Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

TV Over Phone Lines To Arrive In 2005

Posted by timothy on Tue Dec 21, 2004 08:20 PM
from the to-speak-with-a-representative dept.
Communications Media Television Entertainment
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.""
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

TV Over Phone Lines To Arrive In 2005 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Big deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThisNukes4u (752508) <tcoppi@gCOUGARmail.com minus cat> on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:21PM (#11154789) Homepage
    Big deal. I'm still waiting for fiber to the home. I could care less about television.
    • I think you'll find the phrase is "couldn't care less". Saying you could care less [bartleby.com] implies that you do care about it.
    • I'm still waiting for fiber to the home. I could care less about television
      Fiber-to-the curb promises to deliver bandwidth-thirsty services like television and video on demand, high-speed Internet, and voice to consumers and small businesses.

      Someday TV may be regarded as the "killer app" of broadband.

    • Re:Big deal (Score:5, Informative)

      by isdnip (49656) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @11:22PM (#11155863)
      But here's the $64 question. Why do you want fiber to the home?

      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.

  • 500... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slapout (93640) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:22PM (#11154794)
    500 ways to get TV and still nothing to watch.

  • first comment swoot (Score:5, Funny)

    by CloudDrakken (582681) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:22PM (#11154795) Journal
    hey maybe my TV can lag now too :D

  • I smell FIOS... (Score:5, Informative)

    by sH4RD (749216) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:22PM (#11154798) Homepage
    My friend has FIOS, and they have indeed told him it will be avalible in his area next year. Although, that is television over fiber, but it's provided by the Telco (Verizon).

    • Re:I smell FIOS... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This has been in the making for a long time. I am a headend technician at a large Canadian Cable company. Telcos have been interested in video over twisted pair for a long time. Fortunately (unfortunately) the physical limitations are going to be too restrictive for most home consumers. Many homes will require a complete rewire, and each outlet has to be trapped. Traditional analog telephone lines have a maximum bandwidth of 3000hz, so that doesn't offer much in the way of channel space. Compare that to tel
      • WTF are you on about? Seriously, if you are a 'headend technician' you need to learn about something called DSL.

        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 dow

  • History of DSL (Score:4, Informative)

    by lousyd (459028) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:24PM (#11154809)
    This is what Digital Subscriber Line technology was orignally developed for. TV and such, deliveredd over phone lines.

    See here [azalea.net].

  • A little out of place? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:24PM (#11154812)
    I thought it was common knowledge that most phone systems (especially in rural communities) are unable to support broadband data communication. Cable was supposed to solve this problem. Fiber-to-the-home is now replacing cable... how can the telecom industry expect that their old, for the most part outdated copper wiring is capable of distributing this type of media?

    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.
    • I thought it was common knowledge that most phone systems (especially in rural communities) are unable to support broadband data communication. Cable was supposed to solve this problem.

      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)

      by Mycroft_VIII (572950) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:48PM (#11154992) Journal
      No kidding, I'm less than 45 minutes from the city limits of a fairly large city (St. Louis), and approx 5 miles (8km) from a state highway that runs nearly straight into the city and I cannot get over 28.8 dialup (oh about once a month or so I get a 33.6 connect, usually last about 5 min before I lose the connection all together) and that is the BEST I can get without satalite, and that may not work (river valley, the hill cut me from full cell signall to nothing in less than a mile).
      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

      • No kidding, I'm less than 45 minutes from the city limits of a fairly large city (St. Louis), and approx 5 miles (8km) from a state highway that runs nearly straight into the city.

        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,

          • While I sympathize with your situation, you can't really expect much else. There are many, many people who want & will pay for this service in large cities & (sub)urban areas. Forcing the bells to rollout everything to the rural areas will just put us farther and farther behind. I think we should let the market work itself out. I mean, we've been regulating the telephone industry just like you are suggesting and look at the high-tech nothingness we've gotten out of that.

            Think of it a bit like t
      • "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,"
        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 i
    • Actually, it depends on what you view as "rural". The majority of the rural telephone companies I know of all offer video over DSL. To do this, many of them own and operate a video head end then take it to the subscribers via multiservice access platforms (so-called IP DSLAM's) from Allied Telesyn, Calix, Ciena, Occam, etc... vs. HFC solutions that most urban areas are used to having the cable guy come out and monkey around with coax....

      So, you have the head end, the telephone (appearance) transport, a D
  • If the phone companies' approach to TV is anything like their approach to DSL, we're in for some exciting tales of boundless incompetence.

    Let the hilarity begin!

  • In the small island of Cyprus, in the Eastern Mediterranean sea, the local telecommunications company was offering TV services over the phone for more than a year.

    Here is their website http://www.mivision.cyta.com.cy/english/what_mivis ion.php [cyta.com.cy]

  • Already have it in France (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nekosej (302666) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:27PM (#11154834)
    In France, TV over DSL (or ADSL as it is known it France, where it was invented) has existed for almost a year now, and there are several competing offers. My DSL provider also provides a second VOIP telephone along with TV and very fast DSL service.

  • Too little, Too late. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgaynor (205453) <<jon> <at> <gaynor.org>> on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:28PM (#11154836) Homepage
    Is it just me or is this a case of too little, too late?

    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 . . .
  • We have satalite and cable, this brings us TV nicely and has it's own brands and structure. Why do we need any more crap on our phonelines?

  • France has TV over phone lines since *long* (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have TV over adsl2+
    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. ^.^

  • We have that in HK already (Score:5, Informative)

    by yehim1 (462046) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:29PM (#11154854) Journal
    In HK, BroadbandTV services has been launched for over a year already. For a fee above your existing ADSL subscription, you get an extra decoder which connects to your phone line and decodes programmes to your TV.

    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" !
  • ...even more channels with nothing (worthwhile) on.

    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.

  • Verizon FIOS (Score:4, Informative)

    by $exyNerdie (683214) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:33PM (#11154875) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • ...that they're going to have the Internet over phone lines next year.
  • Cable TV over the Phone Line.. not impressive.

    Wake me up when they have Phone Lines over Cable T...errm..oh..
  • The crappy autocratic do nothing customer service and utterly confusing billing system of the phone company combined with the shitty content of reality TV and their 10 million intellectual property lawyers.

    What exactly does this bring to the table? Anything? Nothing?
  • just when a research report has come out explaining that kids of today spend more time on the internet than in front of TV, these companies want to spend billions on brainwashing by phone. ... do they know something we don't?? like maybe that they are buying up laws^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbyin congress to pass laws making the internet a broadcast-only medium?
  • ya.. we already have this here too.. its called MAX TV.. comes through with your DSL, it also allows you to browse internet on your TV.. im not really that impressed with it..
  • ... I guess there's a sucker born every minute.

    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?

  • You mean "all about pervasive advertising.."
    We'll see a lot more advertising pushed along with the content as well.
  • It seems like the merging of technologies is bringing about the possibility of competition, which is a good thing. With cable and phone companies both offering phone, tv, and broadband, plus the cell phone companies offering phonelines as well as wifi in many areas, it seems like consumers are now getting more choices for service providers, which will hopefully lead to lower prices or better service.

  • I used to work on that (Score:4)

    by MSBob (307239) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @08:52PM (#11155020)
    I used to work for the - now defunct - iMagicTV. The truth is that the bandwidth over phone lines is still very limited. At the time we used 4MB/sec Mpeg2 which gives good quality but an average DSL link can support 6MB/sec at best meaning you can only have one TV receiver without a noticable drop in quality. MPEG 4 offers compression rates that make 2 TVs more realistic but realtime MPEG4 encoders are still not quite there.

    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.

    • ... breaking into the entertainment industry is unbelieveably hard without having a solid DRM solution...

      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:

    • I'm sure you mean Mb (megabits) not MB (megabytes) :)

  • In Saskatchewan.. of all places (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Vaystrem (761) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @09:14PM (#11155141)
    Sasktel Max Interactive Services [saskte.com] I have had 'Sasktel Max' for well over a year. My roomate, whose Dad worked for Sasktel, has had it for about 3 years.

    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.

  • Been doing it for years! (Score:5, Funny)

    by glwtta (532858) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @09:52PM (#11155368) Homepage
    I've been getting TV over my DSL connection for a long time now... well, until suprnova went down at least.

  • Come visit the Great White North (Score:4, Informative)

    by freeweed (309734) on Tuesday December 21 2004, @10:29PM (#11155576)
    Here in Manitoba, Canada, we've had this for many many months now. The local (formerly government) telco monopoly rolled out their digital television over phone line service with great fanfare.

    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.

  • Same old junk... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by evilviper (135110) on Wednesday December 22 2004, @08:42AM (#11157655) Journal
    The telcos are still stuck in the old ways of thinking.

    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)

    by Martin Spamer (244245) on Wednesday December 22 2004, @10:09AM (#11158409) Homepage Journal
    I used to work for Kingston Interactive Television [kitv.co.uk] which delivers real Interactive Digital Television and true Video on Demand within a wall garden of managed content and high speed Internet Access via IP on ADSL.

    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]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.