x
Cable Tech

Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming

CHICAGO -- NXTcomm -- What's the next big thing that's going to ride down Verizon's FiOS network to consumer homes? High-definition video on demand, according to the company's executives attending the NXTcomm show this week.

After a press dinner on Monday, Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) CTO Mark Wegleitner remarked that a high-def VOD service was "in the lab stage" and that the current fiber network "could support it right now."

Wegleitner added that "there is an internal time table for its launch that is currently being debated." So the launch date's not clear, the service specifics are still being refined, but Verizon is solidly moving toward the biggest, best offering possible in VOD.

During the NXTcomm related event in Chicago, Wegleitner also outlined to a room full of press the reasoning for the decision to go with an FTTP network and shed some light on future technological changes that will be coming, including a move beyond GPON.

"We are looking beyond GPON with a three- to five-year timeframe," said Wegleitner. The next step will be a move to wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM), a technology that would give each customer its own wavelength to its home which translates to about 1 Gbit/s for each individual household. "WDM is ahead of us."

Wegleitner also said that Verizon is moving toward IPTV and that it has an evolution plan in place that would take "two years minimum" to begin. "It's going to be an all IPTV world within a three- to five-year time frame."

— Raymond McConville, Reporter, Light Reading

<<   <   Page 2 / 6   >   >>
deauxfaux 12/5/2012 | 3:06:01 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming "You spend many of your posts discrediting Bookham's CEO as well as their financials, probably fairly from what I can tell."

I believe that BKHMs board has spoken eloquently about the subject of Mr. Anania

"Well, why not state your case then?"

Arguing with zealots is a waste of time. I think it is a viable 10 year investment and a fantastic 20 year investment.
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:06:01 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming If I wast forced to put money on any of the SPs it would be FIOS. This is because their network has some flexibility.

OldPOTs, the problem I perceive is that the profitable access networks to date have been purpose built hence the search for the killer app by all the bellheads. In the early days of the PSTN the telcos tried to transmit audio shows, etc., but at the end of the day it was the ability to charge for phone calls that drove things. All the attempts at providing entertainment proved futile. In that regard, FiOS seems like "what's old is new again."

Also, I think the flexibility comes with dumb bit pipes but there has not been an ROI to drive the large investments needed. So flexibility is great but may not be sufficient to generate a profit.

HD VOD is an example of fast adaptation that is needed as margins in many new services are fast declining and competitors are already there.

Agreed.

I have had several good service offers in the mail from VZ but have not converted yet because they are not at $20.

The fiber projects that I've seen have pricing much higher than this. I believe it's because it really costs much more to build out a new infrastructure. The way we've gotten over this in the past is had the early adopters pay higher prices. This has been true for autos, electricity, PCs, mobile phones, etc. I don't see how it can start out at mass adoption pricing (something the FCC would push.) $20 is way too low and, if that's what FiOS customers expect, I don't see how they can do it (unless they cross subsidize from wireless or something else.)

But your government/municipal network would be left behind as they would be built to rigid specs.

Agreed that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and the model does have to address the issue of technology churn in a way that upgrades can be done without excessive government intervention. I also don't think government spec'ing the thing is the right approach. They don't spec my trash bins, rather it's the trash company they hire that does.

The government role would be limited to areas of their expertise. Things like establishing the entity that could raise the bonds, the board to oversee the project, and provide for the limited ROW exclusivity in such a way that bondholder's risks can be mitigated.

My concerns are with SP/MSO security and availability of networks that will be required. Many of those problems have not yet been fully exposed, and may not be for a few more years when the networks have to scale more fully.

Agreed.
OldPOTS 12/5/2012 | 3:06:02 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming rjm
If I wast forced to put money on any of the SPs it would be FIOS. This is because their network has some flexability. But I have many more investments that make much better margins and profit to shareholders so I have not invested.

HD VOD is an example of fast adaptation that is needed as margins in many new services are fast declining and competitors are already there. I have had several good service offers in the mail from VZ but have not converted yet because they are not at $20. But your government/municipal network would be left behind as they would be built to rigid specs.

My concerns are with SP/MSO security and availability of networks that will be required. Many of those problems have not yet been fully exposed, and may not be for a few more years when the networks have to scale more fully.

OP
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:06:02 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming Nope; wrong again. But then again, this is a common predicament for you.

Well, why not state your case then?

Here is what it looks like from an outsider. You spend many of your posts discrediting Bookham's CEO as well as their financials, probably fairly from what I can tell. This behavior also suggests you have financial interests, either yours directly or maybe managing those of others, in the fiber components business.

If you're an unbiased observer of FiOS, having no conflict of interests, and genuinely believe it's a viable 20 year investment than I stand corrected.
deauxfaux 12/5/2012 | 3:06:02 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming "Said from somebody who sells fiber optic components for a living, right?"

Nope; wrong again. But then again, this is a common predicament for you.

deauxfaux 12/5/2012 | 3:06:02 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming Tera

Thanks for the clarification; it makes sense. In general, his posts are quite unimpressive
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:06:03 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming Can the following be viable business model ?

"Exclusive advertisement (add-insertion) rights" for the "Access/fiber provider" to finance their fiber networks?

Probably not. In the US ads pay the producers of the content and there probably isn't enough left over to fund infrastructure. Also, our history of radio/tv suggests the outcome of that approach. Finally, all Google has been able to do, even with massive amounts of hype, is put up a few small wifi projects. (Maybe they could stop taking pictures of streets and get to doing some real and basic works?)

The sunk costs require a printing press. There are two choices, debt or equity. Wall Street funded some long haul during the mania of 2000 and those companies are now loaded down with debt. Wall Street didn't drop a dime for fiber access during the same time period.

That leaves debt. The feds waste our money and hire guys like the FCC. The states tend to do a bit better in that much goes towards schools though, due to our war on drugs we now have prison obligations for multiple generations. Hence, that leaves ourselves.

I say sell to those of us who are extremely rich and who don't want to pay taxes, municipal <v>revenue bonds, and use the proceeds from that to finance construction. Repay those bonds, not by a general tax, but buy an ecommmerce tax until revenues are sufficient such that the tax can be sunsetted. (No toll gates forever as done on our bridges.) Also, reduce the risk on the bonds, and hence the interest rate, by granting a limited monopoly, but only for internet access with symmetric access speeds of 1 Gb/s or better.

On the carrier neutral colos, use something like the triple net lease along with sharing of gross revenues to fund that. (Typical in retail construction.)</v>
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:06:03 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming Your point is valid. Our world is full of paradox. Now what do we do?

MG: your question to seven, while I'm sure is with good intentions, is a waste of time. Asking him to recognize the con in front of his audience would be like asking a charlatan to admit that his elixir, the stuff he's been selling for $30K a bottle and promising it might cure cancer, is nothing more than sugar water. It won't happen, at least not in public.
ipLogic 12/5/2012 | 3:06:04 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming Folks,

about this neverending access-fiber financing discussion

One idea, I don't know if it might have been discussed before ?

Can the following be viable business model ?

"Exclusive advertisement (add-insertion) rights" for the "Access/fiber provider" to finance their fiber networks ?
(like the free newspapers/free TV that feed only with advertisement)


For example the fiber/access provider can place own "gatekeeper" that does add-insertion in *ALL* content going to the subscriber.

Visually: when you open google or yahoo, you do watch their content-&-Adds, but the *"Bottom 5-10%"* of the i-explorer/netscape window *would* contain advertisement exclusively inserted by the access-network provider. This advertisement then help the access-network provider ROI and operations for the access-network.

Technically: it would be like DPI looking in the HTTP, P2P (and other) sessions, and has (lawfull) right to insert own advertisement in that "HTTP extension" (which is yet to be invented), BUT *just insert*, and NOT disturb/delay/deprioritize/stop the content flow.

(simplest way would be pop-up window, but I don't like them as they *can be closed* (to disadvantage for the advertising access-provider), I'm thinking more of *integrated advertising space* inside the http window and http protocol)

So this would use DPI and the "Gatekeepers" for "positive purpose" to "finance the fiber and content-freedom", instead of using them to "cut content".

The access-network provider will not care *which* content you watch, rather he always wins as long you download *any* content, since this ensures that his adds are part of it.

Additional benefits of this advertisement is that it can be "personalized" (and more effective and costly), i.e. you send me adds that fit Gǣmy subscriber profilesGǥ which increases the probability for a *hit*.
They might also go for the pay-per-click model.

Is there enough money in this kind of advertisement to cover cost of building fiber access infrastructure (including the Gǣadd-insertion gatekeepersGǥ) ?

If you have N-users/M-homes community:
fiber+digging+operations-$$(M) < advertisement-$$(to N)

For me (the subscribers) it means I pay $20 monthly flat (which I like), but I do spend $200+ (and much more) buying other stuff (that I *freely choose*) and part of this money then comes back in my FTTH.


Cheers,
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:06:04 PM
re: Verizon: HD VOD Is Coming If you are going to debate with rjmcmahon, you have to know where he is coming from. He heavily espouses the municipal broadband concept, like the Utopia project in Utah (which, I have to admit, actually seems to be working).

This is my position. I don't like it as most muni governments are laggards but it's the only way I can see that we can actually make some progress. If we taxed ecommerce like we do retail commerce (which goes towards city coffers) but did it in a way that city governments couldn't divert funds to pet projects, then we might see some actual cracks in the foundation of our silly ideological walls, walls which are keeping us from self reliance.

If a phone company is putting in a short-sighted system to please share-holders but is bound to fail long-term, then he thinks that is great.

This is incorrect. I don't think conning naive shareholders is a great thing. The shareholders are victims in my opinion. Victims of ideological nonsense. The nonsense is being preached to pacify the FCC. But shareholders are using their own free will to buy into the BS. There are plenty of better companies to invest in.

If a company like Verizon heavily invests in fiber-to-the-home with profit only coming in the long term then he gets so upset you can almost see the spit flying out of his mouth. Verizon's success would make municipal broadband a hard sell.

Got this one chronologically backwards a bit. The cable boys (Armstrong, et. al.) pitched the bundle 10 years ago to Congress (during all those mergers and consolidation) and net results, nothing. Municipal broadband activist tried bundling and that has failed. Now VZ steps up to the plate. There is nothing different and there is no reason why it will work for VZ either.

So, the country needs investment in broadband infrastructures. 100s of billions on the low side. The bondholders will demand an ROI. Time has shown there is only one service to sell and that's internet access.

So how do we really get it done? I suspect letting go of fantasy and seeing the world as it really is would be a good step.
<<   <   Page 2 / 6   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE