Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Rogers IPTV Discussions

16K views 55 replies 20 participants last post by  ExDilbert 
#1 ·
#5 ·
ANY sport OTT, Rogers or not.. are WAY overpriced subs for what you get IMHO.
Good thing I don't like sports :p
@thenewdc: This would be the PERFECT time to try and introduce that. Following the FCC sort of trying to push forward that stuff be available via multiple platforms and just not locked to specific hardware.

Though without forcing.. not sure how willing rogers will do it.. will be a money loss on hardware.
BUT.. if you could gain back subs... might be a trade off?
 
#6 ·
I'm not sure that Rogers has the vision to pull this off but I am hopeful.

What I would like to see:

Rogers, get out of the hardware business! Encrypt your signal on the software side and pipe it to your clients.
Use the Rogers approved Modem to allow access to a local network only.

Standardize your services to an app based distribution and partner with Apple TV, ChromeCast, Roku etc.
Offer 2 app varieties:
Rogers LIVE app (no streaming, no PVR).
Rogers STREAM app (Unencumbered Streaming Content).

Lastly...offer this service completely included with your traditional TV services + offer it as a premium stand alone IPTV only service (for those without traditional cable).

This makes existing customers happy and it reels in new clients.
 
#7 ·
IPTV can mean a lot of things. Rogers essentially already has IPTV. It's used for some of the channels on the regular cable TV service. It's also used for their VOD and Shomi services.

If what Rogers means is live streaming of channels, I don't see it as a huge bonus. I rarely watch live TV. If anyone thinks they can easily build an HDPVR to record live streams, they are mistaken. The streams will certainly be encrypted. Recording content, if allowed at all, requires something called a trusted platform. That is a special PC built to specifications set out by the broadcasting industry and they are only available from big name PC vendors. They also tend to be very expensive.
 
#8 ·
I can't see them going to the expense of offering a product that is anything other than geared towards a segment of the marketplace that they've had trouble acquiring and retaining. This could be an add-on feature to their current internet service with somewhat attractive pricing, but not for traditional cable tv subs.
 
#9 ·
It could be an Android box solution such as those operated by vMedia and Zazeen. I don't see them as a significant threat to Rogers. If Rogers could legally offer something to compete with the TV offerings from Android TV box sellers it would be quite the accomplishment. That's not going to happen due to the current copyright licensing setup.
 
#12 ·
One of the issues with IPTV is that broadcasters and copyright holders don't want their products distributed this way. They see it as a threat to existing revenue streams and existing marketing channels. A perfect example is Bell suing vMedia for distributing their channels over IPTV. Bell wants no threat to it's distribution model and regulations that protect its market share.
 
#13 ·
Not quite true. Bell is not suing vMedia specifically for the reason of them streaming their channels over IPTV. Let me set something clear before I go on, I am not against nor for what Vmedia or Bell is doing, I however am siding with what ever is within limits of the law. Vmedia is re-broadcasting their IPTV platform onto a Rokku box, so its members can watch a certain vMedia package outside of its broadcast region. Lots of companies like Rogers, Bell, and others have location free TV, basically an app you can watch your home subscription on the go from (school, hotel, friends house) but those channels need to have certain rights negociated to allow watching outside of their home broadcast area. This is why when I watch a show on my Bell App but I am at my friends house, sometimes the channel will have "blackout" restrictions as the channel I'm watching ie: CTV does not allow the particular show to be made available when the customer is outside their viewing area which happens to be my friends house using his wifi. The difference with Vmedia's Rokku app, is that the same CTV Broadcast will continue to work at my friends house, where bell has to black it out, The distributor can pay for the restrictions to be removed then it can be showed outside of the licenced area, however the dispute is that Vmedia has not paid for the rights to air this channel outside the licenced area, but it is showing it anyways. Although the public opinion is important, it would not matter what the public thinks its up to the CRTC to see if Vmedia is breaking the law or not. If people want to disagree with what the goverment allows, instead of protesting vmedia's stance they should demand the crtc revise their antiqued policies to be more up to the current technological era we are living in.

And one more reason, why it does not specifically relate to IPTV is because I dont have an IPTV service I have a satellite TV service, Rogers does not have IPTV service and still has a mobile TV app too.
 
#14 ·
My understanding of the vMedia suit is that it concerns rebroadcasting OTA signals. It has little or nothing to do with regional sports or blackouts. If anything, Bell was a pioneer and a major benefactor of breaking down regional broadcasting rights and disrupting the OTA TV market with its satellite service. That just makes Bell a hypocrite and a bully since it now wants vMedia restricted from engaging in similar activities.

It is true that the Roku app allows vMedia to stream TV over internet services other than its own. That does violate a condition of vMedia's license. In my opinion, it's an unnecessary restriction that benefits incumbent BDUs only and is against the public interest. Was this restriction a result of lobbying by incumbent BDUs like Bell?
 
#15 ·
No idea but I responded to your post about the whole Vmedia thing to correct something you stated and not to engage in the further discussion about them because it would take this post off course and its better suited to start a new thread if there is continued interest in a topic of such. Now back to the topic of Rogers launching IPTV soon.
 
#16 ·
I guess my whole point is, don't read too much into Rogers announcement of launching IPTV. Unless there are fundamental changes in the current broadcasting system, it will not offer much that isn't available already. I also wonder why Rogers would be announcing this light of the recent Shomi shutdown. In any event, from what I've seen of IPTV in Canada, it's a big step backward from using conventional TV and a PVR.
 
#17 ·
^^^^
One thing that IP is useful for is multicast. A show is sent only to those who want it and consumes bandwidth only along the paths to reach them. I don't know if the switched channels also provide that benefit, or if when one requests the show, it's sent to everyone on the node. Multicast wasn't done well with IPv4, as it was an afterthought. With IPv6, proper support for it is mandatory and Rogers is now running IPv6 on it's network.
 
#18 ·
Switched channels provide a similar benefit for the last mile on a cable system. Multicast is definitely a win for sparsely distributed content and packet switching networks. It's less of an advantage for more densely used content such as major TV networks and popular content. There is probably a trade off where cost of managing a switching system exceeds the cost of running cable for dedicated bandwidth.
 
#19 ·
^^^^
The world is moving to packet switched networks. Even traditional non-switched stuff, such as DS1 & DS3 (T1 & T3) are often emulated over IP or Ethernet. The days of dedicated, fixed bandwidth channels are fading.
 
#20 ·
I am well aware of that. The question is how fast it will happen in an era of antiquated equipment, outdated TV regulations and huge, lethargic corporations that see any change as a threat to their bottom line. Huge investments in technological development must also take place in order to replace legacy systems.

Let's not forget the general public who often do not want to give up their existing equipment and services. How long did it take to get rid of analog cable? I don't ever want to give up my control of viewing conventional TV with a PVR so that broadcasters can replace it with a 'Big Brother' IPTV service.
 
#21 ·
^^^^
Well, I guess that all depends... ;)

In this case, Rogers is well placed to do this, with the newer PVRs and IPv6 over the network. IIRC, the Nextbox 3 is ready to go. Even my phone, on Rogers, is now IPv6 only. So, a lot will depend on how the shows are delivered. If the PVRs can handle it, then there will be little difference to the user. As for older tech, at some point it has to be cut off. With cable, it became a bandwidth issue, with analog taking so much, while delivering so little. Even then, Rogers provided for those with analog TVs, with the then free adapter.
 
#23 ·
They have a cable network that carries both IP and TV. There's nothing to stop them from sending IPTV over that same cable to the PVR the Internet connection. I have connected the PVR to my network and seen multimedia IPv6 multicasts from it.
 
#24 ·
Rogers already uses IP protocols for some of its TV signals and TV services. Rogers subscribers can use the Rogers TV Anyplace service to watch programming with an app or web browser. The question is, what does Rogers mean by "Launching IPTV?" It may mean delivering their broadcast channels to ROKU and smart TVs over an internet connection or something like the CBS streaming service in the US. Until Rogers provides more information, it's just speculation.
 
#25 ·
Rogers basically wants to change the way they transmit Television channels to customers homes. You might need to know how their technology works first to get a better understanding of why they want to make the switch. Rogers basically sends almost all of the channels down the cable wire at the same time, just on different digital frequencies and your STB tunes the channel you specify. This requires everything inbetween to pass through these frequencies without any loss of signal for your tv to work properly. What they plan to do instead is change it to an IP based streaming technology where not all the channels are sent all at once, just the ones you want to watch.
 
#26 ·
Rogers has been doing that for some time with some of their channels plus their VOD products. Nothing new there. The big advantage of using IP is that industry standard switches will handle routing automatically. They don't need to develop anything new to switch signals over the last mile. If the system is switched to IP, it will free up vast amounts of bandwidth for end customer use. That could be used to deliver gigabit or faster internet services.
 
#27 ·
I think that would be the big push. To do the eventual freeing up of the serious bandwidth of that TV is taking up.

Though it will be AGES before thats freed up fully.. it would require fliping EVERYONE over to IPTV.

And we all know how much people hang onto legacy TV stuff, if its all they need (the number of analog people which were still using it with the cut off)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top