Re: Ofcom says 4 national HD channels on DTT

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:

I didn't say on-demand was multicasting. And you've got it the wrong way
round, because on-demand is easy for ISPs to provide, because there's no
real-time element - i.e. it can be fit in around when other users you're
sharing the DSLAM with are also using their connections, whereas live TV
streams are BOTH high bandwidth and real-time.

Sorry, I thought "on demand" meant when I want it rather than when the
service provider decides to put it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_on_demand

An HD live stream would be using a bit rate of say 10 Mbps, and as that's
real-time so no buffering is acceptable, that is *THE* most demanding
application,

It's no more demanding than piping a video or film to one user, in fact
it should be less demanding since a multicasting source can be cascaded
down easily. Ten users on one DSLAM watching Coronation Street need one
data feed from the source, Ten users on one DSLAM watching ten different
films need ten different data feeds from ten different sources, a far
more demanding situation.

and on-demand will always be chicken feed in comparison due to
there being no real-time element involved.

On demand is not "download then watch" it's "watch it when I buy the
film" which obviously requires a consistent high quality connection.

which the Internet is ideally suited to whereas Freeview can't
deliver jack *** on demand.

I treat television as an OD download mechanism, archiving content for
watching when I want.


Most people aren't as organised as to record everything they want to watch
before they watch it, and when on-demand viewing is available they don't
even need to do this, because they simply choose what they want to watch and
watch it.


If people have to shell out £1.99 a time for their OD content, which
is the obvious subtext, it'll have to work.


Why would people want to pay £1.99 for on-demand content? So far I've used
both the BBC iPlayer and 4oD to watch programmes I've missed, and I've not
paid a penny yet.

Yet...

You don't think free programme downloads will last for ever, do you?
Paid for downloads is a business model that'll become more attractive to
cash strapped commercial broadcasters like ITV.

Along with this will be timeouts where your paid for programme will
suddenly disappear from your hard drive, unlike the paid for DVD which
is good until the data pits corrupt or the kids scratch it.

I know there were formats that timed out after a few days, exposure to
the air destroyed the media, but they seem to have disappeared without
trace, testimony to what people think about media timeouts.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/01/self_destructing_dvd/

4oD provides films to download, which is basically a video rental service.
That kind of thing has its place, because it's easier to watch someone
on-demand rather than say getting DVDs sent to your house and then sending
them back again and so on.

You seem to have issues with on-demand for the sake of it, rather than
having any legitimate issues.

The only issue I have with any form of online delivery is the
likeliehood that DRM will screw the user as it has in the past on other
platforms.

What I do see in the next 10-15 years is the end of broadcast
television as we know it today, irrespective of the delivery
platform. People will downloaded content, with live content being
limited to news and sport.


I think there will be a slow move towards viewing on-demand, with, as you
say, news and sport being watched live. But I fail to see why this is a bad
thing. I would much prefer to watch something exactly when I want to watch
it rather than having to watch it or at least record it at a certain time.

You've said yourself that what you do is assemble your own on-demand
"library" by recording stuff that you want to watch, so you're even bloody
doing this yourself already, and you're complaining about broadcast TV as we
know it today going into decline. You're basically being hypocritical.

I'm not "complaining about broadcast TV as we know it today going into
decline", I've no quarrel with the internet replacing UHF as the
distribution medium either. What I don't like is the probability that it
will be infested with DRM. I'm not going around flogging copies of
EastEnders at the Sunday Market, all I want is the ability to archive
media for when I want to watch it which may be tomorrow or may be
weeks/months away, depending on what else I may be doing.

The iPlayer, is one example of the possible future for broadcast
television that doesn't allow that.

We've grown used to being able to time shift and archive favourite shows
and films but the DRM weenies will be desperate to replicate the success
they've had in the music industry where they have managed to persuade
the more gullable into buying the same music again and again, then
paying yet again to turn it into ringtones.

If it is to work it has to include all the features currently
available to the average viewer, simple one button channel (stream
if you prefer) selection, ability to timeshift and ad skip without
some arbitary DRM imposed restrictions, and zero additional cost.

Do you see all this happening? I don't. The content providers will
screw it up with their DRM paranoia for starters.


Once you've recorded a stream on a PVR they'll obviously allow you
to skip the ads and so on - why wouldn't they let you do this? We'll
watch TV via the net on set-top boxes just like we do on Freeview or
whatever, it's just that they're connected to the Internet rather
than receiving a radio signal.

If that's the way it'll work then fine. But don't you see the
potential for the DRM weenies to prevent ad skipping?

http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=9433


I haven't got time to read that article, but of course it's *possible* to
stop ad skipping, but people would just not use that service and they'd use
whichever service did allow them to skip ads.


"ITV called ITV.com "total freedom of entertainment."

"The content will only be available for streaming, not downloading.
Also, viewers will not be able to fast-forward through the
commercials."

(Obviously you can't skip ads if the content can't be downloaded...)
Duh!


You can't fast forward adverts on live TV either, can you?

You can record live TV to spool through the ads or chase play. If you
can't download ITV.com you're stuck with the ads - and there'll soon be
more minutes per hour of 'em.

So there you have it - no PVRs - you probably can't even pause live
content should the phone ring.


No, you're assuming that there won't be any PVRs for live Internet streams,
but there will be. People will simply decide not to watch live Internet
streams if they can't skip ads whereas they can on other platforms.

Now we're promised 12 minutes of ads per hour, a half hour Coronation
Street will be barely 20 minutes long with an ad break on every scene
change virtually.

That's a strong indication the way the broadcasters will approach
multicasting. No downloading for starters.


Multicasting is by definition LIVE. It is simply the live TV stream being
simulcast over the Internet. You cannot fast forward live TV, and you cannot
fast-forward a live multicast stream - they haven't invented time travel
yet.

You're missing the point. If you want to replace UHF TV with
multicasting it has to be recordable, ie downloadable, just as a VHS or
PVR would "download" UHF TV. Same custom and practice, different
technology.

Enlighten me as to why people won't be able to record multicast streams on
an IPTV PVR????

http://www.onlinereporter.com/article.php?article_id=9433

"The content will only be available for streaming, not downloading.
Also, viewers will not be able to fast-forward through the commercials."

I'm assuming that means we can't download the live stream, only watch
it.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter
.