Broadband over powerline (BPL) got a boost from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week, but even as the technology begins deployments, it's unclear how much of a fight it will put up against DSL and cable.
The FCC decided against changing the rules governing BPL last week, a move welcomed by supporters of the technology (see BPL Players Applaud FCC). The FCC also praised the rise of BPL, noting that it offers a "third line" into the home, next to DSL and cable, and offered BPL as proof that competition thrives in the market.
The past two years have seen several BPL trials pop up in rural U.S. areas, and some companies have even installed permanent deployments. But it's difficult to see BPL becoming a widely successful business for utilities, says Meta Group Inc. analyst David Willis.
"If they have the goal of having cheap broadband in, say, two years -- by that time, the market will have completely changed. It won't be about $30 broadband; it'll be about wireless and security and voice and other things," Willis says. With fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) and WiMax deployments already underway, the utilities "have so much catching up to do."
The best area for BPL would be upscale suburbs -- but that's the case for every other broadband technology, especially FTTH. "No matter where they go, they're already getting squeezed by somebody that's already in the market," Willis says.
Still, others believe BPL will be necessary to keep competition fired up in the U.S. market. Among them is "apprentice" venture capitalist and Ethernet creator Bob Metcalfe, who remains unconvinced that FTTH alone can create competition (see Bob Metcalfe).
Rural utilities are trying their hand as well. The Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (CVEC) tried out BPL with a small trial in March. The utility contacted 500 customers with a "buyer beware" letter, saying that the service could deliver 256 Mbit/s bidirectionally but noting that it was unproven and would come with limited maintenance. About 50 homes and businesses responded, with results good enough for CVEC to consider expanding the service further.
"We spent a number of months working on the equipment and the software, but it has worked exceedingly well," says Greg Kelly, CVEC's business development manager.
Aside from the business case, a few technology concerns linger for BPL, including interference, particularly with Ham radio. Power lines already interfere with radio signals -- anyone listening to AM radio in the car can tell you that -- and it's long been suspected that BPL will increase that interference in higher-frequency bands, tromping over other signals.
Kelly says CVEC's gear provider, International Broadband Electric Communications (IBEC), has been working on solving those problems with a combination of methods -- a wireless technique called notching; the use of ferrites, magnets that can be found in some power cords; and a lower-power signal, something akin to what's used to deliver powerline Ethernet within a building.
Meta's Willis thinks it's likely is that the FCC is just trying to show it isn't coddling phone companies at the expense of other providers. The problem is that BPL is only beginning to roll out and hasn't proven itself in large-scale deployments.
"It's a little bit pathethic that this is the best the FCC can do to introduce competition," Willis says. "They've talked about intramodal competition for some time, but the only thing they can point to is cable vs. DSL."
"As far as these HomePlug and PowerLine products, Cisco has had them available for two years. And we've still got plenty of inventory."
Helloooo, Mr. whoever, TWO whole years, the technology has improved a whole lot:
cost has come down to make economical deployment possible interference problems has been solved.
2-years is a decade in technology world! ============================================== What are the growth prospects for PLC and Ambient?
The potential for PLC is enormous. PLC services can be brought to virtually anywhere that there is an electric outlet. In the US alone, there are over 3,000 electric utilities serving more than 125 million customers.
Interesting comment from the Cisco CTO basically saying that there's no market for BPL equipment. One has to take notice when the world's prominent network equipment manufacturer doesn't see BPL as going anywhere.
Investors take heed. Between the interference issues and the more competitive up and coming access methods (FTTH, wireless), BPL will whither away.
After re-reading the aforementioned Q&As for a third time, I realize now that Skystream actually *did* point to a fiber optic network that the town is installing, and not Powerline. Hence, the answer provided was unresponsive to the question asked, which dealt specifically with powerline carrier broadband.
I recently attended (on interrupts) a Light Reading Webinar titled TV over DSL that was sponsored by Ciena, SkyStream Networks and TUT Systems. I thought that the presentation went pretty well, given the strategies that some vendors exposed in order to maximize the narrow pipe width of DSL faciliites, such as "push" downloading during off hours (a la Drew Lanza's approach to operating a storage farm**) and pair bonding.
[** FTTH: Back to the Future, by Drew Lanza: http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=59633&site=lightreading ]
A Q&A session at the end of the event was cut short due to time constraints, but Skystream followed up in due diligent form with a list of unanswered questions and answers in an email this morning. The list included the following question on broadband over powerline carrier (BPL):
---
Q3: What about TV over the Power Line Carrier network I have been seeing in the news? Would this be a ticket for the rural market?
A3: Many Power Companies are beginning to investigate the delivery of high speed services (video and data) over their electrical grid. In addition, power companies with a fiber plant are able to deliver TV services to residential and business users today. An excellent example is SkyStream customer Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, FLA. Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach has deployed IP television services on its city-wide high-speed fiber optic network and will be offering triple play services to 25,000 residential and business customers. SkyStream’s Mediaplex-20 will be used at the headend of the fiber network to multiplex, encode and route video content to New Smyrna Beach subscribers, who will receive 91 channels of digital TV, 45 channels of digital audio – with all the top cable programming – plus local channels. The Utilities Commission plans to add premium services at a later date including pay-per-view, Video on Demand and HDTV.
---
What the E-Mail that I received failed to mention, however, was that the utility in question in association with the town elected to deploy a fiber to the home network, and not a power line carrier network. And a cursory search of the Web doesn't reveal a pre-existing PLB network, either. Which is not to say that a PLB trial at one point wasn't performed, but I would think that a record of it would appear on the Web if that were the case.
The following is from the City of Daytona Beach's Commission Meeting Agenda of May 19, 2004, which includes a resolution to provide, for a fee, skills and labor to New Smyrna Beach's FTTH initiative:
-----
11. Provision of Fiber Optic Services – Interlocal Agreement – Resolution authorizing an Interlocal Agreement between the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission (NSBUC) and The City of Daytona Beach for operation of telecommunications services for its customers, including voice, video and data services, and desires to contract with the City of Daytona Beach’s personnel, with experience in such work, to assist NSBUC in the installation of a fiber to the home (FTTH) system in the Venetian Bay subdivision, which is located within the City of New Smyrna Beach. See Ex. “D”, p. 20
Recommendation: Information Systems Director recommends approval.
The Resolution, along with some self-contained interesting, if not revealing, pricing details for PON buildouts can be viwed at:
Was this merely an oversight, or a reflection of an earlier BPL-related item that was not included that should have been? Hm, I don't know. The complete list of Qs and As sent to me this morning follows my sig line, below.
You'll note that many of the answers provided borrow from a vendor's current capabilities and targeted point solutions, and the mix of philosophies and standards that exist with respect to compression algorithms to be used for video transport purposes. Dare I suggest, caveat emptor?
FAC frank@fttx.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
Begin:
We are pleased you could join us for the Light Reading Webinar on October 19th on TV Over DSL. The audience asked over 150 questions which were not answered due to lack of time. We’ve reviewed all 150 questions and selected 10 that best represent the majority of the questions. We have answered them here to provide you with more complete information and would be happy to continue the dialogue with you beyond this Q&A. Please contact Megan O’Reilly-Lewis moreilly@skystream.com for general information or questions. To speak with a salesperson, please contact info@skystream.com or contact our regional sales offices listed at the bottom of this e-mail.
Q1: What bandwidth is needed for MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and VC-1 codecs and what bitrates can you obtain with these compression technologies?
A1: Service providers need to consider several network dimensions when deciding what bandwidth is required to support video services to end-users and the bitrates they can obtain with compression technologies. Issues of access technology, loop length, the quality and performance capabilities of their video headend equipment, as well as actual video service targets [e.g., three channels of standard definition (SD) and one channel of high definition (HD)] all are critical factors. Commonly-used MPEG-2 bit-rates range from 2 Mbps average for talk-shows to 6 Mbps for CBR (constant bit rate) contribution. The average bandwidth for HD MPEG-2 broadcast is 12-14 Mbps. In terms of comparing different advanced codecs, MPEG-4 AVC and VC-1 are deemed to be comparable in performance. Compression performance is expected to improve in MPEG-4 AVC by 20 to 50% depending on the video content, on the quality targets and the efficiency of the encoders used. MPEG-4 HD is expected to require between 6 Mbps (drama) and 10 Mbps (premium sports). MPEG-4 SD bit-rates will range from 1.5 to 3 Mbps. These bandwidth estimates and compression performance metrics are attainable using SkyStream’s Mediaplex-20 and iPlex, which are high quality video headend systems able to offer MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 switched video services for broadcast-quality TV.
Q2: What bandwidth downstream channel is necessary for a successful TV Over DSL service; and what are the most appropriate transmission media when considering cost/performance/ARPU?
A2: Service providers are best positioned to define the type of services that allow them to meet their business objectives within their respective markets; however, competition should drive operators to fully serve consumer needs and differentiate services while keeping subscription costs low. Serving all TV’s in the home (2.7 in average in the USA, 1.6 in Europe) is key. In the USA, delivering at least one HDTV stream along with two to three SD streams, as well as PUSH VOD or network-centric VOD, is required for a differentiated, “successful” service. As mentioned earlier, such an offering could require between 20 and 25 Mbps of bandwidth using MPEG-2 compression and between 12 and 14 Mbps of bandwidth using MPEG-4 AVC compression technology; however, these results will be highly influenced by the access technology selected and loop characteristics for each subscriber. SkyStream believes that an integrated solution with a video headend featuring MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 AVC compression, a multicast-enabled network and PUSH VOD, allows service providers to offer TV Over DSL services without entailing heavy infrastructure upgrade costs. This solution enables the delivery of services on ADSL2+/VDSL as well as FTTP networks.
Q3: What about TV over the Power Line Carrier network I have been seeing in the news? Would this be a ticket for the rural market?
A3: Many Power Companies are beginning to investigate the delivery of high speed services (video and data) over their electrical grid. In addition, power companies with a fiber plant are able to deliver TV services to residential and business users today. An excellent example is SkyStream customer Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, FLA. Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach has deployed IP television services on its city-wide high-speed fiber optic network and will be offering triple play services to 25,000 residential and business customers. SkyStream’s Mediaplex-20 will be used at the headend of the fiber network to multiplex, encode and route video content to New Smyrna Beach subscribers, who will receive 91 channels of digital TV, 45 channels of digital audio – with all the top cable programming – plus local channels. The Utilities Commission plans to add premium services at a later date including pay-per-view, Video on Demand and HDTV.
Q4: How are the content procurement, licensing and protection issues different for live or time-shifted TV versus PUSH VOD and how can service providers secure that content?
A4: Content distribution differs between live or time-shifted TV and PUSH VOD in that for PUSH VOD, the service provider needs to license distribution of files instead of live feeds. In live or time-shifted TV, there are no additional fees for licensing because the consumer is effectively using their device as a next-generation VCR. A PUSH model is more akin to providing DVD’s to the consumers with rights attached. To support a PUSH VOD network, the service provider licenses the content for distribution in file format (similar to licensing content from aggregators like TVN and InDemand).
The Service Provider must also select a digital rights management (DRM) solution that the content providers are willing to accept. The most popular in the US market are Microsoft, Widevine, and SecureMedia. The DRM solutions provide the necessary security to prevent illegal reproduction and misuse of the content by encrypting the files, and providing the keys to decrypt on a transactional basis with the Service Provider. SkyStream’s zBand PUSH VOD solution can integrate with any of the major DRM solutions.
Q5: What advantage is there to having 100 movies refreshed weekly in my PVR? Why wouldn’t I rather have access to 10,000 than 100? What about a hybrid solution of both network storage and PUSH-VOD for Personal Video Recorder (PVR) storage?
A5: About 75% of the movies rented by the average user are in the top 100 category, according to recent research. By making these available on the consumer’s PVR, they can be played out immediately featuring the visual quality intended by the movie maker. Streamed or “served” movies can suffer from reduced quality based on network problems dropped packets or other errors and rarely look as good as a DVD.
PUSH VOD provides the convenience of instant playout, guaranteed higher quality and no late fees, which creates a superior customer experience. From the service provider perspective, PUSH VOD significantly reduces the need to accommodate for ‘peak period’ network usage issues common in a traditional VOD environment. In a major US Movie On Demand (MOD) deployment, SkyStream’s zBand manages a constant feed to the PVR device ranging from 100Kbs to 1Mbps, which is sufficient to provide a wide selection of titles.
Some service providers may also want to offer subscribers access to 10,000 movies stored at the network headend. PUSH VOD is a natural complement to traditional VOD services as well as Network PVR services in that it drastically reduces the demand for bandwidth at peak times of consumption (typical Friday night). In addition to managing PVR-based movie storage, SkyStream’s zBand offers consumers the ability to enjoy a more “personalized” video service by delivering any on-demand content the service provider makes available that is specific to his/her interests. This can be a key differentiator for the service provider vis-à-vis their competitors.
Q6: Will PVR storage increase the cost of maintenance significantly? Does the consumer or service provider pay for the more expensive set top box (STB) with storage and what is the price difference for consumers of a STB capable of storing 100 movies compared to the cost of today's non storage capable STBs?
A6: Established STB manufacturers using standard, existing storage components will ensure the delivery of a high quality product with no increase in maintenance costs. The efficiency and quality of hard-disk storage has greatly improved over the past decade. There are many consumer devices on the market today that rely on this technology such as the iPod or a Tivo device It is up to the service provider to decide whether to charge for the PVR, or whether to subsidize the cost. In most cases today, consumers are purchasing PVRs – either from retailers or service providers – for their recording functionality and interactive features, but usually at a subsidized price. A PUSH VOD service will only provide them a stronger incentive to purchase the device outright.
The cost of the PVR device varies depending on the licensed middleware, and the size of the disk drive. For example, a PVR device with a 120GB hard drive retails at BestBuy today for about $399; however, we think the demand curve for PVRs will rapidly drive down the cost of such devices. Indeed, the price has fallen about 75% already for PVRs (or about 25% a year) since 2000. The price of basic STBs in the satellite direct to home (DTH) market has fallen 50% over the last 4 years, less so in cable. One additional aspect to consider regarding maintenance concerns the content on the PVR. SkyStream’s zBand automates the maintenance of content on the PVR, with asset lifecycle management.
Q7: If you download 100 movies to scores of distributed PVRs haven't you then consumed the bandwidth by default – rather than based on demand from consumers?
A7: If you download 100 movies to multiple PVRs using PUSH VOD you can choose how much bandwidth to use to deliver the movies and when to use it. This allows you to plan the use of the network and avoid having to ‘overbuild’ your network to service a rainy Friday night. For example, a Service Provider can deliver entire movies during low network utilization times or choose incremental delivery of the movie files which allows even more delivery flexibility, and zBand ensures the reliable delivery of all of the content to the user device.
Q8: Do you think conditional access will remain within the STB? What about security – I've heard that many IOCs are getting cease-and-desist orders because their content is not sufficiently locked down according to the studios that own the content?
A8: Now that the IPTV market has become a reality and content providers are doing more and more licensing of content for the IPTV market, we can expect to see an increasing requirement for the service provider to protect the content.
When a service provider receives content via a satellite feed, the signal is usually encrypted. An IRD placed at the headend will descramble the feed, providing an unprotected video stream to the SkyStream Mediaplex. Once the service provider has created the new channel line-ups and feeds those channels to consumers, most channels will need to be protected. This is accomplished by using an IP-based security system from vendors such as Irdeto Access, Widevine or SecureMedia, among others. This protected content is streamed to the STB to be decrypted by the security company’s client and passed off for display. These decryption clients can be software-based or use the traditional smartcard. We see a trend to move away from smartcards to software-based clients.
We anticipate that all content providers or major studios will require the persistent protection of the content both during transmission to the PVR and while on the PVR hard drive. Many companies are now providing DRM solutions for access, authentication and authorization of content that are held on the PVR device, the most notable being the Microsoft DRM solution. The content will either be pre-encrypted by the content provider, or they will require the service provider or content aggregator to encrypt the content prior to distribution. The content can then be pushed directly to the PVR devices. Once the user decides to view the content, the security vendor’s DRM or decryption client will authenticated the access, decrypt and present for presentation to the use. SkyStream is partnering with a number of security companies, and we will have various solution options available to choose from when building out or upgrading a video headend system.
Q9: How do centralized architectures effect channel change timing?
A9: There are 3 main contributors to channel change timing. MPEG coding structure (GOP size), IGMP join time (network dependent), and buffering delays. Of these three contributors, the IGMP join time is most dependent on whether the architecture is centralized. It influences the channel change time dependent on where in the network the multicast program is joined. The closer to the STB that the multicast is joined, the shorter the IGMP penalty. Allowing the video stream data to burst can help improve the network efficiency but at the expense of about a half-second channel change latency. The latency is due to the necessary memory buffering required by receivers to handle the network burstiness. Channel changing will be supported at the edge as IGMP functionality will be done in edge switches or access devices such as the DSLAM.
Q10: What about error correction and control? Are there any more specific solutions than RFC 3640/RFC 2733 for Forward Error Correction (FEC) and interleave?
A10: The general trend in the industry is to adopt simple transport protocols and to engineer reliable networks for video delivery. Unlike the problems associated with delivering video over the internet or another public network, IPTV service providers are able to engineer private transport networks where packet delivery characteristics such as jitter, packet drop rates, etc. can be well characterized and deterministic. Indeed this is the most important consideration when designing for video transport.
We usually recommend that carriers run their video over the simplest protocol stack – UDP, with no additional FEC or retransmission features enabled. If image quality is not up to acceptable standards then it is reasonable to then experiment with FEC at either the physical layer (e.g. DSL interleaved mode) or in an upper layer [e.g. real time protocol (RTP)]. At each step, a visual evaluation of the trade-offs must be made to determine the point at which further FEC overhead produces diminishing returns.
In SkyStream’s experience with over 100 Mediaplex-20 deployments, a well designed network that is less subject to the problems cited above, in combination with the optional addition of error correction techniques, will provide a suitable and scalable transport for the IP video services operator. Additionally, MPEG over IP service will always enjoy the intrinsic error concealment characteristics of MPEG encoding. Error concealment behavior of the MPEG encoder and decoder was a primary design consideration by the MPEG design committees.
There have been a number of approaches proposed for enhancing the reliability of video transport over IP networks. These include RFC3640 which provides an interleaving technique to improve packet loss resiliency as well as RFC2733, which is supported in SkyStream’s Mediaplex-20 video headend and iPlex edge platform. RFC2733 provides a straightforward and backward-compatible technique for adding FEC to media encapsulated in RTP.
We hope you have found this Q&A to be useful, and that you will keep it as a reference.
To ask additional questions or to find out about our IPTV products and solutions, please contact our regional sales representatives. [End]
JCN RSS | Company Profiles | Trade Shows | Annual Reports | News Alerts Saturday, October 23, 2004
Company News Press Releases
Automotive
Chemicals
Communications
Consumers
Electronics
Energy
Environment
Financial
Health & Pharm
Industrial
Int'l Trade
IT & Internet
Materials
Real Estate
Science & Tech
Transportation
Departments
Annual Reports
Company Profiles
Trade Shows
News Alerts
News Search
Photo Gallery
Find out the latest in wireless news from Japan. Presented by Wireless Watch Japan.
Japan Corporate News Network
About Us
Privacy Policy
RSS
Terms of Use
日本語のご案内
By Dale Hug, JCNN July 13, 2004 Print | Email
NEC to Experiment with New Electromagnetic Leakage Suppression Technology for PLC
Tokyo (JCNN) - NEC (TSE: 6701) announced July 12 the launch of an experiment designed to test electromagnetic leakage suppression technology that is developed for high-speed broadband power line communications (PLC).
The field experiment will utilize the industry's top-class 200Mbps PLC modem. The test will begin this month, and last till the end of March 2005.
PLC is a wireline communications method which uses the existing electric power transmission and electricity distribution lines, enabling home users to enjoy broadband Internet connectivity by simply plugging a modem into an AC outlet.
Actions
View NEC Corporation company profile here Search for more articles about NEC Corporation here Make a product or service inquiry to NEC Corporation here
Seems to be a lot of "there is no problem" response. FEMA and the NTIA submitted complaints to FCC. These government organizations also tested and found interference from these part 15 devices. So what is at issue. Unlicensed emittors (part15) are okay to freely corrupt the US frequency plan while licensed and warranted emmitors must meet the full measure of the (part97) standards. I think we are talking about political and industrial chicanery. Who looses? The American public, enjoy.
>This article, "BPL Interference: Fact or >Fiction," by Barry Malowanchuk, is an >interesting read:
Also from the article, citing the recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) report:
"This report defines the interference risks to radio reception in the intermediate vicinity of overhead power lines. The report looked at interference to various receiving systems including
o a land vehicular receiver o a shipborne receiver o a fixed service system using a rooftop-based antenna o an aircraft in flight
The tests indicate that high field intensities were encountered at locations well removed from the BPL devices due to discontinuities in the distribution lines.
The tests indicate that interference may occur at low to moderate level signals at significant distances (75M to 460M) from lines and there is a frequency dependence. For a BPL implementation with a density of one system per square kilometer, there will be interference to aircraft reception of moderate to strong radio signals at an altitude of less than 6 km within 12 km of the center of the BPL deployment".
To date, there hasn't been a single BPL trial where interference has been reported and completely removed through mitigation procedures. Some amount of noise has remained, despite efforts to notch, adjust power, etc.
Many Amateur operators utilize a combination of large HF antennas and extremely sensitive receivers, which are capable of picking up even the weakest of radio signals. Despite what "acceptable" levels of emmision might be erroneously set using Part 15 regulations, if my receiver is picking up any noise whatsoever, it has the potential of masking out what might be the weakest of emergency beacons. This harmful interference under current regulations is not allowed, and if not terminated will lead to a segment or system shutdown.
What utility would take the chance on generating such interference with current BPL technology, where it is highly likely there are more than a few hams in town who not only have the ability to detect that interference, but can also interrupt BPL communications with legal radio transmissions?
The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Light Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
