>I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the >comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with >internet tv, it will be a lot more popular.
Yeah, but ... My living room big picture that I watch from my easy chair happens to be my PC video server, not a TV. It's been over a year since I used a "TV" (which I define as a display box with a TV tuner built in). The living room PC has a couple TV tuner cards, Internet connection, and drives a big 48" display. Watch cable, programs previously recorded to disk (BeyondTV software is great with a half-terabyte drives), or Internet content. There's never even been a keyboard on this machine. If I wanna navigate there's a wireless mouse that sits on the hassock next to the tuner card remote controls. If I really need to type, I have to use a laptop with VNC. Essentially a TIVO on steroids. It's geek heaven! >>> Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to >>> forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one >>> stream. Yeah, but ... Location Free, Slingbox, etc., do quite nicely on much much less BW. Is IPTV really that much of a hog that it needs 1.25Mbps? How could it possibly compete against products out there already that use only a tenth of this BW? Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: George Rogato To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPTV Nice easy reading here. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 Looks like the trend is towards video on demand. Here's a link: http://www.tv-links.co.uk/index.do/4 We have a long way to go before this stuff is mainstream for sure. But there is a convergence happening. I myself don't want to watch a movie on my pc monitor. I like the comfort of a big picture in my easy chair. When I can do that with internet tv, it will be a lot more popular. Travis Johnson wrote: > I can say that I have always been a gadget freak. I almost always have > the newest toys (cell phones, laptops, two-way radios, etc.) and I > usually play with them for a few months, and then put them on ebay. I am > a technology freak. I love new things (like our newest toy, an 18ghz > Dragonwave AirPair100). Call me what you will, but I like new technology. > > However, I can also tell you that I have a regular POTS line at home > (pay $35/mo for all features like vmail, call waiting, etc.) and I also > have DISH network at home. I would never consider using an internet > connection for TV... EVER. VoIP works for some people (I can always tell > when I'm talking to someone on a VoIP phone), but I can never see using > my internet connection for TV... here are a few reasons: > > (1) The internet is very unstable. When people want to watch TV, they > don't want excuses on why it's not working. Imagine the calls you would > get when a person's internet, telephone and TV are all down because one > of their PC's is infected with the latest virus or spyware. > > (2) I like having things seperate. Seperate bills is a slight issue, but > with automatic billing now, it all comes out of the checking account > automatically anyway. > > (3) I'm not tied to a single provider. If I want to switch my phone > service or TV service to something different, I can. > > (4) With the free DVR's and 4 rooms hooked up for free from DISH and > only $29.99 per month for 60+ channels, who is going to compete with > that? How can anyone provide a sustained 4-6Mbps for up to 4 TV's to > _every_ subscriber across their network (including the cableco or > telco's). Even in a small town (say 5,000 population), if the cable > company had 500 customers, that would be up to 1Gbps of bandwidth needed > (50% utilization of the 500 subs). There is nobody that can support that > right now... or even 3-5 years from now. > > Before everyone gets too excited about IPTV, we need to look at reality. > Sure companies like Verizon are doing fiber to the house... we will > never compete with that... but why try? We will never dominate our > region... instead, we are happy to pick up the customers that are > unhappy with the telco or cableco or other wireless provider and want > internet that just works. That's what we do. Internet. That works. > > Travis > Microserv > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> sigh >> >> having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are >> two totally different things. >> >> Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! >> marlon >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM >> Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. >> >> >>> All, >>> >>> Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since >>> George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dawn DiPietro >>> >>> According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more >>> than >>> 4 hours of TV each day. >>> http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html >>> >>> Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown >>> percentage of >>> time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but >>> even >>> if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is >>> high) >>> we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average >>> American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) >>> we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a >>> full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for >>> viewing on >>> demand. >>> http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 >>> >>> And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free >>> Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high >>> dollar services or would prefer not to. >>> >>> The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD >>> per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions >>> that will need to be addressed in this answer. >>> >>> First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of >>> American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one >>> continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will >>> continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. >>> >>> Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to >>> forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one >>> stream. If >>> we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a >>> rate of >>> 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable >>> quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not >>> take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should >>> these services be required. >>> >>> What we can see is that any network that is only capable of >>> delivering sub >>> 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we >>> simply >>> refuse to admit it yet. >>> >>> Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait >>> for the inevitable crisis. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
