Re: Ofcom says 4 national HD channels on DTT

Peter Hayes wrote:
"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


"Multicast" refers to LIVE streams:

http://support.bbc.co.uk/multicast/streams.html

It doesn't apply to on-demand, because no two on-demand users are watching
the same thing at exactly the same time.


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.


Okay, I see what you mean. I was referring to on-demand like with the
iPlayer, where you actually download the programme prior to watching, which
is easier because there's no real-time element.


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.


Both 4oD and the BBC iPlayer are definitely referred to as being "on
demand" applications by the broadcasters - 4oD stands for "4 on demand". I
agree though the terms are a bit misleading. I tend to say "on demand" for
downloaded programmes and "video on demand" for true live video on demand.


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.


If the broadcasters make us pay to download programmes people will simply
revert back to recording the programme on a PVR.

I'm afraid that you seem to take an apocalyptic view on everything to do
with downloading. For example, the BBC iPlayer and 4oD are both free
(there's some paid-for stuff on 4oD, but you don't have to download it), and
yet you've jumped to the opposite extreme and you're claiming that programme
downloads won't be free forever. You've also said that DRM will stop you
from fast forwarding through adverts, and the justification you used for
this was that ITV streams stop you. Well I'm afraid that 4oD programmes
actually cut the adverts out for you!

The broadcasters are not completely stupid, and if they impose things on us
that are as onerous as you think they're going to be we simply won't use
their services.


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.


I'm not as anti-DRM as some people are, to be honest. I'm not in favour of
it, and we should be allowed to record TV programmes and so on, but if we
have to put up with it for things on the Internet due to file-sharing then
it's better than not having it at all.


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.


Really? That's exactly what it sounds like you are against.


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.


Yes, I agree with that.


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


Yes, I agree that the iPlayer is far too restrictive.


"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.


The thing is though that no-one's forcing you to stream anything from
ITV.com, and I don't think what they're doing is onerous, because we still
have the ability to record things on the other platforms.


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.


This isn't actually anything to do with the Internet, as far as I know, i.e.
the number of minutes per hour of adverts is presumably something for all
platforms.

I cannot stand the way Ofcom basically "delegates" the responsibility to
regulate onto the viewers and listeners themselves rather than Ofcom
actually doing the job that they're paid to do. They claim that the market
decides on these things, but the market does not decide on these things at
all, because if someone wants to watch X on channel Y, then they're forced
to watch X on Y, and they're not going to stop watching it because the
adverts are longer. But this has nothing to do with the Internet alone, as
far as I'm aware.


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.


I've already said that the BBC intends to make normal set-top boxes/PVRs
available for use with the iPlayer, and I'd expect them to work just like
they do on say Freeview. The only restriction that they might place is that
we won't be able to get the content off a PVR due to DRM, but that's
actually no different from the vast majority of PVRs out there, albeit that
there's the Topfield and Humax 9200 that do allow you to get the content
off.


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.


As I've already said, you can't fast-forward live TV, and if you want to
record live TV you can do so on other platforms.

I've just spent 15 minutes on ITV.com trying it out for the first time. It
didn't even work on ITV1 or ITV2, it just sat there waiting. So I watched a
clip they were recommending, which was encoded at 370 kbps and the audio was
48 kbps.

So basically I don't think the fact that the ads on ITV aren't skippable is
anything to worry about because I doubt many people would want to watch it
at such crappy quality apart from if they're at work when they have no other
option (although what they'd want to watch on ITV in the daytime God only
knows) - and that's if they can get it to work.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info



.