Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Highspeed Downloads Via DTV 148

Posted by chrisd from the something-newish dept.
NYCadAdept writes " E-insight reports that Clear Channel Communications has begun to provide high speed downloads in Cincinnati, via the broadcast DTV signal of WKRC-TV. You have to use proprietary hardware/software; and you still need a modem for up-stream communications, but it is an interesting alternative for those beyond the reach of xDSL."I don't want to sound rigid, but these frequencies were given in exchange for the analog ones, so I don't see how they can do this without breaking thier agreement with the FCC.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Highspeed Downloads Via DTV More

Highspeed Downloads Via DTV

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm (Score:1)

    by rsborg ( 111459 )
    256k/56k is not too bad if the price is right, unfortunately, there's no information.

    For $45/month, using cable, I get 1.5M/128k...

    At least it's another option for those in the "sticks"
    • It'd be 256k/33k since the upstream won't run at 56k - unless they supply a digital line at your end :)

      -ben

      • It'd be 256k/33k since the upstream won't run at 56k - unless they supply a digital line at your end :)

        Sorry, I was assuming that there was a 56K connection using v.90 technology (aka a 56k capable modem). In reality it would probably be something like 40-48k, I guess.

        This does bring up an interesting point, however... it seems that you would have to dialup to even get access (how else would you send the http request?)

        • Exactly, you would need a form of dialup to send your request, so your upload speed is dictated by your modem. With a V.90 modem, the 56k is only downstream. Due to the way V.90 works, the sending end of the 56k stream has to have a digital line (such as a T1/ISDN/PRI). So, you could only get 33.6k upload. 33.6k is the fastest a modem can go unless one end is digital.
        • It'd be 256k/33k since the upstream won't run at 56k - unless they supply a digital line at your end :)

          Sorry, I was assuming that there was a 56K connection using v.90 technology (aka a 56k capable modem). In reality it would probably be something like 40-48k, I guess.

          Upstream for v.90 _at best_ is 33.6 as originally posted, not 40-48k (which is a likely downstream speed).

        • Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

          by skullY ( 23384 )
          Sorry, I was assuming that there was a 56K connection using v.90 technology (aka a 56k capable modem). In reality it would probably be something like 40-48k, I guess.
          Er, no, the parent is still right. On a v.90 connection, you really get a 56k down/33k up connection, as the 56k only because your ISP has a digital line (ISDN PRI/BRI, T1, etc) so the signal only goes through one A/D connversion. If your local telco uses an analog connection between CO's (USWest did this around 1998 or so where I was at the time) then the signal will go A->D->A->D, which also ruin 56k downstreams and force 33.6 or lower.

          So, unless you want to pay for ISDN or fiber to your home, you'll have to be satisfied with 33.6k and 200ms ping times.

        • V.92 will do 48K upstream...in theory!

          Good luck finding a ocmpatible supplier though...
  • Stuff like this really pisses me off. First of all, TV wastes tons of spectrum as it is, but when you license someone spectrum for a TV station it should not be used for purpouses such as this. The people doing this have no doubt already looked it over legally and therefore there probaly will not be any action against them. Unbelievable.
    • I agree, but with HDTV, most of the spectrum assigned to WKRC-TV isn't going to be used anyways. Most channels get enough spectrum for ~16 HDTV channels, so unless the station has 16 channels to broadcast, most of the spectrum they have will be put to waste anyways. I'd rather have (possibly) cheap broadband than wasted spectrum. What would more appropriate to use the spectrum for, anyways?
      • Cue technologies did a similar thing with the RDS portion of the FM radio spectrum.

        RDS allows stations to broadcast things like song title, station call letters, and a coded number telling the type of music/program being played (e.g. Rock, Soft-Rock, Jazz, etc.)

        Most stations don't broadcast RDS (in the US, anyway) so Cue went around and paid stations to use that wee bit of binary bandwidth to use as 1-way paging. Don't know the status recently, though, because the last time I looked into it it was two years ago.
        • Cue is in bankruptcy after losing their single biggest customer a few months ago (I understand it was a million dollar/month acct.). They were in default of their subcarrier leases on Clear Channel FM stations as of November and were disconnected in early December. They were given one more chance to pay and were turned back on a few days later. Alas, they couldn't come up with the $$ and were disconnected for the (final time) last week. I would say that as of right now, they're dead in the water....
      • Most channels get enough spectrum for ~16 HDTV channels...

        Huh? Where did you get that idea? Every channel gets exactly enough spectrum for exactly one 1080i HD channel at 19.2 Mb/sec. Any data or additional channels cuts into that bit budget. They can run a 720P signal and a good quality 480P, or 6 really crappy 480P channels like PAX. ANY data transmission costs HDTV quality...and HDTV quality was the whole point in giving the spectrum to the broadcasters in the first place! Do not let these jerks get away with ripping off our public airways!

      • Please post a link that shows that most stations get enough bandwidth for more than one HD channel. I work as a computer/digital broadcast tech at a PBS station and we only get 19.39MB for digital TV. If we are willing to skimp a little on HD quality we can run 14MB for HD, which will allow is to multiplex a 4MB SD channel. The rest of the space is used for PSIP (similar to a digital satellite guide) and other information that has to be transmitted.
  • just think if the encryption/secutiry on this was broken, you could see all kinds of other people's traffic. Also, how much bandwidth for all users is there? I mean, each connection cannot get 256k!

  • Won't Work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elbles ( 516589 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:11AM (#2783638)
    The only problem I can see with the service is that it relies on a 56k connection for an uplink. Does this work? Yes, but it won't satisfy the requirements of many users. I could imagine the latency could become a problem, especially when gaming, and performing other tasks requiring high speeds in both directions. Back in the day, cable providers tried this, and it didn't work for them; what makes them think it will work now?

    • Re:Won't Work (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AgTiger ( 458268 )
      Consider that it's Clear Channel communications, one of the big five groups that own an ungodly amount of radio stations. They don't want people who want high speed communications between each other because that means one of them is a content provider, and that's the entertainment cartel's turf. So, by setting up the system such that the only speedy direction is "down", they better their odds that everyone subscribing to their service will be a good little _consumer_. Okay, so I'm a cynic.
    • It worked for Satellite companies, and still does for the customers who can't afford bi-directional service.

      The point is to provide service where there is none.

      My father lives two and a half hours from Cincinnati and WKRC but gets a picture perfect signal. He also can't get cable.

      He uses 56K, but would like to try this. He only cares about the download speed anyways.
      • " It worked for Satellite companies, and still does for the customers who can't afford bi-directional service. "

        Maybe for very small values of "works". The DPC solution really is buggy as hell but maybe these guys will do better.
    • The people this will service will likely have two options: 56k up and downstream OR 56k up and a faster Satellite/DTV downstream. Given these two choices, it wouldn't be a tough decision for me. The 56k up is a constant either way - why not have faster downloads?

    • Re:Won't Work (Score:2, Informative)

      by onthevirge ( 254457 )
      I'm actually using the service. I got on as a beta tester for the service. Unfortunately, I can't get anything less than Satellite (at least until the phone company get's off their duffs and installs a dslam in the mini C.O. about a mile away). Here's the skinny from a user's perspective.
      First and foremost, it beats 56k (53K) downstream, even though I can't get much higher than 256Kb right now (using the indoor antenna that came with the kit).
      The price is, IMHO, a bit steep ($40.00) based on the fact that you still need an ISP, and also an additional analog line (unless you don't like to talk to people). To the people in the area that can't get Cable or DSL, that equates to about (ouch) another $45.00 on top ($15.00 if you don't like talking to people). However, if you were up watching WKRC at 3am (the only time I saw a call for beta testers), you could have gotten in on the beta tester price (which I did), and that made it reasonable.
      The upside is that it doesn't require you to drop about $200.00+ on satellite equip, and doesn't seem to have rain fade problems.
      The technology itself is actually a no brainer (the spectrum's already there, why not use it), but the interface app leaves a bit to be desired.
      This service is also only good for surfing, and maybe some peer to peer swap services (if people don't mind the fact that you can only push 33.k up to them). Net games won't get it based on the diff in speed up/down.
      They are basically creating a tunneled connection once you connect to your ISP, so they can add the appropriate re-direct info to the packet.
      Bigger on the downside: they currently won't allow the connection to be shared, and it only works on a Win98SE install, WinMe, or Win2KPro. The interface app (that controls the DTV card, etc.) is pretty weak at this point(read: BSOD on occasion), but they are currently upgrading both the H/W and Software, and I haven't had time to schedule it.
      But, overall, at the beta user price, it's a good alternative to 56k. Will I chuck it out the window the minute the phone company gets a dslam close enough to me to go DSL? You bet.
    • The one major difference between this and satellite or cable-modem systems is that it is truly wireless. With satellite systems it is wireless, but you still need a fixed dish. 56K dialup can compete with that in just about any location. Radio waves do not require a fixed dish, so they can be accessed from mobile locations, such as cars. If this is marketed properly, for situations where upstream bandwidth is extremely limited or even nonexistant, this could be a great thing for certain mobile uses. Imagine being able to make a quick 1 minute phone call on your mobile phone and then getting Sgt. Peppers streamed to you in your car. That is the killer app, in my opinion.
      • Imagine being able to make a quick 1 minute phone call on your mobile phone and then getting Sgt. Peppers streamed to you in your car. That is the killer app, in my opinion.

        I've been running your "killer app" for nearly a decade. It's been around longer than that, actually. Check this out... I make a quick 1 minute phone call on my mobile phone to the radio station DJ and, most of the time, they start streaming my requested song to my car very shortly. It's called FM Radio; check it out. Granted, there can be a little bit of latency after request submission, but it works quite well. And other listeners in broadcast range receive the fruits of my excellent musical taste!
  • SkyStream [skystream.com] already provides "Internet delivery over DTV", in their own words. DTV Internet is spreading slowly but surely, VisionConsult is looking into Internet@Digital.TV [visionconsult.com]. In Europe, Internet over digital TV set-top boxes where available as early as 1990 according to Re:Think [re-think.com] (see the section entitled "Case Study: Digital TV Set-Top Boxes).

  • Its easy ... Its not in the agreement (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MacRonin ( 112572 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:16AM (#2783655) Homepage
    As sick as it sounds from a legal perspective its easy. If I remember correctly very few (if any) of the usage restrictions/promises were in the formal agreement. They were all just verbal promises.

    Except for the bad publicity there is no downside for them. We can bitch and complain but since our wonderful leaders didn't see fit to put these restrictions in any formal agreement there is really nothing to enforce, Unfortunately this is exactly what the pundits said would happen.

    Now if they take the bad publicity seriously enough we might convince them to actually do some of what they promised but I doubt they will do it all.

    • My understanding is that the only requirement is that they provide one channel of no-charge video at no less than 4:3 480i mode. This would use a very small chunk of the spectrum available. Yes, it takes 6MHz of RF to do this in analog mode (480i 4:3 is the current standard) but the FCC is giving the new spectrum on a MHz per MHz basis, i.e. the digital stations get 6MHz to work with.

      Also, I see this as being a terrestrial counterpart to DirecPC, which is DirecTV's inbound-only internet service. AFAIK, it is not all that well received, with cable, DSL and Starband collectively whooping DirecPC's ass.

      I don't think it will work.
  • Nice to see a spare digital signal used to benefit another form of media, in this case the internet. However, this just seems to be a glaring opportunity for individuals in Cincinnati to hack the signal for free. Seriously, how long could it be before someone makes an open source version of their proprietary code? How about a PCI card that has the same functionality as theirs? Perhaps someone could point to a more technical article?

    • It's a downstream media. No upstream at all. So you can hack a conection, theoretically, but you won't have anywhere to dial in, to send requests. So you can browse the web, but only what someone else is browsing at that moment. Not veyr useful in my book.
  • Actually they were GIVEN to them, under the assumtion that they would give back their old ones, but I had read they the TV stations were refuseing to GIVE back the old freq's, instead they wanted to SELL them back, under the guise of "recouping costs" of switching. Course orginally they were GIVEN the freq's to cover the costs. Damn, this corp BS really pisses me off, some people just don't know when they have it good enough. Oh well, they will probably get their way and the tax payers will just foot the bill.
  • the only good thing tocome out of clear channel radio that i've ever heard was their sept 11th coverage, i listened nonstop for weeks, after that though it's not worth it, as for their service well.. heh talk about entering the wrong market. i live in cinci, where dsl and cable modem service providers are not in short supply, who wants to tie up their phone line and travel at segway speeds when you can have a better service, that works with everything you already have, for most likely less money .. i've been very pleased with time warner here, they beat the hell out of comcast back in indy wehre i'm from..
    • I also live in cincy...

      you would be suprised where WKRC goes that cable and dsl services don't.

      Actually where my father lives a good phone line is hard to come by, but the TV is a-ok.

      As for clear channel radio... don't listen to 700 WLW they will warp your mind into a Nazi.
  • The article implies that they are squeezing the downloads into "latent" portions of the DTV signal. I can only assume that this is equivelent to providing some signal in an analog TV channel by including information in the "empty space" between each frame of video. I think that is how SAP (second audio path IIRC) was added to the old analog signals.

    I'm sure the DTV spec has some extra room padded into it for the sake of future growth. Some of it is probably unalocated for now and can be used if anyone cares to. If the DTV spec is ever updated to require that that "latent" region be used for something, the service will probably go away. It is really not likely to be a long term solution for anyone, but more of a stopgap measure for people who desparately need it.

    Think about it:

    • This technology is only going to be available in urban areas
    • Bandwidth will drop off with distance
    • There is probably a limit to the amount of "latent" bandwith that can be piggybacked on anyway.

    Any hey, maybe they are using Steganograpy [slashdot.org] to encode the data seamlessly into the video signal. :-)

    • The article implies that they are squeezing the downloads into "latent" portions of the DTV signal.

      Well, what I want to know is why can't they do this with existing analog signals instead of forcing users to upgrade their television sets? So says hut.fi [www.hut.fi]:


      While the 525 lines in a complete NTSC television picture may seem impressive (after all VGA has only 480) there's a catch. Approximately 100 lines are lost to timing information and retracing. Only about 425 lines make it to the screen.

      Available on every analog TV channel is 100 lines, which could theoretically be digitized and used for downloads. If I did my math correctly, that's (60MHz (refresh rate) / 525) * 100 = 11MHz of spare data. Assuming an average of 50 usable channels, 571MHz unused TV spectrum is wasted. I hope they put it to use before trying to develop incompatible standards to do the same thing.

      • Blockquoth the poster:

        Available on every analog TV channel is 100 lines,

        Um, yeah, if you don't mind destroying analog reception for all the legacy TVs out there... after all,

        Approximately 100 lines are lost to timing information and retracing.

        meaning those 100 lines are being used, just not to transmit the picture data.



        Or I might just be talking about something where I have no actual technical competence. :)

        • The vertical blanking interval has been used for data transmission for years. Install a TV tuner card in a Windows PC and you'll see exactly what is involved. The idea was "enhanced TV". I managed to access a few programs that used this, but for the most part, it's dead. DirecTV and Dish Network and a lot of cable system stripped off the VBI information - they claimed that it was not intentionally, but the truth is that they didn't want any datastreams as compatition to their data offerings.

      • Re:Maybe not that bad (Score:2, Informative)

        by LocalH ( 28506 )
        That's a bad quote. Approximately 100 lines are used for timing information and retracing. Go ask anybody who knows anything about how a TV works if they'd like to do away with their horizontal and vertical sync pulses. Plus, your math is wrong. The refresh rate is 60Hz, not 60MHz. No way you'd be able to do this. Now, it is definitely possible to insert some information in the VBI (vertical blanking interval), but that's normally used by networks to send timing information to affiliate. Ever look at the top of an ABC network signal straight off the satellite? It's loaded with white blips.
    • Actually, that isn't how it works. DTV is MPEG2 over a 19.39MB one-way connection. The spec was written assuming that we would use 19MB for an HD channel, but after some experimentation we decided that we didn't need that much. The PBS station that I work for is going to use the extra bandwidth to broadcast a local learning channel (a local combination of TLC/History Channel/Discovery), but is possible to use the extra for data casting.

      To answer your points:

      This technology will be available anywhere that you can receive the signal and dial an ISP for the outgoing data.
      DTV doesn't loose data with a reduction of signal strength. Everything works fine to between 70 and 75% strength (depending on your receiver) and then everything just dies.
      When they applied for their license, they agreed to broadcast one SD channel, which requires about 4MB (a little less than the 5MB DVD quality) so they have about 15MB to play with.
  • you can hack this! But seriously, this is even less secure than cable. with cable the list of people who are sent your data are at least restricted to those sharing the line with you. But with this, anyone can pick signals off the air and look for info in them.
  • As I understand the article, they aren't in any way using something that they were supposed to "exchange." The article says, "transforms a latent portion of the digital television signal..." meaning that this is done on top of all of the other TV services on their bit of spectrum. In other words, they have enough bandwidth to do this in addition to their normal digital TV (this is why broadcasters were so eager to get their hands on these new frequencies). With that aside, it's still a shame that broadcasters will be able to greatly profit off of bandwidth they were given for free, but which is supposed to be the property of everyone.

  • FCC allows it. (Score:3, Informative)

    by EuroBryce ( 147038 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:27AM (#2783681) Homepage
    I don't want to sound rigid, but these frequencies were given in exchange for the analog ones, so I don't see how they can do this without breaking thier agreement with the FCC.

    Easy. The FCC gave them 6mhz worth of spectrum, good for ~19Mbps. The broadcasters have to use some portion of that for no-cost television, but they don't have to use all of it. WRAL in Raleigh uses a portion for an all-news sub-channel [wral.com], and another chunk for PC data services [wral.com].

    • Yep, NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) worked hard to keep the FCC from requiring stations to use the full spectrum for TV. The rest can go to paging, interactive services, etc. In other words, free spectrum for the broadcasters. This was all decided several years back, and those of who read the trade mags at the time (and who didn't work for big broadcasters) were kinda pissed....

      • AND... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Newer Guy ( 520108 )
        And..the FCC violated their own interference rules to allow DTV. Years ago, I wanted to put a LPTV in the town I lived in. It was to go on channel 19. There was a channel 26 94 kilometers away. The required spacings for an LPTV (operating with 1000 watts) to this station was 100 Km. The required spacings for a FULL POWER TV station (operating with up to FIVE MEGAWATTS) was 92 Km! I called the FCC and asked them to quote the rule of physics that states that 1000 watts of power would interfere MORE then five million watts. They couldn't answer. I even proposed to drop my opwer to 100 watts. They wouldn't allow it. THEN they allowed a DTV station onto the SAME TOWER I wanted on channel 19 with 750 KILOWATTS average power (peak power is five times more). I called them again and again asked them to quote the rule of nature that said that 100 watts was worse for causing interference then 750,000 watts. Same silence. The fact is.....rules concerning most anything are decided by political considerations, NOT the rules of nature and physics. In other words, the dollar rules! A few years ago I saw that the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) was the second biggest lobbyist (read: BRIBER)to Congress. And you wonder why the broadcasters get whatever they want? Here's the latest one: Though broadcasters are limited to a maximum of 8 radio stations they may own outright (100%) in a given city, The FCC has just decided that they may own up to 49% of any (or all) of the ones left over! Ain't this a boon for diversity, huh? Soon we'll be seeing all the stations in a given area owned by two companies operating as a cartel. They'll each own eight, then together own 98% (49% each) of the stragglers. Of course, the 2% left over will be thrown to a minority, and the NAB will trumpet through the land how GREAT this is for minority ownership by allowing the minority one third control! "Shit is still shit no matter how pretty the package"

        • It's not even the direct bribes. TV stations are the crack dealers selling the crack to which all politicians are addicted - TV coverage. Every politician knows, no TV coverage, no chance of getting elected, no chance to get any bribes from anyone.

  • and you still need a modem for up-stream communications, but it is an interesting alternative for those beyond the reach of xDSL

    When I lived in northeastern PA, I could get a cable modem with one-way download through the cable and then upload through my phone line. That was about 8 years ago. And even then I didn't see the benefit. Sure, I would potentially get fast download rates, and it was the only broadband available in the area. But even then, many people who get broadband need low upload latency (computer games sending a constant stream to the servers) and unfortunately that just doesn't cut it.

    However, my point is this isn't a new solution to people with no xDSL service in their area; it's just a new way to sell the same old crap. If they wanted to really make the money, I think they just need to suck it up and help build the fiber backbones and get telecommunications in those areas up to par with the rest of the world. After all, this would probably give the telecom sector a nice boost. My two cents though...
  • For anyone seriously interested in the technical and official aspects of DTV, either for Internet or video, be sure to check out the FCC's Digital Television: MM Docket No. 87-268 [fcc.gov] page. The FCC is reallocating [fcc.gov] TV channels 52-59 (687-746MHz) for digital broadcasting, perhaps even Clear Channel's Internet will be used on that part of the spectrum. Evidently, Clear Channel wants to convert all analog broadcasts to digital, but 687-746MHz will act as a sort of test bed.
  • I am seeing WATER in slashdot, I swear.

    Ok, i might be sleepless and drunk, but i am
    sure of what i see.
    a little water drop, all over the comments.
    When i tried to click it, and clicking is my
    preffered way of *feeling* things, it said
    "alter relationship".

    Slashdot is not only getting wet, but it is encouraging
    posters to take each other personally.

    zzzzZZZZZZZ
    • You can make someone a friend or foe, this allows you to for example give by default -6 to a foe and +6 to a friend (see your preferences under comments. Obviously, it affects moderation totals for your comment viewing only).

      You can also change moderation point, so example "troll" is +2 and "funny" is -4 :-)

  • Stay tuned for... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can see it now...

    "Tune in tonight at 8/7 central and go on a journey hosted by Th3 PHr34kY M4sT4 as we explore the world of warez by downloading an ISO of Windows XP Corporate!

    And stay tuned, because at 11 eastern, we will delve into the world of porn with a download of "Wet and Wild Teens on Spring Break!"

    All this and more - *only* on DTV..."

  • 1) When did this Friend/Nuetral/Foe thing show up?
    2) Is it just me, or are the Friend & Foe images not available, and
    3) Why .gif's? - can't they use, oh, anything else, even text?
  • Rob,

    Could you please create a meta-post or tell us what the hell this is all about?

    What does it matter if someone is my "friend" or my "foe"?

    So far, I've only rated people as neutral... guess I am "friendless".

  • What a load of crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by -tji ( 139690 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:38AM (#2783714) Journal
    Check out this quote from the article:

    "As broadcasters, we saw the opportunity to provide a service to the unserved users in those areas while delivering free, high definition television to the viewing public."

    How the hell do they propose to offer both HDTV and data at the same time? A 1080i video stream can easily take the full 20Mbps 8VSB channel.

    The truth is, they have no intention of carrying HDTV programming, because that would take up all the bandwidth. They will only provide a highly compressed SDTV signal, to keep the FCC off their back, and sell the more profitable internet access as their main business.

    This will greatly hurt the DTV conversion process. Who will bother to convert to a digital TV if it offers no advantage over their current cable or satellite service.
    • "How the hell do they propose to offer both HDTV and data at the same time? A 1080i video stream can easily take the full 20Mbps 8VSB channel. The truth is, they have no intention of carrying HDTV programming, because that would take up all the bandwidth."

      This is not accurate.

      Theoretically, the HD signal would take up most of the channel, but practically, with the latest generation of encoders, and the use of variable bitrates, there is always quite a bit of headroom left over.

      This generally ranges from about 2Mb/s to over 8 or 9Mb/s depending on the program being broadcast.

      Broadcasters can also choose to deliberately reduce the bandwidth even on a 1080i feed to make sure there is headroom. Nobody would really notice with the current generation of HDTV sets available anyway.

      WRAL [wral.com] in Raleigh has been doing Datacast for almost a year in conjunction with DTVPlus [dtvplus.com].

      They broadcast a special version of the WRAL website, as well as "video on demand". Basically, the most popular video clips on the website, as well as the various news broadcasts, are sent in a fairly high-speed version and stored on the receiving computers.

      Most TV stations expect to be able to, with current and upcoming encoding technology, deliver an HDTV channel, at least one SD channel (albeit a low bitrate channel, such as a weather channel, or classified ads, or something similar), and some sort of datafeed.

      An interesting development lately is that Networks seem to be putting in clauses in their affiliate contracts to reserve the excess data bandwidth for the network. I'm not sure how that's going over, but with most local stations being so technology ignorant, I wouldn't be suprised if its getting accepted alot.

      • Furthermore, stations are not required to transmit a hidef signal (by the FCC, anyways) - only a standard definition (480p) signal. That takes up only about 4-5 Mbit/s, leaving 14+ Mbit/s for other uses including multicasting and datacasting.

      • Broadcasters can also choose to deliberately reduce the bandwidth even on a 1080i feed to make sure there is headroom. Nobody would really notice with the current generation of HDTV sets available anyway.


        Hogwash. You can certainly see the difference on the current HDTVs, especially if the bandwidth reduction is being done by a greedy affiliate. (And therefore decoding/recoding to get the bandwidth, there are cleaner ways, but they're more expensive)

        KQED in San Francisco is actually fairly committed to DTV and HDTV. They run all the HD PBS programming they can get, and when there isn't any, they simulcast the SD signal, and use the remaining 15Mbps for an HD demo loop. You can clearly see degradation in some of the clips in the demo loop, due to the bandwidth reduction. And that's only a 4.4Mbps reduction, not the 8-9Mbps you suggest.

        -Zandr
    • and switch to HDTV or die.

      I've had my HDTV set for a few months. Houston's cable provides 9 HDTV channels(though not everything broadcast is HD). I found that I've significantly cut back on watching TV shows that are not being sent as an HD signal - because of the image quality. For instance I now watch CSI instead of ER because CBS is broadcasting their evening lineup as HDTV while NBC is just sending an upconverted signal.

      TV stations are out for market share. When the SDTV channels find themselves losing market share to the HDTV channels you can bet they'll change their ways.
    • I don't see this as some sort of permanent upgrade. Hopefully, most of the U.S. population will have access to either DSL or cable, or another emerging high-speed Inet access medium within a few more years.

      By the time everyone owns really good HDTV's and cares whether or not a station is broadcasting an uncompressed HD signal, the market will hopefully have dwindled for 1-way high speed Inet over a TV signal.
    • You are wrong. The HDTV signal has more then 20Mbps available, and a compressed HDTV signal takes up less then the alooted amount: they only use the extra 'dead space' to send the data signal.
  • Okay broadband options (being tested ... or avaialble) ...

    1.) Cable Lines
    2.) DSL
    3.) 56K (phone company garuntees 9600 bps)
    4.) Radio Waves (termed wireless)
    5.) Cell Phone Waves (GSM ...)
    6.) Power Lines
    7.) God only knows what else

    In all reality I am completely surprised that there are this many options for broadband coming out that I was wondering if anyone has thought to use the obvious ... Internet Pipes (IE T-Lines, OC-Lines, DS-Lines, ... so on ...).

    I just can't wait until there's some sort of health risk from TCP/IP being sent via brainwaves soon ...

    Don't get me wrong ... I'm happy to see this new option available for broadband.

    • Look out for rogue gods, in that case.
    • In all reality I am completely surprised that there are this many options for broadband coming out that I was wondering if anyone has thought to use the obvious ... Internet Pipes (IE T-Lines, OC-Lines, DS-Lines, ... so on ...).

      It costs a huge amount of money to run a new line, thus many soulitions that try to reuse existing lines, or no lines at all.

      Now I'm not sure a T1 should cost $1000 a month to keep running, the the huge start up cost is justified. ($1000/month will vary, Frame Relay prices may be much better since they are distance insensitive in most areas). The install involves someone digging from the nearest phone box to your house. It also involves routing a real copper pair to the closest CO and then to the CO closest to the other end point. Sometimes this is existing copper, sometimes not.

      How does that differ from DSL which also needs a copper pair to the CO? Well when you buy a T1 you get a pair, if you buy DSL they use an existing pair. If there is no existing pair (or it goes through conversions to fiber) you can't order DSL, but if you order a T1 they will build a new pair. It may take six months, and cost you a lot of money, but they will do it. Also DSL has distance limitations, if you are too far from the CO you can't get DSL (or you get one of the slower kinds), with a T1 they install repeaters...plus I think the signal is stronger anyway...

      I also can't remember for sure, but I think a T1 is two pair, and DSL is only one. It has been a while since I really knew anything about T1's though :-)

    • I have a cabin in the woods - totally off the grid (no power, no phone, etc..) Phone is a cell phone with a Yagi directional antenna pointing at the nearest tower, 30 miles away. Power is a box of batteries, an inverter, a generator, and soon wind and solar.

      Internet (and television) is a Dish Network/Starband combination satellite system. This system gives me full Dish Network television (pretty decent) and Starband 2-way Internet (a 1 Watt transmitter now resides in my back yard!).

      Advertised speeds on the Starband are 512Mbit downlink and 128K uplink. This is with a Windows PC running their proprietary accelerator software (AS_AGENT) which accelerates web access and general data access. They only support other OSs if you connect the service to a Windows box running some sort of NAT proxy for the rest of your systems (a network). The service is rather like DSL (in as much as it is always on as long as you leave the power on :-) Latency according to traceroute is around 700 msec.

      I don't like Windows, I also don't have the luxury of running a windows box as a "router" due to power constraints and space (it's a tiny cabin, really!) So, assuming things would work OK I connected the modem directly to my Mac OS X box (cube - great for a cabin, no fan and very low power draw - especially with a LCD screen :-)

      It works, pretty well, actually. I max out at download speeds of ~25Kbyte/second. I haven't tested upload speeds but they are rather slower in my experience. The biggest bummer is the delay loading web pages and mail due to the latency.

      The solution would seem to be a AS_AGENT-like affair. I have been researching using a squid web proxy to create a similar effect to what Starband Windows software does. More as that happens.

  • DeltaV (Score:4, Informative)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john.lamar@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:43AM (#2783725) Homepage Journal
    I live in Cincinnati for one. This is being marketed to people who cannot currently get cable internet or DSL.

    They are holding beta testing now, although I've tried to 'refind' the website before for another /. post I can't find one now. No.. I found the FAQ [deltav.tv]. From there you can surf through the other parts of the site to find more.

    They've advertised this as a new way to get broadband in area's where there is none and claim download speeds of 250K, which would make me sign up for $39.95 a month.

    The target here around Cincinnati would be the homes that aren't even close to the city but carry the WKRC station [Channel 12 [wkrc.com], "The new Generation of News!"-which is the same old people.]. This is a huge untapped market in plenty of area around Cincinnati.

    As I've said earlier there will be many implementations of 'last mile' solutions. This may actually take off.

    Considering Clear Channel 0wns this town's airwaves [thus politics and more!] I expect this service to take off somewhat. It isn't ideal anywhere but beats the similar 'Dish' technology.

    Here is a PDF [clearchannel.com] from 12/18/01 about the service... although it's been on TV for almost a year.

    Sometimes we here in the 'Nati get things faster. We had HBO-On Demand first, and our Cincinnati Bell was featured as the first to offer 'Internet Call Manager' [cincinnatibell.com] services. We were putting in Digital [two way] cable years before anyone had Cable Modems [about the time Time Warner bought out both cable services] and DSL was here pretty quick.

    Maybe Mark Twain was wrong when he said: "When the end of the world comes, I want to be in Cincinnati because it's always twenty years behind the times."

  • Heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:44AM (#2783726) Journal
    "You're listening to WKRC in Cincinnati, my children. Let your soul be soothed by the mellow sounds of Venus."

    Probably not many would remember that, but it struck me as funny.

  • probably a DOCSIS variant (Score:3, Informative)

    by hagbard5235 ( 152810 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @02:50AM (#2783741)
    This is probably a DOCSIS variant. You can look
    into the DOCSIS specs at:
    http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications.html
    if you are interested. Basically DOCSIS is the
    Data over Cable System Interface Specification.
    It's how your cable modem works.

    DOCSIS puts your downstream data inside MPEG
    frames on a normal 6Mhz television channel.
    For cable modem normaly this is the only digital
    data on the downstream channel and so the MPEG
    framing is largely irrelavent. I'm pretty
    sure that your standard digital TV signal is
    exactly the same as your DOCSIS signal up until
    we get into the contents of the MPEG frame
    ( which probably is MPEG for digital TV ). Since
    You can get about 28Mb/s in a QAM-64 carrier and
    compressed HDTV only takes about 19Mb/s, I'd
    say this is a creative use of the leftover
    bandwidth.

    As to the phone dial back... getting a return
    signal even over cable is trickier, over
    air it is likely to be downright prohibitive
    ( can you image how much power you would need
    to broadcast from your home to get back to the
    station? ). Because not all cable providers
    originally had cable plants that could provide for
    upstream channels, the DOCSIS spec already lays
    out neatly specifications for providing for
    a dial return path.

    I'll almost bet this is what they are doing in
    Cincinnati. Doing anything to different would
    just make their equipment at their headends
    really expensive for no good reason.

  • This is a dead end... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Grech ( 106925 )
    for 3 reasons

    1. As other posters have mentioned, broadband's killer apps are gaming, and to a lesser extent, serving(P2P mainly). These depend on upstream latency and banswidth respecively. 56k just doesn't cut it.

    2. They did the roll out in Cincinnati. Cincinnati has 3 regional cable providers, all of whom provide Internet access(even if one of them is Insight@Home), a constant churn of CLEC DSL providers, and one of the few ILECs in the country to not have its head lodged in the usual place (Not that Broadwing/Cincinnati Bell doesn't have issues, this just isn't one of them.)

    3. They did the roll out in Cincinnati? I live in the Metro area. I watch WKRC-TV. This is the first I've heard of this. This is par for the course for Clear Channel.

    • A) its not fully rolled out yet. and B) its very limited in total capacity: they are marketing it towards the people who Can't get highspeed connections because cinci-bell doesn't have a CO in thier area, and whom can't get roadrunner.
  • By riding the broadcast spectrum as audio only, avoiding the royalties demanded by the RIAA, while still collecting their "non payola" from the labels via the "indies". They may be flagrant, but they certainly aren't stupid...
  • The downstream channel would have to be multiplexed among all simultaneous users of the service, which means they can support roughly 30Mbps total modulated bit rate of the channel/256Kbps per user ~ 120 users...Even if we assume a 10x gain due to statistical packet multiplexing, that is still only 1000 users max. I wonder how they plan to deal with congestion... -rkgmd
  • A couple of years ago, the swedish company named Terracom (owned by the swedish government) created a system for show-off/demo purposes. They used 20 mbit DTV for downlinks and a whopping (*grin*) 9.6 kbit GSM for uplinks, and was created for mobile connections.

    They had to adjust the TCP/IP layers to have the uplink not get choked by the ACKs as a ~1 second roundtrip is a lot with a 2000 to 1 download ratio...

    This system was (and this still applies) however not legal to put to use in Sweden due to regulations in the swedish "Rundradiolagen" that says something about how public broadcasting systems may (or may not) be used for personal communcations. I'm not very much into the details.

    I figure other countries may have similar.

    This system was shown at some fair a couple of years ago.
  • Here we go again, yet another goofy idea that won't go anywhere.

  • Out of bandwidth (Score:2, Insightful)

    by betagoat ( 157811 )
    Assuming they run just one SD channel @ 4 Mbits/sec, they will be left with about 15 Mbits/sec remaining. At 256K per user, even with multiplexing giving them about 10x more capacity, they will run out of capacity between 500 to 1000 users, depending on how many concurrent downloads there are at a given moment. Since there is no way to provision more bandwidth from their spectrum allocation. Plus, it looks like they are giving away the receivers / routers for free on their web page.

    Since they are billing it as a free service, how much value do they expect to derive from delivering fat files to a 1K user base? Not surprisingly, I'm pretty skeptical about their "plan".
    • Well, imagine that all the stations in the market can pool their bandwidth together (I'm unsure if FCC regs allow this or not). If, in larger markets, you figure 6 networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN, WB), then that means about 114Mb/s total bandwidth, of which only 24Mb/s is needed for 6 SD channels, leaving about 90Mb/s total bandwidth available for other services.

      Like I said, I'm unsure if FCC regs would even allow this. But, if it would, it would be a great way for stations to offer a type of premium service (whatever it may be) and make a little extra money.
  • I think I will take a walk down to good old WKRC and have a word with the GM. I'm sure he will have the time to talk to me!
  • If just somebody would make the most obvious use of that technology: Use it for broadcast IP. Imagine how many video streams, usenet feeds and software mirrors could be run over it.

    Emulating unicast by dividing bandwidth on a broadcast medium is anything but elegant.
  • I don't see how this breaks their agreement - they're not using their analog frequencies to do this, they're using part of their digital allotment to do this. Perfectly legal. The FCC doesn't say what a station will do with all of their bandwidth, as long as they are broadcasting at least 1 compliant DTV station.

    Personally, I'd like to see all the stations in a particular area (if FCC regs allow it) pool their DTV allotments together, broadcast 1 SD signal each, and use the rest of the bandwidth for premium services (such as this).
  • If this is a Clear Channel company, are they going to let you download anything worth downloading, anyways? Or will they have a list?

  • God forbid... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @09:12AM (#2784571)
    ... they use the extra bandwidth and digital broadcasting technology to, say, put more tv stations and programming into a channel. I get few enough broadcast channels as it is (many of which are televangelists), and Clear Channel (the people who make satellite radio look so damned tempting) is wasting perfectly good television bandwidth for this gimmick, this DirecPC wanna-be? And at least satellite internet doesn't rob potential viewing bandwidth from an entire broadcast area (customers of the service or not).

    The more I hear about the cluster-fuck HDTV is turning out to be in the US, the more I think that the hundreds or thousands of dollars I'm expected to pay to upgrade my receivers for it will instead go into a 6' C-band dish in the back yard. Broadcasters, cable companies and TV manufacturers can do what they want, I'll still be able to watch the whole thing collapse on C-SPAN and the BBC.
  • so I don't see how they can do this without breaking thier agreement with the FCC

    I think the first sentence of the article answers that:

    "...that transforms a latent portion of the digital television signal..."

    I believe the key words are 'latent portion'. If their video signal doesn't use all of the bandwidth allocated to them, then any un-used portion could theoretically be 'reused' without contradicting an agreement to 'trade analog for digital frequencies'...

    As long as they're still broadcasting their programming in digital, I don't see a conflict...
    • I believe the key words are 'latent portion'. If their video signal doesn't use all of the bandwidth allocated to them, then any un-used portion could theoretically be 'reused' without contradicting an agreement to 'trade analog for digital frequencies'...

      The problem is, the ratio of active to latent is determined by how heavily compressed the HD signal is. They want to offer more of their bandwidth for data services, they increase the compression of the HD signal. Does anyone think that "digital cable" actually delivered a better picture?

  • ... because here in the 'Nati we have one of the highest profile competitions between DSL and Cable (at least that I've heard about) in the country. Cincinnati Bell, our telco, offers a fairly decent DSL service ($40 a month for 768k down/408k up). It's now entering it's fourth year and has finally stabilized into a service I recommend to people. Unfortunately, Cincinnati Bell is also the Man that represses us all. Because they leverage their monopoly power in evil ways they've managed to extend the ability for service to most of the area (at the expense of countless souls, no doubt) and the way their network is set up, no CLEC's stand a chance of offering a competing service across their phone lines. A couple ISP's that have tried (NKY.net, Iglou.com) have all seen their effors squashed, or been confronted with significant obstacles. When Cincinnati Bell wants to win, they win.

    Enough ranting about our evil telco, tho. The other side: Time Warner Cable's service regularly releases ads that just make DSL look silly. Their service ($40 for ~2MB up/down if you're lucky, and dns servers that die when someone sneezes) is tolerable IMHO and they compete very vigorously with CBell, who incidentally never seems to try anything to outdo their cable competition.

    There is a point in all this - bad idea for a place to try this service. Maybe somewhere where last-mile is really an issue, or where there isn't such a monumental battle between high-speed services going on. Honestly, good luck in getting anyone to subscribe to this service in Cincinnati. We're all content with our cable/DSL and we're fairly resistent to change. Not that that's a bad thing :) Maybe they take it up to that crazy Cleveland burg up north. :)

  • Clear Channel, the MS of broadcasting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Karl Cocknozzle ( 514413 ) <kcocknozzle.hotmail@com> on Friday January 04, 2002 @09:59AM (#2784769) Homepage
    I don't see how they can do this without breaking thier agreement with the FCC.

    For many years now, Clear Channel has been the powerful, overfunded bully who runs the radio and television industries by owning TONS of stations. That they would operate one of their stations outside the public interest isn't that surprising to me.

    This is the company that bought up stations across the country, gutted their staffs, doubled the number of commercials, and started automating stations left and right. Result? Bland, boring, programming (worse than before!) with 25-30 commercial units in an hour becomes acceptable in big markets because, "Clear Channel has more."
  • In Hungary, of all places.

    I'm pretty sure it was over three or four years ago - however, they did this with analog signals and not with DSS.

    They used a modem connection for upstream, and some clumsy hardware that you plugged between your satellite receiver and the dish for downstream.

    It never took off - initial costs were too high, and once they started getting more subscribers the "huge" bandwidth just disappeared as it got divided further and further amongst users.

    Now everyone & their sister is on ISDN, ADSL & cable, and the situation's not a whole lot better. Between 6-12 PM all the backbones are fully loaded. Well, that's what you get when they start giving away ADSL for $20 per month.

  • The broadcasters are keeping their agreement (Score:5, Informative)

    by jjo ( 62046 ) on Friday January 04, 2002 @11:03AM (#2785075) Homepage
    The broadcasters' agreement is not with the FCC, but with Congress.

    The broadcasters agreed to provide favorable coverage to incumbent members of congress. In return, and Congress agreed to give them, free of charge, vast swaths of spectrum worth billions and billions of dollars. The broadcasters would theoretically have to give back the old spectrum they currently use (and also never paid for), but the prerequisites for the spectrum giveback will not be met. (Surprise, surprise!)

    Of course, now that the broadcasters and Congress have robbed the taxpayers once, they want to do it again by letting them sell their old spectrum (remember, they didn't pay for that spectrum either). Also, now that the 'Free over-the-air HDTV' cover story has done its job, it can be quietly dropped, and pesky restrictions on the broadcaster's valuable new property are no longer needed. Pretty soon, we'll see that the broadcasters own both the new and old spectrum outright, with no restrictions on use or resale.

    It goes without saying that the broadcasters won't pay the government one red cent for the spectrum, since they hold a currency even more valuable in Washington: control of media exposure.

  • The television stations are under NO obligation to transmit high-definition. They are just supposed to use this is as the primary allocation and cease broadcasting in their current license allocation within the next 9 years.

    What they're likely to do is transmit a primary channel non-HD or HD only in prime-time and use 3 other sub-channels or lease those out. This data service. During HD transmissions, they'll have one other channel and a number of lesser bandwidth sub-channels for data.

    Read up on 8VSB.
  • ...and being under NDA, I'll try to inform as to what any beta tester can figure out on their own.

    1. This is not a competitor to Cable/DSL, both are obviously better. This is targetted to those in the "sticks", outside of Cable/DSL range.

    2. Yes, it will use some bandwidth of the DTV signal. Yes, that means that the full-res version of DTV won't be available. But when Cable/DSL expands, it will eliminate this market, leaving the DTV bandwidth ready to be converted back.

    3. At the ClearChannel booth at NAB, this was advertised to broadcasters as a way to "help fund your DTV transition." Broadcasters are also wary of converting to DTV, because no one is watching it. (And no one is watching because no one is broadcasting...etc)

    4. For security, IPSEC is used. Make your own judgements.

    5. Yes, the modem uplink is slow. No, it is not intended for gamers to get great ping times. Yes, it is download-centric.

    6. No, ClearChannel does not limit the usage (as of this writing). You can browse, read, download to your heart's content.

    7. I don't know anything about pricing.

    I'll try to answer more questions if I can. I can also be reached at: sykik(at)yahoo.com
  • If those frequencies fall under the rule of the FCC TV Broadcast Guidelines, wouldn't transmitting porn and naughty words and stuff violate their aggreement with the FCC and incurr them oodles and oodles of fines eventually getting their liscense yanked?

  • TV stations broadcast a selection of websites in the DTV bandwidth, which you receive with a special receiver at home that plugs into your computer. To complete the loop, you have to have a connection for uplink to your isp. From what I understand, this is closer to Akamai than to broadband, because you can't request sites, i.e. since this is still a broadcast medium, you will only get the most popular sites. You can't request obscureweblog.org because they would have to put it in the broadcast, and it would take a portion of bandwidth from everyone else.

    Two other companies doing this are:

    iBlast [iblast.com]

    Wavexpress [wavexpress.com]

  • I've tried to do their highspeed video on demand service, yet they refuse to support linux and after their operating system probe(javascript and popups required) their page reports that only win98, w2k, me, and XP{hahaa who uses code that calls home, lol}.


    Bottom line, is there are two faiths aboard the net, one proprietary and trashy, one open and free. Those who align themself with the "good guys"{linux crowd}, will be in a far better position later on down the road when that's all who's left aboard.

    --Windows bites; Death2snoopware

  • but these frequencies were given in exchange for the analog ones, so I don't see how they can do this without breaking thier agreement with the FCC.

    Where in the article is there any mention of using analog TV spectrum? For the technoically challenged, 'analog modem' != 'analog TV signal'. DUH!!!
  • they don't use the whole HDTV signal. simply put, HDTV provides X amount of bandwith per channel, but as it turns out, good quality can be sent with modern equipment at less than X amount of bandwith. They use the remainder (a significant amount, mind you) 'dead space' as the location for the downstream data. Please do some research before making offhand comments like this chrisd...
  • Anyone have this know how open it is? It'd be kind of neat to have my upstream connection at home and just download mp3s randomly, then tap into the downstream from my car, for instance. With nextel's free incoming calls, I could even have my computer call my car, and get a really slow but usable upstream connection as well.
  • The analog frequencies are PLANNED to be exchanged, sometime in the future, after there has been 85% acceptance (don't hold your breath).

    The FCC has forthrighly authorized broadcasters the additional right of auxiliary applications (Such as Delta V) after meeting their obligations. That obligation consists of a single standard resolution program stream. This takes up about 3-5 megabits per second of the 19.3 authorized. The remaining is available for Delta V or other services. Uncle Sugar get 5% of the top line revenue from these additional services.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close