Is IPTV currently viable?

[Stuart C]

Apparently, at today's bandwidth prices, it isn't currently viable for an ISP to enable IPTV..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04...of_prime_time/

The problem is that, in the case of the Internet, what technology is capable of is trailling what people want from it. To a large extent, this has always been the case, and it probably always will be (A lot of people would want a 1:1 connection for £34 for instance, this clearly isn't viable).

The problem, in this case, is the amount of bandwidth used by IPTV (I include all Internet video in this). According to the article I link to above, Youtube (by far the most common form of internet video) uses around 200K per second.

Most people are happy to watch a short video on Youtube, but would start to get a little upset if they had to watch an entire programme at that quality.

Increase the quality to that of Standard Def Television, and the bitrate (using a variant of MPEG4) and the bandwidth increases to around 700Kbps. This is still managable on the average BB connection, but if you get a couple of thousand people watching programmes at this bitrate in one area, the ISP may start to feel the strain.

Now, we come to HDTV. Now, there are several resolutions for HDTV. Most of the lower end sets are capable of only the lower resolutions, but (again, according to the article), the bandwidth for those is around 2.5Mbps. Get a couple of thousand viewers watching those streams in an area, and any ISP *will* feel the strain.

The real problem is still coming. The mid-range and high end HDTV sets are increasingly capable of full resolution HDTV (1080p). If IPTV takes off, joe soap, who knows little or nothing about bandwidth, and how the Internet works, will want to watch at least some of his or her programmes in 1080p. The bandwidth for this is over 10Mbps. Get a couple of thousand people in an area needing to stream data at a reliable speed of 10Mbps, and most ISPs would have trouble.

The problems occur because the internet wasn't designed for broadcasting. It was designed for Unicasting (a program connects to a server, requests data and the server sends data to that program). Unicasting is incredibly inefficient for broadcast data (such as TV shows) as it requires that complete copies of each show be sent individually to each user. Conventional broadcasting is different. One copy of each programme is sent out. That programme is then recieved by everyone who wants to watch it. The difference being that the programme occupies the same amount of bandwidth whether one person watches it or 1,000,000.

The report I link to appears to suggest that IPTV will never happen, purely because it will never be viable for the ISPs. This may be true. One way to reduce the total bandwidth load on the ISP's links is to use Multicasting. This is a technique where the ISP's routers and switches recieve one copy of the data, and actually handle the distribution to the users themselves. In fact, I believe that Virgin's Cable TV network head ends use a technique similar to this. For an ISP to use it, however, they may need to spend a lot of money on router and switch upgrades. So, not many ISPs have implemented it, and I personally don't know of any that are planning to.

However, when I first started using the Internet (12 years ago), it was on a 14.4Kbps modem. I never thought that 12 years later, I would be using a connection that was over 1,000 times faster, so you can never be too sure.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Apparently, at today's bandwidth prices, it isn't currently viable for an ISP to enable IPTV..

Increase the quality to that of Standard Def Television, and the bitrate (using a variant of MPEG4) and the bandwidth increases to around 700Kbps. This is still managable on the average BB connection, but if you get a couple of thousand people watching programmes at this bitrate in one area, the ISP may start to feel the strain.

Now, we come to HDTV. Now, there are several resolutions for HDTV. Most of the lower end sets are capable of only the lower resolutions, but (again, according to the article), the bandwidth for those is around 2.5Mbps. Get a couple of thousand viewers watching those streams in an area, and any ISP *will* feel the strain.

The real problem is still coming. The mid-range and high end HDTV sets are increasingly capable of full resolution HDTV (1080p). If IPTV takes off, joe soap, who knows little or nothing about bandwidth, and how the Internet works, will want to watch at least some of his or her programmes in 1080p. The bandwidth for this is over 10Mbps. Get a couple of thousand people in an area needing to stream data at a reliable speed of 10Mbps, and most ISPs would have trouble.

The problems occur because the internet wasn't designed for broadcasting. It was designed for Unicasting (a program connects to a server, requests data and the server sends data to that program). Unicasting is incredibly inefficient for broadcast data (such as TV shows) as it requires that complete copies of each show be sent individually to each user. Conventional broadcasting is different. One copy of each programme is sent out. That programme is then recieved by everyone who wants to watch it. The difference being that the programme occupies the same amount of bandwidth whether one person watches it or 1,000,000.

The report I link to appears to suggest that IPTV will never happen, purely because it will never be viable for the ISPs. This may be true. One way to reduce the total bandwidth load on the ISP's links is to use Multicasting. This is a technique where the ISP's routers and switches recieve one copy of the data, and actually handle the distribution to the users themselves. In fact, I believe that Virgin's Cable TV network head ends use a technique similar to this. For an ISP to use it, however, they may need to spend a lot of money on router and switch upgrades. So, not many ISPs have implemented it, and I personally don't know of any that are planning to.

However, when I first started using the Internet (12 years ago), it was on a 14.4Kbps modem. I never thought that 12 years later, I would be using a connection that was over 1,000 times faster, so you can never be too sure.

The article is more concerned about users wanting to watch films etc, which aren't being 'broadcast'. The user initiates the playout of the stream, many users can watch the same film but be at different points within the film. Theres a stream per user.
However, Broadcasting means sending out just one stream, users join the stream at whatever point the broadcast is at and have no option for pausing etc. i.e its like live TV currently. Broadcasting can easily use Multicasting. This means that the playout stream is pointed at a particular IP address range and port, 225.0.01:12345 for example (theres defined ranges already for multicast IP addresses). STB's (or PC's!) can then 'tune' in to this multicast IP address and receive that stream.
This broadcast IPTV is already in use.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Creative

The article is more concerned about users wanting to watch films etc, which aren't being 'broadcast'. The user initiates the playout of the stream, many users can watch the same film but be at different points within the film. Theres a stream per user.
However, Broadcasting means sending out just one stream, users join the stream at whatever point the broadcast is at and have no option for pausing etc. i.e its like live TV currently. Broadcasting can easily use Multicasting. This means that the playout stream is pointed at a particular IP address range and port, 225.0.01:12345 for example (theres defined ranges already for multicast IP addresses). STB's (or PC's!) can then 'tune' in to this multicast IP address and receive that stream.
This broadcast IPTV is already in use.

I have to admit, I did expand my own post to include televsion programmes (I've seen various articles that suggest that we will have full IPTV at some point), but the comments made in the article also apply to Video On Demand TV.

As for your point about Broad/Multi casting, that was part of the point I was trying to make (although trying to keep it simple, so the less technical members of the forum could follow). However, for residential multicasting, the residential ISPs also need to support Multicast, and, AFAIK, very few (if any) do.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

I have to admit, I did expand my own post to include televsion programmes (I've seen various articles that suggest that we will have full IPTV at some point), but the comments made in the article also apply to Video On Demand TV.

As for your point about Broad/Multi casting, that was part of the point I was trying to make (although trying to keep it simple, so the less technical members of the forum could follow). However, for residential multicasting, the residential ISPs also need to support Multicast, and, AFAIK, very few (if any) do.

I doubt ISP's want Multicasting to happen unless its for services they provide (for a premium). They won't want third party streams they can't control.

[Chrysalis]

IPTV is already running in countries such as belgium the difference is there has been little investment here in IP infrastructure and only cable has the local loop means to do HD IPTV, whilst on adsl2+ realistically only around 15-20% of users would probably have a line capable of a stable IPTV stream alongside broadband.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

IPTV is already running in countries such as belgium the difference is there has been little investment here in IP infrastructure and only cable has the local loop means to do HD IPTV, whilst on adsl2+ realistically only around 15-20% of users would probably have a line capable of a stable IPTV stream alongside broadband.

IPTV in Begium is working with the streams provided by Belgacom for Belgacom subscribers on Belgacom STB's. I spent sometime there with them last year.

[SMHarman]

Is this stuff ipTV?
http://www22.verizon.com/Content/FiO...ut+FiOS+TV.htm

[altis]

There's a lot of people working on IPTV:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Sea...sKeywords=iptv

And Homechoice have been doing it for years:
http://www.homechoice.co.uk/

Even BT are at it:
http://www.btvision.bt.com/btvision/

[Chrysalis]

Had a debate with someone on irc earlier about this and this was more or less the conclusion of it, not looking good for the uk.

Ofcom don't want BT to do anything that noone else can do as it would be a regulation nightmare this includes FTTH, the good news is tho FTTC is doable as they have cracked SLU (sub loop unbundling) althought its probably not viable for anyone to do it other then BT wholesale.
Sky the dominent tv carrier wont want IPTV to take off and this also is a detterent for new companies to start such a service.
Ultimately without IPTV there isnt much that may stimulate a need for next generation communications infrastructure, short distance copper loops are decent, cable is decent, its long distance copper loops that are the problem and fixing this has little financial return.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by altis

There's a lot of people working on IPTV:
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Sea...sKeywords=iptv

And Homechoice have been doing it for years:
http://www.homechoice.co.uk/

Even BT are at it:
http://www.btvision.bt.com/btvision/

I don't doubt that people are working on it, however, BT vision (afaik) only uses IP for the ondemand stuff (it uses freeview for the broadcast channels. Not sure how Homechoice handles broadcast, but I am sure I read somewhere they broadcast via a seperate ADSL channel.

[altis]

I'm pretty sure HomeChoice use multicast.

http://www.iptvinformation.net/IPTV+FAQ.aspx

[altis]

Stumbled across this round-up of on-demand TV services, most of which are over IP:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6318625.stm