how-to block ads
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV Which goes to show you once again that it's greed, not what the customer wants driving the change.
This is FIOS. There is now officially ZERO technical reason they could not sell you a single channel at a time. ZERO reason at all. It's digital, it's not even SENT over the wire unless it's ordered. There's no chance of 'theft of service', etc. So what's their justification for forcing someone who wants to see the Discovery Channel having to buy ESPN2? Greed, plain and simple.
Though I generally despise the government, I would love to see the companies put in front of the nation, and be forced to defend their practices. They no longer have any technical reason to say they can't provide ala-carte pricing/packaging. They are providing 15 channels for 12.95. Why can't I choose the 15 channels I want for 15.95? Really, even with 160+ channels, there have been tons of studies that show people only watch 15-20 channels. The only reason they bundle them all is simply greed.
--
Grand Poobah | |
|  BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV said by G_Poobah  :Which goes to show you once again that it's greed, not what the customer wants driving the change. This is FIOS. There is now officially ZERO technical reason they could not sell you a single channel at a time. ZERO reason at all. It's digital, it's not even SENT over the wire unless it's ordered. There's no chance of 'theft of service', etc. So what's their justification for forcing someone who wants to see the Discovery Channel having to buy ESPN2? Greed, plain and simple. Though I generally despise the government, I would love to see the companies put in front of the nation, and be forced to defend their practices. They no longer have any technical reason to say they can't provide ala-carte pricing/packaging. They are providing 15 channels for 12.95. Why can't I choose the 15 channels I want for 15.95? Really, even with 160+ channels, there have been tons of studies that show people only watch 15-20 channels. The only reason they bundle them all is simply greed. The tv portion is NOT IPTV. It is always present. The PPV is like IPTV and on demand.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV umm, not IPTV? I'd be very very interested to know how you can send an analog signal over fiber.
Yes, it IS IPTV all the way (IGMP to be specific). There's no 'analog' signal on fiber. Video on Demand is RTSP or some proprietary cisco crap. In fact, if you want analog, they have to install a DAC converter in your house. FIOS TV is a multicast IGMP signal, and the headend box is configured to decode the appropriate signals to display on your TV, depending on your group membership. Channel selection is ALL configured at the central site, which broadcasts the keys for your personal box so you can decode a channel. Again, ZERO technical reason you can't belong to a single channel group.
--
Grand Poobah | |
| | | mishaq
Premium
join:2004-01-24
Richardson, TX
clubs:
1 edit | Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV It's called CATV HFC Emulation. They use a wavelength of fiber and dedicate it to the TV section, and from there simply transform it from Fiber to Coax.
»FiOS CAPEX, why not IPTV, VoIP, Data and No ONT
Any respectable cable co in 2005 uses fiber in some part of their backhaul, all verizon is doing is bringing that backhaul to your doorstep  | |
| | | | 
BillTager
join:2000-09-20
Charlotte, NC | Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV It's not greed. It's called economics.
--
Formerly DSLWho | |
| | | | | jasonj758
join:2003-12-08
Ashburn, VA
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV Damn, beat me to it...:)
wmcbrine is spot on about the experience being mis-leading..I jumped to the same conclusion when I heard FTTP was coming my direction. Good reading re: FTTP / VPON / IPTV
»www.fibers.org/articles/fs/8/5/3/1 | |
| | | | | | | | 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Still the "Analog" portion is about 20 channels.. anything more and you require a STB.
--
»www.silentbrouhaha.com | |
| | | 
Seandhi
Seeing From a New Level
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX
1 edit | n/m | |
| | | 
wmcbrine
Touched by His Noodly Appendage
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
| said by G_Poobah :umm, not IPTV? I'd be very very interested to know how you can send an analog signal over fiber. The same way as you send any other signal. There's nothing intrinsically digital about fiber. It's just modulated light in place of modulated electricity.
Experience is misleading in this case, since everything light-based that the average person has encountered has been digital -- CDs, DVDs, optical digital audio, sometimes networking. But it doesn't have to be that way. Recall the analog video of the original 12" laser discs.
And even if it were digital, that wouldn't necessarily imply IPTV, either. Digital Cable and OTA ATSC are digital, but not IP-based. | |
| | | 
Xela19115
join:2000-10-06
Richboro, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Actually you very wrong. Verizon FIOS TV is not IPTV. It's an RF overlay. In essence what Verizon is doing is they extending the node all the way to the customer home. The OTN node they install for FIOS converts digital TV feed to RF. Reason for that is that Verizon wants to reuse the existing coax cable inside the house and they can use existing cable set-tops from Motorola (like DCT-2500, DCT-6200 and DCT-6412) without too much modifications. It's a relatively simple and elegant and less expensive solution than end-to-end IPTV.
The fiber that comes to the house can carry multiple multiplexed wavelengths. One for video, one for data and one for VoIP. Just like the cable companies do. | |
| | | | Danobegood
join:2004-11-30
Melrose, MA | Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV cable companies don't DWDM their forward plant signal. The only reason they would is if they had two cable plants. One for the 1490 lambda and one for the 1550 lambda. It would be useless to DWDM a fiber when it is destined for one coaxial cable. | |
| | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by G_Poobah :umm, not IPTV? I'd be very very interested to know how you can send an analog signal over fiber. Yes, it IS IPTV all the way (IGMP to be specific). There's no 'analog' signal on fiber. Video on Demand is RTSP or some proprietary cisco crap. In fact, if you want analog, they have to install a DAC converter in your house. FIOS TV is a multicast IGMP signal, and the headend box is configured to decode the appropriate signals to display on your TV, depending on your group membership. Channel selection is ALL configured at the central site, which broadcasts the keys for your personal box so you can decode a channel. Again, ZERO technical reason you can't belong to a single channel group. Well I guess the above posts may have had you change your mind. I have done contract work for verizon and your idea's are not how they are doing it. But it was really fun to see ya shot down so quickly and proven wrong with out me even having to be present.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by G_Poobah : Again, ZERO technical reason you can't belong to a single channel group. And again you still miss the point! Delivering single channels has NOTHING to do with the technology. Cable companies have been able to do this for at least 15 years now. Where have you been?
Delivering singles channels can be done with anything from Analog cable to digital cable. In analog, they have to scramble basic and deploy settops. The box drivers can be sent channel and service masks that authorize single channels.
Same can be done with the digital cable too. As long as a system is addressable, it can be done. The reason it's NOT done is because it's not financially feasable to deliver service to the masses on an ala carte basis. Those choosing single channels wanting a couple of channels would be wind up paying the same rate as basic cable at about $3.00 or so per channel. And, it would cause the basic and digital tiers to increase as well for loss of viewship and advertising revenue.
It's obvious you have some degree of insight into technical jargon - don't know if you are just quoting stuff you have read or if you have some level of first hand knowledge, but it's obvious you don't take in the whole world of television which is important if you want to justify your point. | |
| | | | Danobegood
join:2004-11-30
Melrose, MA | Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV have you ever written a check to a programming provider for a viewership of 1.6 million? Try figuring out how much you need to pay the food network and then discovery channel x only those customers who subscribe. Not just an addressability thing. | |
| | | Danobegood
join:2004-11-30
Melrose, MA
| dude, you're making me sick. You obviously no squat about TeleVision Recieve Only, A-Synchronous Serial Interface, Multi Program Transport Streams, Motion Picture Experts Group Version 2 Numbers, Digital Multiplexors, Gigabit Ethernet Interfaces, Small Form Factor Pluggables, Cisco, Small Form Factor Pluggables, Smartstream Encryption Modulators, Digital Encryption Standard, Two Hundred Fifty six Quadrature Amplitude Modulation, Dense Wave Division Multiplexing,Fiber Optic Transport Mediums, Optical Network Terminals. Do you have a "duh" key on your keyboard? Or maybe an "anykey" to continue what you were doing before you started posting your uninformed knowledge? Spend your time elsewhere like a lemonade stand, you'd be seeing more people who are at the knowledge level you are obviously showing.
P.S. you're welcome for the class on acronyms
Humbly,
Someone who is just a tad more informed than you. | |
| 
Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | I feel your pain G_Poobah...
I didn't need rear seats in the last car that I purchased, but they still charged me for them.
I wonder why!!!  | |
| jasonj758
join:2003-12-08
Ashburn, VA
| Of course their motivation is greed...They are a company that solely exists to make money for their shareholders...The only good to come of putting them in front of the nation to 'defend their practices' would be the Econ101 class they would give us all. | |
| | 
reflex9
join:2004-02-09
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV said by jasonj758 :Of course their motivation is greed...They are a company that solely exists to make money for their shareholders You do know that this is a mainly American point of view? That elsewhere in the world companies have other obligations too besides being greedy? | |
| | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV said by reflex9 :said by jasonj758 :Of course their motivation is greed...They are a company that solely exists to make money for their shareholders You do know that this is a mainly American point of view? That elsewhere in the world companies have other obligations too besides being greedy? HA HA HA HA!!! You are out of touch with reality. All the corporations in the world(at least the 1st world in EU, Russia, Asia) act the same way.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum | |
| | | cwoody222
join:2005-05-24
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV Exactly. Because the broadcast companies know that regular people would probably never elect (at a cost-per-channel basis) to have some of their smaller, targeted channels like ABC Family, for example.
However, if a person just automatically gets that channel pumped into their home they may happen to watch some shows.
It's not all the cable providers' fault. | |
| 
ninety-seven
@verizon.net
| You haven't got a clue have you?
If everyone could eliminate the chanels they didn't want and save money then they would. This means that the prices would eventually go up for all, or at least most, of the channels. Reason: The channel provider would all of a sudden see less money coming in and would be forced to either go out of business or raise their rates.
Clearly selling SOME channels individually or in small groups makes sense, but that practice would not work over the majority of the channels that are offered.
And when you think about it, you should be glad it doesn't. | |
| 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by G_Poobah :Which goes to show you once again that it's greed, not what the customer wants driving the change. This is FIOS. There is now officially ZERO technical reason they could not sell you a single channel at a time. ZERO reason at all. It's digital, it's not even SENT over the wire unless it's ordered. There's no chance of 'theft of service', etc. So what's their justification for forcing someone who wants to see the Discovery Channel having to buy ESPN2? Greed, plain and simple. Cable, satellite, etc providers have long had the technical capacity to offer a la carte pricing for individual channels. However they don't have the legal right to do so. The owners of the networks, be it Viacom, Time Warner, etc bundle the packages together as a group. Your provider doesn't pay $.10 for Comedy Central, $.25 for USA, etc, they pay $1 to Viacom (or whoever owns those channels). Sure Dish or Comcast could insist in individual pricing, but that would cause many less popular channels price to skyrocket because they would no longer have enough subscribers to cover the costs of the channels. Face it, you will be stuck with bundled channels as long as content providers own multiple channels. Realize that you are going to have to pay for channels that you may not be interested in. The sooner you realize it, the sooner you can get over it.
And all the channels, with the exception of the VOD channels, are sent across the line all the time. It's not an IPTV system where the channel is only transmitted if you are watching it.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV Maybe poo needs to throw up the old c-band satellite and do individule agreements with the channels he wants. Then he can have it his way. | |
| | |
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
1 edit | Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV ... It worked. Mod note: No it didn't.
»www.microsoft.com/tv/content/Pre···_05.mspx
They come forward and say they are using the motorola boxes for IP-TV. This is the exact same box that SBC is using for their IP-TV initiative.
Now, for the naysaying loudmouths. Sure, at face value you can say they are 'just testing IP-TV'. But, umm, aren't they also advertising that you can record SIX (6) channels at once. I'd be VERY interested to see a box that has SIX (6) digital decoders installed at once. I mean, that would be quite a powerful and amazing box to decode SIX (6) channels at once. Umm, unless of course you used IPTV, which are tunerless, and can have many streams sent to it at once. Maybe I'm missing something, but, umm, 6 decoders are once? And you have one in every room in your house? Hmm.. that would be ... interesting to see.
------------------------
One of the FREE studies (most of them are pay, like the gartner one, but they all show about the same thing), shows that the average multi-channel viewer still only watches between eight and 10 channels for more than 15 minutes in an average week –typically this includes at least four of the five networks and about four or five niche channels.
»www.bbc.co.uk/consult/pdfs/dcms_···pact.pdf
Does that sound like you? Hmm.. sounds like me.. Most channels I just surf right by, maybe watch a minute or two, but 90% of my viewing is on a very small range of channels. Of course, I never watch anything live, everything is replaytv or mythtv or downloaded divx.
--
Grand Poobah | |
| | | |
wmcbrine
Touched by His Noodly Appendage
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
| Re: Faster internet but same prices for cable TV said by G_Poobah :But, umm, aren't they also advertising that you can record SIX (6) channels at once. I'd be VERY interested to see a box that has SIX (6) digital decoders installed at once. "Record" does not mean "decode". You can very easily record six digital streams at once without decoding any of them; you only have to decode one stream at a time, on playback. Again, nothing to do with IPTV.
DirecTV is planning a six-tuner DVR, also. No IPTV there. | |
| | | | Danobegood
join:2004-11-30
Melrose, MA | can you say VOD over IP? Select what you want, when you want it...sounds like VOD to me. And multiples...hmmm I have two browsers open right now. | |
| | | | Danobegood
join:2004-11-30
Melrose, MA | oh yeah...I forgot to mention that thing called CAS, but you probably thought that meant condition access system - WRONG, and it works well with IP. | |
| 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | *point already made by others* | |
| 
NEP1611
join:2002-03-27
Northford, CT
| said by G_Poobah :Though I generally despise the government, I would love to see the companies put in front of the nation, and be forced to defend their practices. They pretty much already have, many years ago. This is a big part of the reason why anyone not in a cable-competitive market have the option to buy a basic tier which, while it doesn't have all the bells and whistles, does provide a good selection of over-air channels, public access and a handful of cable channels for basically cost. No, you won't get ESPN but there's a reason that cable companies never advertise this - they make no money on it!
said by G_Poobah : Really, even with 160+ channels, there have been tons of studies that show people only watch 15-20 channels. Do you have links to these studies? I know there have been some studies but am not familiar with the specifics.
said by G_Poobah : The only reason they bundle them all is simply greed. Nope, the only reason they bundle them is because they can. I guarantee you that if enough people refused to buy the packages the cable companies were offering, cable and satellite companies would be very quick, I think, to offer ala carte programming, or reduce their rates. However, since people will complain about it, and then buy it anyway, they have no reason to change their pricing policies. | |
| Danobegood
join:2004-11-30
Melrose, MA
| You obviously have never operated an addressable controller before. Get a clue bud. Yeah you can do al-la-carte with every channel but then the number of services would bog the addressable controller down to a crippling halt and you'd have a useless controller system. Aside from that the billing addressability issues you'd be faced with would make any addressable engineer quit their job and work for Hannafords as a grocery bagger. It's not as simple and operationally manageable as you assume. Go take an addressable controller course at Moto and then repost your thoughts.
Dano
BTW have you ever heard of the words "Linear" or "VOD"? Linear is when the channel is sent all the time and VOD is when you request a video program on demand. To send a channel only when it is requested means you would have to realtime encode the program and make it available on demand - so much for the new years countdown or that winning goal by the Pats - you'll never be on time again in the VOD world - trust me, digital TV is linear...for now. | |
| | | |
|
·