TV Over Phone Lines To Arrive In 2005 400
prostoalex writes "Associated Press says that telecoms have always considered expanding into digital television since the broadband infrastructure is already in place. But now they are putting billions of dollars into actually building such systems. "If everything goes as planned, the telephone industry will be all about television in 2005. TV over your home phone line. TV on your cell phone. Few topics have been as popular this past year among phone companies and their technology partners.""
Big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Big deal (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Someday TV may be regarded as the "killer app" of broadband.
Re:Big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Big deal (Score:2)
Every person from every other country that uses that phrase says "I couldn't care less".
Sorry but what is with that?
Re:Big deal (Score:2)
What would you do with fiber that'd beat lower cable/satellite bills (competition) and more choice about what content you get? Maybe I'm just unimaginitive, but the differenc between the 3 megabits I'm getting now and the 10-30 I could get isn't very interesting.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, I know what you expect: Lightning-fast Internet access, right? But you forget that you're dealing with the Bell companies, under the Powell regime at the FCC.
The Bells have a bad case of cable envy. They want to sell you TV channels, sure, because they see TV as the next big thing. (Not TV over fiber, but TV in general. The Bells are still stuck in a 1950 mindset.) And while it is possible to do TV over ADSL, it's not as good as cable. Fiber optics can be as good as cable -- cable companies, after all, bring it to the neighborhood already, converting to coax for the final run (Hybrid Fiber-Coax). FIOS does the optical conversion on a per-house basis. SBC might do that too, but I'm not sure. BellSouth plans to run fiber "to the curb", and tie in to the old twisted-pair drop wire, up to 500 feet of it, which should be able to deliver 20+ Mbps, enough for switched (tell them what channel you want and they'll connect you to it, keeping track of your viewing like a phone call) TV.
But what about Internet? First off, if you have fiber to the home, an alternative DSL provider like Covad is usually cut off, period. (They might be allowed to salvage the old wire. "Green field" developments are closed to competitors tighter than a drum though.)
Second, BellSouth has petitioned the FCC to "forbear" from enforcing the well-established rules of Common Carriage, as well as Computer II obligations, which require a telco-owned competitive service (ISP) to buy the underlying communications service on the same basis as a competitive provider (independent ISP). In other words, BellSouth wants to be allowed to deny access to its network to any other ISP. It's BellSouth Internet or nothing. If you don't like their backbone speed, their mail blocks, their pr0n filters, their no-server-at-home policies, whatever, tough noogies. And with no competitors save cable (and maybe wireless, in a few places, but that'll usually be slower), how do you think their service quality will evolve? (Remember Lily Tomlin as Geraldine the Operator?)
And while it's BellSouth's petition at the FCC now, if it's granted, it'll be precedent for all of the other telcos. Verizon, SBC, Qwest and even that godwaful CenturyTel will get the same treatment. So your choice of ISP will be the telco-owned ISP or the cable-owned ISP.
The FCC just closed out its Comment period on this abomination, but Reply Comments are being taken until Jan. 28 or so. Go to the FCC web site -> e-filing -> ECFS -> search for filed comments -> enter "04-405" as the docket number.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. You may end up missing your creaky old copper DSL.
Re:Big deal (Score:2)
Anyone know who started this off? Because the person who did (Just like the ass that decided to "axe" a question.) needs some schooling from the militant arm of the campaign for real English!
500... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:500... (Score:4, Interesting)
They are putting billions of dollars into finding new ways to inundate us with advertisements even though we pay for the content we are watching.
Re:500... (Score:3, Funny)
Content (Score:2)
In a gramatically incorrect way, yes.
The television signal/data providers are content with their current revenue models, even if you are not content with the content or the service.
Re:500... (Score:2)
first comment swoot (Score:5, Funny)
I smell FIOS... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I smell FIOS... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I smell FIOS... (Score:2)
Re:I smell FIOS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's right, this magic thing called DSL uses the frequencies _ABOVE_ 4KHz (normal telephones use up to 4000Hz, not 3000Hz) to provide high speed internet access.
ADSL2 can provide upto 50MBit/sec and ADSL3 (or VDSL2, they don't know what to call it) can provide 100MBit+. Whether people will bother with these is still unknown, especially with Verizon deploying FTTH massively and driving down costs.
But basically, your comment is bollocks. How you got an informative moderation I will never know.
History of DSL (Score:4, Informative)
See here [azalea.net].
Re:History of DSL (Score:2, Informative)
Re:History of DSL (Score:2)
Plug (Score:2)
34.95/month for 2 streams of digital cable + 44.95/month for 768/384 DSL
Much better than that craptacular dish we had before, which went out every time the wind got above 20MPH or it rained.
MTS TV (Score:2, Informative)
Here is their Website [www.mts.ca]
Basicly, this technology is in no way new, and AP should get some sources first before making such claims.
Disclaimer, I do not work for, or endorse this company. I'm simply aware of it's products, and make reference to them solely for informational purposes. I personally use Shaw Cable, their main competitor.
A little out of place? (Score:5, Interesting)
Until my grandmother is able to get DSL on her phone line (in the middle of no where), I just can't believe such a thing.
Re:A little out of place? (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in a very rural area.
Telephone? Check.
Cable? Nada.
DSL is more available than cable in my area. It is still spotty, but anywhere with more than just a few houses and a barn can get DSL.
Re:A little out of place? (Score:5, Interesting)
How about finding a way to incourage the "baby bells" to upgrade EXISTING infrastructure outside of cities before spending even more money on downtown.
I realize that being able to upgrade a few miles of systems for 100k people is more lucrative than upgradeing a dozen miles per 100 people, but this is getting rediculous when as little as 10 miles makes the difference between 2005 and 1965 in terms of capability (but not necessarily quality within that capability).
Mycroft
Re:A little out of place? (Score:3, Insightful)
45 minutes away from the city limits (as opposed to city center) is quite a distance. For comparison, that would put you almost halfway between St. Louis, MO, and Springfield, IL, on I-55. That's at slightly above-legal highway speeds, of course, and since you said "city limits" I'm not factoring much in the way of traffic, so you can get a pretty fair distance away. Now, if you said you were 45 minutes from downtown St. Louis, I would be more sympathetic. It's not like you're "right outside" the city. You're way out of it.
Re:A little out of place? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it a bit like the restaurant business. There aren't Starbucks and Applebees on the corner of Rural Route 100 & County Line Road because they wouldn't make any money. Would it be nice to have a StarBucks out on the back 40? Yes. Is it reasonable? No. It's the same deal with high-speed data connections.
But don't worry, hopefully it won't be too long before this marching behemoth of technology comes out with something that is easily deployable in the rural areas. WiMax or something? But please don't slow down the rest of the nation's progress just be cause you want to both live in the country and download BitTorrents.
Re:A little out of place? (Score:3, Insightful)
So those 100,000 people should wait for those 100 people to catch up... Seems odd. I mean why? You choose to live out in a rual area. It is one of the trade offs. You also have to go a longer distance to do any sort of shopping, see a profesional play, see a movie, or go to a concert. On the other hand you do not have to deal with congestion and traffic. All things is life are a trade off.
Re:A little out of place? (Score:2)
Re:A little out of place? (Score:3, Informative)
So, you have the head end, the telephone (appearance) transport, a DSL modem, a set top box to decode the video stream... and bingo -- you've got lots and lots of channels. You can get what you would expect to see (if not better) from coax depending on your area.
Another method is to take fiber to the home via companies like Motorola's latest acquisitions then break out POTS, Ethernet, and Coax cable from there. It's just another way to transport really.
Where it gets really interesting is that you can build applications based on the subscriber preferences in a way most traditional cable companies cannot fathom or take to their markets very quickly. By the nature of the rural telephone companies (and I don't mean BellSouth in the wrong parts of NC) you get an incredibly capable service --- with the understanding it isn't designed to serve a market of many... it's just designed to serve the market well.
Also, you can do HDTV this way as well, but there is the understanding you would need to be served by a telephone company that has upgraded their plant recently to accomodate the increased bandwidth required.
Oh, this will be the source of so much humor! (Score:5, Funny)
Let the hilarity begin!
But, but, capitalism is SO efficient! Right? (Score:2)
Right?
I mean, look at Verizon, and how competent and swift and efficient they are.
Now compare that with the IRS and the Social Security administration and the post office. Why, we all know that half of all mail never arrives, and that most retirees eventually starve to death because they never get their checks.
But, Verizon and its brethren, they are gleaming machines of competence....
Re:But, but, capitalism is SO efficient! Right? (Score:2)
Or how about FDA, taken your Vioxx yet? Or your Celebrex?
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that if the companies aren't competent they won't stand the test of time, unless they are considerably cheaper than alternatives. The same is not true for bureaucracy.
Social Sec. admin costs are only 1% of expenses (Score:2)
As for the FDA, they are VERY capitalist oriented.
You wrote:
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that if the companies aren't competent they won't stand the test of time, unless they are considerably cheaper than alternatives.
Yeah, right. Like Verizon and SBC are so competent. All they do is pay off the govt and keep running, as incompetent as ever.
Our ideas and the truth ARE winning out over rightwing corporatist propaganda, slowly but surely. Just take a look at what is happening on this very thread. Americans are posting with the unspoken realization that the big telcos have been deliberately holding out on them, and are doing a crappy job of servicing them.
While over in so-called socialist countries like France, you can get a really fat pipe for $30 US. And they have jobs for IT people, too. Cuz they make sure their gov't doesn't sell them out, like our did with free trade and h1b and outsourcing, at least not to the degree we see here....
everything is comin' our wa-aa-yy
And the word is leaking out from internet blogs like this one....
But by the time it does, you rightwing WSJ-Rush-Limbaugh bots will have switched sides, and will be denying that you ever bought into lasseiz faire economics. Well, I was there at one time, too. And I switched. But I won't hide it.
Will you?
Re:Social Sec. admin costs are only 1% of expenses (Score:2)
I'm a libertarian, thank you very much.
And how much technological innovation has come from 'socialist' France in the past 50 years? What two countries can you thank for 90% of the technology you are using just to post here? America and Japan: the two most capitalistic countries in the world.
There are incompetent companies, just as there are incompetent governemnt agencies. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are several times better and more reliable than the USPO. Just because Social Security doesn't spend a lot of it's cash on administration doesn't mean its competent. The way they have it set up will make it *impossible* for it to survive past the baby boom. HMOs, however, will.
The only way to truely change a government agency is by revolution or a huge mandate towards a party. With the way politics are right now, niether of those things is going to happen any day soon in America. The way to change incompetence in a capitalism? Stop buying their product. People have done it many times before, and will continue to do so.
Re:Social Sec. admin costs are only 1% of expenses (Score:2)
I love how you think I'm right winged and republican.
I'm a libertarian, thank you very much.
Oh, trust me, I KNEW you were a Lib. I was one, too. And that IS rightwing. Economically, that is. And economics is what feeds the bulldog.
And how much technological innovation has come from 'socialist' France in the past 50 years? What two countries can you thank for 90% of the technology you are using just to post here? America and Japan: the two most capitalistic countries in the world.
Actually, I am a LONGTIME technophile with a lust for science. Degrees, I got 'em. Nuclear power, computers, all that shit. As a cryonicist, I am very interested in the development of science--ove the long term. Would it surprise you if I told you that the social democracies (sweden, denmark, et al) outpublish American TWO TO ONE per capita when it comes to science papers?
Innovation is one thing. Mass produced consumer are another. You are young. Keep reading stuff on the Net and keep an open mind, and remember that everyone has an agenda.
Re:Social Sec. admin costs are only 1% of expenses (Score:2)
You're right, everyone has an agenda, including governments.
Just as corporations make mass produced consumers, governments can make mass produced electorate sheep.
Re:But, but, capitalism is SO efficient! Right? (Score:2)
*Any* retirement system whatsoever would be going broke within a generation. The basic problem is that people are living longer. If you keep a fixed retirement age, over time you get more people sitting on their asses in this economy supported by fewer people working. That fundamental truth is invariant regardless of what kinds of paper certificates you try to shuffle around, be they stocks, treasury bonds or whatever. It doesn't matter if the government "owns" the pieces of paper or the retirees do; their value will rise and fall with supply and demand, and there's going to be a lot of retirees with a big supply of paper.
There are only one possible way to fix the problem: increase the retirement age. Ultimately, that's what will be done to "fix" social security. Talking about doing anything else is just a red herring.
Re:But, but, capitalism is SO efficient! Right? (Score:2)
Each paycheck X% of your paycheck gets taken out by the government and put into something that is safe in terms of financial gain (bonds, etc). When you retire, you get all of that money back in a monthly check.
You could gradually switch between people paying for others to people paying for themselves very slowly. The first year you could have 99% of social security go towards currently retired people, and 1% towards your future retirement, and then each year increase the ratio. You can do that, because as more people retire they will have more money that they themselves were forced to save, thus requiring less from the currently working system.
Re:But, but, capitalism is SO efficient! Right? (Score:2)
Supply and demand works in real time. If you have a bunch of bonds you saved up, but there aren't enough burger flippers left to run the economy, the value of your bonds will plummet. Ultimately, the viability of any retirement system is determined by the proportion of active workers to retirees during each passing year.
Sadly, just about everyone I've talked to about this just doesn't get it. They've been conditioned to believe that the value of investments invariably grows over time. That works at an individual level, but it doesn't work at a global scale. Most everything you consume today is produced by current workers. You can't "save up" half of the economy in advance in hopes of seeing a day when half of the people are lounging around collecting full benefits.
Re:But, but, capitalism is SO efficient! Right? (Score:2)
Sigh, someone else who doesn't understand economics. In short, your plan almost works, but it causes inflation and deflation when there is a situation like we have now: Baby Boomers who didn't have enough kids to keep the population up. As they retire money has to be introduced to give to them, and that causes inflation, while they are contributing there is more money than needed going in, causing deflation.
Economics is far more complex than the above, but in this case that is enough to poke holes in most plans.
Re:But, but, capitalism is SO efficient! Right? (Score:2)
While it's not perfect it's much better than what we have now...which doesn't work...at all.
Re:Oh, this will be the source of so much humor! (Score:2)
TV over the phone line existed for a long time (Score:2, Informative)
Here is their website http://www.mivision.cyta.com.cy/english/what_mivi
Already have it in France (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already have it in France (Score:2)
Re:Already have it in France (Score:2)
Re:Already have it in France (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.rennestelecom.com/telecom2_ne
+5 informative (Score:2)
Too little, Too late. (Score:5, Insightful)
My cable provider offers video/data/voice already and at 'decent' prices (barring additional 6% yearly increases). They already specialize in television, their data is currently faster than DSL and the voice is (so far) reliable and indistinguishable from traditional telco.
Still, offering all three can't hurt and hopefully the competition will drive down the costs of both providers . . .
Re:Too little, Too late. (Score:2)
No, considering that just as cable providers pick up VoIP the telephone companies start offering TV. Basically, this is two competing distribution networks competing against eachother.
If that IP over powerlines stuff takes off, then we'll have the phone companies competing with the power utilities competing with the cable companies. What a set of unlikely enemies.
Erm (Score:2)
France has TV over phone lines since *long* (Score:2, Informative)
15mbit down while I live country side, really.
Phone too.
All for $30.
I've TV since 1.5 years and phone since 2 this way.
Oh yeah, but I live in FRANCE not USA.
Our technologies. ^.^
Re:France has TV over phone lines since *long* (Score:2)
We have that in HK already (Score:5, Informative)
You can also subscribe to broadbandtv as a separate package.
In my opinion, way to take advantage of the existing telephone infrastructure (just like ADSL).
Link -> Here! [nowbroadbandtv.com] . Remember to click on the "English" !
Re:We have that in HK already (Score:2, Interesting)
Just what the world needs... (Score:2, Interesting)
99.9% of TV blows. Blows big hairy chunks. So now we get yet another delivery system to bring this crap into our homes.
Wonderful.
Re:Just what the world needs... (Score:2)
That is an interesting point (no, seriously). Suppose you polled people to find out how much TV they watched (yeah, that part's been done) and then divided that by the amount of programming they have available....
I bet that most people don't watch even one percent of what cable brings to their homes, and satellite would be even lower. Now, do you suppose they don't watch it because they don't have time (i.e. need to get Tivo and/or to quit job) or because, as you so eloquently put it, TV blows. I would lean toward the latter.
Verizon FIOS (Score:4, Informative)
Verizon is working frantically to lay the optic fiber door-to-door. They already offer superfast internet speeds 15Mbps/2Mbps for $49.95 in some markets. The service is called FIOS (http://www.verizon.net/fios [verizon.net]) and I strongly believe that Verizon is working hard to get into Cable TV business. They already offer DIRECTV® deals [verizon.com]with their unlimited Freedom long distance package.
Re:Verizon FIOS (Score:2)
Here is the link to their DIRECTV® package:
Verizon Freedom with DIRECTV [verizon.com]
Once they finish laying the optic fiber in their major markets, they would start offering TV over those lines.
I hear... (Score:2)
amazing! (Score:2)
Wake me up when they have Phone Lines over Cable T...errm..oh..
wow it sounds like armageddon (Score:2)
What exactly does this bring to the table? Anything? Nothing?
... but why?? (Score:2)
TV thru phone line (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't know TV was worth Billions... (Score:2)
Seriously - why not "TV" over IP (cable, DSL)
I don't see anything worth watching as it is - I wouldn't pay for cable if it weren't for the kids, and the fact that my Cable ISP is -$10 that way.
Who would pay for another mode of crappy content delivery?
"All about television?" (Score:2)
We'll see a lot more advertising pushed along with the content as well.
Competition (Score:2)
Great... (Score:2)
I used to work on that (Score:4)
Also breaking into the entertainment industry is unbelieveably hard without having a solid DRM solution... as much as most slashdot crowd may despise DRM the truth is that it's necessary if you want to convince Warner Bros execs to let you broadcast their crap.
Re:I used to work on that (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why I think the 'TV will save the telcos' idea is bogus. These people are hyping the idea to each other, to help convince themselves it is a good idea, but its rather like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Internet usage is up, TV viewership is down, and the interactive nature of the internet makes that a trend in one direction only - doom for broadcasting.
A quote in the FA says: "There's one application knocking on the door and consumers are truly hungering for it: real-time TV and streaming TV,"
I strongly disagree. I own two Replay TV's and really quite dislike real-time TV. That the satellite and cable providers are doing a push to lease PVRs to us end-users is not lost on me.
I do see narrowcasting as a niche that will survive; but, with multiple delivery systems, the profit margin is going to be extremely thin. Add to that the expense of a DRM system (primarily in pissed off customers who cancel service because of it), and the whole thing seems a house of cards.
Bob Cringely points out that WiMax [pbs.org] will probably eat the telco's lunch. I think he is right, and this is just a desperate clutching at straws in hopes they don't drown quickly.
Re:I used to work on that (Score:2)
Good concept, telephone lines don't have the bandwidth to make mpeg2 viable alongside the inexpensive DSS market. FTTH or other options might change that, though. Nevermind the DRM and encryption issues, equally as big a problem - it's no good having a TV distribution solution if you don't have any content to distribute.
Re:I used to work on that (Score:2)
Re:I used to work on that (Score:3, Informative)
New Years prognostications have started... (Score:2)
Is it That time of year again? Already?! Damn damn damn... Pundits poppin' off about the future, looking back through a filter that'd make Nostradamus look blunt? Oh, ick ick ick. Flying cars, cancer/hiv cures, unlimited free energy, world peace, global war (ok, that's not so far-fetched this time), wearable computers, micromachine-based medicine, self-destructing dvd's being popular, disney releasing a hit...
I SO hate this aspect of each New Year. Unless it's Robin Williams saying, "In the future we'll travel at the speed of light. They will have to lose our luggage before hand."
I still have PacBell fiber for television (Score:2)
Improbable....in most U.S. areas. (Score:2)
Not here. I had to bail from Verizon DSL about 6 months ago when I started to get frequent disconects. My neighborhood was built in the mid to late 70s and the copper is degrading. It will be a LONG TIMEtm before I could see anything like this. They can't even keep 768/128 up to my location. This would require digging up 100s of backyards and re-laying the cable. I just don't see it. Not before 2010.
TV is dying! (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2)
Oh....I know. Because the telephone companies are scared spitless. They have but one product, which is rapidly becoming obsolete. The cable/cell/internet companies are taking over the phone service, so the phone company has to try to take over the tv business.
Fools.
In Saskatchewan.. of all places (Score:4, Interesting)
It runs over DSL and you get internet and digital TV on one modem. If you elect to move up to the 5mbps down 768kpbs up Internet service (as I did) you have 2 DSL modems, 1 dedicated for Digital TV and one for Internet. Its interesting that it only requires about 3500kbps to deliver the digital cable.
The price? For 1.5mps down and 384 up with basic cable over DSL= 34.99 above basic monthly telephone fees. God Bless Canada's cheap Internet.
The sad/funny thing is that this service is available to every town larger than 10,000 people in this province of 1,000,000 people. This province is very rural and they are rolling it out to all the smaller communities as well. I find it interesting that Sasktel finds this profitable when so many Americans, in much denser population centres, have such a problem getting similar access.
Correction & Addendum (Score:2)
As well Sasktel offers movies on demand via this service. I can pause, stop, rewind, and watch the show over and over again in a 24 hour period with every rental. Its actually pretty incredible I hope that other providers pickup similar functionality soon.
Still cost me 20 for the phone service... (Score:2)
All-in-one cable, phone, and broadband (Score:2, Interesting)
Available from Kingston Communications (Score:2)
However, I believe that this is only available to customers in Hull, UK because KC own all of the infrastructure there.
Obligatory "TV sucks" whining (Score:2)
I really hate television.
I hate sitting in front of a video screen like a drooling idiot hoping The Powers That Be can entertain me. It's almost as lame as sitting here reading messages posted to Slashdot.
Most people would say that TV is one of the least fun things they can think of doing.
Instead of opting for TV over DSL, I'm about ready to cancel cable TV. But I can never seem to make the phone call. : /
*sigh*
Multicast, people... (Score:2)
Just think, if multicast were available all across the net, ANYONE would broadcast a stream to millions of listeners without requiring ridiculous amounts of bandwidth. Each link carrying the stream would only have to carry it ONCE. Routers along the way send the stream out multiple interfaces, so the wasteful duplication of content is unnecessary.
Multicast, implemented properly across the Internet, would cause a revolution in streaming content delivery. But no one seems to want to implement it.
Bummer.
-Z
Been doing it for years! (Score:5, Funny)
Homechoice in the UK (Score:2)
Come visit the Great White North (Score:4, Informative)
I must say I'm less than impressed. It's basically the identical channels/packages as cable and satellite, for the same cost - however, the quality is VERY poor. Posts in this thread talk about bandwidth issues over POTS, and that has to be it.
Know when you're watching digital satellite and the screen suddenly pixelates like mad, like a really nasty MPEG artifact? Especially noticable during storms? TV over the phone lines looks like this pretty much all the time. Now just imagine an action sequence, with lots of frame changes. It's downright unwatchable.
Already in Canada (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for.... (Score:2, Interesting)
10%, sure, places that have redundant and highly competetive broadband markets, ie, the top 100 or so major urban areas. The rest of the nation? Ain't seeing it,my opinion, we'll see better wireless networks and P2P ad hoc streaming/mesh networks/whatever from actual users before they actually build robust wired solutions,cable or fiber or whathaveyou, it's just vastly cheaper and easier to implement. Tv over that then? Sure, possible. Tv over bottom rung dsl and 40 year old copper that's still up all over by the thousands of miles? Huh? And most folks in that 90% of what I will term the "higher tech near blackout area" that actually care to have decent TV beyond whatever any OTA they might have already run a satellite dish to get it, it's installed and works and is cheap and for most purposes doesn't interfere with the already too expensive for what you get phone bill. I mean, they give away the hardware now by the multiple room setup it's that cheap. Let's see the wired telcos compete with that.
So, the wireless guys, I can see it *somewhat* happening IF they really add enough to their backends to handle it,for the massive increase in bandwith, because it'll make a few bit torrent trackers look like a dialup dynapic webhost, ie, "small". Good quality TV real time is whole nuther ball game from the web, and it's there already called "cable" and it's put where they are going to put it like a decade ago, it's not expanding all that much. Wired,from the entrenched telcos? Having to actually install decent wires or lit fiber of some flavor to every abode? Nope, market buzz speak to keep their stock share prices up. They can't do it on their stuff, only in limited places. Proof is in the pudding you can buy now, if they could they would be offering killer SDSL everywhere for cheap, and they ain't, are they? It's the Telco equivalent of flying cars articles in 1950s popular mechanics magazine. Watching Tv on the cellphone? Contrary to popular PR spokesweasel beliefs, the US isn't Japan and 7/8ths of the nation doesn't climb onto a commuter train every day for hours to go to work, we drive cars, meaning they won't be watching TV on their cellphones for x-hours a day to kill time, especially if it's pay by the minute or some noise like that.
Data (TV) over Powerlines (Score:2)
Fiber will never be pulled to rural America. Cable companies already refuse to pull cable to rural areas. Wireless is a problem in the mountains, and Satelight is high latency and bandwidth limited. Power is mandated by law to be pulled to your house no matter how far off into the sticks you live.
The question is when.....TV over those same lines is a no brainer
Now all they need is content. (Score:2, Funny)
I have 180 Dish channels and some Canadian.
I have a feeling that my phone company will provide more of the same.
Same old junk... (Score:3, Interesting)
They could be providing all sorts of digital services right now, if they just restructured their systems so you'd have unlimited bandwidth to their local network, and bandwidth limitations only to the rest of the internet... That would make everyone happy. DSL providers could have caching proxies, and customers would love to use them, which makes things faster for users, and saves the ISP lots of money on internet bandwidth.
In addition, this would give the DSL providers an advantage in providing digital services, like TV. Imagine if you could watch 2 simultaneous video streams from your DSL provider, and not even slow down your internet connection.
If they want to provide fibre over the last-mile, that's fine, but even then, I'm sure the TV service they will provide will be no better than cable or satellite. You see, they don't realize that the multicast abilities of computer networks provide an effectively unlimited ammount of bandwidth, and hence, unlimited channels. Ala carte TV service would be trivial, and could offer billions of channels to select from. In fact, anyone could setup a server, and provide a new TV station for $1/month directly to the users.
Instead, competition has stagnated, corporations have grown, and the only competition is to be nominally better than the other 2 companies providing competiting services. So, they clone the other services as best they can, and make a profit, only because corporate policies have made it's impossible for smaller companies to compete at all.
Kingston Interactive Television on ADSL (Score:3, Interesting)
The technology works and has done for years, KIT was the first to commercially launch in 1999 and like others it had been running technology trials of Video over POTS for about 6 years previously.
There is little doubt that the platform blows the competing options out the water. DSL based DTV services cost about one tenth that of pure cable system since they doesn't require a fresh dig. They are also truly interactive instead of the faked-out client side interactions of satellite systems. It also offer a realatively pain-free experience of the internet for most ordinary consumers.
The problem is the incumbents who tend to have the content deals stitched up with the studios/distubutors.
Read more here : Kingston Case Study [broadcastpapers.com]
Re:Telecoms couldn't get broadband working... (Score:2, Insightful)
If the telephone company delivers television, however, that means ADVERTISING REVENUE!
Obviously that is hot stuff!
Thus, the telcos will jump through their assholes getting tv-over-wire to work and cash in on the advertising dollars before the competition does, and the system will go live in a great hurry (at great expense).
Re:Competition (Score:2)
And people wonder why I never watch tv anymore...
No, it is both (Score:2)
It is both the cable companies and the telcos that are evil. Depending on where you live one might be worse, but both are pretty evil, they had a monopoly for too long, and never learned customer service or competition.
There is DirectTV and the like that is starting to push the Cable companies into line, and cell phones are doing the same to telcos. (Unfortunately the cell phones are mostly telcos too) However at this point both the cable companies and the telcos need to be taught a lession.
Re:Gasping to stay alive (Score:2)
aren't we talking about TV over the cellular network aswell?