Microsoft + IPTV = Trouble?
posted June 1st 2005 12:50PM
Is Microsoft's IPTV strategy falling apart? Over the past few years they've made some massive investments in developing new software and technology for delivering television over broadband and cut some serious deals with telcos like Verizon and SBC, but El Reg says that lately things haven't been playing out the way Microsoft had hoped. For starters, the one IPTV rollout they did have underway, with Swisscom in Switzerland, has been delayed, reportedly because of problems with Microsoft's expensive and "overly complicated" software. To make matters worse, Bellsouth is rumored to be on the verge of dumping Microsoft from the IPTV set top boxes it's currently testing, something which might spook Verizon and SBC into jumping ship. Both companies are supposedly waiting on Microsoft so they can start offering triple-play bundles to their customers that combine TV, high-speed internet, and phone service into a single package. They see the cable companies adding VoIP and cellular to their cable TV and internet offerings, and the fact that they can't offer their own bundles is starting to make them antsy. Annoying the telcos even more, Microsoft is playing to both sides, and while its IPTV efforts languish, cable operators like Comcast and Cablevision are already successfully rolling out the company's Foundation cable set top box software (which does about the same thing but is based on completely different code) in several markets.
I'm still trying to get my head around this whole "IPTV" thing. (Then again, I don't really get the VoIP thing either.)
Ok. So you get a set-top box that downloads digital data over the internet, and that handles your TV, your internet browsing, and your phone.
Now, how is this better (or in fact, how is it even *different*) than the cable box I have now, which receives a digital cable signal (in high definition), and provides me with my broadband internet and, if I wanted it, with VoIP?
Wouldn't delivering everything over an actual *internet* connection be far slower due to overhead and other factors? Wouldn't it require greater compression of the TV signal, and result in slower internet download speeds?
All told, I get a total of 45mbps bandwidth right now between my TV and my internet connection (20mbps for two HD cable tuners, plus a 5mbps internet connection) - I somehow doubt IPTV is even going to approach this. And I've got bandwidth to spare even at 45mbps, if I wanted to add more tuners.
What am I missing about IPTV?
btw, yes I realize this all mostly applies to Europe. Is this just their way of doing sort of a "quick and dirty" HDTV infrastructure setup? Just basically bypassing setting new TV standards and upgrading cable and satellite feeds? What is the actual bandwidth available via an average IPTV setup?
this may be true, but just the fact that this is coming from the register is a lil sketchy. they are anti-microsoft on everything. it may very well be true though. i always thought the great thing about iptv is that bandwith is much greater so that instead of being limited by bandwith that restricts you to your 130 channels or so you can have virtually unlimited channels because all channels aren't always being streamed as they are now. with iptv a channel is only streamed when it is requested.
RE: What am I missing about IPTV?
1. Competition. With IPTV, your telco is able to offer the same things as your cable company (VoIP, TV, www...). Then they fall over each other competing for your dollar. You win.
2. IPTV can be wide open TV on demand, TV al la carte. That includes renting movies online, TV from different markets and independant TV.
And you also win if M$ doesn't.
hey Jeff,
I'm no expert on this but it seems the purpose of iptv is not to offer new services or content not previously available. Rather, it is simply a chance for telcos to offer the same sort of service that cable providers are offering now.
For us consumers I think it's a good thing. More options for us, and competition brings quality up and prices down.
As for how feasable the technology is I don't know. I would assume it will be competitive with cable or else whats the point. The comment about streaming one channel at a time makes me wonder if I will need to wait for the channels to buffer when flipping around the dial. I think MS has some patent on fast channel changing though.
I thought that the real issue was that the carriers have just realised that they must get classified by the FCC as TV Stations. And this means answering the competition question of whether existing Cable networks, offering communites a service, can veto a similar service down copper or fiber to your home?
"For us consumers I think it's a good thing. More options for us, and competition brings quality up and prices down."
Ok, I don't want to monopolize the discussion but I'm genuinely curious.
Two people have now said IPTV is all about competition. But in order to compete, don't you need to either a) offer a *better* product, or b) offer a *cheaper* product? Is IPTV either of these?
I don't really know how it could be better than an unmolested HDTV signal through cable, which requires a lot of bandwidth (more than anybody's straight internet connection provides, in almost any country). Cable offers VOD as well, plus whatever you want to download over the internet, so that's no advantage either. So if it's not actually better, it must be significantly cheaper, right? What do people normally pay for IPTV?
Re: bandwidth for IPTV. Bandwidth should not be a problem. The telcos aren't going to provide this over dsl, but rather Fiber, which should not have a problem with bandwidth.
#7 Competing means offering a comparable service. Once there are multiple providers offering comparable service, breaking into cable's monopoly, you'll see prices come down or pressure to offer something unique. I don't know about you, but my cable bill goes up each and every year, and there really isn't much I can do about it other than satellite service (which I did try and didn't like very much).
No one can answer the question on price for IPTV because it isn't available yet.
Actually rumor has it my local telco is rolling out HD over copper, combined with previous announcements of mpeg 4 "hdtv" telcos have more then enough BW to distribute tv with minimal upgrades to their infrastructure. Digital Cable's only saving grace is the integration of cable cards into tvs which will minimized the hassle for consumers. I for one am more looking forward to the cable companies becoming voip providers sooner then telcos becoming tv providers... anyways competition is good
"No one can answer the question on price for IPTV because it isn't available yet."
According to the article it is available in Europe in many areas, just not provided by Microsoft. My question was more directed towards them, I guess, as far as how IPTV compares in price vs. other forms of TV.
"Competing means offering a comparable service."
I'd sort of disagree with this. If one company has a monopoly, and somebody else comes out with something that's the same thing, what is the impetus for anybody to switch? If I use Windows and somebody makes an OS that works just like Windows and costs the same, why would I stop using what I already have? There needs to be some reason to cause people to switch from what they're already using to something else.
For one example, the way satellite companies got so big in this country was a) claiming 100% digital quality at a time when cable was still almost completely analog, and b) by undercutting cable prices. So they were better on both quality *and* price and a lot of people did switch. And in the end, that was good for consumers because it did force cable companies to upgrade service (though not really to lower prices... cable now competes with DirecTV and Echostar on quality, as satellite companies are re-compressing HD to 1280x1080 whereas cable companies generally aren't.)
So for a company to compete, it needs to better the entrenched technology on either quality or price or both, and likewise for it to have any effect on forcing the existing monopolies to upgrade service or cut pricing. I still am not seeing how IPTV is going to do this. It sort of sounds like everybody is just basically assuming that's what's going to happen, but nobody really knows how.
(and btw, the fastest fiber optic speeds Verizon has announced in the US are not even fast enough for a single HD tuner, much less two plus VoIP plus an internet connection. So they're gonna need to be doing HD-Lite like the satellite companies, it sounds like.)
It's not a problem because no one listens to anything MS talks about these days.. we've been lied to so many times.. (voice input anyone?) we just aren't impresed by vapor anymore.. especially now that Steve "don't ask me, ask Bill" Ballmer is at the helm.
Let me tell you all something. Much like VOIP, IPTV has a good chance of making it harder on the customer. Allow me to explain.
With VOIP, the cable and dsl companies pay a lease to the telco companies to use their infrastructure to deliver the service to us (even Skype works the same way, if your dialing to or receiving a call from a POTS user. The telco companies are feeling the pressure and can, and will, attempt to corner the market, killing off or buying the smaller VOIP services and taxing the hell out of the DSL and cable companies to use lease their infastructure.
IPTV it seems will work in a similar fashion. And, as it's been said, IPTV is being pushed for the same reason that VOIP is. All these companies want a piece of the pie. Plus, due to market trends, the popular term "triple-play" is a big reason why VOIP and IPTV exists in the first place.
Most importantly, another reason why IPTV exists is advertising. With IPTV, these companies can sell you to advertisers. The advertisers will specially market to specific types of users, not unlike telemarketers or Internet ads.
The big V is currently offering 30mb download 5mb upload speeds ($199.99, 15 down 2 up is around $49.95) to residential households through fiber in my city, so 19.2 for HDTV is easily reached and exceeded. The benefits of IPTV over my current setup (a hd-dvr cable box with 200 hrs of SD and 20 hours of HDTV capacity with a clunky interface written by the most unimaginative person on earth) are numerous. The major selling point for me is that I could stream recorded movies around my house via the different ips. My current setup only records to itself and cannot share with the other boxes in my house. The big V is also claiming to have over 50+ HDTV channels for their launch compared to the 16 I have now. I spoke to someone at the telco who said that they would strip all copper from the residence and replace it with all fiber. Then again.....the big V's customer support is lousy at best.
Just having had fiber (Verizon fios) installed to the house, this kind of explains why the Verizon installer told me TV would be a couple of years away. However, I really don't see Verizon holding out for MS - they're already effectively dumping their partnership with satellite, so I would expect them to do the same if MS holds them back.
On another note, I believe they don't need to share this with other providers the same way they do with dsl, so it's like a triple whammy for them (unless cable [and Verizon by association] has to open the connection up to other parties) - they provide phone, internet and tv.
And it's fast. I'm getting 15Mbps down and 2Mbps up consistantly for 50 bucks a month. Not a bad deal compared to cable internet.
I also recently got FiOS installed. I got excited at the thought of TV through that instead of cable (anything to escape the evil Comcast). If you look at Verizon's website it (DirecTV) appears to already be available.
Jeff, just how fast does it have to be for HD? I have a hard time believing 15 down and 2.0 up isn't enough.
Actually, Om Malik wrote recently about VDSL2 technology, which will supposedly get up to 100 Megabits/sec over copper, both downstream and up, and has a range of up to 12000 ft.:
http://gigaom.com/2005/05/19/vdsl2-100-mbps-over-copper-next/
Considering that even the biggest 1080i streams are 19 Mbps and most broadcast HDTV (especially 720p) requires only 10-15 Mbps, the Bells would love to roll out something like VDSL2 and serve up their own phone/net/HDTV triple play. With a 100 Mbps pipe, on-demand HD might even be possible.
Of course, this all assumes that the Bells can get around state and local legislatures, which get a lot of cash from cable companies. Om seems to enjoy calling IPTV a "Political Hairball."
On the other hand, how much does IPTV really matter if it won't let me watch the new Doctor Who legally here in the U.S.?
BBC America, you're SERIOUSLY letting me down...
RE: What am I missing about IPTV?
Well actually IPTV is very differt from regular cable over the internet. IPTV will be over networks like FiOS, whick is like 15 mbps. With that, you have like 3 or 4 streams of video feeding in at the same time. So say, you can record 2 shows at the same time while watching another one and seeing live TV in the guide to see whats on other channels. Also, you could watch a game from multiple angles, and pick which one you like best. And, as someone stated earlier, you can rent movies easily and maybe even buy movies online (I'm sure they have that in the works too). And coming from Microsoft, it will easily integrate with Media Centers & MS Mobile devices, just imagine the possibilities with that... Where did I learn this from? CES 2005. They have a webcast @ microsoft.com. They showed it of there.
IPTV's best chance to compete is through quantity of content. Cable and satellite are currently struggling to find the bandwidth to roll out additional content. Since IPTV streams content they is no limit to the HD content they can carry.
Theoretically, they could lower prices by offering a la carte pricing or just charging less, but judging from history that seems unlikely.
I am trying to fight off the anxiety of waiting for IPTV here in the United States. I am constantly checking Press Releases to see the progress of this technology in America.
SBC will not be delivering until 2008 (estimated) because of the tight regulations here in the States compared to the liberal, loose ones of Europe.
Another disadvantage America has is due to our successful infrastructure. Our country is not taking the gambles of say.. China. China was not in a favorable economic condition so they tore up the ground throughout the country and laid down fiber lines. The average broadband connection speed is 100 Mbps, making IPTV a readily acceptable technology in attempt to boost their economical and technological placement on this planet.
On the bright side, it is exciting to see Myrio working with FTTH Communications planning its own fiber-networked communities in Minnesota.
http://www.iptvnews.net/iptv/Press_Releases/Archived_2003/26.htm
Texas-based telco, Cap Rock is also working with Myrio to offer triple-play services to compete with pay TV providers.
http://www.iptvnews.net/iptv/Press_Releases/Archived_2004/28.htm
Awesome News from SBC:
"For those with high-speed Internet DSL lines, SBC is making a set-top box available this summer to be bundled with its wireless connection in an offering called Home Zone. SBC will charge for the box at a price still to be determined and also will charge more for the optional service.
"This will allow you to view on your television all of the content on your computer or stereo, whether photos, music or movies. It will include content from TV and from Yahoo. The top 15 to 20 requested movies at any time will flow to your hard drive on the set-top box, but you won't be billed until you confirm that you want to play the movies."
Read More:http://www.iptvnews.net/iptv/Press_Releases/409.htm
A terrible article. Yes, it's a proprietary system. But there are plenty of other proprietary systems out there in cable TV land. And most IPTV STBs that used a 'standard java browser' that I've seen are terrible. Absolutely awful. And the statement "necessitates the use of Windows 2003 VoD servers, something they are singularly not good at" is laughable. SeaChange, one of the industry leaders in VoD pumps, use Windows 2003, so how can Windows 2003 be "singularly not good at" VoD streaming?
I'm sure there are lots of good reasons why this is delayed. And I'll bet MSTV is a large part of that reason. But I'll also bet it's not the sole reason -- there will be plenty of blame to go 'round. Anyway, this article seems very anti-MS and should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.