Internet TV vs. OTA

[recneps77]

The internet can't support millions of people streaming broadcast quality HD streams

The internet can, it's Canadian residential internet that can't.
Go to japan or south (or is it north?) korea and your 100mbps or 1000mbps home connection would have no problem with an MPEG2 HD stream. (H264? Even better.)

[Cyclism]

^

That would be South Korea. North Korea's internet capabilities consist of this, the Official Webpage of the DPRK, which appears to be the work of a lone middle-school child, probably with a gun pointed at their head:

http://www.korea-dpr.com/

Try not to laugh!

[hugh]

The internet can, it's Canadian residential internet that can't.

Sure okay. I'd like to see the server farm that can pump out a few million 19.4 mbps streams at a given time.

Why would every network invest billions and billions to deliver in the internet when the existing multicasting infrastructure does it relatively cheaply and cost effectively?

Even if millions of servers were put into use, then the bandwidth increase would be hundredfold or more over today's.

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Why would every network invest billions and billions to deliver in the internet when the existing multicasting infrastructure does it relatively cheaply and cost effectively?

That sums it up perfectly - there is no financial or technical reason to reinvent the wheel. A huge number of Internet users rely on wireless for their access, so even if land-based ISP connections and server capacities are built faster and greater, wireless networking is not looking to be a proper conduit for the bandwidths and speeds necessary for pristine HD streams. Meanwhile, Mobile DTV continues going forward into the marketplace, creating yet another reason not to try to reinvent the wheel.

[recneps77]

That's where peer-to-peer can come in.
While it's shunned around here where we're in the stone ages and capping internet, P2P is actually very efficient..
Or even cloud computing:
For everyone in an ISP's cloud that is watching a tv stream of 19.4MBPS, they are only using 19.4MBPS of external bandwidth. It can the be duplicated and sent from node to node simultaneously on what is essentially free bandwidth to the ISP.

Now, if you're talking on-demand.. probably not going to get your 19.4 as easily.
But change codecs and you're now getting the same picture content in less than 5mbps, which by the time we're out of the stone age would be like a bottom quality youtube video today.

[Walter Dnes]

Originally Posted by hugh

Sure okay. I'd like to see the server farm that can pump out a few million 19.4 mbps streams at a given time.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Both IPV4 and IPV6 have multicast modes. It is similar in concept to SDV (Switched Digital Video)...

• 100 customers at ISP X want to watch CNN's streaming coverage of a major event
• They all connect to and handshake with CNN
• CNN sends ONE stream to ISP X, with multicast headers.
• When the stream gets to ISP X, It gets duplicated 100 times, and goes to each customer who requested it.

Note that CNN sends only one video stream, and the internet backbone sees only one video stream. This is how it should be done. Of course, with the greedy Cable/Telco duopoly in charge, this won't be implemented, because it would destroy their profitable BDU businesses.

Originally Posted by hugh

Why would every network invest billions and billions to deliver in the internet when the existing multicasting infrastructure does it relatively cheaply and cost effectively?

Even if millions of servers were put into use, then the bandwidth increase would be hundredfold or more over today's.

[recneps77]

Walter said it so much better.

[ScaryBob]

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?

That can happen and will happen. The issue is one of control. Bell and Rogers want full control and sole rights for doing so on their networks. Canadian broadcasters want full control of all broadcasting rights for content. That is why the CRTC exists and why Bell and Rogers want to throttle and limit residential internet access. In addition, we have other interests, such as Canadian musicians, and Canadian entertainment subsidiaries who want to control access to additional non-Canadian content and services. It's odd how many, if not most, Canadians have suffered job or income losses due to reduced trade barriers and increased foreign competition but as soon as broadcasters, actors, musicians and related companies are affected then protectionist walls go up and consumer based subsidies are implemented. In any other industry, consumers would be provided with the goods and services they want, regardless of the source. In addition, Canada would be taken to the world court for illegal trade practices if similar barriers and tariffs were erected against foreign competition.

[classicsat]

You don't need 19.4 Mbps. Thatis the bandwidth of an ATSC carries, and ideally one MPEG2 HD channel on such.

By going to MPEG4, you would need less.

[hugh]

There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Both IPV4 and IPV6 have multicast modes. It is similar in concept to SDV (Switched Digital Video)...
100 customers at ISP X want to watch CNN's streaming coverage of a major event
They all connect to and handshake with CNN
CNN sends ONE stream to ISP X, with multicast headers.
When the stream gets to ISP X, It gets duplicated 100 times, and goes to each customer who requested it.

Walter you make some huge assumptions.

First, how many ISP's are there in North America? What makes you think ISP's are going to invest in the infrastructure to make this happen? What incentive do they have? That still some mighty big pipes required! Most North Americans don't have an internet connection that can handle 19.4 Mbps (perhaps 10 Mbps if compressed) for one channel. What if you have 3 televisions in your home?

IPTV proves its possible. No one is arguing the technological feasibility!

We have the technology to put a person on the moon, but I don't see regularly scheduled tourist flights to the moon coming anytime soon.

You don't need 19.4 Mbps

Maybe not but you need some type of converter box that connects to the internet to convert those MPEG-4 streams to something your television can use. Whose going to pay for that?

[classicsat]

Yuo the TV viewe will pay for that, the same as you pay for a TV with a built in ATSC tuner, or an extenral ATSC box. But if you are watching on or through your PC, it can be done in software, and the TVs with built in networking can play MP4 based codecs.

[Walter Dnes]

Originally Posted by hugh

Walter you make some huge assumptions.

First, how many ISP's are there in North America? What makes you think ISP's are going to invest in the infrastructure to make this happen? What incentive do they have? That still some mighty big pipes required!

The whole point behind multicast is that it does NOT require N times as much gigabytes (or bandwidth) to reach N times as many customers. A really simple proof of concept is to take the case of an old Netgear ADSL router I had a few years ago, before command-line became passe. You could tell it to send logging info (internet scans/attacks/whatever) to a computer for logging. I chose to set the destination to 192.168.1.255 which also happened to be the "broadcast address" for my small "LAN" (2 computers). The result was that both computers could pick up the logs, even though the traffic was identical to sending the logs to one computer. This obviously works only with connectionless UDP for a one-way broadcast. But that's what TV is, anyways.

There is also "promiscuous mode"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuous_mode Ethernet on a LAN/WAN already has everybody's traffic on it simultaneously. The default is that the OS tells the network card to ignore any data not addressed to it. The OS can tell the card to listen to one other signal. The main problem is that the OS will bog down when trying to process multiple data streams.

Originally Posted by hugh

Most North Americans don't have an internet connection that can handle 19.4 Mbps (perhaps 10 Mbps if compressed) for one channel.

That's ATSC. QAM is 1/2 of that, i.e 9.6 Mbps for the identical quality. Many cable systems put 3 HDTV channels into 1 QAM channel without noticable degradation, so we're talking 6.4 Mbps. That is difficult today, but attainable.

Originally Posted by hugh

What if you have 3 televisions in your home?

OK, you're out of luck if you want to watch different channels.

Originally Posted by hugh

Maybe not but you need some type of converter box that connects to the internet to convert those MPEG-4 streams to something your television can use. Whose going to pay for that?

The same people who currently pay $250 for a Rogers HDTV terminal. See https://www.rogersdigitalcentre.com/add/orderform I'm sure it doesn't really cost anywhere near that much, especially if it doesn't have auto-update and remote control from Rogers, and PPV handshaking, and DRM decryption, etc, etc. You don't need most of those "features" in a simple box that outputs HDMI or component video. If all else fails, use your PC.

[GeoStar]

I thought that bell and rodgers had to have their deep packet inspection running all the time so they could find out what to sell people from their browsing habits.

this slows down the internet , so they capp accounts thereby accelerating their monitary status.

since you have to pay for tv on the internet , --over the air is free access , with greater resolution right now!
( and forever!)

[hugh]

OK, you're out of luck if you want to watch different channels.

The Average U.S. Home has 2.86 sets with 54% having 3 or more. How you can just ignore that that most homes have 3 or more sets and require the ability to watch different channels? Its a fact that any new infrastructure has to be able to deal with.

Finally I will finish with something I've said time and time again but many ignore it.

This is NOT about the technological feasibility. Its about the cost effectiveness and whose going to pay all those costs. I learned a long time ago. If someone can't make some money off of this, it ain't going to happen.

[redzone]

yah i can barly stream a youtube quality version of the sports i cant get with my home line. no chance you can get an HD quality feed any time soon unless someone invents one heck of a compression algorithm