Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality?
I do not have numbers, but based on what I have read. municipal deployments have occured in cases where incumbents were not interested in providing modern internet access. What may happen is that once they see the minucipality building FTTH, they may suddently develop an interest in that city and deploy HFC and or DSL and then sue the city for reason X. The normal behaviour should be: "we'll gladly connect to the municipal system". A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage. In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality?
I do not have numbers, but based on what I have read. municipal deployments have occured in cases where incumbents were not interested in providing modern internet access.
What may happen is that once they see the minucipality building FTTH, they may suddently develop an interest in that city and deploy HFC and or DSL and then sue the city for reason X.
Well, this is a place where Road Runner already *being* built in HFC is a *feature* to me; I'm not going to yank their franchise agreement.
The normal behaviour should be: "we'll gladly connect to the municipal system".
Are there any US examples of that actually happening?
A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage.
I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem.
In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
<snip>
A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage.
I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem.
In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :) We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) <frnkblk@iname.com>wrote:
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay.
But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand.
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
<snip>
A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage.
I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem.
In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that.
Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
IIRC, there is some issue with bleedover of either the forward or return (optically modulated) RF wavelength with the data wavelength. Perhaps with better lasers this could be overcome in the future. Frank From: Jason Baugher [mailto:jason@thebaughers.com] Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 4:38 PM To: Frank Bulk (iname.com) Cc: Jay Ashworth; NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :) We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote: What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay. But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
<snip>
A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage.
I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem.
In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that. Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274 <tel:%2B1%20727%20647%201274>
For us, it would be the economics of the whole thing. When a 16x19.5 EDFA runs around $20k, it's much more cost effective to combine 1550nm onto 16 PON's than onto 16 AE runs. Unless the equipment costs were to fall drastically, there's no way it would ever fly. On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) <frnkblk@iname.com>wrote:
IIRC, there is some issue with bleedover of either the forward or return (optically modulated) RF wavelength with the data wavelength. Perhaps with better lasers this could be overcome in the future.****
** **
Frank****
** **
*From:* Jason Baugher [mailto:jason@thebaughers.com] *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2013 4:38 PM *To:* Frank Bulk (iname.com) *Cc:* Jay Ashworth; NANOG
*Subject:* Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?****
** **
Management has asked us why we can't do RF overlay on our AE system. :) We've had to explain a few times why that would be too expensive even if it were available because of the high cost of the amps/splitters/combiners to insert 1550nm onto every AE fiber.****
** **
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:****
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay.
But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand.
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:01 PM To: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>
<snip>
A good layer 2 deployment can support DHCP or PPPoE and thus be compatible with incumbents infrastructure. However, a good layer2 deployment won't have "RFoG" support and will prefer IPTV over the data channel (the australian model supports multicast). So cable companies without IPTV services may be at a disadvantage.
I think this depends on what handoffs my TE can provide at the customer prem.
In Canada, Rogers (cableco) has announced that they plan to go all IPTV instead of conventional TV channels.
Well, the MythTV people will be happy to hear that.
Or they would, if the content people would quit holding a gun to the heads of the transport people.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
****
** **
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Bulk (iname.com)" <frnkblk@iname.com>
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay.
But few IP TV providers will claim good profitability. And I don't believe any vendor has ActiveE and RFoG going down one strand.
Not an issue I'd missed. The suggestion of, I believe it was Owen, to run GPON over the home-run fiber, with the splitters at the headend, solves that problem rather nicely, though; the L3+ provider can do whatever they like; if they need GPON to deliver, they (or we) can provision the splitters, and patch through them, back to whatever OLT eqiuvalent they deliver from. In fact, I need to find out the pricing class of the GPON splitters; given what I gather the port count difference is between the line cards on, say, the Calix E7, I might do my own L2 service that way, since the Calix ONTs will take either. I'm working up a what, how and why writeup on this, given my personal set of tradeoffs; I hope to get it up by morning, so no one feels left out on the last Whacky Weekend before the conference (which, dammital, I can't attend, even though it's in Florida for the first time in a decade...). Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote:
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay.
I must be missing something here. Why would a triple play using IPTV and VOIP be unachievable in this model? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com>
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk (iname.com) wrote:
What's missing in this dialogue is the video component of an offering. Many customers like a triple (or quad) play because the price points are reasonable comparable to getting unbundled pricing from more than one provider, and they have just throat to choke and bill to pay.
I must be missing something here. Why would a triple play using IPTV and VOIP be unachievable in this model?
Available Providers. The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Available Providers.
The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company?
I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. If rural telco in Alabama or Mississippi can deliver triple play, surely a larger provider somewhere like NYC can do as well, no? -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com>
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Available Providers.
The City, remember, won't be doing L3, so we'd need to find someone who was doing that. You know how big a job it is to be a cable company?
I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services.
That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with Ethernet provider hand-off, and nothing at any higher layers.
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
If rural telco in Alabama or Mississippi can deliver triple play, surely a larger provider somewhere like NYC can do as well, no?
Well, I ain't no NYC, but... :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On 2/2/13 9:54 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I would think in this model that the city would be prohibited from providing those services. That is what I just said, yes, Brandon: the City would offer L1 optical home-run connectivity and optional L2 transport and aggregation with Ethernet provider hand-off, and nothing at any higher layers.
The L0 (ROW, poles & conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka "City" is also a consumer of "City 2 City" service above L2, and is also a consumer of "City 2 Subscriber" services above L2. Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude "City" as a provider. Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
The L0 (ROW, poles & conduits) provider, and in option #1 L1 connectivity provider, and in option #2 L2 transport and aggregation provider, aka "City" is also a consumer of "City 2 City" service above L2, and is also a consumer of "City 2 Subscriber" services above L2.
Creating the better platform for competitive access to the City's L(option(s)) infrastructure must not prelude "City" as a provider.
The City will be it's own customer for L1 ptp between our facilities, yes. We will also be a customer of the L1 service to provide the L2 service, and that MRC cost-recovery will be included in the L2 cost. While I realize that we could in turn be a competing L3 provider as a customer of the L1/2 provider, I'm loathe to go there if I'm not actually forced to; even moreso than the L2 bump, that's a *big* increase in labor and hence costs, in addition to which I've been convinced here that potential L3 providers will be less likely not to assume The Fix Is In in that case; the City's L3 provider getting an unfair break. If I can't get an LOI as suggested in the posting I just put up, then we may need to be the provider-of-last-resort, at a higher cost to continue to make coming in and competing as a provider. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567:capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee "He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible." Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580 "AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider" So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays". Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
Okay: South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article: http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee "He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible." Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/ Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/ How about a Canadian example you say? CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too. Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse? http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580 "AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider" So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well. Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays".
I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the "other" triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it?
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
Okay:
South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article:
http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee
"He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible."
Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based
Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video
Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/
Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/
How about a Canadian example you say?
CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too.
Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse?
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580
"AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider"
So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well.
Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Ross" <bross@pobox.com>
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about > Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays".
I don't know if that's true or not, but so what?
The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP.
Yeah; I'm not sure what Frank was worried about on this one, either. :-) Your citations were just what I needed, Brandon. Why did you think there was a problem, here, Frank? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays".
I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the "other" triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it?
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
Okay:
South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article:
http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567:
capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee
"He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible."
Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based
Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video
Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/
Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/
How about a Canadian example you say?
CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too.
Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse?
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580
"AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider"
So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well.
Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
Frank, One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. This would be a different kind of situation than I've seen attempted in the past but in general the content guys get very picky about how video delivery is done. I'd certainly not claim to be authoritative on this, but I've never seen it done and I have seen the content guys strike down shared head end systems in almost all cases. Also, apologies for the rash of emails since this is the first time I've been able to get back to this thread. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
Brandon:
My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible.
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays".
I don't know if that's true or not, but so what?
The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP.
If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it.
This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market.
And as far as the "other" triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it?
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
Okay:
South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article:
http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567 :
capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee
"He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible."
Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based
Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video
Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/
Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/
How about a Canadian example you say?
CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too.
Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse?
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580
"AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider"
So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well.
Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario.
You do really need to read the thread before you post. I already pointed out that there are several companies that will handle or aggregate programming for you. See here: http://www.itvdictionary.com/tv_content_aggregators.html And this company here: http://www.telechannel.tv/overview.php I'm no expert in this space, but as I've pointed out multiple times, there are probably 50-100 small service providers in the US that provide video programming to their communities. I guarantee you at least most of them don't negotiate with all of the content providers themselves, on an individual basis. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
Brandon, On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a
contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario.
You do really need to read the thread before you post.
There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for.
I already pointed out that there are several companies that will handle or aggregate programming for you.
See here:
And this company here:
http://www.telechannel.tv/**overview.php<http://www.telechannel.tv/overview.php>
I'm no expert in this space, but as I've pointed out multiple times, there are probably 50-100 small service providers in the US that provide video programming to their communities. I guarantee you at least most of them don't negotiate with all of the content providers themselves, on an individual basis.
There are way more than 100. NCTC has more than 1000 members themselves http://www.nctconline.org/
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for.
How is that different from what the aggregators that I've already pointed out are doing? Why does anyone need to resell anything, anyway, what we are talking about are service providers connected to this muni fiber network being able to deliver triple play to their subs. -- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
How is that different from what the aggregators that I've already pointed out are doing? Why does anyone need to resell anything, anyway, what we are talking about are service providers connected to this muni fiber network being able to deliver triple play to their subs.
Its not, that was kind of the point. What you're pointing out is NOT what I was saying is problematic. I work with companies that get there content from the coop or another aggregator every single day. This is fine and common as dirt: Video_content(from an aggregato or direct)--->Muni_operator-->End_user What I think Jay and some others were suggesting is: Video_content--->Muni_operator--->End_user AND/OR --->L1/L2 partner--->End_user That last bit where the content is being delivered to the customer of another operator that doesn't have a contract with either the content owner or an aggregator isn't (IMO) possible today. -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for.
I proposed it, and I immediately scratched the idea, when I found out that my notional ISP clients could themselves get it from such vendors to offer at retail. So we can stop trying to make that *particular* type of glue now. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Feb 4, 2013, at 13:46 , Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Brandon,
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Scott Helms wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a
contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario.
You do really need to read the thread before you post.
There are tons and tons and tons of organizations that will sell the operator of a network content to sell to that operator's subscribers directly. Most well known is the cable coop, who only exists to do just that. The problem is that what's been proposed is that the network operator be able to then turn around and offer those services as a whole sale level to another operator, on the same physical but not not layer 2, plant. That's what I don't think you can get contracts inked for.
Actually, as I understood what was proposed, you would bring Cable Coop and/or other such vendors into the colo space adjacent to the MMR and let them sell directly to the other service providers and/or customers. Owen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
Actually, as I understood what was proposed, you would bring Cable Coop and/or other such vendors into the colo space adjacent to the MMR and let them sell directly to the other service providers and/or customers.
I am of two minds at this point, on this topic. The goal of this project, lying just atop improving the city's position in the world, is to do so by making practical competition between service providers, to keep prices as low as possible. when I delve into the realm of things like this, some people could make a relatively defensible argument that I am disadvantaging ISPs who are smart enough to know about this sort of service on their own, by helping out those who are not. I'm not sure if that argument outweighs the opposing one, which is that I should be *trying* to advantage those smaller, less savvy operators, as they're the sort I want as providers. I think this particular point is one of opinion; I solicit such. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On the video side or the total data project? Both? On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
Actually, as I understood what was proposed, you would bring Cable Coop and/or other such vendors into the colo space adjacent to the MMR and let them sell directly to the other service providers and/or customers.
I am of two minds at this point, on this topic.
The goal of this project, lying just atop improving the city's position in the world, is to do so by making practical competition between service providers, to keep prices as low as possible.
when I delve into the realm of things like this, some people could make a relatively defensible argument that I am disadvantaging ISPs who are smart enough to know about this sort of service on their own, by helping out those who are not.
I'm not sure if that argument outweighs the opposing one, which is that I should be *trying* to advantage those smaller, less savvy operators, as they're the sort I want as providers.
I think this particular point is one of opinion; I solicit such.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
On the video side or the total data project? Both?
"The point of open fiber is to level the competitive marketplace as much as possible for provider. Which approach better services that goal: telling them all about all the providers who might make their services more complete, or not doing so?" Whether we provide shared space, treating such providers as other clients, and tying them all through an IX switch, is a subsidiary issue. Cheers -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Jay, On the data side that's certainly possible, but the content guys won't play ball on a shared L2 network. This actually undermines my position on how to architect your system, but sharing anything from one of the big content guys isn't something I've seen them allow as of yet. Organizations like TVN(Avail now?) or NCTC also require direct agreements and I've never seen them do anything at an aggregation level. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
On the video side or the total data project? Both?
"The point of open fiber is to level the competitive marketplace as much as possible for provider. Which approach better services that goal: telling them all about all the providers who might make their services more complete, or not doing so?"
Whether we provide shared space, treating such providers as other clients, and tying them all through an IX switch, is a subsidiary issue.
Cheers -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
On the data side that's certainly possible, but the content guys won't play ball on a shared L2 network. This actually undermines my position on how to architect your system, but sharing anything from one of the big content guys isn't something I've seen them allow as of yet. Organizations like TVN(Avail now?) or NCTC also require direct agreements and I've never seen them do anything at an aggregation level.
I'm aware of how pissy content providers/transport aggregators are likely to be; I'm been involved in the mythTV project for about 7 years. My point was that if any of them provide on-site equipment as, say, Akamai do (and yes, I realize we're discussing real-time now, not caching), if they have multiple clients in the same place, it's in *their* best interest not to provision multiple racks just because they have contracts with multiple providers; perhaps such racks would connect directly, and mentioning my IX was a red-herring; my apologies for confusing the matter. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
IMHO: level of clue is a minor point, as that can be bought. The fundamental issues for a project like this are funding, and intent. Well-funded organizations that lack intent are just problem children that like to tie up the courts to keep others from making progress. The target for a project like you describe is the organization with intent, but lacks funding. Yes some of those will have an easier time by not having to acquire the appropriate level of clue, but they may not last long if they don't. Part of your calculation has to be level of churn you are willing to impose on the city as the low-price competitors come and go. Tony
-----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra@baylink.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 8:09 AM To: NANOG Subject: How far must muni fiber operators protect ISP competition?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
Actually, as I understood what was proposed, you would bring Cable Coop and/or other such vendors into the colo space adjacent to the MMR and let them sell directly to the other service providers and/or customers.
I am of two minds at this point, on this topic.
The goal of this project, lying just atop improving the city's position in the world, is to do so by making practical competition between service providers, to keep prices as low as possible.
when I delve into the realm of things like this, some people could make a relatively defensible argument that I am disadvantaging ISPs who are smart enough to know about this sort of service on their own, by helping out those who are not.
I'm not sure if that argument outweighs the opposing one, which is that I should be *trying* to advantage those smaller, less savvy operators, as they're the sort I want as providers.
I think this particular point is one of opinion; I solicit such.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
IMHO: level of clue is a minor point, as that can be bought. The fundamental issues for a project like this are funding, and intent. Well-funded organizations that lack intent are just problem children that like to tie up the courts to keep others from making progress. The target for a project like you describe is the organization with intent, but lacks funding. Yes some of those will have an easier time by not having to acquire the appropriate level of clue, but they may not last long if they don't. Part of your calculation has to be level of churn you are willing to impose on the city as the low-price competitors come and go.
So you're saying I *should* provide all comers with the research in question, and deal with shared IX access right up front, even if that means I have multiple providers offering the same good as separate retailers... in the service of avoiding provider churn? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
I know of two state-wide head ends and one of them has the agreements in place for all their channels. So a new telco coming on needs only to some documents, to be sure, but there's not much (if anything) they need to negotiate directly with a content owner. Frank From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@zcorum.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:50 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: Brandon Ross; NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Frank, One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. This would be a different kind of situation than I've seen attempted in the past but in general the content guys get very picky about how video delivery is done. I'd certainly not claim to be authoritative on this, but I've never seen it done and I have seen the content guys strike down shared head end systems in almost all cases. Also, apologies for the rash of emails since this is the first time I've been able to get back to this thread. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com <mailto:frnkblk@iname.com> > wrote: Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com <mailto:bross@pobox.com> ] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays".
I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the "other" triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it?
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com <mailto:bross@pobox.com> ] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
Okay:
South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article:
http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content <http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567
&view=article&id=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee
"He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible."
Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based
Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video
Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/
Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/
How about a Canadian example you say?
CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too.
Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse?
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800 <http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580> &cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580
"AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider"
So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well.
Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 <tel:%2B1-404-635-6667> ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
I was a lead engineer on a satellite based aeronautical connectivity platform. We sent live video via multicast over our satellite data stream as multicast. The aircraft performed the join and all seat backs had/have live TV (not a demodulator on the plane like domestic carriers, true multicast video). The amount of pain we went through with encryption required by the content providers was nuts. I don't know how they do it on the ground, but we ended up with a sizable PKI at the end of the day.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com> Date: 02/09/2013 2:23 PM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Scott Helms' <khelms@zcorum.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>,Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I know of two state-wide head ends and one of them has the agreements in place for all their channels. So a new telco coming on needs only to some documents, to be sure, but there's not much (if anything) they need to negotiate directly with a content owner. Frank From: Scott Helms [mailto:khelms@zcorum.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 2:50 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: Brandon Ross; NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Frank, One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe its possible to get a contract with the bulk of the content owners in a wholesale scenario. This would be a different kind of situation than I've seen attempted in the past but in general the content guys get very picky about how video delivery is done. I'd certainly not claim to be authoritative on this, but I've never seen it done and I have seen the content guys strike down shared head end systems in almost all cases. Also, apologies for the rash of emails since this is the first time I've been able to get back to this thread. On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com <mailto:frnkblk@iname.com> > wrote: Brandon: My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE design, as an RF-overlay on a GPON network is likely more profitable than an IP TV service on top of GPON or ActiveE. And Jay wants to attract multiple providers, so he wants a fiber design that's as attractive to as many parties as reasonably possible. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com <mailto:bross@pobox.com> ] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 9:56 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG; Jay Ashworth Subject: RE: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays".
I don't know if that's true or not, but so what? The concern was that providers would be unable to provide television services across this muni fiber infrastructure and that customers would demand triple play. I showed that they absolutely can provide this service by doing it across IP. If a provider can't make money at it, then they don't have to provide it. This whole exercise, I thought, was about removing the tyranny of the monopoly of the last mine so that these other innovations could take place in an open market. And as far as the "other" triple play, it's even more well established that delivery of voice over IP can be done economically. Or do you need me to send you URLs of companies that do it to prove it?
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com <mailto:bross@pobox.com> ] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP.
Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself.
Okay:
South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article:
http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content <http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567
&view=article&id=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee
"He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible."
Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based
Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video
Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/
Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/
How about a Canadian example you say?
CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too.
Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse?
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800 <http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580> &cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580
"AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider"
So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well.
Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 <tel:%2B1-404-635-6667> ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On 03/02/13 05:55, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about Internet and network design, but not much about the other two "plays".
I've certainly heard FTTH deployers mention that RFoG was important because of the impact on take-rates, which are typically the key variable in the economics. A lot of people have installed gear and subscribed channels and even internal co-ax, and it's helpful if they can plug it in the "telly port" and the football justworks on all three TVs.
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 3:53 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Perhaps I live in a different world, but just about all of the small to midsize service providers I work with offer triple play today, and nearly all of them are migrating their triple play services to IP. Really. Citations? I'd love to see it play that way, myself. Okay:
South Central Rural Telephone Glasgow, KY http://www.scrtc.com/ Left side of page, "Digital TV service". See this news article:
http://www.wcluradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15567: capacity-crowd-hears-good-report-at-scrtc-annuan-mee
"He also reported that SCRTC is continuing to upgrade our services, converting customers to the new IPTV service and trying to get as much fiber optic cable built as possible."
Camellia Communications Greenville, AL http://camelliacom.com/services/ctv-dvr.html Note the models of set-top boxes they are using are IP based
Griswold Cooperative Telephone Griswold, IA http://www.griswoldtelco.com/griswold-coop-iptv-video
Farmer's Mutual Coopeative Telephone Moulton, IA http://farmersmutualcoop.com/
Citizens Floyd, VA http://www.citizens.coop/
How about a Canadian example you say?
CoopTel Valcourt, QB http://www.cooptel.qc.ca/en-residentiel-tele-guidesusager.php Check out the models of set-top boxes here too.
Oh, also, have you heard of ATT U-Verse?
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26580
"AT&T U-verse TV is the only 100 percent Internet Protocol-based television (IPTV) service offered by a national service provider"
So even the likes of AT&T, in this scheme, could buy fiber paths to their subs and provide TV service. I'm pretty sure AT&T knows how to deliver voice services over IP as well.
Do you want more examples? I bet I can come up with 50 small/regional telecom companies that are providing TV services over IP in North America if I put my mind to it.
participants (12)
-
Alex Harrowell -
Brandon Ross -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Frank Bulk -
Frank Bulk (iname.com)
-
Jason Baugher -
Jay Ashworth -
Jean-Francois Mezei -
Owen DeLong -
Scott Helms -
Tony Hain -
Warren Bailey