RE: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
Guys,
Let me throw one additional factor in on this thread.
To provide CATV service on a wireline network you are required in the
U.S. to obtain a video franchise for the area that you plan to offer
service (city, county, parish...). The franchise of course costs money
but also comes with a set of requirements (build out for example - you as
the franchise holder promise to build out xx% of the franchise area in xx
number of years).
One of the requirements is for "Must Carry PEG (Public Education
Government)" channels (these franchises are negotiated on a case by
case basis so what follows is generally true). Included in these channels
are the public service channels (town meetings for example). These are a
franchise requirement (a franchise is not a requirement for wireless
delivery - that's why the satellite guys do not have this
worry/requirement). Depending on the area you are covering this can turn
into a large number of channels (20+ because you may end up carrying the
same channel twice, once in English and once in Spanish for
example).
These channels are analog. The municipalities that run them currently do
not own real time digital encoders. The municipalities also want everyone
who has the slightest interest to be able to watch these channels. The
franchise agreement (which is with the municipality) will generally
require that these channels are broadcast in analog format so that the
widest possible audience has access to them (in some cases you
might be able to satisfy this requirement by giving Set Top Boxes
away to anyone that wants them (maybe for every TV they own), but in
general that's an impossible business case).
Since this is a franchise requirement and the existing MSOs provide this
service, analog delivery of some channels is not a premium service, it's
a baseline requirement in order to get a franchise.
I want to let you know that I strongly support digital delivery of video
content but from a pragmatic point of view, currently there is a analog
video requirement that I do not see going away in any reasonable time
frame.
Hope this helps (hate it when the regulation is the problem instead of
the technology),
B.F.
At 12:14 AM 11/27/01 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
>
>Rich
>
>I will be delighted when web hdtv is economically compelling,
however, I
>expect there to be a transition phase when digital broadcast over a
lamdba
>will be a transition for the incumbents, which in this case are cable
TV
>companies. Some ILECs also seem quite keen on a quick solution, just
to get
>them into the market sooner rather than later.
>
>Sorry for this being a bit late on the thread. I started with my
email
>backlog from the top down.
>
>Bob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>>
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Rich
>> Taborek
>> Sent: 22 November 2001 05:09
>> To: stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> This is a bit of a tangent, but some things you said caught my
eye.
>>
>> I agree that CWDM optics is coming on fairly strong, especially
in the
>> last year or so and solving problems of higher bandwidth
data
>> transmission and supporting longer distances.
>>
>> I'm puzzled by you comment about not using 802 protocol though.
802.3 is
>> probably the most cost effective protocol known to humans. EFM
is an
>> 802.3 effort. I suspect that most TV signals will be digital,
which
>> means that Ethernet can carry them. I take it that you were
thinking
>> that some TV channels would be analog? I suspect that this make
the
>> whole enchilada premium in cost.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Rich
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Richard Taborek Sr. Intel Corporation
>> XAUI Sherpa Intel Communications Group
>> 3101 Jay Street, Suite 110 Optical Group Marketing
>> Santa Clara, CA 95054 Santa Clara Design Center
>> 408-496-3423 JAY1-101
>> Cell: 408-832-3957
mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
>> Fax: 408-486-9783
http://www.intel.com
>>
>> Bob Barrett wrote:
>> >
>> > I think a lot of this depends on how the relative cost of
CWDM optics
>> > develops over the next two-three years. It would be far
simpler
>> technically
>> > to put b'cast TV (and / or user selected TV channels) on
a
>> separate lambda
>> > (may be not using an 802 protocol). I thought that was why
we
>> are proposing
>> > to leave some of the lambda bands vacant.
>> >
>> > I thought that the email from Ingvar was very
informative.
>> >
>> > 'Broadcasting' only the channels selected by users
(probably from a
>> > selection system at the POP, not at the CO) is a change of
system
>> > architecture from the traditional cable T.V. model. It
also
>> requires powered
>> > POPs. Powered POPs map well into the star / fan-out p2p
systems
>> (which maps
>> > into my positioning well, so I am in favour of it).
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
>> >
[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On
Behalf Of
>> > carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Sent: 20 November 2001 19:55
>> > To: John Pickens
>> > Cc: Norman Finn; stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org;
stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
>> > Subject: [EFM] Re: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared
Media
>> >
>> > Two comments:
>> >
>> > 1) John Pickens said:
>> >
>> > > I know there is a contingent within the working group
that does not
>> > > consider it a requirement to access the
single-copy-broadcast
>> attribute
>> > of
>> > > the media, so probably we should poll this question at
some point.
>> >
>> > Although I'm the first to acknowledge that my opinion is
*not*
>> > representative of all carriers (far from it :-), I can say
that the
>> > single-copy-broadcast is one of the *great* potential
>> advantages of using
>> > Ethernet PON in the access network. Of course, it all
depends on whether
>> > will we be able to provide broadcast-based services such
as
>> digital video.
>> >
>> > I believe that many carriers will be of the same
opinion.
>> >
>> > So my vote is already cast - single-copy-broadcasts are a
requirement.
>> >
>> > 2) Norman Finn's idea is really neat from a technical *and*
political
>> > standpoint, as it sounds as a reasonable compromise between
the
>> two fields;
>> > however, I'm not sure that it's actually feasible in
practice due to
>> > administrative reasons, as John pointed out. It is highly
probable that
>> > most carriers will end up using only one of the
modes.
>> >
>> > [For instance, this already happened with DSL; almost
nobody
>> uses the two
>> > transmission modes of DMT modems (interleaved and fast).
Although it is
>> > technically possible to use the two at the same time,
almost
>> everybody uses
>> > only the interleaved one, mainly because of the complexity,
and also
>> > because of potential compatibility issues]
>> >
>> > Anyway, just to explore the alternatives, we could deploy
completely
>> > separate IP networks, each over a separate MAC address (of
course this
>> > assume that we are going to run IP over Ethernet, but who
bets
>> otherwise?).
>> > Each IP network could 'opt' for some particular mode of
operation.
>> >
>> > p.s. There are also some security issues that we should
analyze in this
>> > case; the two kinds of traffic would be received at every
node,
>> and this is
>> > could pose a different security problem. Not sure about
it,
>> just wondering.
>> >
>> > Carlos Ribeiro
>> > CTBC Telecom
>
Brian Ford
BellSouth Telecommunications
Science and Technology
SMTS - Exploratory Development
ford_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone +1 (404) 332-2217
FAX +1 (404) 529-8025