IP TV - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on IP TV - TCP-IP ; What is this IP TV, should I buy another TV set now, or could I use the service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have. Thanks...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: IP TV

  1. IP TV

    What is this IP TV, should I buy another TV set now, or could I use the
    service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have.

    Thanks



  2. Re: IP TV

    "eager" wrote:
    > What is this IP TV, should I buy another TV set now, or could I use the
    > service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have.


    The Onion covered this revolution about 9 years ago:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39109


  3. Re: IP TV


    "Jim Logajan" wrote in message
    news:Xns9A14AC775DD03JamesLLugojcom@216.168.3.30.. .
    > "eager" wrote:
    >> What is this IP TV, should I buy another TV set now, or could I use the
    >> service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have.

    >
    > The Onion covered this revolution about 9 years ago:
    >
    > http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39109
    >


    Thanks, but I am not talking about attaching a PC to my TV and installing a
    TV card in my PC ...



  4. Re: IP TV

    "eager" writes:

    > Thanks for answering my post, but you still haven't answered my question
    > (not that you have to)
    > " ... could I use the service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have"


    Why don't you ask the vendor of the service?
    And ask how much bandwidth it requires for High Def?

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: IP TV


    "Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
    news:yekprwpn0iw.fsf@mail.grymoire.com...
    > "eager" writes:
    >
    >> Thanks for answering my post, but you still haven't answered my question
    >> (not that you have to)
    >> " ... could I use the service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have"

    >
    > Why don't you ask the vendor of the service?
    > And ask how much bandwidth it requires for High Def?


    Well, a sales person from a local Telco called me re phone and internet. I
    asked him if they offer TV service as well, and he said they do, but had no
    clue ....



  6. Re: IP TV

    "eager" wrote:
    > Thanks for answering my post, but you still haven't answered my question
    > (not that you have to)
    > " ... could I use the service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have"


    Bruce Barnett already pointed out that the only entity in a position to
    give an authoritative answer is the service provider that is selling the
    service. If they don't have an answer, then steer clear of them!

    But as a guess, the answer is almost certainly yes - you should be able to
    use your existing TV. The IP protocol is packetization layer used to route
    data packets and a converter box would likely be supplied allowing hookup
    to any TV. A service provider that required customers to buy new TVs would
    (IMHO) have a dead-on-arrival business model.

  7. Re: IP TV

    On Dec 28, 7:21*pm, "eager" wrote:
    > What is this IP TV, should I buy another TV set now, or could I use the
    > service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have.


    Real IPTV is simply another way of connecting TV sets to a "walled
    garden." It uses IP multicast typically, instead of broadcast channels
    like standard cable TV, allowing the telco to use its bandwidth-
    limited lines to customer premises.

    So in other words, you will not receive ALL of the broadcast channels
    in a true IPTV system. The set-top-box will join the multicast group
    of just one of the streams, or a small number simultaneously, or it
    will request video-on-demand via a unicast IP stream.

    But, for example, Verizon FiOS is *not* IPTV. Verizon FiOS is instead
    very much like cable TV, inside the home. It too broadcasts all
    channels simultaneously in your home, except for the video on demand
    channels.

    So, if the Toshiba HDD is set up to receive either terrestrial or
    cable broadcasts, using the standard terrestrial or cable frequencies,
    it will work just fine over Verizon FiOS, for unencrypted channels
    anyway. (I am assuming it has no CableCard. If it does have CableCard,
    then it should work over Verizon FiOS even for encrypted channels.)

    If you are connected to true IPTV, you could perhaps use the HDD of
    the Toshiba, but you would be limited to recording whatever channel
    the IPTV STB is "tuned" to. If the IPTV STB has an internal timer and
    a combined channel select feature (select different channels at
    different times), in principle the HDD in the Toshiba could be made to
    work okay. Just set the recording schedule in the IPTV STB, and
    simutaneously set the HDD to record from the external input for that
    same time period.

    Bert

  8. Re: IP TV


    "Jim Logajan" wrote in message
    news:Xns9A15702AABC11JamesLLugojcom@216.168.3.30.. .
    > "eager" wrote:
    >> Thanks for answering my post, but you still haven't answered my question
    >> (not that you have to)
    >> " ... could I use the service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have"

    >
    > Bruce Barnett already pointed out that the only entity in a position to
    > give an authoritative answer is the service provider that is selling the
    > service. If they don't have an answer, then steer clear of them!
    >
    > But as a guess, the answer is almost certainly yes - you should be able to
    > use your existing TV. The IP protocol is packetization layer used to route
    > data packets and a converter box would likely be supplied allowing hookup
    > to any TV. A service provider that required customers to buy new TVs would
    > (IMHO) have a dead-on-arrival business model.


    Thanks!



  9. Re: IP TV


    "Albert Manfredi" wrote in message
    news:2aee5b68-4bf6-4a39-8daa-657221cf675f@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    On Dec 28, 7:21 pm, "eager" wrote:
    > What is this IP TV, should I buy another TV set now, or could I use the
    > service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have.


    Real IPTV is simply another way of connecting TV sets to a "walled
    garden." It uses IP multicast typically, instead of broadcast channels
    like standard cable TV, allowing the telco to use its bandwidth-
    limited lines to customer premises.

    So in other words, you will not receive ALL of the broadcast channels
    in a true IPTV system. The set-top-box will join the multicast group
    of just one of the streams, or a small number simultaneously, or it
    will request video-on-demand via a unicast IP stream.

    But, for example, Verizon FiOS is *not* IPTV. Verizon FiOS is instead
    very much like cable TV, inside the home. It too broadcasts all
    channels simultaneously in your home, except for the video on demand
    channels.

    So, if the Toshiba HDD is set up to receive either terrestrial or
    cable broadcasts, using the standard terrestrial or cable frequencies,
    it will work just fine over Verizon FiOS, for unencrypted channels
    anyway. (I am assuming it has no CableCard. If it does have CableCard,
    then it should work over Verizon FiOS even for encrypted channels.)

    If you are connected to true IPTV, you could perhaps use the HDD of
    the Toshiba, but you would be limited to recording whatever channel
    the IPTV STB is "tuned" to. If the IPTV STB has an internal timer and
    a combined channel select feature (select different channels at
    different times), in principle the HDD in the Toshiba could be made to
    work okay. Just set the recording schedule in the IPTV STB, and
    simutaneously set the HDD to record from the external input for that
    same time period.

    Thanks!



  10. Re: IP TV

    On Dec 28, 6:21*pm, "eager" wrote:
    > What is this IP TV, should I buy another TV set now, or could I use the
    > service with the same HDD Toshiba TV I have.
    >
    > Thanks


    My opinion about multicast in general, which I think many in this
    group might agree with:

    It is far more complicated than it needs to be.

    I shudder each time I think of someone buying special hardware for
    IPTV or anything similar. From a technical point of view, there is no
    need. In fact, it is feasible to have an essentially unlimited number
    of TV channels today accessible to the individual with no upgrade in
    hardware or capacity.

    The problem is duct tape: people (both technical and non) were so
    eager to get IPTV deployment that they started patching up whatever
    they had to be able to make an offering. Then general public
    responded as they normally do to this type of sillyness. First there
    is great interest and enthusiasm, then the system fails, then the
    public becomes frustrated, the salespeople institue a program of
    proactive and prolonged denial, startups funded by venture capitalist
    come and go in the confusion, then finally the public becomes wise to
    the lies of the "it really is easy to use right now" crowd and is
    turned off. When someone finally does get it right, the adoption rate
    is significantly abated due to the sour taste left in people's mouths.

    We are not yet at the point where the public is turned off, but we are
    definitely still in the mix of people tripping over each other trying
    to assert a monopoly on the market.

    What I would like is to be able to stop using the word "TV"
    altogether. I would prefer to replace all the junk in my entertainment
    center, including my XBOX 360 Elite and my 9 ridiculous remote
    controls, 8 of which I don't use, with a mid-range PC an substantial
    surround-sound speaker system, and be able to tune to any available
    channel of my a PC-based remote. There would be PC everywhere an no
    mention of "TV". With the the 680GB online on my desktop and an extra
    500GB somewhere around here, plus the 80GB on my portable, that should
    be enough to record my favorite shows.

    But right now I have to settle for this:

    http://wwitv.com/portal.htm

    Ironically, as I type this message using Google Groups, I see a couple
    of adverts in the right column:

    1. "Understand Voice Over IP Free eBook: 11 Chapters on VoIP. Decision
    to Deployment Done Right. ShoreTel.com"

    Or better said, "Usually when someone tries to decide to deploy VoIP,
    they make a mess because, truly, it's a mess and not ready yet."

    2. "Verizon Fios TV- Amazing It's here. Realize the full potential of
    TV with Fiber Optics"

    This ad is misleading. The full potential of TV does not require the
    bandwidth offered by a fiber-optic cable. My 800KB/s home Internet
    connection, while not allowing me to watch 20 channels at once, is
    definitely sufficient to offer more than what is being offered by the
    next ad: Few people can watch enough TV channels, with standard
    encoding, to saturate a 100Gb/s link, and make sense of it.

    3. "Rcn Tv Digital cable package with over 140 channels with PPV and
    SVOD."

    140? How about 50,000? That's what's possible today with existing
    hardware. The IP multicast people, or other research groups, need to
    clean up the model first.

    We simply have to stop offering duct-tape solutions, and know that the
    market will reward an offering with solid integrity with acceptance
    and adoption.

    -Le Chaud Lapin-

  11. Re: IP TV

    On Dec 30, 12:07*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

    > The problem is duct tape: people (both technical and non) were so
    > eager to get IPTV deployment that they started patching up whatever
    > they had to be able to make an offering. *Then general public
    > responded as they normally do to this type of sillyness. First there
    > is great interest and enthusiasm, then the system fails, then the
    > public becomes frustrated, the salespeople institue a program of
    > proactive and prolonged denial,


    I don't see it quite that way. What I see, instead, is that IPTV was
    oversold by people who deliberately obfuscated the truth, or maybe
    they simply didn't know what they were talking about. But then, what
    else is new among marketers?

    IPTV is a standards-based approach which telcos could use to offer TV
    to subscribing households, to make the user's experience similar to
    what they had become accustomed to with cable TV. But since the
    telco's last drop to customer premises was very limited compared with
    cable, at best ADSL originally, no way could the telcos use the same
    technique as cable or satellite. They could not just blast all 150-odd
    broadband TV channels into every subscriber's home.

    So, in spite of the marketing blather, IPTV was nothing more than a
    closed system, just like cable or DBS, but the switching of channels
    was done inside the network, rather than inside customer premises. It
    did *not* mean that anyone could suddenly watch TV stations from
    anywhere in the world. That can in principle be done with IP streaming
    anyway, even before "IPTV" became a household term, assuming not too
    many people do this at the same time, and assuming the content is made
    available.

    I'm always relieved when mindless hype becomes deflated. Too bad it
    takes so long sometimes. IPTV is not the same as "TV streams over the
    Internet." It is a subset of that. IPTV is more like "a cable TV-like
    service offered by your telco."

    Bert

  12. Re: IP TV

    In article <27fd141e-66e9-4c2a-97a7-
    eac46f38fe3b@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jaibuduvin@gmail.com says...

    > I shudder each time I think of someone buying special hardware for
    > IPTV or anything similar. From a technical point of view, there is no
    > need. In fact, it is feasible to have an essentially unlimited number
    > of TV channels today accessible to the individual with no upgrade in
    > hardware or capacity.


    You mean, use a PC instead of a cable or satellite tuner ("special
    hardware")? It might be technically feasible, but is that what the
    market wants? There are millions of desk calculators in use, even though
    you could argue that, from a technical point of view, there is no need.
    Every PC has a free calculator program that even emulates the appearance
    of a real, physical calculator ("special hardware"), but you don't see
    desk calculators going away.

    > The problem is duct tape: people (both technical and non) were so
    > eager to get IPTV deployment that they started patching up whatever
    > they had to be able to make an offering. Then general public
    > responded as they normally do to this type of sillyness. First there
    > is great interest and enthusiasm, then the system fails, then the
    > public becomes frustrated, the salespeople institue a program of
    > proactive and prolonged denial, startups funded by venture capitalist
    > come and go in the confusion, then finally the public becomes wise to
    > the lies of the "it really is easy to use right now" crowd and is
    > turned off. When someone finally does get it right, the adoption rate
    > is significantly abated due to the sour taste left in people's mouths.


    What do you mean by duct tape? Can you provide details about what you
    think is wrong with existing offerings?


    > What I would like is to be able to stop using the word "TV"
    > altogether. I would prefer to replace all the junk in my entertainment
    > center, including my XBOX 360 Elite and my 9 ridiculous remote
    > controls, 8 of which I don't use, with a mid-range PC an substantial
    > surround-sound speaker system, and be able to tune to any available
    > channel of my a PC-based remote. There would be PC everywhere an no
    > mention of "TV". With the the 680GB online on my desktop and an extra
    > 500GB somewhere around here, plus the 80GB on my portable, that should
    > be enough to record my favorite shows.


    Such PCs exist today, complete with TV tuners and DVR functionality. And
    people use them as such. You seem to find virtue in the PC's flexible
    and programmable nature, but that doesn't mean that the general public
    want to us a PC for everything. For example, you mention that you have
    an Xbox 360. Why don't you just use a PC for playing games? You must
    have found value in a turn-key proprietary gaming console. But
    technically, is there anything it can do that a properly configured PC
    cannot?

    The same thing applies to set-top boxes for TV, be it IPTV, cable, or
    satellite. Just because a PC could do it, does not mean that the buying
    public wants to run out and replace their TV with their PC.

  13. Re: IP TV

    On Dec 31 2007, 8:48*pm, Ethan Howe wrote:
    > In article <27fd141e-66e9-4c2a-97a7-
    > eac46f38f...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jaibudu...@gmail.com says...
    > You mean, use a PC instead of a cable or satellite tuner ("special
    > hardware")? *It might be technically feasible, but is that what the
    > market wants? There are millions of desk calculators in use, even though
    > you could argue that, from a technical point of view, there is no need.
    > Every PC has a free calculator program that even emulates the appearance
    > of a real, physical calculator ("special hardware"), but you don't see
    > desk calculators going away.


    This is a good point but...when comparing two options, one must
    consider all contextual elements when assessing virtue. In this case,
    the form-factor of the calculator versus the form factor of a PC
    cannot be ignored. If every desktop calculator came with dual 8GHz
    CPU's with 16 terabytes of RAM, people might still refrain from using
    them to do word processing because it would be ergonomically
    inconvenient.

    > What do you mean by duct tape? Can you provide details about what you
    > think is wrong with existing offerings?


    Good grief. I would not know where to begin.

    When I look at the RFC's for IP multicast, etc. It's a mess. Of
    course, this is my subjective opinion. The people who concocted IP
    multicast might beg to differ. To assess virtue, I often use the
    bright-19-year-old test: If a bright-19-year-old attempts to use a
    proffered framework and finds employment is exceedingly difficult,
    then something is wrong with the model.

    > Such PCs exist today, complete with TV tuners and DVR functionality. And
    > people use them as such. You seem to find virtue in the PC's flexible
    > and programmable nature, but that doesn't mean that the general public
    > want to us a PC for everything. For example, you mention that you have
    > an Xbox 360. Why don't you just use a PC for playing games? You must
    > have found value in a turn-key proprietary gaming console. But
    > technically, is there anything it can do that a properly configured PC
    > cannot?


    Actually, I did not find value. The night I bought my XBOX 360 Elite,
    I had to take it back to the store because the (custom-made) power
    supply failed. This was a problem that Microsoft was supposed to have
    fixed.

    I bought it because my friend has one, and he kept nagging me to get
    one, so I did. I like it, I guess. It cost almost as much as I would
    have paid for a low-end PC, but then a low-end PC would not have the
    graphics power of a dedicated console. I would much rather have used a
    PC with a powerful graphics card. That way, I could play games, use
    the phone, write code, and pay bills without leaving my couch. It
    could also run my sound system, take speech-reconized input, etc.

    About the general public: *Most* people who buy XBOX's are not are
    aware that there is a general-purpose computer inside. Most people are
    not aware that some PDA's can become more powerful than their "cell
    phones" if the right RF add-on chip is provided .

    This is all a matter of perception. What is a smartphone anyway? A
    phone or a computer? Does an XBOX use a hard disk for mass storage?
    Whem Microsoft or its affiliates writes games for XBOX, do they have
    specialized compilers or do they use Visual Studio?

    > The same thing applies to set-top boxes for TV, be it IPTV, cable, or
    > satellite. Just because a PC could do it, does not mean that the buying
    > public wants to run out and replace their TV with their PC.


    The buying public has no idea. The buying public figures that, if it
    were so simple to replace an expensive proprietary, monopolistic
    device with general-purpose hardware, someone would have done it by
    now.

    I have a $180 million-dollar story about perception:

    I worked for a starup that made a counter-top device that was supposed
    to revolutionizes web browsing in the home (kitchen, garage, etc). It
    was a network appliance. I joined the company because the VP of
    development told me that they had "designed" the device in four monts,
    which was unprecented in the hardware space, and I was extremely awed.
    The company IPO'ed and got $180 million, spend $100 million on
    rediculous things in less than 1 year, and after having about $60
    million left, realized it was heading south fast, and completely
    changed its business model. While I was at the company, there were
    some problems with some LED's on the device, and since I was the only
    EE in the company, I was assigned to fix it. I asked the VP of dev for
    the electronic schematics, and he had no idea what I was talking
    about. After about 45 minutes of utter frustration on both our parts,
    I learned that he did not have any schematics because they were in
    Asia. The device was nothing more than a repackaged laptop motherboard
    from China. We got into an argument about whether it was a custom
    device or a regular computer. I had one of my former employees proved
    that it was essentially a PC by booting both Windows and Linux on it
    using a standard IDE hard disk (normally we booted QNX over Flash).

    I urged, repeatedly, a risk of my own peril, that the engineering
    department stop portraying it as a custom device and tell the other
    people in the company, especially the sales and marketing people, what
    it really was - a standard laptop computer straight out of China. The
    engineering department refused. They were blinded by the pride of
    having "designed" their own device.

    Finally, several months after the company tanked and all the marketing
    people got layed off, we were all sitting around drinking,
    reminisicing about what could have been, and I was criticizing the
    engineering department for their lack of objectivity, and the
    marketing and sales people got angry that I was criticizing their baby
    until I told them that it was a standard computer on the inside of the
    device (a laptop motherboard), that could have easily booted Microsoft
    Windows CE (which they would have *LOVED* to have done), and they were
    shocked to silence - shocked because, had they known that it had been
    a standard computer, they could have made recommendations to the
    engineering department to dump the proprietary path and use commodity
    components which would have save the company millions of dollars and
    got rid of some major feature and reliability problems we were having
    that made the product unattractive.

    But it was too late. It was too late because fiction superseded fact.

    IPTV is not here because:

    1. IP multicast is very iffy.
    2. The buying public does not realize that a PC is techniclly capable
    of displacing their TV.

    If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about #1, I challenge you to
    write a a multicast application for 1 million nodes in < 1 week that
    will work without heavy hand-holding and duct tape. IMO, if you
    cannot, and you are a skilled coder and relatively bright, and have a
    solid understanding of the principle of multicast, something is wrong
    with the model.

    -Le Chaud Lapin-

  14. Re: IP TV

    Le Chaud Lapin writes:

    > If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about #1, I challenge you to
    > write a a multicast application for 1 million nodes in < 1 week that
    > will work without heavy hand-holding and duct tape. IMO, if you
    > cannot, and you are a skilled coder and relatively bright, and have a
    > solid understanding of the principle of multicast, something is wrong
    > with the model.


    The problem with multicast, as I see it, is a chicken and egg. It's
    the routers - and I mean all of the ones between the sender and the
    receivers - including firewalls - that have to support the multicast
    (IGMP) protocol.

    Until that is done, the clients can't use it. And until the clients
    use it, the routers won't support it.


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  15. Re: IP TV

    On Jan 1, 7:21*am, Bruce Barnett
    wrote:
    > Le Chaud Lapin writes:
    >
    > > If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about #1, I challenge you to
    > > write a a multicast application for 1 million nodes in < 1 week that
    > > will work without heavy hand-holding and duct tape. IMO, if you
    > > cannot, and you are a skilled coder and relatively bright, and have a
    > > solid understanding of the principle of multicast, something is wrong
    > > with the model.

    >
    > The problem with multicast, as I see it, is a chicken and egg. *It's
    > the routers - and I mean all of the ones between the sender and the
    > receivers - including firewalls - that have to support the multicast
    > (IGMP) protocol.


    Yes. But this is a technical issue, IMO. The average user doesnt'
    know, doesn't care. The do want multicast, though they not phrase it
    that way when they ask for it:

    "I'd like to be able to provide my mom-and-pop live-video feed to
    anyone in the world who wants to watch it, simultaneously, whether
    there are 10 people watching or 10 million. When can I start doing
    that?"

    To us, that translates to multicast.

    > Until that is done, the clients can't use it. And until the clients
    > use it, the routers won't support it.


    Perhaps we should give the router vendors a bit more credit for trying
    to deploy what the IP multicast people recommended.

    If the IP multicast group (and other IP research groups for that
    matter) got all the kinks out, I think the router vendors would try to
    support it.

    There is always a small (but wealthy) segment of the buying public
    that, while not understanding the technical intricacies, can see the
    benefit of the general idea of a new technology [fuel cells, stem
    cells, solar cells, network mobility, etc, super-super-caps, single-
    sign-on, artificial intelligence, general aviation fly-by-wire], and
    that group is generally powerful enough to induce merchants to to
    invest on a promise while everyone waits for the promise to fulfill
    itself.

    I went to Cisco's web site and searched for multicast and got 14,300
    hits:

    http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/search....com=cisco.com

    I think that's an indication that they are willing to deploy against a
    promise.

    -Le Chaud Lapin-

  16. Re: IP TV


    "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
    news:4f90b54b-3d0f-429e-8c2d-c8fcaa71af99@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
    On Jan 1, 7:21 am, Bruce Barnett
    wrote:
    > Le Chaud Lapin writes:
    >
    > > If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about #1, I challenge you to
    > > write a a multicast application for 1 million nodes in < 1 week that
    > > will work without heavy hand-holding and duct tape. IMO, if you
    > > cannot, and you are a skilled coder and relatively bright, and have a
    > > solid understanding of the principle of multicast, something is wrong
    > > with the model.

    >
    > The problem with multicast, as I see it, is a chicken and egg. It's
    > the routers - and I mean all of the ones between the sender and the
    > receivers - including firewalls - that have to support the multicast
    > (IGMP) protocol.


    Yes. But this is a technical issue, IMO. The average user doesnt'
    know, doesn't care. The do want multicast, though they not phrase it
    that way when they ask for it:

    I spoke to a user that has an IPTV and he does not like it.
    He said that ISP gives him 7 Mbps of bandwidth, 2 Megs for each TV, +
    overheads ....
    Basically, it sucks.

    Cable TV, and Cable internet is the way to go.
    IPTV and ADSL are less reliable.



  17. Re: IP TV

    Bruce Barnett wrote:

    > The problem with multicast, as I see it, is a chicken and egg. It's
    > the routers - and I mean all of the ones between the sender and the
    > receivers - including firewalls - that have to support the multicast
    > (IGMP) protocol.
    >


    Actually, the routers in the core need to run a multicast routing
    protocol like one of the flavors of PIM. IGMP is only used on the edges
    to allow endpoints to indicate that they wish to join a multicast group,
    etc. The multicast routing protocol helps to establish the actual
    multicast distribution tree in use which gets the traffic where it needs
    to be .... and not where it doesn't need to be .... based on IGMP "joins".

    > Until that is done, the clients can't use it. And until the clients
    > use it, the routers won't support it.
    >


    Too true.

  18. Re: IP TV

    "Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
    news:yekbq851y1i.fsf@mail.grymoire.com...
    > Le Chaud Lapin writes:
    >
    > > If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about #1, I challenge you to
    > > write a a multicast application for 1 million nodes in < 1 week that
    > > will work without heavy hand-holding and duct tape. IMO, if you
    > > cannot, and you are a skilled coder and relatively bright, and have a
    > > solid understanding of the principle of multicast, something is wrong
    > > with the model.

    >
    > The problem with multicast, as I see it, is a chicken and egg. It's
    > the routers - and I mean all of the ones between the sender and the
    > receivers - including firewalls - that have to support the multicast
    > (IGMP) protocol.


    Nope.

    2 points.

    1. IGMP is the protocol between a multicast client and the routed network -
    it doesnt go any further than the 1st hop.

    normally multicast routing between routers uses a different protocol - M-BGP
    / MSDP, or PIM SM / SSM seem favorite.

    2. multicast tunnelling is alive and well (the original MBONE used lots of
    tunnels to connect islands of multicast capable routers together).

    Tunelling lets you get multicast across a unicast only set of devices such
    as routers and firewalls - this istn one i use, but GRE and maybe others
    should be pretty simple.

    >
    > Until that is done, the clients can't use it. And until the clients
    > use it, the routers won't support it.
    >

    agreed - but there are other choke points as well - ISPs for example seem
    reluctant to deploy multicast....

    >
    > --
    > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    >

    --
    Regards

    stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl



  19. Re: IP TV

    In article bf7678d66a5b@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, jaibuduvin@gmail.com says...
    >
    > > What do you mean by duct tape? Can you provide details about what you
    > > think is wrong with existing offerings?

    >
    > Good grief. I would not know where to begin.
    >
    > When I look at the RFC's for IP multicast, etc. It's a mess. Of
    > course, this is my subjective opinion. The people who concocted IP
    > multicast might beg to differ. To assess virtue, I often use the
    > bright-19-year-old test: If a bright-19-year-old attempts to use a
    > proffered framework and finds employment is exceedingly difficult,
    > then something is wrong with the model.


    Duct tape = IP multicast, etc. = a mess = your subjective opinion?
    I was hoping for details not sweeping generalizations

    I have to say that your measure of "virtue" is perhaps only something
    that a frustrated 19-year-old can appreciate. These individuals are in
    the minority. A more relevant measure of virtue for an IPTV
    system (or any broadcast system) is:

    1. Can grandma turn it on a use it easily?
    2. Does it work 100% of the time?
    3. Is it cheap enough for most people to afford?
    4. Is there a economic model that will support the infrastructure costs?

    Certainly, there are technical challenges behind the scenes, IP
    multicast (or the lack of support therefore) is perhaps just one.
    Perhaps your frustrated 19-year-olds can work on those challenges, and
    be part of the solution. Complaining about how the world owes them a
    "better model" or something to that effect is not an effective use of
    their talent

    > About the general public: *Most* people who buy XBOX's are not are
    > aware that there is a general-purpose computer inside. Most people are
    > not aware that some PDA's can become more powerful than their "cell
    > phones" if the right RF add-on chip is provided .


    Yes, and why should they know or care? An automotive engineer will
    perhaps care about the technical virtue under the hood of their car, but
    the general public does not. They will be blithely unaware of the
    thousands of technical problems that had to be solved while the car and
    its drivetrain were in development, all so that they could enjoy the
    end-user ownership and driving experience.

    The same goes for the Xbox, the desktop calculator, and any turn-key
    IPTV solutions. The virtue is found the end-user experience. The general
    public will not care about the technical details, or whether a PC could
    do the same job.

    > This is all a matter of perception. What is a smartphone anyway? A
    > phone or a computer? Does an XBOX use a hard disk for mass storage?
    > Whem Microsoft or its affiliates writes games for XBOX, do they have
    > specialized compilers or do they use Visual Studio?


    The Xbox does not require a hard disk for mass storage. Game state can
    be saved on memory cards. They use a licensed developers kit with cross
    compilers and proprietary testing hardware. It costs about $10K. For
    amateur programmers and students, Microsoft provides a development tool
    similar to Visual Studio, but it is locked-in to C# and special
    restricted libraries. However, my point is that this is irrelevant to
    the general public, who are the ultimate consumers of this or any
    technology. They do not care whether specialized tools or Visual Studio
    was used.

    They want to know if they can buy a game and play it, and have a good
    time. The fewer the steps, the fewer the hassles, the more virtue the
    end user will find in the solution.


    > > The same thing applies to set-top boxes for TV, be it IPTV, cable, or
    > > satellite. Just because a PC could do it, does not mean that the buying
    > > public wants to run out and replace their TV with their PC.

    >
    > The buying public has no idea. The buying public figures that, if it
    > were so simple to replace an expensive proprietary, monopolistic
    > device with general-purpose hardware, someone would have done it by
    > now.


    The buying public really does not care whether the device is proprietary
    and monopolistic or general-purpose hardware. Cost is something they do
    care about, and all things being equal, the lower-cost solution will win
    with the public, but there are notable exceptions, where the more
    expensive solution is more popular because it is more desirable.

    In fact, the irony is that monopolistic and proprietary devices have
    succeeded against cheaper, more "open" devices. For example, the iPod
    vs. no-name, low-cost MP3 players from Asia. Or the aforementioned Xbox
    against the PC. The fact that a PC can probably be configured to play
    games does not make it automatically the easiest and most desirable
    solution for the general public. In fact, a startup company a few years
    ago tried to sell a set-top video game console that did not try to hide
    the fact that it was a commodity PC using off-the-shelf parts and open
    source operating system and developer tools. Despite the obvious virtue
    in such an idea, the product never materialized despite millions of
    investor dollars being thrown at the idea.

    While the jury is still out on IPTV, I believe that the same result is
    possible: monopolistic, proprietary devices, if done well and packaged
    right will succeed over the general purpose hardware.


    > I have a $180 million-dollar story about perception:


    [--snip--]

    > But it was too late. It was too late because fiction superseded fact.


    Wait, why did the company fail? Because the product had technical issues
    that the engineers could not solve? The way you tell the story, you make
    it sound like the the company failed because the marketing department
    realized too late that they could have told the engineering department
    to use commodity hardware? This does not make any sense: Since when does
    the market department make technical recommendations to the engineering
    department? And why would the engineers listen to a bunch of
    salespeople? They did not listen to you, and you were hired as an
    engineer, right?

    If the engineering department chose to go the proprietary path, then
    they (you) should have been able to fix the problems with the LEDs
    because it was truly proprietary and designed by your engineers. If the
    engineering department really instead chose the commodity path
    (regardless of whether they called it proprietary out of pride), so
    what? They (you) should have been able to fix the problem more easily,
    because you were using "a standard laptop computer straight out of
    China." Either way, at the end of the day, the buck has to stop at the
    engineering department for unsolved technical problems. It is not
    responsibility on the marketing and sales department.

  20. Re: IP TV

    On Jan 1, 4:49*pm, "stephen" wrote:
    > "Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
    >
    > > Le Chaud Lapin writes:

    >
    > > > If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about #1, I challenge you to
    > > > write a a multicast application for 1 million nodes in < 1 week that
    > > > will work without heavy hand-holding and duct tape. IMO, if you
    > > > cannot, and you are a skilled coder and relatively bright, and have a
    > > > solid understanding of the principle of multicast, something is wrong
    > > > with the model.


    The model works quite well. The problem is that most likely, a single
    "relatively bright" coder doesn't have access to all the points in the
    network that he needs to have access to, to enable multicast. So
    whatever he does may not travel very far.

    > agreed - but there are other choke points as well - ISPs for example seem
    > reluctant to deploy multicast....


    They are reluctant in general, perhaps largely because multicast would
    have the potential to clutter up their networks without them getting
    fairly compensated for all the traffic.

    UNLESS the ISP is itself the IPTV provider. That's when it pays off.
    They have their closed network into which multicast streams will be
    routed, but only to the edges of THEIR network, anly only from source
    devices owned by the ISP. And those receiving the multicasts are
    authenticated before they can receive the streams.

    So that means proprietary protocols in addition to IGMP between end
    systems (IPTV set-top boxes) and routers. In addition, in order to
    provide the sort of fast response end user have been accustomed to
    with cable and DBS, the IPTV provider will probably have the most
    popular choices always active throughout the network, so that IGMP
    "joins" only have to travel as far as the first router before the
    stream starts flowing to the STB. Which means that the principal
    bandwidth-saving feature of IP multicast becomes somewhat compromised,
    making the system look even more similar to cable broadcast.

    In a closed "walled garden" such as IPTV nets are, that is a feasible
    tradeoff. In the Internet, it is not.

    Bert

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast