Fwd: RE: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
Meir,
Your right I meant for this to go to the group. Please have a look at my
reply below.
Thanks for the heads up Meir,
B.F.
>Subject: RE: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
>Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 08:36:10 -0800
>X-MS-Has-Attach:
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>Thread-Topic: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
>Thread-Index: AcF8EoDgFichNMFIQBWlt4qXvcpBBgABgEIw
>From: "Meir Bartur" <Meir@xxxxxxxx>
>To: "Brian Ford" <ford_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by
snt.bellsouth.com id LAA00793
>
>Thanks. (I think you meant to broadcast the reply, but I got it
as
>direct response.
>
>Meir
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brian Ford
[mailto:ford_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 7:45 AM
>To: Meir Bartur
>Subject: RE: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
>
>
>Sorry for being so long on the reply (I'm just now to November 29
:-)
>). The answer is yes this would apply to DBS channels that are
delivered
>on a wireline service.
>
>I also had another question that the group might find interesting
(and
>actually explains the above in a little more detail). The question
was
>to the effect of -- hey I heard that there are folks delivering
their
>service as digital only CATV on wireline -- how do they get around
this
>PEG issue.
>
>(Someone correct this if it's not complete) - The deployments that
I
>have first had knowledge of that are wireline delivery of digital
only
>CATV are in private sub-divisions. These are sub-divisions that have
not
>turned the roads / right of way over to the county (local
government)
>for maintenance. In general these are exclusive gated communities
(I'm
>sure there are exceptions to this). In these cases there is no
public
>right-of-way (it's privately owned land until the government accepts
it
>generally for road maintenance purposes). The franchise generally
allows
>access to the public right-of-way. If your headend and wireline
system
>does not cross public right-of-way anywhere - there is no
franchise
>requirement. These type of developments have got to represent less
than
>1% of the market however.
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>B.F.
>At 11:45 AM 11/29/01 -0800, you wrote:
>>Brian,
>>
>>Thanks for the clarification. What about offering DBS channels
over
>>fiber. Are the same regulations apply?
>>
>>Meir
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Brian Ford [
mailto:ford_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
><mailto:ford_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%5D>
>>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 7:10 AM
>>To: bob.barrett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
>>Subject: 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
><mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn>
>><
mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn
><mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn>
> 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
><mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx>
>><
mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx> >
>>>> Fax: 408-486-9783 http://www.intel.com
><http://www.intel.com/>
>>< http://www.intel.com/ <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
><mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn>
>>< mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn
><mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org%5DOn> > 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
>>
>
>
>Brian Ford
>BellSouth Telecommunications
>Science and Technology
>SMTS - Exploratory Development
>ford_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Phone +1 (404) 332-2217
>FAX +1 (404) 529-8025
>
Brian Ford
BellSouth Telecommunications
Science and Technology
SMTS - Exploratory Development
ford_b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone +1 (404) 332-2217
FAX +1 (404) 529-8025