pics of verizon fios setup

[rtt2]

If you want to read up on Verizon's Satellite super sites that will act as super headends for the fios TV service check out page #3 on this link:
http://www.verizon-media.com/iweb/vz/020105vz.pdf

there is also Q&As about the service on pg #4

 

[korsjs]

that was very good reading. thanks. fios tv is going to kick ass.

bring on fios tv.

 

[Ilya]

I hope, SBC is not too far behind. Their demonstration (with Microsoft) at CES was very impressive!

 

[rtt2]

SBC already announced they will be delayed for at least another year. The problem is Microsoft's IPTV Software.

Swisscom has had a nightmare deploying it and has found serious flaws in it. Here is article about the trouble they are having with MIcrosoft. There are also reports of a single server now being required to support every 10 users. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/01/ms_iptv_strategy_in_tatters/ SBC is screwed here they are betting on using FTTN architecture. SBC claims users will see 20-25Mbps using VDSL2 depending on the distance of your home and maybe 1-3 meg up, most of which will be used for their video. They've slipped a year, with 2008 now the goal. Keep in mind VDSL2 chipsets are not even ready yet.

when you need bandwidth for HD (9 meg per live encoded channel) for one TV set in a house, SBC is going to be cutting the overall bandwidth really thin in diving it up. SBC is betting that VDSL2 would have been here sooner and is betting compression would reduce the bandwidth they needed. Vendors of course promised all this. SBC's tech guys knew they were taking a risk, but management decided that was a better option than spending the money Verizon is. I think by the time SBC deploys this technology Cable will have trounced SBC in bandwidth using DOCSIS 3.0 using channel bonding and make SBC's offering look pitiful. I mean if you only get dial up speeds on your computer because
people are watching TV what kind of Competitor does SBC think it can be?


This is the reason Verizon went the way they did. It is more costly but more future proof. They are notgoing IPTV because they knew it was not ready for prime time and will eventually deploy it.
Instead they will depoly a more traditional type of system using Miscrosoft software handeling the program guide and other features on the boxes. This software has been deployed before on some Comcast systems and has been tested and Verizon has faith in it to work.

 

[rtt2]

One of the things that scares me the most about SBC's solution is a quote from this article: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=69194&site=ofc

"SBC's Human Factors Lab -- a research area where consumers are observed in realistic settings behind two-way mirrors -- was instrumental in finding what IPTV resolution would be pleasing to consumers. Using EchoStar Communications Corp.'s service as "the gold standard", the lab worked with consumers to analyze several levels of video quality and state their preference."

Echostar?????? I mean come on, is this what we have to look forward to.

 

[korsjs]

thanks for all the info.

 

[Ilya]

rtt2, you have all the facts at your fingertips, as always!
Thanks for the update!

 

[korsjs]

keep it coming and bring on fios tv.

 

[digitalworld]

Thanks for the welcome and the information. Interesting forum.

To rtt2's points:

I sure hope SBC has set the bar higher than Echostar??!??

Microsoft's IPTV solution is very resource intensive because of all the bells and whilstle's they've added to it. IPTV as a whole is deployed in several smaller markets by several companies but these are typically MPEG2 based services which require much more bandwidth and the markets have to hand selected- not avail. to the masses. It would be interesting to hear from someone who has it today.

Microsoft's is essentially MPEG4 (VC1) based. Assuming the technical hurdles are cleared which they will with Microsoft's and SBC's combined wallets. SBC and the like who are wanting to offer an MPEG4 service will have to deal with programming issues as well due to the fact they want to deliver it in MPEG4. MPEG2 is the standard currently and the powers that be are not eager to move away from it. They have no reason to do it. In addition, the set top boxes that will be needed on each tv set to decode MPEG4 do not exist today, not cheaply in mass quantities at least.

Much of the near-term negative publicity over IPTV is based on the poor showings by various entities at the broadcaster based trade shows where it's much tougher to pull the wool over people's eyes. At shows like NAB, the MPEG4 IPTV demos were less than stellar and often times were nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

IPTV is exciting and I hope it takes off soon and is widely available. I haven't heard much from people who are in some of these IPTV trial or early launch markets. I wonder what their experience has been.