Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast


Let me throw one additional factor in on this thread.

To provide CATV service on a wireline network you are required in the U.S. to obtain a video franchise for the area that you plan to offer service (city, county, parish...). The franchise of course costs money but also comes with a set of requirements (build out for example - you as the franchise holder promise to build out xx% of the franchise area in xx number of years).

One of the requirements is for "Must Carry PEG (Public Education Government)" channels (these franchises are negotiated on a case by case basis so what follows is generally true). Included in these channels are the public service channels (town meetings for example). These are a franchise requirement (a franchise is not a requirement for wireless delivery - that's why the satellite guys do not have this worry/requirement). Depending on the area you are covering this can turn into a large number of channels (20+ because you may end up carrying the same channel twice, once in English and once in Spanish for example).

These channels are analog. The municipalities that run them currently do not own real time digital encoders. The municipalities also want everyone who has the slightest interest to be able to watch these channels. The franchise agreement (which is with the municipality) will generally require that these channels are broadcast in analog format so that the widest possible audience has access to them (in some cases you might be able to satisfy this requirement by giving Set Top Boxes away to anyone that wants them (maybe for every TV they own), but in general that's an impossible business case).

Since this is a franchise requirement and the existing MSOs provide this service, analog delivery of some channels is not a premium service, it's a baseline requirement in order to get a franchise.

I want to let you know that I strongly support digital delivery of video content but from a pragmatic point of view, currently there is a analog video requirement that I do not see going away in any reasonable time frame.

Hope this helps (hate it when the regulation is the problem instead of the technology),


At 12:14 AM 11/27/01 +0000, Bob Barrett wrote:
>I will be delighted when web hdtv is economically compelling, however, I
>expect there to be a transition phase when digital broadcast over a lamdba
>will be a transition for the incumbents, which in this case are cable TV
>companies. Some ILECs also seem quite keen on a quick solution, just to get
>them into the market sooner rather than later.
>Sorry for this being a bit late on the thread. I started with my email
>backlog from the top down.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> []On Behalf Of Rich
>> Taborek
>> Sent: 22 November 2001 05:09
>> To:;
>> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2MP] RE: [EFM] T.V. broadcast / unicast
>> Hi Bob,
>> This is a bit of a tangent, but some things you said caught my eye.
>> I agree that CWDM optics is coming on fairly strong, especially in the
>> last year or so and solving problems of higher bandwidth data
>> transmission and supporting longer distances.
>> I'm puzzled by you comment about not using 802 protocol though. 802.3 is
>> probably the most cost effective protocol known to humans. EFM is an
>> 802.3 effort. I suspect that most TV signals will be digital, which
>> means that Ethernet can carry them. I take it that you were thinking
>> that some TV channels would be analog? I suspect that this make the
>> whole enchilada premium in cost.
>> Best Regards,
>> Rich
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Richard Taborek Sr.                     Intel Corporation
>> XAUI Sherpa                    Intel Communications Group
>> 3101 Jay Street, Suite 110        Optical Group Marketing
>> Santa Clara, CA 95054           Santa Clara Design Center
>> 408-496-3423                                     JAY1-101
>> Cell: 408-832-3957          mailto:rich.taborek@xxxxxxxxx
>> Fax: 408-486-9783          
>> Bob Barrett wrote:
>> >
>> > I think a lot of this depends on how the relative cost of CWDM optics
>> > develops over the next two-three years. It would be far simpler
>> technically
>> > to put b'cast TV (and / or user selected TV channels) on a
>> separate lambda
>> > (may be not using an 802 protocol). I thought that was why we
>> are proposing
>> > to leave some of the lambda bands vacant.
>> >
>> > I thought that the email from Ingvar was very informative.
>> >
>> > 'Broadcasting' only the channels selected by users (probably from a
>> > selection system at the POP, not at the CO) is a change of system
>> > architecture from the traditional cable T.V. model. It also
>> requires powered
>> > POPs. Powered POPs map well into the star / fan-out p2p systems
>> (which maps
>> > into my positioning well, so I am in favour of it).
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From:
>> > []On Behalf Of
>> > carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Sent: 20 November 2001 19:55
>> > To: John Pickens
>> > Cc: Norman Finn;;
>> > Subject: [EFM] Re: [EFM-P2MP] Point-to-Point plus Shared Media
>> >
>> > Two comments:
>> >
>> > 1) John Pickens said:
>> >
>> > > I know there is a contingent within the working group that does not
>> > > consider it a requirement to access the single-copy-broadcast
>> attribute
>> > of
>> > > the media, so probably we should poll this question at some point.
>> >
>> > Although I'm the first to acknowledge that my opinion is *not*
>> > representative of all carriers (far from it :-), I can say that the
>> > single-copy-broadcast is one of the *great* potential
>> advantages of using
>> > Ethernet PON in the access network. Of course, it all depends on whether
>> > will we be able to provide broadcast-based services such as
>> digital video.
>> >
>> > I believe that many carriers will be of the same opinion.
>> >
>> > So my vote is already cast - single-copy-broadcasts are a requirement.
>> >
>> > 2) Norman Finn's idea is really neat from a technical *and* political
>> > standpoint, as it sounds as a reasonable compromise between the
>> two fields;
>> > however, I'm not sure that it's actually feasible in practice due to
>> > administrative reasons, as John pointed out. It is highly probable that
>> > most carriers will end up using only one of the modes.
>> >
>> > [For instance, this already happened with DSL; almost nobody
>> uses the two
>> > transmission modes of DMT modems (interleaved and fast). Although it is
>> > technically possible to use the two at the same time, almost
>> everybody uses
>> > only the interleaved one, mainly because of the complexity, and also
>> > because of potential compatibility issues]
>> >
>> > Anyway, just to explore the alternatives, we could deploy completely
>> > separate IP networks, each over a separate MAC address (of course this
>> > assume that we are going to run IP over Ethernet, but who bets
>> otherwise?).
>> > Each IP network could 'opt' for some particular mode of operation.
>> >
>> > p.s. There are also some security issues that we should analyze in this
>> > case; the two kinds of traffic would be received at every node,
>> and this is
>> > could pose a different security problem. Not sure about it,
>> just wondering.
>> >
>> > Carlos Ribeiro
>> > CTBC Telecom

Brian Ford
BellSouth Telecommunications
Science and Technology
SMTS - Exploratory Development
Phone +1 (404) 332-2217
FAX +1 (404) 529-8025