4 ms·

Eugh, more abuse of the term IPTV. IPTV is a standardised term requiring a managed QoS network (i.e not the Internet) so you can match the QoS provided by manag

by kierank 14y ago

Eugh, more abuse of the term IPTV. IPTV is a standardised term requiring a managed QoS network (i.e not the Internet) so you can match the QoS provided by managed RF spectrum or dedicated cable frequencies.

drakaal 14y ago
IPTV does not require mangaged QoS -Brandon Wirtz Google me I know more about IPTV than you do. (or just about anyone on the planet)
- kierank 14y ago
  If you knew more about IPTV than I did then you'd know that there are internationally standardised definitions for what "IPTV" is designated as compared to "Internet TV".
  - drakaal 14y ago
    QoS of the network is not a requirement for IPTV. IPTV is a definition for Broadcast like experience to a Television display. Several "IPTV Named Standards" work over Multicast and require "IP Traffic Quality Metrics" this is not "QoS" PS I authored many of those standards... (I was also on the committee for BD, h264, VC1, and a few other SMPTE standards)
    - kierank 14y ago
      Now you're just splitting hairs about the definition of QoS, which again is defined in standards and fits in with the standardised definition of IPTV. I'm not going to quote it all because the chances are there is another standard with slightly different wording that can be construed to mean something else. It doesn't change the fact that the article is describing an "over the top" network where content is delivered over the public internet which isn't suitable for a broadcast-like television experience (start torrenting on another machine and you'll see why). It also ignores the fact that the content will almost certainly be delivered in low-bitrate/poorly encoded and half-framerate (for full frame/field rate material) like every OTT service out there. Try watching sports at 25/30fps on a television and your headache will tell you that it's not a television experience.
      - drakaal 14y ago
        You are horribly ill informed. Xbox Live, Hulu, all of those are at bit rates and quality roughly what a Sports offering would be doing, and work just fine. I'm not splitting hairs, you just have never worked with a CDN, or done any real work with a real budget. The tech and pipes to do this has been around for 7+ years.
        kierank 14y ago
        First of all that’s a lovely ad hominem based on absolutely zero knowledge of the projects I have worked on. I have led teams for Pay-TV deployments on satellite and OTA with budgets orders of magnitude larger than any live streaming package and deployed hundreds of television channels. Of course you make the same claim again which I’ve had time after time from engineers like Microsoft, Google etc who think web is the be-all and end-all. I use the following technical arguments each time to bring these guys back to earth. First of all you totally ignore the point I made about high bandwidth usage affecting the viewing experience. Do you really want to sit there on Patch Tuesday waiting for the video on your TV to buffer because your PC in the other room is downloading updates? At best you’ll see huge quality fluctuations as the adaptive streaming tries to react. At worst you’ll miss the goal waiting for the stream to buffer. A managed network gives you a similar broadcast experience to licensed RF spectrum. All the web services offering “HD” are based around a simple concept – you can get acceptable quality at web bitrates when you’re delivering p24 content with buffer times of around 5-10 seconds (the usual chunk length in an adaptive streaming system), which gives you a huge VBV to work with and a huge keyframe interval. Contrast this with broadcast and its ~0.5-2 second channel change times. Good luck convincing users to wait 5-10 seconds to change the channel (channel-surfing is part of a television experience). The fact is to deliver p50/60 content for sports you need significantly higher bitrates than web bitrates – with current bitrates you’re just watching blocks all day because of the necessary smaller keyframe intervals and VBV. It is nowhere near to a sports offering that people are paying the equivalent of a cable subscription for - even more so on a larger screen. That doesn’t even take into consideration the poor quality of web encoders. Overall latency is nowhere near television-like. Web streams are 30s to 1 minute delayed compared to television streams thanks to CDN buffering and adaptive streaming chunks. Different viewers in a household end up getting streams that are hugely out of phase (demonstrated during the Olympics where a race on one stream hadn’t even started when it had finished on another). Your neighbours have already finished celebrating the goal by the time you see it. The technology to deliver web streams to relatively small numbers of users has been around but once you get to large numbers the capacity is not there – it’s one reason adaptive streaming is useful; once your ISP runs out of capacity you can be adaptively streamed to a low bitrate but still get a picture. In my city (Bristol, UK) on cable, YouTube interconnects are congested and only 240p works as result. It’s no surprise live streaming OTT is provided as an add-on to Pay-TV – operators know it isn’t good enough yet to charge for as a standalone package. Some operators are going to use streaming to deliver their channels because of problems with multicast but they’ll be able to use DiffServ to maintain a decent experience.
josephlord 14y ago
I think the battle is lost on that one. When working in these areas I tried to distinguish between "Managed Network IPTV" and "Internet TV" when the difference mattered and tried to educate those discussing these issues. "IPTV" by itself is ambiguous and it can normally be understood by context.

by kierank 14y ago

drakaal 14y ago

IPTV does not require mangaged QoS -Brandon Wirtz Google me I know more about IPTV than you do. (or just about anyone on the planet)

kierank 14y ago
If you knew more about IPTV than I did then you'd know that there are internationally standardised definitions for what "IPTV" is designated as compared to "Internet TV".
- drakaal 14y ago
  QoS of the network is not a requirement for IPTV. IPTV is a definition for Broadcast like experience to a Television display. Several "IPTV Named Standards" work over Multicast and require "IP Traffic Quality Metrics" this is not "QoS" PS I authored many of those standards... (I was also on the committee for BD, h264, VC1, and a few other SMPTE standards)
  - kierank 14y ago
    Now you're just splitting hairs about the definition of QoS, which again is defined in standards and fits in with the standardised definition of IPTV. I'm not going to quote it all because the chances are there is another standard with slightly different wording that can be construed to mean something else. It doesn't change the fact that the article is describing an "over the top" network where content is delivered over the public internet which isn't suitable for a broadcast-like television experience (start torrenting on another machine and you'll see why). It also ignores the fact that the content will almost certainly be delivered in low-bitrate/poorly encoded and half-framerate (for full frame/field rate material) like every OTT service out there. Try watching sports at 25/30fps on a television and your headache will tell you that it's not a television experience.
    - drakaal 14y ago
      You are horribly ill informed. Xbox Live, Hulu, all of those are at bit rates and quality roughly what a Sports offering would be doing, and work just fine. I'm not splitting hairs, you just have never worked with a CDN, or done any real work with a real budget. The tech and pipes to do this has been around for 7+ years.
      - kierank 14y ago
        First of all that’s a lovely ad hominem based on absolutely zero knowledge of the projects I have worked on. I have led teams for Pay-TV deployments on satellite and OTA with budgets orders of magnitude larger than any live streaming package and deployed hundreds of television channels. Of course you make the same claim again which I’ve had time after time from engineers like Microsoft, Google etc who think web is the be-all and end-all. I use the following technical arguments each time to bring these guys back to earth. First of all you totally ignore the point I made about high bandwidth usage affecting the viewing experience. Do you really want to sit there on Patch Tuesday waiting for the video on your TV to buffer because your PC in the other room is downloading updates? At best you’ll see huge quality fluctuations as the adaptive streaming tries to react. At worst you’ll miss the goal waiting for the stream to buffer. A managed network gives you a similar broadcast experience to licensed RF spectrum. All the web services offering “HD” are based around a simple concept – you can get acceptable quality at web bitrates when you’re delivering p24 content with buffer times of around 5-10 seconds (the usual chunk length in an adaptive streaming system), which gives you a huge VBV to work with and a huge keyframe interval. Contrast this with broadcast and its ~0.5-2 second channel change times. Good luck convincing users to wait 5-10 seconds to change the channel (channel-surfing is part of a television experience). The fact is to deliver p50/60 content for sports you need significantly higher bitrates than web bitrates – with current bitrates you’re just watching blocks all day because of the necessary smaller keyframe intervals and VBV. It is nowhere near to a sports offering that people are paying the equivalent of a cable subscription for - even more so on a larger screen. That doesn’t even take into consideration the poor quality of web encoders. Overall latency is nowhere near television-like. Web streams are 30s to 1 minute delayed compared to television streams thanks to CDN buffering and adaptive streaming chunks. Different viewers in a household end up getting streams that are hugely out of phase (demonstrated during the Olympics where a race on one stream hadn’t even started when it had finished on another). Your neighbours have already finished celebrating the goal by the time you see it. The technology to deliver web streams to relatively small numbers of users has been around but once you get to large numbers the capacity is not there – it’s one reason adaptive streaming is useful; once your ISP runs out of capacity you can be adaptively streamed to a low bitrate but still get a picture. In my city (Bristol, UK) on cable, YouTube interconnects are congested and only 240p works as result. It’s no surprise live streaming OTT is provided as an add-on to Pay-TV – operators know it isn’t good enough yet to charge for as a standalone package. Some operators are going to use streaming to deliver their channels because of problems with multicast but they’ll be able to use DiffServ to maintain a decent experience.

josephlord 14y ago

I think the battle is lost on that one. When working in these areas I tried to distinguish between "Managed Network IPTV" and "Internet TV" when the difference mattered and tried to educate those discussing these issues. "IPTV" by itself is ambiguous and it can normally be understood by context.