<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] more on "unused" portion of their DSL lines to broadcast video signals.





Begin forwarded message:

From: "Damien V. Del Porto" <damien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 11, 2005 3:01:51 PM EDT
To: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, 'Ip ip' <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brad Templeton <4brad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David P. Reed" <dpreed@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [IP] "unused" portion of their DSL lines to broadcast video signals.


The use of the word "subsidize" was my own... Most people's use of the Internet today, at least in the U.S. and Spain, probably doesn't require much more than the 512k downstream. Using the remaining Mbits seems like a smart way to add some dollars for minimal effort. And yes I *am* overpaying for my DSL, though in my mind that's less so as they keep doubling my speed for no money on my part (I started with them at 256/96!). Telefonica is only doubling because their competition is doing so, I have a friend that went in 6 months from 512 to 1mb to 2mb to 4mb. And they through in all national telephone calls as part of the fixed rate. The beauty of competition. It took all of my self control not to take pot shots at Telefonica in my original post, they act like you would expect a former monopoly to. It took over three months to get the TV-side of the service to work because of a computer-billing error.

If it makes you feel any better, I have problems using the Renfe site and I live here. What you see today is a site that was launched under a year ago. Like you say, transitioning to a market-oriented economy is not easy. That should never be an excuse, however. There are sectors of the economy (and, surprisingly, of government) that are way ahead of the curve. I don't know that I can pinpoint one difference, but I think its a human resources issue. The city of Madrid, for instance, has launched programs that use advanced technology. While I don't support the party in control of local government here, I have to give them credit for being on the ball about these types of things. I get surveys in the mail about public transportation where you help the city identify your use of the different means of transport, which you return to them by mail, phone or the internet. You can get warnings via SMS to your cell phone when there's a dangerously high temperature forecast for the day. You can "vote" via your cell phone on what you think their priorities should be (public parks, help for the elderly, etc.). All you need to make these things happen is the right person in the right job it seems.

Cheers,
Damien

Bob Frankston wrote:


This is why DSL was created in the 1980's -- interactive TV. It's not the unused portion -- it is DSL itself. It's the Internet connectivity that uses that "unused" portion left vacant when the US carriers failed to pursue TV route.

The use of the word "subsidize" is interesting -- exactly what does it mean in terms of the business structure? Either you're overpaying for DSL or the video service isn't economically viable in its own right.

In the US I think the carriers who passed on using DSL for its original purpose have decided to put all their money into a brand new fiber deployment that seems to repeat the original design point of DSL -- aiming at TV again rather than creating a more general purpose infrastructure usable for symmetric data transport with video being just one form of "content".

Note also that there are technologies available to increase the capacity of DSL-- check out http://www.dslreports.com

I’m going to be in Zaragoza this week and will see if I can learn more about this. As an aside, I find it interesting (and annoying) that according to Renfe one must be inside the country to buy a railroad ticket and their web site appears to only be available during business hours. Transitioning to a real marketplace is not easy.

As a different aside -- responding to another letter about the need to switch to DTV for ATSC -- it reminds me of the WAP/WML/HDML debacle. Cell phones "required" a special protocol rather than HTML. It was a convenient fiction that helped maintain their walled garden. It seems irresponsible to require a special infrastructure just for ATSC. It's like building a new version of the PSTN just as the whole idea of a special phone network is becoming economically untenable.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Farber
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 08:25
To: Ip ip
Subject: [IP] "unused" portion of their DSL lines to broadcast video signals.



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Damien V. Del Porto" <damien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 11, 2005 7:07:41 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on The Digital TV Fiasco


This is slightly off-topic but relevant I think.

For the last few months, Spain's former telephone monopoly has been using the "unused" portion of their DSL lines to broadcast video signals. There are some 40 channels (there are only 5-7 channels available over the air and w/o satellite). The DSL line charges, which are between 30 and 40 €, subsidize this service, which is 12 € per month. I mention this because, while we dont have HDTV here, the quality is quite good. The service also includes an on-demand videoclub (with a horrible selection of movies...unless you're into adult-themed movies) and PPV soccer games. From what I understand, the service is using 4 Mbits or so of the total 6-8 available. The base subscriber package is 512/128 (which will be doubled for free next month to 1M/320), and can scale up to 2.

Is anyone in the US trying this approach? Does anyone know whether an HDTV signal could fit into the DSL bandwidth? -d

Link: http://www.telefonicaonline.es/imagenio/

David Farber wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Beck <cbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 10, 2005 6:55:13 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Tim Onosko <onosko@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on The Digital TV Fiasco


Rumour has it Tim Onosko, on or about 10/06/2005 2:32:51 PM EDT, whispered:






Brad Templeton is absolutely right on this, but he doesn't mention the
very real reason why digital TV must move from MPEG2 to MPEG4
(specifically the new H.264 or "AVC" codec): Picture quality.

Anyone who has watched digital cable or satellite signals can tell you
that the quality is TERRIBLE.





As someone who suffers under the iron heel of Videotron cable in Montreal, Quebec I can second that argument. They are shoving internet, digital TV and regular cable and compressing the heck out of my digital channels. This is especially visible for some reason in ocean documentaries, the banding in the water is atrocious. I have not even bothered investing in an HDTV because of a complete lack of confidence in their ability to actually deliver any watchable
high def content.

Cheers,
Chris

--
Chris Beck - http://pacanukeha.blogspot.com
He needs a lang shanket spoon that sups kail wi' the de'il



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as damien@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/ interesting- people/










-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as BobIP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/










-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/