DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just read about the new Google Fiber STB. Here is the what they claim:

"Google Fiber comes with a set-top box it calls a TV box, a network box or modem and a storage box or DVR. The TV box has eight tuners so viewers can record eight shows at once; it is fully integrated with online video and has a Wi-Fi access point built in so it turns every TV into a Wi-Fi router, meaning no more dead spots in the basement. The TV box also has Bluetooth, so viewers can use Bluetooth-enabled stereo headphones to watch TV without disturbing others.

The storage box stores 2 TB of content, or up to 500 hours of HD programming. The network provides high-speed wireless connections in the home, including a firewall for data security."


Interesting that Google can have something with these features for a company that has never produced a STB before. If they pull it off, it works well and is basically bug free it makes you wonder why after all these years the D can't come out with a new receiver that come close to working well.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
16,344 Posts
There's no reason they can't technically, but it would be complicated. Most subscribers are on a setup now that is limited to 8 tuners. Google's solution is a different beast. IPTV is not really comparable to cable or satellite, and Google's network isn't comparable to most IPTV providers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,632 Posts
dpeters11 said:
There's no reason they can't technically, but it would be complicated.
Good point, let's face it, D* doesn't do "complicated" well.

Most subscribers are on a setup now that is limited to 8 tuners.
Could you clarify that statement?

IPTV is not really comparable to cable or satellite, and Google's network isn't comparable to most IPTV providers.
Isn't NetFlix IPTV? My NF PQ is as good as D*'s 1080i. Going thru my Sammy BD players.

Rich
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,482 Posts
dpeters11 said:
IPTV is not really comparable to cable or satellite, and Google's network isn't comparable to most IPTV providers.
The technology used isn't the issue. The issue is the channels and services provided. The end of the DTH satellite model is coming in the US and DIRECTV needs to adapt to that reality. Nobody is going to have sympathy if they claim they are at a technical disadvantage.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
16,344 Posts
I don't think many DirecTV customers have a SWM16. Most SWM customers have a SWM LNB. I don't think your setup is what would be considered typical. if they came out with an 8 tuner box, a lot of customers would either have to give up their other receivers for a RVU client or get a SWM16.

Netflix isn't really IPTV. I'm not talking PQ here. I'm talking the actual differences of your TV service coming through the Internet connection, like FIOS or Google. Uverse I don't think compares since it's FTTN and copper to the premises. When you've got a gigabit fiber connection to the house, that tends to open up the possibilites.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,632 Posts
dpeters11 said:
I don't think many DirecTV customers have a SWM16. Most SWM customers have a SWM LNB. I don't think your setup is what would be considered typical. if they came out with an 8 tuner box, a lot of customers would either have to give up their other receivers for a RVU client or get a SWM16.
I've often wondered about the "average" sub. Wonder how they'd arrive at that figure?

Netflix isn't really IPTV. I'm not talking PQ here. I'm talking the actual differences of your TV service coming through the Internet connection, like FIOS or Google. Uverse I don't think compares since it's FTTN and copper to the premises. When you've got a gigabit fiber connection to the house, that tends to open up the possibilites.
Without trying to start an argument, if NF isn't IPTV, what is it? The streaming content, I mean. Don't they fall into the same category as Hulu or Amazon?

Rich
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Would be nice to have WiFi access points and bluetooth in every box. IMHO the problem they have is that they are using 15 year old tech and keep trying to heap new features on it. It may be time for them to rethink the design of their receivers instead for trying to update something that was originally designed for simple a single tuner system.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
16,344 Posts
"Rich" said:
I've often wondered about the "average" sub. Wonder how they'd arrive at that figure?

Without trying to start an argument, if NF isn't IPTV, what is it? The streaming content, I mean. Don't they fall into the same category as Hulu or Amazon?

Rich
I guess I never considered those to be IPTV. Services like FIOS and around here, FiOptics I did, where the traditional channel feeds are delivered to the home via Internet. It of course is possible that my definition is incorrect, but I've never thought of Internet streaming like Netflix, Amazon etc to be in the same term, but even FIOS could be considered Internet Streaming, just more restricted on who can see it and a different source.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,632 Posts
dpeters11 said:
I guess I never considered those to be IPTV. Services like FIOS and around here, FiOptics I did, where the traditional channel feeds are delivered to the home via Internet. It of course is possible that my definition is incorrect, but I've never thought of Internet streaming like Netflix, Amazon etc to be in the same term, but even FIOS could be considered Internet Streaming, just more restricted on who can see it and a different source.
That's the way I look at it. Don't know if it's correct, but whatever comes to me by the Net, I consider "Internet provided content".

Rich
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
42,754 Posts
Bandwidth is the key/limit to everything.

Fiber to the home is expensive. Once in place bandwidth is almost unlimited.
Need more bandwidth? Add another laser to the fiber. A year ago I was at a fiber network company and they said they'd gotten 17 lasers working on one fiber.

What is IPTV really?
FiOS uses one laser to supply all the TV channels at the same time. Not too different from digital cable.

U-verse only sends you the channels you request, but it isn't that different from cable, in that you can only pick from the same "list" as cable/FiOS. What's there for streaming, and delivered over an IP network.

Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc., are an "anytime delivery", where you're not tied to the same "list" as cable/U-who/FiOS.

The TV box has eight tuners
If it's IP delivered, there are no "tuners", since there is nothing to "tune to".
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,482 Posts
dpeters11 said:
...but even FIOS could be considered Internet Streaming, just more restricted on who can see it and a different source.
FIOS isn't internet streaming at all. Their TV signals are delivered via QAM.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,482 Posts
veryoldschool said:
FiOS uses one laser to supply all the TV channels at the same time. Not too different from digital cable.
The technical difference between FIOS and modern cable TV (it is folly to distinguish between analog and digital cable) is more lineal feet of copper coated steel on the cable TV side.
 

·
Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.
Joined
·
15,541 Posts
harsh said:
The technical difference between FIOS and modern cable TV (it is folly to distinguish between analog and digital cable) is more lineal feet of copper coated steel on the cable TV side.
Which has an effect.

But don't some FIOSes bring fibre right into the STB?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
42,754 Posts
harsh said:
The technical difference between FIOS and modern cable TV (it is folly to distinguish between analog and digital cable) is more lineal feet of copper coated steel on the cable TV side.
You seem to have a limited view/understanding.
FiOS uses three lasers.
Cable needs to select which part of the coax [bandwidth] is down streaming, and which part is up streaming, so they're basically using the bandwidth of one laser to do everything.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,482 Posts
Laxguy said:
But don't some FIOSes bring fibre right into the STB?
To my knowledge, no TV carrier is using FTTD (Fiber To The Desk). I'm pretty sure FIOS is still FTTH (Fiber To The Home).
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,482 Posts
veryoldschool said:
You seem to have a limited view/understanding.
FiOS uses three lasers.
Cable needs to select which part of the coax [bandwidth] is down streaming, and which part is up streaming, so they're basically using the bandwidth of one laser to do everything.
As you pointed out, whether you use one LASER or three, the media is the same. Combine that with the fact that both use QAM technology to modulate their TV signals and the difference is negligible.

The sad fact is that FIOS ultimately can't offer any more channels* than cable can as long as they utilize QAM.

* cable will catch up as they eliminate analog channels.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
42,754 Posts
harsh said:
The sad fact is that FIOS ultimately can't offer any more channels* than cable can as long as they utilize QAM.

* cable will catch up as they eliminate analog channels.
I disagree, which shouldn't come as any surprise.
FiOS has the option of adding another laser and doubling their current channels. Cable doesn't.

You really miss the advantage of fiber, don't you?

"One laser" acts like "one channel" on cable.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
24,482 Posts
veryoldschool said:
Fiber to the router is all that's needed.
Absolutely, but until FIOS goes to streaming channels, that's not an option.

FIOS was (and probably still is) fiber to the Optical Network Terminal (ONT) on the outside of the home. From there, they come into the house with Ethernet, POTS and coax in the old-fashioned way.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/12565

They may have subsequently combined the TCP/IP onto the coax with MoCA but it still travels over coax as it passes into the home.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top