I live in NS, and have done a little reading on IP TV. It seems to me that Aliant is not delivering true IP TV. By that I mean you have to have their DSL service, and from what I know of technology I suspect they are sending the TV data encoded over DSL and Layer 2 versus having it encoded at Layer 3 - IP.

Either that or they simply do not want to have their TV service over IP, available off their 'net' via other service providers networks. This is stupid. Imagine having eastlink highspeed being used to deliver Aliant TV....thats competition!!!

Does anyone know of a IP TV provide in Canada that will allow a person to subscribe to their IP TV and use it via the Internet, and not being directly on their network?

I get my telephone service over IP, why not my TV.

IPTV stands for Internet Protocol Television and I don't know what you have been reading but Aliant is IPTV.

It is delivered over a private vs. public network (ie. the internet) but it is certainly IPTV.

I'm an interworking engineer. I know networking (routing, switching, transport, etc) very well, an that includes technologies that allow the transporting of various media (native data, voice, video, signalling, etc) over various layers (i.e 1, 2, 3, etc)

Years ago I deployed a 'VoIP' system, but it was not VoIP, no where near it. The system encoded voice (audio and signaling) into ATM cells, sent that over ADSL, and the far end device stripped off the Layer 2 and terminated the voice onto an analog port. IP traffic was also done the same way so there was an Ethernet/IP port to connect your PC too. So the marketing hype on this system said the voice was carried VoIP, but it was not.

When I read about Aliant IPTV, I noticed that there is this key requirement of having the DSL being within a certain specification, and from what I know of Telco thinking, I get the funny feeling that while they call it IPTV, the actual TV is encoded into Layer 2, not Layer 3 (IP). I also noticed that (according to Aliant) there is the requirement for an Ethernet switch (a layer 2 device) between the DSL modem, and the set top box. There is also the note that users must have the new Aliant High Speed PPPoE service. (PPPoE is Layer 2, not Layer 3.) Give what I know about old school Telcos, and their old circuit-switched mentality, I think (but honestly don't know for sure) they send the IPTV over a seperate PPPoE vircuit-circuit (account), and not over IP. (Technically IP could still be used, but they have still locked (siloed) into that seperate PPPoE VC.) If they did do it over IP (ubiquliously), why couldn't you simply install a high-quality (IP) router to terminate the one PPPoE account, and then use IP routing. And if they did it over IP, why would they not want to make it available via the Internet (the largest IP internetwork there is!) and open up their market to include not just Aliant net customers, but anyone else who wants to give them money.

Their on-net customers may be required to upgrade their DSL to provide more bandwidth, but this is Layer 1, and should have nothing to do with Layers 2 and 3.

So, can you confirm that Aliant encodes its TV streams (audio and video) over IP (Layer 3), and not directly into some Layer 2 protocol?

Actually it doesn't matter. If Aliant won't sell me IPTV with me being an Eastlink customer at a higher-value service than what Eastlink offers then I won't buy.

So if anyone knows of an IPTV provider (I don't even care if they are in Canada) that makes their service available over the Internet, please let me know. My telephony service provider in not in Nova Scotia, so why should my TV service provider be?

Thanks!
PM

Interesting post!
You sure know your stuff

MTS tv in Winnipeg will come very close to what you are wishing for. It will begin this year.

Just to elaborate....MTS has made a deal with Microsoft who have been working diligently over the years on IPTV

I don't know if this is helpful; but in certain Killiam buildings that are Aliant Ethernet wired, there is no POT requirement. The units have direct ethernet connections and can just subscribed to AliantTV without DSL service. Much the same, there are fiber to the home trial participants without POT service (VOIP in place of POT service). I think that may suggest Aliant could, but Aliant doesn't want to offer the service on any connection that isn't theirs at the present.

I also know that Aliant in NB (then NBTel) used to offer "VibeVision", which was before Aliant started implementing PPPOE.

Packetman,

I think I understand what your saying and I agree with you. Currently these so-called IPTV services (MTS, SaskTel & Telus) are only available in the immediate service area but if this were true IP TV delivered via the Internet then anyone no matter where they live in Canada would be able to subscribe to it- correct?!

Therefore, this is some sort of localized version of IPTV, if something like that exists. Also, I don't understand why you have to have 'their' DSL service, what if you were with another company they wouldn't allow you to sign up for their services?!

I think IPTV is the future delivery mechanism for distributing television services, right now its still in its infancy but once bandwidth is increased and prices come down a bit, it might start to take off. For example, in my area Cogeco charges over $50. for 10Mbps cable Internet- that is too much if you are adding the IPTV subscription on top of that it gets too expensive. This is also a more efficient delivery system from what I have read, the provider only sends to your box the signals for the channels you are subscribing to as opposed to cable where everything is sent to your box.

Packetman,

I think you are confusing the layer architectures and how they are able to deliver IP packets. I have taken this snippet of information from a document I have:

"Ethernet and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) are important protocols used by carrier networks. ATM is used almost exclusively as a protocol interface to and within Wide Area Networks (WANs). Ethernet has become the mainstay for Local Area Networks (LANs) and has been used extensively since the late 1990’s as the interface to and within WANs.

The requirements of LANs and WANs are significantly different. As an example, at my telco today, Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) access networks provide a 10/100 Ethernet interface to customers at a CPE logical interface while delivering ATM over ADSL, ADSL2, VDSL and VDSL2 to the customer premise (CPE) where a gateway function transfers traffic between the ATM and Ethernet interfaces. Typically Ethernet frames are encapsulated in ATM cells by the gateway function in the CPE and DSLAM. In this example, Ethernet is predominant in the LAN and ATM over DSL handles the constricted local copper loop characteristics very well.

ATM was developed to provide QoS capabilities and it does this very well using 53 byte cells. This is the data transport between the CPE and the DSLAM box on unshielded twisted pair copper. ATM has strong inherent QoS capabilities to handle POTS-replacement VoIP and broadcast video.

Ethernet DSL CPEs encapsulate Ethernet frames into ATM for transmission, possibly with no knowledge of a Layer 3 protocol such as IP. Encapsulation is limited to support of Ethernet over ATM and PPPoE over ATM. For these devices, the following standards and protocols must be supported:

• Multiport self-learning transparent bridge per IEEE 802.1D
• RFC 2684 multiprotocol encapsulation over AAL5/ATM
• PPPOE: RFC 2516
• PPP: RFC 1661"

So any higher OSI layer protocol (Layer 3 and above) such as IP can be carried over the Ethernet/ATM transport as defined above. That is how the telcos are delivering IPTV to the end subscriber using their DSL Access architecture. I have not gone into further details such as how PVCs and PVPs are set-up and then converted to VLANS at the Central Office/DSLAM to deliver IPTV to each individual subscriber but these are required to differentiate the IPTV data stream from the High Speed data stream and potentially a VOIP data stream on one DSL line.

The telco I work for has been able to utilize Ethernet for the whole end-to-end IPTV delivery (Private Network) EXCEPT between the DSLAM and the customer which is still ATM over DSL. Ethernet doesn't work very well on unshielded twisted pair copper. If you remember about 10 years ago Nortel came up with the 1 Meg Modem which is essentially Ethernet on unshielded twisted pair copper. There may still be some High Speed subcribers using this technology but it is being phased out by the telcos.

John

Right now, the bandwidth needed by IPTV is such as it can only be effectively offered in one closed (from outside internet) end-to-end system by one provider.

If they were to offer their TV service outside their "network", the outside internet network would get clogged, and your end ISP might not be able to handle the bandwith, especially if a lot of customers subscribe.

The outside network and ISPs incloming tubes would have to be significantly enlarged, and the IPTV system made more efficient, and "headends" all over the place, for it to work well, "Out Of Network".


Not to say you cannot (legitimately) get TV programs over the internet. There are a number of download services, although most don't license to Canada.

Yes, and to add: "true" IPTV as posited by this thread simply won't exist for a considerable period of time. QOS issues alone over the public Internet make it impractical to deliver consistently -- which is why all IPTV solutions are private networks (ie your telco).

Second issue, finally mentioned in the last post, is licensing issues. Worldwide IPTV delivery is technically possibly (subject to QOS issues); but a lot of content is licensed to specific geographies. Universal may produce Heroes for NBC but it then sells the rights to the program to other companies in Canada, the UK, Australia and elsewhere around the world. NBC can't sell an IPTV service delivering Heroes directly to a Canadian household because it doesn't own the rights -- CanWest Global does.

As we move forward, On Demand, IPTV, website, mobile phone, iTunes-like delivery and other rights will be directly negotiated which may open the door to new options in Canada (and, basically, everywhere except the US where the content owners and delivery company are often the same).

IPTV itself isn't a big deal --same content, different delivery than cable or satellite. But as new interfaces and additional content wrapped around the IPTV signal improve, it becomes very compelling and a major threat to current players. Rights issues, however, still need to be worked out.

Don't forget content regulation by the CRTC and prevention of pirating/recording specific programming as per the producer of the content.

To have true IPTV we would require a completely deregulated industry. Which would open up a can of worms in itself. Don't expect any such thing for years to come. If anything, you'll see on demand programming and that will trump any idea of making a true IPTV service that would be similar to the type of TV we know today.

iptv is a great tool to diversify entertainement source. newscast, musicvideos etc... there are true free internet channels.

as for legality it shall be compared to anything else available in the internet. if a book is free to view in the internet by its author then nobody else shall restrict that. same here for iptv.

piracy is diferent though.

the reason iptv is not so popular here is that companies dont really have competition. so they just want to keep their geographic customer. if aliant were offering iptv in the east bell might consider a better deal to its customer.

a true competition is desperatly needed. just look what is hapenning in europe. for under 30 euros you have iptv, internet and phone service. and channel selections are quite extensive

Packetman

you're basically wrong in most of your assumptions

read up on multicast

the reason iptv is not so popular here is that companies dont really have competition. so they just want to keep their geographic customer.

IPTV isn't "popular" here because it doesn't work except on a closed network -- ie delivered by a "facilities based" provider. As a practical matter, that means your cableco, your telco or somebody with gabillions of dollars to invest in re-wiring your province with fibre.

Assuming it works, the next hurdle is rights management. This is easier to solve since it's contract-driven and all current contracts expire. In a relatively short period of time, if someone wanted to, a huge amount of "world content" could appear in high quality as IPTV. The catch? If the service "looks like" a television channel, and is delivered in the same way as a television channel, it will have to be licensed by the CRTC as per terms of the BDUs "terrestrial license".

the problem with your idealistic IPTV is that you have to have a way to guarantee a certain level of QoS across the network to achieve high quality tv stream

as soon as it goes out past your own network, you no longer have any control over it2

I came across this thread after searching DHC for content about "IMB+Records" based in Etobicoke, ON (can be googled) from which I was considering purchasing an IPTV box and account. They offer IPTV-based Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Estonian, and Latvian programming both online and via a STB. My GF is new here <3 years from the Ukraine and there is virtually no Ukrainian programming available in Canada which is surprising given the many Ukrainians in Canada. She can speak Russian and we do subscribe to ExpressVu's NTV/RTV combo but that's the extent of it. Anyways, in response ot the original poster I think this service meets the definition of IPTV described in this thread... but now it's got me wondering about the legality of the whole thing here in Canada. Does anyone have any experience with these services? And is it legal to subscribe in Canada? Obviously I don't want to shell out $$$ for a IPTV set-top box only to have the service shut down...

Note to mods... if this is somehow a verboden topic please excuse my ignorance and feel free to remove this post..!

IMHO, those ethnic "IPTV" services are a lower quality, nothing that would compete, in quality, with a traditional pay TV service, incliding a facilities bases IPTV service form the phone company.

As for legalities, I think that needs to be tried in court.
The Radio Act might not cover it, since it doesn't use radio waves.

Since it delivers linear TV programming for pay, the Broadcast act may need get invoked.

Practically I would more worry about buying the hardware and the company going out of business than "getting caught".