Internet TV vs. OTA - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

goforit · 2009-09-05, 09:41 AM

Will Internet TV eventually take over other sources (i.e., OTA, cable/sat.)? This article below provides an update on internet TV and discusses how it has the potential of being more interactive than other mediums, but is currently hindered in quality. If Internet TV ever reaches OTA quality, other mediums may be redundant. Is it inevitable that all media will be experienced through the Internet/PC and in HD quality? Seems like my antennas may become obselete. I wonder what will happen...

Article:

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/628468

hugh · 2009-09-05, 09:47 AM

17 Mbps for HD quality over the net? Not in my lifetime!

kooguy · 2009-09-05, 11:41 AM

I doubt Bell or Rogers will ever remove the cap limit....

mr weather · 2009-09-05, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kooguy

I doubt Bell or Rogers will ever remove the cap limit....

That is so true you have no idea...

Internet TV with the picture quality of current OTA HD will require fibre to the home and incredible fat pipes to support the required bandwidth. Who pays for that?

ScaryBob · 2009-09-05, 02:54 PM

Bell is planning to deliver TCP/IP TV with fibre on the street and DSL2 to the home. Rogers has similar plans for HD VOD. Very high speed internet capable of delivering HD internet TV can be done but the problem is that internet TV competes with Bell's and Rogers' TV business units. That is the reason for low usage caps. As long as this conflict of interest exists, Canada will remain a high speed internet ghetto. To protect their own business interests, Bell and Rogers hold Canadians hostage while the rest of the world advances into the 21st century..

recneps77 · 2009-09-05, 04:50 PM

Yep.
Not happening in Canada until someone brings FTTH without a side business in TV via other distribution methods.
Even then, OTA would probably remain for most markets.

classicsat · 2009-09-06, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Bell is planning to deliver TCP/IP TV with fibre on the street and DSL2 to the home.

That is still traditional pay TV though, and not Internet TV in the spirit of the article.

For Intenret TV to take off as a practical replacement for traditional TV, providers will have to really upgrade their networks and drop their caps to support the TV bandwith, and the rightsholders will need to put all of their content online, and for us Canadians, would need to include Canadian online rights, or force Canadian rightsholders to run the programs online.

mr weather · 2009-09-06, 10:41 AM

And that will never happen. Too many stakeholders. Too much meddling by CRTC.

hugh · 2009-09-06, 11:35 AM

It's not happening anywhere anytime soon.

Even if you had unlimited bandwidth into your home, Who is going to pay for the servers that serve up 19.4 Mbps streams to every one who requests it?

Imagine 50 or 100 million households clicking onto the link for the Superbowl or Academy awards. How many servers would you need to handle that?

I never understand how people can think that will ever happen.

My feeling is people really don't understand how "broadcasting" and the internet works!

PlayitSimple · 2009-09-06, 11:58 AM

Just for clarification purposes, what would Telus, MTS & Sasktel TV services be considered- aren't those Internet TV services??

As for Bell and their IPTV service, I will believe when I see it. If I am not mistaken they have already invested millions maybe billions to launch an IPTV service only to put it on the backburner- idiots!

Ontario & Quebec (the two largest provinces by population) are the only ones without such a service, its a disgrace frankly. Of course it will probably be the same as Bell TV (in terms of pricing/packaging) so if that's the case then I don't care if it ever launches. I believe other companies have license to launch IPTV in Ontario, Novus is one of them, why is no one launching anything- are they all waiting for craphole Bell to upgrade their infrastructure??

recneps77 · 2009-09-06, 06:32 PM

The other guys can't deploy because there's just too much red tape to get permission to lay fibre in municipalities. And that's IF those cities are not in bed with Bell/Rogers and actually allow other companies to come in...

Paid IPTV is a whole other story though, as you have proprietary boxes and encryption to go with them. You can bet there will be zero free offerings in any form of IPTV deployed by bell or rogers. (Do we get QAM now? No.)
The main question in OP is if we will see a transition from wireless transmissions to internet 'broadcasts' for OTA.
Probably not. At least not if Bell/Rogers are involved.
The closest we'll see are the "watch" sites put up by broadcasters. But those are usually just major shows, and no news/live feeds. Not to mention poor quality for most.

mr weather · 2009-09-07, 07:02 AM

Do municipalities play games with franchise rules like they do in the US? If not there should be no legal reason for a third party not to lay fibre.

Still, that's an incredibly expensive proposition. Reality is it probably will never happen.

tvlurker · 2009-09-10, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Do municipalities play games with franchise rules like they do in the US? If not there should be no legal reason for a third party not to lay fibre.

It's a federal responsibility here, since it has to do with telecommunications.
AFAIK, the cities are not involved. And the Feds have gotten involved if the power company or telco won't give pole rights or apartment wiring rights to a competing carrier. Of course, that was before the free market idealogues took over.

hugh · 2009-09-10, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Just for clarification purposes, what would Telus, MTS & Sasktel TV services be considered- aren't those Internet TV services??

Sasktel etc are IPTV providers but its not Internet TV in the sense that most people think of, which is, click on a link and you tune into a video.

IPTV providers multicast streams out through a private network. The private operators are broadcast distributors who get that programming from broadcasters and then distribute them to subscribers. Essentially the same idea as a cable operator or satellite distributor.

With Internet TV, there is no middleman and you are on a public network (the internet). Go to a site, click on a link and you are watching a stream from that website. The internet can't support millions of people streaming broadcast quality HD streams

I'm not sure why folks are hung up on FTTH because even if you had fibre in every home, the networks could never afford to serve up broadcast quality tv streams via the internet.

mr weather · 2009-09-10, 02:52 PM

Can you say "exaflood"?

2009-09-05, 09:41 AM	#1
goforit Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Hamilton Mtn. Posts: 1,458	Internet TV vs. OTA Will Internet TV eventually take over other sources (i.e., OTA, cable/sat.)? This article below provides an update on internet TV and discusses how it has the potential of being more interactive than other mediums, but is currently hindered in quality. If Internet TV ever reaches OTA quality, other mediums may be redundant. Is it inevitable that all media will be experienced through the Internet/PC and in HD quality? Seems like my antennas may become obselete. I wonder what will happen... Article: http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/628468 __________________ 91XG, C5, CPA-19; Denon AVR-1312

2009-09-05, 09:47 AM	#2
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,501	17 Mbps for HD quality over the net? Not in my lifetime! __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2009-09-05, 02:54 PM	#5
ScaryBob Veteran Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Dandelion City Posts: 7,133	Bell is planning to deliver TCP/IP TV with fibre on the street and DSL2 to the home. Rogers has similar plans for HD VOD. Very high speed internet capable of delivering HD internet TV can be done but the problem is that internet TV competes with Bell's and Rogers' TV business units. That is the reason for low usage caps. As long as this conflict of interest exists, Canada will remain a high speed internet ghetto. To protect their own business interests, Bell and Rogers hold Canadians hostage while the rest of the world advances into the 21st century.. __________________ At 20 I had a good mind. At 40 I had money. At 60 I've lost my mind and my money. Oh, to be 20 again. --Scary

2009-09-06, 11:35 AM	#9
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,501	It's not happening anywhere anytime soon. Even if you had unlimited bandwidth into your home, Who is going to pay for the servers that serve up 19.4 Mbps streams to every one who requests it? Imagine 50 or 100 million households clicking onto the link for the Superbowl or Academy awards. How many servers would you need to handle that? I never understand how people can think that will ever happen. My feeling is people really don't understand how "broadcasting" and the internet works! __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2009-09-05, 11:41 AM	#3
kooguy Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ajax, Ontario Posts: 285	I doubt Bell or Rogers will ever remove the cap limit....

2009-09-05, 04:50 PM	#6
recneps77 Veteran Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Whitby Posts: 2,815	Yep. Not happening in Canada until someone brings FTTH without a side business in TV via other distribution methods. Even then, OTA would probably remain for most markets.

2009-09-06, 10:41 AM	#8
mr weather Veteran Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Mississauga, Ontario Posts: 1,950	And that will never happen. Too many stakeholders. Too much meddling by CRTC.

2009-09-06, 11:58 AM	#10
PlayitSimple Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 844	Just for clarification purposes, what would Telus, MTS & Sasktel TV services be considered- aren't those Internet TV services?? As for Bell and their IPTV service, I will believe when I see it. If I am not mistaken they have already invested millions maybe billions to launch an IPTV service only to put it on the backburner- idiots! Ontario & Quebec (the two largest provinces by population) are the only ones without such a service, its a disgrace frankly. Of course it will probably be the same as Bell TV (in terms of pricing/packaging) so if that's the case then I don't care if it ever launches. I believe other companies have license to launch IPTV in Ontario, Novus is one of them, why is no one launching anything- are they all waiting for craphole Bell to upgrade their infrastructure??

2009-09-06, 06:32 PM	#11
recneps77 Veteran Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Whitby Posts: 2,815	The other guys can't deploy because there's just too much red tape to get permission to lay fibre in municipalities. And that's IF those cities are not in bed with Bell/Rogers and actually allow other companies to come in... Paid IPTV is a whole other story though, as you have proprietary boxes and encryption to go with them. You can bet there will be zero free offerings in any form of IPTV deployed by bell or rogers. (Do we get QAM now? No.) The main question in OP is if we will see a transition from wireless transmissions to internet 'broadcasts' for OTA. Probably not. At least not if Bell/Rogers are involved. The closest we'll see are the "watch" sites put up by broadcasters. But those are usually just major shows, and no news/live feeds. Not to mention poor quality for most.

2009-09-07, 07:02 AM	#12
mr weather Veteran Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Mississauga, Ontario Posts: 1,950	Do municipalities play games with franchise rules like they do in the US? If not there should be no legal reason for a third party not to lay fibre. Still, that's an incredibly expensive proposition. Reality is it probably will never happen.

2009-09-10, 02:52 PM	#15
mr weather Veteran Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Mississauga, Ontario Posts: 1,950	Can you say "exaflood"?