, I just reckon that they will more likely be HSDPA or WiFi applications. Wimax will of course cut that 12 hour battery life to 25 minutes ;-)

Look why else would the cablecos in the US be spending millions of dollars buying up wireless spectrum and developing wireless technology, after all they have one of the highest speed wireline BB networks in the US, unless they thought there was a market for it.

Beats me, infill? I am sure they're not betting the farm on wireless however.

useruser · 13-03-2006 7:57pm

watty wrote:

No, Wireless is here to stay and can in less dense rural areas deleiver same performance as aDSL in urband areas.

Agreed, it just doesn't belong in densely populated areas.

I'm skeptical about mobile Wimax.
I'm very skeptical about true VOD. Fake VOD where many videos are downloaded in background via broadcast to HardDrive (usually hidden cache) and then instantly available will always deliver a better experience, cost less and better quality. The catalogue you browse is in reality disk content, not network content.

I reckon "always" is a bit strong - I'm guessing that "true" VoD isn't too far off - perhaps some kind of hybrid is likely with popular movies etc cached?

IPTV is always going to be much inferior to DVB formats or the "fake VOD" described above. Again Wireless can actually do IPTV and VOD as well as aDSl and of course more efficently do background broadcast for fake VOD, or "foreground" true DVB standards.

Hmm., I wouldn't say "always," again, I'm betting that VoD is not far off at all.

I'm actually designing a Wireless system that does background broadcast to cache for VOD, foreground DVB and also side by side TCP/IP TCP/UDP traffic.

Sounds very interesting, are you developing it for a particular operator? Can you tell us some more about the system?

Digiweb Metro is actually DOCSIS cable via microwave and supports phone thus is cheaper than aDSL as you can save on phone line rental. It can support VOD, IPTV, fake VOD (better IMO) and in theory Broadcast HDTV.

Realistically, how many subs can be served with IPTV in (for example) 2x3.5MHz?

A Wireless cell/base unit in a rural area can cover upto 30km diameter, thus as econimical as a Wireless base in a city centre area. For most of Ireland, too, outside of city the LOS required for 10GHz Wireless is easier to obtain.

10GHz? You'll hardly get 30km that high up (rain fade)? The equipment is mega money too - did you mean to say 3.5GHz? I'm sure the technology can provide the coverage, I just question the economic viability.

The 3.5KHz will manage limited non-LOS and it is very sad the under utilisation of it. Using DOCSIS over wireless a 60km diameter cell for very sparse area will work for 3.5GHz, with typically 2M download and 512K upload. Very much better than the Eircom FWA.

I doubt very much that 60km is possible at 3.5GHz - the power levels would be huge (certainly well over the regulators' limits.)

Wimax is an interesting option, but at fixed system offers no advantage to existing systems and mobile is only a bit better than Ripwave, depending on band (frequency) used and environment. Unless it can get into 400MHz to 900MHz band then mobile will be poorer than exsiting and planned technologies for those frequencies. Unless Eircom adopts it, it can't be used on 3.5GHz.

That's an interesting possibility - obviously there is much less bandwidth available (kbps rather than Hz!) at 400 or 900 but it would be very interesting to see a decent lump of spectrum available in that range. 900MHz is used quite extensively in the US for FWA and the NLOS performance is impressive.

Is anyone developing anything in that range that looks interesting?

watty · 13-03-2006 8:27pm

60km diameter = 30km radius. Easily done with a few watts and sectored aerials at base. 100mW 2.4GHz goes 8km on a pair of MMDS dishes. 1.6W about 30km on a pair of MMDS dishes at 2.4GHz. Same size aerial (dish or flat array has a bit more gain at 3.5 than 2.4).

I've done the sums on VOD. Storage always wins.
1980 Storage = 5MByte, speed 1.2k bps wireless or copper
2006 Storage 400,000MByte, speed 3000kbps
Terabyte drives are comming

80,000 increase in storage, which isn't stopping.
2,500 increase in connection speed, which is likely to stop at that for many though some get 200M bps.

With 100k shared BROADCAST for 10,000 people (terrestrial, or 100M by Satellite) you can add 50 films a month to a cache that could store 300 Films. The BB bandwidth would need be to be 6Mbps uncontended 1:1 (PER PERSON) on top of existing BB. Who wants to lose download speed because someone else is watching TV?

The economics and performance of cached VOD is always going to beat real time VOD/IPTV.

Broadcast TV (DVB IP broadcast) will always beat per person IPTV for live TV.

This is why all the 3G operators world wide are going to DVB-h and similar to deliver video. Using 3G (IPTV) isn't economic or efficent.

10Ghz Wireless does 15km (30km dimater). About 10W to/from ISS does 50 to 200 mile diameter patch on ground at 430MHz.

is anyone developing anything in that range that looks interesting?

Watch this space and see who Comreg ALREADY gave licences to.

Nobody will say till it is launched.

useruser · 13-03-2006 8:54pm

watty wrote:

60km diameter = 30km radius. Easily done with a few watts and sectored aerials at base. 100mW 2.4GHz goes 8km on a pair of MMDS dishes. 1.6W about 30km on a pair of MMDS dishes at 2.4GHz. Same size aerial (dish or flat array has a bit more gain at 3.5 than 2.4).

doh! misread diameter as radius - you're right of course. Pushing it though!

I've done the sums on VOD. Storage always wins.
1980 Storage = 5MByte, speed 1.2k bps wireless or copper
2006 Storage 400,000MByte, speed 3000kbps
Terabyte drives are comming
80,000 increase in storage, which isn't stopping.
2,500 increase in connection speed, which is likely to stop at that for many though some get 200M bps.

Very interesting, I'd still bet on VoD 5 years from now though - I see the STB getting dumber & cheaper, not smarter.

With 100k shared BROADCAST for 10,000 people (terrestrial, or 100M by Satellite) you can add 50 films a month to a cache that could store 300 Films. The BB bandwidth would need be to be 6Mbps uncontended 1:1 (PER PERSON) on top of existing BB. Who wants to lose download speed because someone else is watching TV?
The economics and performance of cached VOD is always going to beat real time VOD/IPTV.

BB bandwidth uncontended of 6mb is no problem, multicast all of your broadcast channels and run say 10:1 on VoD - all plausible.

Broadcast TV (DVB IP broadcast) will always beat per person IPTV for live TV.

I don't understand this comment, why is DVB "better" for broadcast?

10Ghz Wireless does 15km (30km dimater). About 10W to/from ISS does 50 to 200 mile diameter patch on ground at 430MHz.

15km at 10GHz is really pushing it in my experience - heavy fog may knock you out - I would have said 11kms.

200miles at 430MHz - just goes to show what could be done.

Watch this space and see who Comreg ALREADY gave licences to.

Nobody will say till it is launched.

A man of mystery! Go on, tell us more!

Blaster99 · 13-03-2006 8:59pm

useruser wrote:

I bet all the wireless operators just can't wait to get into this lucrative market - there must be tens of thousands of euro in it.

I'm too tired to wade through the sarcasm, but I think you'll find that about 40% of the population can't get broadband, so there might be a bit more than tens of thousand of euro in it. Granted, this 40% is shrinking by the day and ADSL will always be a better choice than FWA so it's perhaps not a particularly strong business case. But then again, the country side is littered with small wireless outfits tapping into this market.

useruser wrote:

The truck-roll alone is more expensive than the per-port charge to the operator for DSL.

Funny how NTL doesn't go bankrupt seeing as they insist on sending out a field guy to do all customer installs.

useruser wrote:

You didn't mention NLOS wireless, but fixed wireless hasn't a hope in hell of competing on price with DSL so self-install NLOS products are the only ones that have a chance.

Even funnier perhaps is that Clearwire has an NLOS product, but still finds the time and money to send out a rep to install it. I'm not sure if they have a chance for a variety of reasons, but I doubt it's down to the installation method.

But they're all a bunch of idiots who haven't done the math, I guess.

useruser · 13-03-2006 9:23pm

Blaster99 wrote:

I'm too tired to wade through the sarcasm, but I think you'll find that about 40% of the population can't get broadband, so there might be a bit more than tens of thousand of euro in it. Granted, this 40% is shrinking by the day and ADSL will always be a better choice than FWA so it's perhaps not a particularly strong business case. But then again, the country side is littered with small wireless outfits tapping into this market.

Apologies for the sarcasm, lowest form of wit I know. You're correct - there is plenty of scope for small wireless operators to provide broadband and good luck to them, they provide a service in areas that the big guys don't want to address. My argument is that this is the natural place for wireless broadband operators - small niches.

Funny how NTL doesn't go bankrupt seeing as they insist on sending out a field guy to do all customer installs

How many installs can a broadband cable installer manage (10 per day?) - how many fixed wireless (2 or 3 tops?).

Even funnier perhaps is that Clearwire has an NLOS product, but still finds the time and money to send out a rep to install it. I'm not sure if they have a chance for a variety of reasons, but I doubt it's down to the installation method.

But don't you think that this just emphasises my point - wireless is only viable because DSL is so expensive? I am amazed that Clearwire can afford to do that, what are the chances of them sending out an installer when prices reach €15 and less?

But they're all a bunch of idiots who haven't done the math, I guess.

Hehe, it may be the lowest form of wit but it's always funny!

Blaster99 · 13-03-2006 9:47pm

I'm surprised both NTL and Clearwire bother with field technicians, but particularly the latter as it requires absolutely nothing to install. I suppose both have that nice cushion known as eircom line rental and I suspect that is what keeps the FWA guys in business too.

What's the unit price difference between a DSLAM port + ADSL modem and FWA CPE? The IBB installers claim that their CPE is worth €700, which to me seems like a staggering customer acquisition price.

useruser · 13-03-2006 10:23pm

Blaster99 wrote:

What's the unit price difference between a DSLAM port + ADSL modem and FWA CPE? The IBB installers claim that their CPE is worth €700, which to me seems like a staggering customer acquisition price.

ADSL DSLAM port + modem is in the $30-$70 range depending on volume, I would say that a Fixed Wimax CPE could easily reach $400 plus $200 for the base station (assuming a reasonable occupancy). I'm guessing the NLOS stuff (Nextnet/Navini/Flarion) is $20k or so for the base station and maybe $200 for the CPE. Wireless is an expensive business, I think the biggest killer is that once you have a big install base you cannot upgrade them without more spectrum - which is not available. DSL operators can move individual lines over to ADSL2+ or VDSL or X/Y/ZDSL as new tech becomes available, wireless is stuck. What value will wireless networks have in 5 years?

Edit: Forgot to add, what happens when you fill all of the available spectrum? Where do you go? Do you just turn away customers or do you hope for the best and keep on filling up base stations? (I'll leave the answer as an exercise to the reader.)

bk · 13-03-2006 11:11pm

zuma wrote:

Not in terms of connection speed as ADSL2+ is almost a standard throughout a lot of Europe....France has been using it as standard for years now!
We still use ADSL here....if we can actually get connected over our "vintage" telco network!

Not really, France and the Nordic countries yes, but most of national telcos in Europe are still on ADSL, just look at BT and Deutsche Telecom.

We really aren't that far behind on tech anymore, just pricing and availabilty. And proper LLU would sort that.

bk · 13-03-2006 11:54pm

useruser wrote:

I did bother to read it, I just disagree with you, that's all! Don't be so touchy.
I think I could summarise your position as "Wireless broadband is unusually successful in Ireland because of lack of availability of DSL." My position is that wireless broadband is unusually successful in Ireland because DSL is over-priced and when the price inevitably drops wireless operators will be unable to compete head to head with wireline products.

The reason I'm being "touchy" is because that isn't what I said. What I'm saying is that because Eircom delayed the rollout of DSL for so long, it allowed wireless tech to mature (LOS) and therefore it is in a better position to compete.

useruser wrote:

Hmmm. HSDPA? 1xEVDO? Mobile Wimax doesn't exist yet, UMTS will provide 300-400kbps today, where are the multi-megabit mobile applications? There are already flat-rate HSDPA packages available from Cingular.

The companies who don't have license for this tech like the cablecos and telcos, are the ones who are interested in Wimax to compete with HSDPA, etc. They see mobile BB as an important extension to their current triple play operations.

useruser wrote:

As for the mobile killer app? The cellcos have been asking this question for a while now and the idiots still haven't realised that the answer is simply: "the internet".

You just supply the pipe, your customers will come up with the killer apps.

useruser wrote:

Fixed wireless is not far less expensive to deploy than DSL (unless you are including the cost of running the copper!). Obviously there are subscribers that cannot be reached by DSL in which case wireless may be the answer.

Yes in rural areas, people are so far from exchanges and the copper is in such a bad condition and there are so many dacs, that the only way to get DSL to many people will by laying lots of new copper.

useruser wrote:

Nonsense, I can think of 4 companies off the top of my head with 1m+ (combined) IPTV subscribers (PCCW, Free, Neuf, Fastweb). Why do you think it's not possible?

It is possible it just doesn't scale. A standad definition transmission uing MPEG 2 uses 4Mbit/s. With ADSL2+ you are lucky to get 12Mbit/s. What happens f the person wants two streams (8Mbit/s) or what about 3? I've got 3 digital boxes and 3 analogue connections in my house. That would be impossible with IPTV over DSL.

And what about HD, it will use about 10Mbit/s using MPEG4, this will barely work on ADSL2+.

Magnet have started to do IPTV over ADSL2+ here in Ireland and the first reports say that it is pretty bad if you want more then one stream. It is a toy compared to cable, fibre or sat (for broadcasting).

useruser wrote:

I bet all the wireless operators just can't wait to get into this lucrative market - there must be tens of thousands of euro in it.

Another great market, that will pay for the CEOs' lunches.

I can think of 3 friends, all of whom live within 3 miles of O'Connell St and still can't get DSL. I wouldn't hold my breadth, FWA is going to be filling the gap for a long time to come.

useruser wrote:

And all of those people who just have to have broadband when they're on the go - they must number in the thousands! Must draw up a business plan, there's money to be made!

Yes there is, I honestly believe that 10 years from now we will all be walking around with at least one device (game console, MP3 player, mobile, UMPC, etc.) that is constantly on the internet. We will need mobile BB for that. Antime, anywhere will be the new mantra.

useruser wrote:

So, once the DSL prices come down (9.99 for naked DSL in France at the moment) and the services come along (TV, VoD, VoIP) where does that leave the wireless operator?

I wouldn't hold my breadth for either, between Comreg and Eircom we willnever get that pricing and as I said above TV over DSL just won't scale.

useruser wrote:

Or, more likely, most people will have one fixed triple-play provider and there will be a small market for mobile high-speed broadband.

Triple play, maybe on cable and fibre, but not DSL. DSL can't do TV well and most people are dumping landlines for mobils anyway.

Most people will have wireline BB. But there will also be a relatively large and profitable market for mobile BB and a secondary market for FWA as in fill were DSL doesn't serve (a large area).

watty · 14-03-2006 8:15am

useruser wrote:

I don't understand this comment, why is DVB "better" for broadcast?

15km at 10GHz is really pushing it in my experience - heavy fog may knock you out - I would have said 11kms.

200miles at 430MHz - just goes to show what could be done.

A man of mystery! Go on, tell us more!

DVB is actually an IP broadcast format. It can carry non AV multicast IP data as a broadcast stream. Strict vanilla TCP/IP has no mechanisim for multiple broadcast streams that is compatible with normal routers, firewalls etc.

I'm 12.5km from a Metro base. I lose about 3dB in heavy fog or torrential rain. Still plenty of signal margin.

As distance increases the main issue is getting LOS. A twice the width aerial would have 4 times the gain = twice the distance. However various issues do limit 10GHz terrestrially to about 15km. Atmospheric conditions on a very clear day with no wind can cause longer microwave paths to fade out almost completely.

A Satellite at 50W or 42E can be received in Ireland (about 45,000km away), it would be interesting to calculate how much of the path is in the atmosphere. I do get more rain fade on BBC World @13E than on Metro.

BK also clearly shows that indeed IPTV (and by implication realtime VOD) is a toy.

3G's data is about 340k. About twice ISDN or one tenth of typical broadband. It is also more expensive per megabyte than GPRS. "EDGE" over GSM system is almost the same speed as GSM.

There is an overhead always. To get 5Mbps video (BBC typically) you need at least 6Mbps 1:1 (uncontended) IPTV. HD TV for one channel needs about 15Mbps 1:1 (uncontended) BB. Oddly DVB has a much higher overhead. It is used for FEC (Forward Error Correction). Video on BB as IPTV tends to be UDP as there is not time to resent lost packets via TCP/IP. Internet has no defined QOS, so with UDP there will be lost video packets. With DVB there is Data FRAME based FEC, so depending on FEC (1/2 most overhead 7/8 least overhead) "lost packets" can be recovered. No picture pixelation/breakup.

Cable TV could use IPTV , but uses DVB for A/V as this is better quality/ more efficent / more compatible.

Satellite, even for two way Internet (!) uses a data stream inside a DVB frame. TCP/IP packet acknowledgement is not done over the medium, but at each end.

Rather than IPTV over cable, the present method of separate DVB and DOCSIS spectrum makes more sense. DOCSIS ins a sense packages the BB and makes it more like a Digital TV (DVBc) signal.

There is no reason why a hybrid scheme could not also be developed for copper using DVBc and adsl2 rather than all of the spectrum for vdsl.

useruser · 14-03-2006 8:49am

bk wrote:

The reason I'm being "touchy" is because that isn't what I said. What I'm saying is that because Eircom delayed the rollout of DSL for so long, it allowed wireless tech to mature (LOS) and therefore it is in a better position to compete.

Doesn't sound any different than "Wireless broadband is unusually successful in Ireland because of lack of availability of DSL" to me. You can't beat the fact that fixed wireless is very expensive in comparison to DSL and will not be able to compete on price when LLU finally brings prices down.

As for the mobile killer app? The cellcos have been asking this question for a while now and the idiots still haven't realised that the answer is simply: "the internet".
You just supply the pipe, your customers will come up with the killer apps.

Ah yes, "build it and they will come" not sure I believe that one. Again, it's not that I don't believe that some people want this, I just question the logic of an operator putting 100s of millions into it.

Yes in rural areas, people are so far from exchanges and the copper is in such a bad condition and there are so many dacs, that the only way to get DSL to many people will by laying lots of new copper.

This is a small, and difficult market to cover, can't see the business case myself. If you want to serve these users with FWA it will cost a fortune, base station occupancy will be too low.

It is possible it just doesn't scale. A standad definition transmission uing MPEG 2 uses 4Mbit/s. With ADSL2+ you are lucky to get 12Mbit/s. What happens f the person wants two streams (8Mbit/s) or what about 3? I've got 3 digital boxes and 3 analogue connections in my house. That would be impossible with IPTV over DSL.

I just pointed out 1m+ users of IPTV that I could name off the top of my head, I don't know what the world wide figure is. Do you not consider 1 million users "scale?" Guess you're hard to please!

And what about HD, it will use about 10Mbit/s using MPEG4, this will barely work on ADSL2+.

Interesting point, I will do a bit of research on HDTV over DSL. Do you know how many HD users are forecast for the next 5 years in Europe?

Magnet have started to do IPTV over ADSL2+ here in Ireland and the first reports say that it is pretty bad if you want more then one stream. It is a toy compared to cable, fibre or sat (for broadcasting).

So, one small Irish player have made a mess of their IPTV deployment? Hardly a damning endightment of the whole technology? What about the 1 million users above?

I can think of 3 friends, all of whom live within 3 miles of O'Connell St and still can't get DSL. I wouldn't hold my breadth, FWA is going to be filling the gap for a long time to come.

This huge sample set has convinced me! Seriously, I'm sure I can think of 3 people who can't get FWA either - I'm not sure that either statistic is telling.

Yes there is, I honestly believe that 10 years from now we will all be walking around with at least one device (game console, MP3 player, mobile, UMPC, etc.) that is constantly on the internet. We will need mobile BB for that. Antime, anywhere will be the new mantra.

I suspect you are correct, however I don't think that Wimax (or its descendants, will be connecting these devices.)

I wouldn't hold my breadth for either, between Comreg and Eircom we willnever get that pricing and as I said above TV over DSL just won't scale.

I disagree, we are behind the rest of Europe in broadband but I am hopeful that we will get there in the end - I am sure IOFFL are similarly hopeful, why bother otherwise?

Triple play, maybe on cable and fibre, but not DSL. DSL can't do TV well and most people are dumping landlines for mobils anyway.

1 million users of IPTV today! I think you are entirely wrong with the notion that "most" people are dumping landlines. Care to provide some statistics?

Most people will have wireline BB. But there will also be a relatively large and profitable market for mobile BB and a secondary market for FWA as in fill were DSL doesn't serve (a large area).

I'd add to this - "these wireless markets will be small with tiny ARPUs. Not particularly compelling business"

bk · 14-03-2006 10:38am

1 million users is not significant or scale.

There are over a billion users of sat and close to a billion users of cable TV.

Magnet hasn't messed up because they are bad, but because the tech just doesn't deliver over DSL. All the other players you mentioned in IPTV have had the exact same problems and non of them has even thought of challenging HD yet. I've been watching this area with interest for a while now. It does (sort of) work if you just want one SD stream, that is where the 1 million customers come from, but it doesn't scale to multiple streams or HD, so it will always be doomed compared to cable, fibre or sat. I suppose a bit like what you are saying about wireless

It is interesting to note that Verizon, the company with the largest DSL subscriber base in the world has decided to skip ADSL2+ and VDSL and IPTV as they can't deliver and is instead going straight to Fibre To The Home to deliver TV services (ironically they aren't even using IPTV over this!).

Here is a fantastic article that explains the whole TV over BB market, well worth reading: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/65298

As for HD penetration in Europe in 5 years, I don't have any figures, but it is expected to be widely available and very much mainstream in 5 years, with the majority of high value pay tv customers on HD. It took far less then 5 years for HD to take over big time in the US.

I disagree with you on wireless business, but I don't think I can convince you, so lets agree to disagree.

bk · 14-03-2006 10:51am

watty wrote:

Cable TV could use IPTV , but uses DVB for A/V as this is better quality/ more efficent / more compatible.

Actually a very interesting idea that has been floated in the catv world is a mixed network.

At the moment you have over 100 channels using up a lot of bandwidth (even in digital). However well over 90% of all the TV viewed is only on the top 20 channels (terrestials, etc.). All the other channels are rarely watched.

The idea is to deliver the top 20 channels using traditional DVB, while you transparently deliver the remaining niche channels via IPTV.

The advantage is that you potentially free up a lot of bandwidth to deliver more channels, HD channels and faster BB speeds, while it wouldn't use that much extra bandwidth as 90% of the time people are watching the top 20 channels on DVB. Very clever.

watty · 14-03-2006 12:31pm

Except if even a few people watch the less used channels at the same time using DVB is more efficent than IPTV.

The ideal number of viewers er IPTV is one, the ideal number viewers for DVBx is anything greater than one.

A users PVR now can easily have the same number of different titles as a video library now, so you use broadcast to send them slower than even one IPTV channel and then any number of users can watch any number of movies at the same time.

So how do you apply this to TV Stations. Are some programs watched by nobody? Or would be watched by nobody if you could order your own custom TV station for the month ahead, and programs that got insufficent vote 3 weeks in advance would be "deleted".

In US they argue that IPTV would replace Cable TV where you get a bunch of channels and all the programs wheter you want them or not. Well, rigerous mathematics rather than wishfull thinking has always proved that real IPTV only works if few people watch at all, and is not scaleable. But a "faked" VOD works very well, which is why on 160G Sky+ half the storage is "reserved".

I can see broadcasting stations being unhappy with the "roll your own station" concept, using real VOD or the better "faked" version. Rather than improving quality it might make niche programs disappear as companies become more conservative an pander to an even lower common denominator.

We live in interesting times, but some operators could save themselves and custome grief if they did basic arithmetic.

useruser · 14-03-2006 6:52pm

watty wrote:

DVB is actually an IP broadcast format. It can carry non AV multicast IP data as a broadcast stream. Strict vanilla TCP/IP has no mechanisim for multiple broadcast streams that is compatible with normal routers, firewalls etc.

Umm, Multicast? Seems to be working OK for 1m users? I can see the advantages of DVB but say you're a telco who doesn't want to get into the broadcast business?

BK also clearly shows that indeed IPTV (and by implication realtime VOD) is a toy.

I don't think he's demonstrated that at all? 1 million users demonstrates that IPTV is realistic and scalable.

3G's data is about 340k. About twice ISDN or one tenth of typical broadband. It is also more expensive per megabyte than GPRS. "EDGE" over GSM system is almost the same speed as GSM.

But this is more than adequate for most mobile needs today? So you're not going to be able to watch SD TV on the move today but so what?

Rather than IPTV over cable, the present method of separate DVB and DOCSIS spectrum makes more sense. DOCSIS ins a sense packages the BB and makes it more like a Digital TV (DVBc) signal.
There is no reason why a hybrid scheme could not also be developed for copper using DVBc and adsl2 rather than all of the spectrum for vdsl.

Is there anyone working on such a scheme?

useruser · 14-03-2006 7:09pm

bk wrote:

1 million users is not significant or scale.

This is a nonsensical statement. On what planet is 1 million users not an indication of a successful technology? Clearly there is momentum behind IPTV and it can be deployed today.

There are over a billion users of sat and close to a billion users of cable TV.

So what? There are many more analogue lines than DSL enabled lines in the world, does that mean dial-up is superior?

Magnet hasn't messed up because they are bad, but because the tech just doesn't deliver over DSL. All the other players you mentioned in IPTV have had the exact same problems and non of them has even thought of challenging HD yet. I've been watching this area with interest for a while now. It does (sort of) work if you just want one SD stream, that is where the 1 million customers come from, but it doesn't scale to multiple streams or HD, so it will always be doomed compared to cable, fibre or sat. I suppose a bit like what you are saying about wireless

This is absolute rubbish, IPTV doesn't just "sort of" work for SDTV over DSL, it demonstrably works! 1 million users are watching TV today over DSL. It will be interesting to see how they handle HDTV and I think maybe Watty's ideas around "fake" VoD could come into play there.

It is interesting to note that Verizon, the company with the largest DSL subscriber base in the world has decided to skip ADSL2+ and VDSL and IPTV as they can't deliver and is instead going straight to Fibre To The Home to deliver TV services (ironically they aren't even using IPTV over this!).

Verizon are deploying ADSL2+, they have stated that their primary video offering will be fibre. How many other Telcos can afford to do this? My guess is that they will deliver TV over copper too.

Here is a fantastic article that explains the whole TV over BB market, well worth reading: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/65298

From the article:

BBR: IPTV in general, do you see it as a serious competitor to Satellite and cable?

DB: Single channel, not HD IPTV is working well, with a million customers around the world and tens of millions coming in the next few years. Multichannel, HD, to several sets turns out to be much harder and takes more bandwidth, which is why it's coming slower. But $30B in planned investment is coming, and almost surely by 2006-2010, millions will be buying fancy TV programming from telcos.

He reckons $30B will be invested in the technology? Maybe there's something to it after all?

Dave Burstein is well worth reading - www.dslprime.com, he's a strong proponent of IPTV by the way.

I disagree with you on wireless business, but I don't think I can convince you, so lets agree to disagree.

Well, we definitely disagree alright, I note that no-one is suggesting that we will see a fixed wireless broadband TV product. Could that be because it is not a realistic possibility?

watty · 14-03-2006 8:59pm

Have you watched IPTV compared with a Satellite receiver. Or tried to run IPTV with two different TVs?

Lots of people are seduced by the idea of IPTV and pouring money into it, but the sums and the quality don't add up to a scaleable service. BB is typically 24:1 to 50:1 contention. If everyone used it for IPTV you would need to plan around 1:1 contention. VERY expensive.

useruser · 14-03-2006 9:17pm

watty wrote:

Have you watched IPTV compared with a Satellite receiver. Or tried to run IPTV with two different TVs?

Lots of people are seduced by the idea of IPTV and pouring money into it, but the sums and the quality don't add up to a scaleable service. BB is typically 24:1 to 50:1 contention. If everyone used it for IPTV you would need to plan around 1:1 contention. VERY expensive.

Yes, I have seen IPTV and it looked fine to me - I can only watch a single TV at a time (I realise that there is this limitation but I don't think it's a big deal). Again I come back to the fact that there are already 1 million IPTV subscribers, that alone indicates that it is viable.

What is this guff about 1:1 contention? The broadcast video streams are multicast out to IP DSLAMs - easy peasy, no need for 1:1. VoD obviously needs 1:1 but what are the ratios required? 20:1 or less?

bk · 14-03-2006 9:20pm

DB: Single channel, not HD IPTV is working well, with a million customers around the world and tens of millions coming in the next few years. Multichannel, HD, to several sets turns out to be much harder and takes more bandwidth, which is why it's coming slower.

You conveniently ignored this part. See he says that one stream SD can be done, but multi stream SD or HD is very hard, exactly what I've been saying.

Most people want more then one stream, watch one show while recording another or have a second/third TV in bedroom/kitchen. This is very normal in the pay tv world which tends to target households with more disposable cash. IPTV over DSL simply can't compete with cable, fibre or sat in this area and you can completely forget about HD over DSL which most people in the US now demand and over the next 4 years will become the norm in Europe.

Just because you wish it doesn't make it so, the maths simply don't add up:

MPEG2 SD: 4Mbit/s plus extra for tcp/ip overhead
MPEG4 HD: 11Mbit/s plus extra for tcp/ip overhead

ADSL2+ average user speed in the real world about 12Mbit/s

Square peg, round hole.

But $30B in planned investment is coming, and almost surely by 2006-2010, millions will be buying fancy TV programming from telcos.

Remember Verizon are using fibre, must of those millions will be over fibre. IPTV over fibre can work, but ironically Verizon aren't actually using IPTV over fibre, they are using traditional DVB tech over fibre.

useruser · 14-03-2006 9:52pm

bk wrote:

You conveniently ignored this part. See he says that one stream SD can be done, but multi stream SD or HD is very hard, exactly what I've been saying.

I conveniently ignored it by quoting it! Hmm. So 2+ SD streams and HD is difficult, so what? - 1 million users seem to be OK with that?

Most people want more then one stream, watch one show while recording another or have a second/third TV in bedroom/kitchen. This is very normal in the pay tv world which tends to target households with more disposable cash. IPTV over DSL simply can't compete with cable, fibre or sat in this area and you can completely forget about HD over DSL which most people in the US now demand and over the next 4 years will become the norm in Europe.

I doubt it, I don't want more than one stream, my guess is that "most" people couldn't give a toss as long as it's cheap.

IPTV over DSL is already competing with cable, fibre and satellite - why do you find that so hard to believe?

Just because you wish it doesn't make it so, the maths simply don't add up:
MPEG2 SD: 4Mbit/s plus extra for tcp/ip overhead
MPEG4 HD: 11Mbit/s plus extra for tcp/ip overhead
ADSL2+ average user speed in the real world about 12Mbit/s

Square peg, round hole.

So, what you are saying is that IPTV over DSL is not possible and there are in fact NOT 1 million such subscribers today? What is your beef with this? Why not accept that it is a workable alternative to other TV technologies?

Remember Verizon are using fibre, must of those millions will be over fibre. IPTV over fibre can work, but ironically Verizon aren't actually using IPTV over fibre, they are using traditional DVB tech over fibre.

The article says that $30B will go into IPTV, it does not mention DVB.

Again I must ask - why are you arguing the point so strongly? IPTV is a working technology, it gives telcos a foothold in TV that they otherwise would not have and as such is to be welcomed - the more competition the better. The fact that there are more efficient methods of delivering TV to the end-user is neither here nor there - are you seriously suggesting that Telcos should not try to take full advantage of the copper loop available to them?

I'm finding it harder and harder to take your points seriously, tell me again that 1 million users does not represent "scale!"

bk · 14-03-2006 10:49pm

useruser wrote:

I conveniently ignored it by quoting it! Hmm. So 2+ SD streams and HD is difficult, so what? - 1 million users seem to be OK with that?

I doubt it, I don't want more than one stream, my guess is that "most" people couldn't give a toss as long as it's cheap.

I'm sorry, in that case you simply do not understand the dynamics of the pay tv industry. Watty and I are trying to explain it to you, but you just don't want to listen.

There are two types of TV customers, people who want TV for free or cheap and those who are willing to pay for extra quality.

People who want TV for free or cheap will be served by DTT or maybe FTA sat. IPTV will not be suitable for these types of customers as it is relatively expensive to run.

People who buy pay tv typically want more channels, ability to record one channel while watching another, multiple TV's and high picture and sound quality (HD over the next 5 years).

IPTV over DSL simply can't offer any of these services that are expected by the pay tv market.

useruser wrote:

IPTV over DSL is already competing with cable, fibre and satellite - why do you find that so hard to believe?

So, what you are saying is that IPTV over DSL is not possible and there are in fact NOT 1 million such subscribers today? What is your beef with this? Why not accept that it is a workable alternative to other TV technologies?

I'm saying that only one SD feed is usually possible and HD is not possible, can't you do the maths for yourself?

useruser wrote:

The article says that $30B will go into IPTV, it does not mention DVB.

Again I must ask - why are you arguing the point so strongly? IPTV is a working technology, it gives telcos a foothold in TV that they otherwise would not have and as such is to be welcomed - the more competition the better. The fact that there are more efficient methods of delivering TV to the end-user is neither here nor there - are you seriously suggesting that Telcos should not try to take full advantage of the copper loop available to them?

I'm finding it harder and harder to take your points seriously, tell me again that 1 million users does not represent "scale!"

Seriously can you not read?

When I say scale, what I mean is that it can't deliver multiple feeds to each house. It can't scale for one customers needs.

You continuously refuse to ignore the factual figures that I've put forward about the bandwidth use of IPTV, I was actually being rather generous, it is actually far worse.

Cable TV uses statistical multiplexing, these means that it only averages about 4Mbit/s, if the TV show has lots of fast moving footage, it can burst upto 7Mbit/s. This is very hard to do on DSL and is why the PQ of IPTV over DSL is far worse then CATV (which is inferior to sat).

BTW, There are more then 1 million FWA users in the world, does that mean I was right all along about FWA and that it does have a future? Please make up your mind.

1 million IPTV customers makes up less then 1% of the cable or satellite market, it is barely a niche market.

I'm sure there is a market for people who only want one SD stream, with a picture and sound quality inferior to cable, fibre or sat, for almost the same price as cable or sat with much greater capabilities. But as you said about FWA, it is a fairly niche market.

Blaster99 · 14-03-2006 11:56pm

People are seemingly signing up for Magnet's IPTV service, so there is presumably a market. A lot of people don't get much excitement from broadband on its own and I guess Magnet figures that adding TV to the mix makes it a bit more appealing to the average consumer.

I don't really get the whole fascination with finding new ways of delivering TV. Surely the whole TV distribution thing has been solved a long time ago? It doesn't strike me as a problem worth solving again. But if it is worth solving, why aren't the wireless guys getting into it? They can broadcast it surely, just like a cable company can. Perhaps there isn't enough bandwidth available or is there a licence issue?

useruser · 15-03-2006 12:18am

bk wrote:

I'm sorry, in that case you simply do not understand the dynamics of the pay tv industry. Watty and I are trying to explain it to you, but you just don't want to listen
There are two types of TV customers, people who want TV for free or cheap and those who are willing to pay for extra quality.
People who want TV for free or cheap will be served by DTT or maybe FTA sat. IPTV will not be suitable for these types of customers as it is relatively expensive to run.
People who buy pay tv typically want more channels, ability to record one channel while watching another, multiple TV's and high picture and sound quality (HD over the next 5 years).

All interesting points.

IPTV over DSL simply can't offer any of these services that are expected by the pay tv market.

And yet, there are 4 companies with 1 million IPTV paying customers between them, all in developed markets with cable and satellite readily available - these are not insignificant numbers.

I'm saying that only one SD feed is usually possible and HD is not possible, can't you do the maths for yourself?

I agree, but 1 million subscribers don't see this as a problem, I don't either.

Seriously can you not read?

When I say scale, what I mean is that it can't deliver multiple feeds to each house. It can't scale for one customers needs.

I can read, what you actually wrote was (and I quote) "1 million users is not significant or scale." Care to rephrase that?

You continuously refuse to ignore the factual figures that I've put forward about the bandwidth use of IPTV, I was actually being rather generous, it is actually far worse.
Cable TV uses statistical multiplexing, these means that it only averages about 4Mbit/s, if the TV show has lots of fast moving footage, it can burst upto 7Mbit/s. This is very hard to do on DSL and is why the PQ of IPTV over DSL is far worse then CATV (which is inferior to sat).

Golly, I didn't realise how awful it must be for those 250,000 Fastweb TV viewers, not only do they have to put up with Italian TV but the bandwidth used can be up to 7mb! They must be turning off in their droves! Why do their subscriptions increase every year? Beats me.

BTW, There are more then 1 million FWA users in the world, does that mean I was right all along about FWA and that it does have a future? Please make up your mind.

Yes of course you are right, FWA has a good future in underdeveloped markets (Africa especially) and infill for low density suburban areas. I expect to also see it used for government subsidised rural access. I do not expect to see FWA widely used in developed urban markets five years from now. What has this got to do with IPTV?

1 million IPTV customers makes up less then 1% of the cable or satellite market, it is barely a niche market.
I'm sure there is a market for people who only want one SD stream, with a picture and sound quality inferior to cable, fibre or sat, for almost the same price as cable or sat with much greater capabilities. But as you said about FWA, it is a fairly niche market.

I think I have made some cogent arguments as to why FWA will disappear from urban markets. I don't see what this has to do with triple-play DSL vs broadcast TV technologies.

Here are a few simple points (again):

1. IPTV works - there are 1m+ users (across only 4 companies) paying for the service today.
2. IPTV over DSL allows telcos to provide a triple-play service today without the massive investment required for PON/FIOS.
3. Broadcast TV rots your teeth, causes famines and was Hitler's favourite past-time when he wasn't busy invading Russia (He couldn't get the History channel so was doomed to repeats - or something).

Suffice to say, it looks to me as if IPTVoDSL is here to stay. You have presented evidence to show that it has competition but the fact remains that it is an excellent opportunity for Telcos to enter the TV market and squeeze some more ARPU out of the copper loop.

cgarvey · 15-03-2006 4:41am

Can we stick to the constructive argument without the silly snide remarks (please)?

watty · 15-03-2006 7:38am

Blaster99 wrote:

People are seemingly signing up for Magnet's IPTV service, so there is presumably a market. A lot of people don't get much excitement from broadband on its own and I guess Magnet figures that adding TV to the mix makes it a bit more appealing to the average consumer.

I don't really get the whole fascination with finding new ways of delivering TV. Surely the whole TV distribution thing has been solved a long time ago? It doesn't strike me as a problem worth solving again. But if it is worth solving, why aren't the wireless guys getting into it? They can broadcast it surely, just like a cable company can. Perhaps there isn't enough bandwidth available or is there a licence issue?

IBB ripwave etc can't handle broadcast TV. But Digiweb have already publically said Metro will have a TV service, maybe HDTV.

IMO there can be a licence issue too.

I wonder how many people with Magnet will get TV aerials or dish on Balcony. Many have no choice in apartments with dish forbidden and no cable TV wiring.

There is less competition than people think. Only in Rural area where choice is MMDS or Satellite or 2 to 4 Aerial channels

useruser · 15-03-2006 8:49am

Blaster99 wrote:

People are seemingly signing up for Magnet's IPTV service, so there is presumably a market. A lot of people don't get much excitement from broadband on its own and I guess Magnet figures that adding TV to the mix makes it a bit more appealing to the average consumer.

I don't really get the whole fascination with finding new ways of delivering TV. Surely the whole TV distribution thing has been solved a long time ago? It doesn't strike me as a problem worth solving again. But if it is worth solving, why aren't the wireless guys getting into it? They can broadcast it surely, just like a cable company can. Perhaps there isn't enough bandwidth available or is there a licence issue?

I think it is likely that straight broadband will be an unusual product within the next few years in developed markets. All operators are gearing up to provide at least broadband and voice and most are also considering TV. I suspect those who don't/can't will disappear. How will they compete when the actual broadband service rental gets down to the €10/month level? It's not about creating more excitement for the end-user, it's about creating more revenue for the operator.

The main point about IPTV over DSL is that it allows telcos to provide TV over their copper loops without the (huge) expense of putting in fibre. Correct me if I'm wrong Watty but I don't think that incumbents would usually have access to broadcast spectrum even if they wanted to go down that route.

bk · 15-03-2006 9:10am

useruser wrote:

Suffice to say, it looks to me as if IPTVoDSL is here to stay. You have presented evidence to show that it has competition but the fact remains that it is an excellent opportunity for Telcos to enter the TV market and squeeze some more ARPU out of the copper loop.

Oh, that is all true. I'm sure the telcos are desperate to get a slice of the TV market, they see it as a way to compete against cable who are entering the telco and BB market.

All I'm trying to say is that:

1) It is a pretty bad solution for broadcast TV, which is already a pretty mature market.
2) IPTVoDSL will never offer what most pay tv customers want (multiple streams and HD).
3) It will remain a small niche market because of the above problems.

BTW Half your 1 million customers are on PCCW in Hong Kong. Typically they run fibre to each apartment block and then distribute using copper around the building. This makes the lenghts very short and it means they can deliver much greater bandwidth and therefore multiple SD streams and HD.

Most of Fastwebs TV customers are on FTTH.

This article is also interesting:
http://www.isp-planet.com/research/2005/iptv.html

"It means a lot of people can't get multi-channel TV other than over DSL," Bosnell says. "That's the demand side reason for it."

It's also technologically and economically more feasible to build an IPTV network and service in big cities in Europe and places like Hong Kong where population density is very high and one high-bandwidth fiber connection to a high-rise will let you light up a significant number of potential subscribers.

Blaster99 · 15-03-2006 9:15am

So long as people are happy to pay €20 a month for NTL's diabolical analogue service, I'd say there is plenty of scope for a 30 channel IPTV setup along the lines of Magnet. It's not scalable but you're dealing with a market that NTL/CableLink has been milking for a very long time.

Wimax?

Comments