Direct-To-Home television in India

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by rangaraj

The second card slot indicates that it is CI enabled. One could also have multiple dishes pointing to different satellites and the CI is the buffer between multiple Conditional access systems (TataSky uses NDS, and i think Zee used the Nagra from Kudelski group). If it does not work, you can go to the consumer forum, as the law states that the boxes sold need to be CI compliant..;-).. One of our groups actually tests the STB box from TataSky if it will play Dish programs as well. I assume that this would be the same case with Zee's box..

i think dish uses conax CA system. i wish i could really try receiving the tata signals thru my box. i think tata is also on the same satellite, right ? and is there a way of finding out from my stb, how many megabits are allocated for each channel

[rangaraj]

Originally Posted by esteem_lover

i think dish uses conax CA system. i wish i could really try receiving the tata signals thru my box. i think tata is also on the same satellite, right ? and is there a way of finding out from my stb, how many megabits are allocated for each channel

The user cannot find out the megabits allocated for each channel. You need a MPEG Stream analyser to do this. In order to try accessing sources from multiple operators on the same satellite, you need the access cards from each of the players. I am not sure what their policy at the moment is to sell the smart cards w/o the STB..

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by rangaraj

The user cannot find out the megabits allocated for each channel. You need a MPEG Stream analyser to do this. In order to try accessing sources from multiple operators on the same satellite, you need the access cards from each of the players.

..

they wouldn't & aren't doing anything of that sort right now. i hope they are using the same satellite.

[ballkey]

Some user reviews are here:

http://www.satellites.co.uk/php-bin/...ad.php?t=71952

Verdict seems to be 'NOT NOW'.

[Insane Devil]

I have been using the Hathway Digital SetTop Box from past few months, and am very happy with it! using it on a Plasma, it makes the pictures look even better, coz bad picture looks horrible, and good pic looks great!

Here in Hyderabad they are selling the box for Rs.2,500/- and monthly rental is around Rs.300/- with more around 130+ channels!

I saw TATA Sky installed at my inlaws, the pic quality is good, cant say its better than the Settop box i am using thou! its the same. but the dissapointing thing is no Zee pack in it, and not even HBO!!!!! totally they give around 56 channels only! many good channels are missing, like CNBC, Discovery - Travel & Living, HBO, Zee pack, and more!

Cost for TATA Sky : Rs.4,550/- which includes the Dish, Settopbox, and 3 months subscribtion.

If u notice, basically both are working thru SET TOP Box only! jus that in hathway, u get the signals thru a cable thru the dish in their office, in Tatasky/Dish TV, u get the cable coming from a dish above ur house!

[Su-47]

Originally Posted by rangaraj

The amount of bandwidth (Megabits/sec) determines the distribution quality of a channel/signal. If the picture is relatively static (such as talking heads in an interview, the bandwidth for a certain quality is less) whereas if it is a music video where the rate of change in each frame is high, then the bandwidth for the same quality is higher. Sports is another good example. DTH operators have a fixed satellite transponder bandwidth and have x number of channels that they broadcast. All these channels have to share this total bandwidth and depending on the bandsidth allocated by the operator - Zee or TataSky or DD, the quality is dependent on it. MAkret conditions - terms of the contract, the premium channels usually get more bandwidth and the not so premium channels get less bandwidth. Of course the inout quality is also very importanta. If you feed a Digi Beta signal vs a VHS signal irrespective of the bandwidth allocated, the VHS signal will still look bad. That is the difference in quality between a sanskar channel and a Sony channel quality..

The difference between Dish and Tata Sky will be how much bandwidth will be allocated. I was with the NDTV guys yesterday, and they mentioned that their signal gets distributed on tata-sky at 3-3.5Mbps whereas on Dish it is around 1.6Mbps. That would explain the quality difference..

ranga raj

Good to see an expert who knows a lot about this industry.

Would you know if:
- The industry is planning to shift to AVC from MPEG-2? If so, when?
- Who would benefit most? Would the customer get benefit (more quality on same bandwidth) or would the operators pack in more channels keeping the quality levels same?

[rangaraj]

Originally Posted by Su-47

Would you know if:
- The industry is planning to shift to AVC from MPEG-2? If so, when?

Definetly.. The Move towards MPEG-4/H.264/AVC/VC-1 is happening at different speeds in different markets. For eg. the triple play trials in India are all being done with one of the above technologies. DirecTV in the US is moving towards H.264 and many others are doing the same. A good number of DVB-H/T trials all use H.264.. So it is definetly happening. The main issue is the broad availability of good encoders (the complexity of these technologies are an order of magnitude higher than MPEG-2) so the cost of these encoders are higher than the MPEG-2. But with time, volume there will be a replacement..

Originally Posted by Su-47

- Who would benefit most? Would the customer get benefit (more quality on same bandwidth) or would the operators pack in more channels keeping the quality levels same?

Well everyone, but if you a DTH operator, you benefit significantly - even if you take a 1:2 ratio - i.e one SDTV MPEG-2 signal occupying the same bandwidth as two SDTV H.264 channels, then straightaway, the operator either has the ability to double the number of channels or use half the number of transponders. The major drive towards these new standards are the introduction of HD signals - with MPEG-2 it would mean a lot more bandwidth, especially if it is 1080i/1080p. An operator by choosing to move to H.264 can deliver an HD signal with the same bandwidth occupied by a MPEG-2 encoded SD signal. So if DirecTV is beaming 300 channels today with MPEG-2, then they have an option to change a few to HD, increase channels/interactivity (including number of camera angles etc. ). So technically it wil benefit all, but from a user perspective, is it more good quality crap ;-) ?

[Su-47]

Thanks a lot, for your quick answers. Yeah, I know complexity of AVC is higher. CABAC rules.....

But, I didn't know whats the scene as far as adoption of technology goes. Good to know field trials are happening in India.

Originally Posted by rangaraj

- An operator by choosing to move to H.264 can deliver an HD signal with the same bandwidth occupied by a MPEG-2 encoded SD signal.

I didn't get this one. Won't HD delievered this way be very compressed, and may be worse than SD!
SD (NTSC for example) 720*240*60 Fields/sec ~= 10.4 Mpixels/sec
HD (720p for example) 1280*720*60 frames/sec ~= 55.3 Mpixels/sec

Even with a optimistic packing ratio of 1:2 (for MPEG vs AVC), packing 55.3 Mpixels/sec into same bandwidth as 10.4 Mpixels/sec seems like a sure path to ugly video.

[rangaraj]

Originally Posted by Su-47

I didn't get this one. Won't HD delievered this way be very compressed, and may be worse than SD!
SD (NTSC for example) 720*240*60 Fields/sec ~= 10.4 Mpixels/sec
HD (720p for example) 1280*720*60 frames/sec ~= 55.3 Mpixels/sec

Even with a optimistic packing ratio of 1:2 (for MPEG vs AVC), packing 55.3 Mpixels/sec into same bandwidth as 10.4 Mpixels/sec seems like a sure path to ugly video.

HD MPEG-2 content at 1920x1080 traditionally runs at 12-20 Mbps, while H.264 can deliver 1920x1080 content at 7-8 Mbps at the same or better quality. H.264 provides DVD quality at about half the data rate of MPEG-2. Today for eg. Tata Sky distributes MPEG-2 encoded channels @ 6-8Mbps and if they switched to H.264, they could distribute a HD signal at the same bit rate. The only issue is a STB that is capable of decoding H.264.. Regarding the trials in India - it really is not a workable solution - the actual bitrate on a xDSL line to an average home is around 2Mbps max. On this the likes of MTNL/Times Broadband/HP want to run a triple play service which includes EPG, VOD etc.. Tried telling them that it would not work, but then when telecom/IT guys who do not know much about Video start implementing solutions based on theoritical knowledge, roadblocks do occur !!

[rangaraj]

There is an important distinction to be made - there is contribution quality (from eg. a broadcaster to a headend or a DTH service provider) which usually is a much higher bandwidth than distribution quality (what a cable operator/DTH operator would resample and distribute signals to an end user). What we get to see and talk about as a user is distribution quality and not contribution quality.. Your questions may be more relevant when talking about contribution quality (where the MPEG-2 data rates are correspondingly higher)..

H.264 levels - Sorry for the formating:
Order is as follows: Level, Typical picture size, Typical frame rate, Maximum bit rate(non-FRExt)

1 QCIF 15 64 Kbps
1b QCIF 15 128 Kbps
1.1 CIF or QCIF 7.5 (CIF)/30 (QCIF) 192 Kbps
1.2 CIF 15 384 Kbps
1.3 CIF 30 768 Kbps
2 CIF 30 2 Mbps
2.1 HHR (480i or 576i) 30/25 4 Mbps
2.2 SD 15 4 Mbps
3 SD 30/25 10 Mbps
3.1 1280x720p 30 14 Mbps
3.2 1280x720p 60 20 Mbps
4 HD (720p or 1080i) 60p/30i 20 Mbps
4.1 HD (720p or 1080i) 60/30i 50 Mbps
4.2 1920x1080p 60p 50 Mbps
5 2kx1k 72 135 Mbps
5.1 2kx1k or 4kx2k 120/30 240 Mbps

Here is an article of a broadcaster's perspective of MPEG-2 vs AVC
World's First MPEG-4/AVC Broadcast on HomeChoice
Mike Slocombe and Simon Perry
20 Apr 2005

Video Networks Launches World's First MPEG-4/AVC BroadcastVideo Networks Limited (VNL), who operate the HomeChoice VOD service around London, have added the children's animation channel Toonami to their line up using the MPEG-4 / AVC format, making it the world's first television channel to be encoded with advanced compression technology.

The company teamed up with Harmonic to launch an initial video-over-xDSL service in 2004 using DiviCom MV 100 encoders configured with MPEG-2.

Since then, VNL has been using the MPEG-2 compression efficiency and picture-quality of the MV 100 to continually enrich the channel line-up of its HomeChoice service.

The MV 100's architecture enables the progressive migration of HomeChoice's existing broadcast channels to MPEG-4.

Additionally, the technology allows further compression improvements to extend HomeChoice's picture quality and reach and range of service, with the Star Trek sounding "field installable software CoDec module".

VNL told Digital-Lifestyles that the quality of the MPEG-4 picture is noticably better that the MPEG-2 stream that is currently used. They hope that the move to MPEG-4 will save them around 50% of their current bandwidth needs in the coming years.

Video Networks Launches World's First MPEG-4/AVC BroadcastVNL's migration to MPEG-4 for its remaining broadcast channels, including the Cartoon Network and Boomerang, is expected to be completed within the next two months. In time the VOD service will also be moved to the new CoDec.

Roger Lynch, Chairman & CEO, Video Networks Ltd was absolutely delighted about what he described as a key enhancement to its platform, adding, "We are not simply adding yet another quality channel from the Turner stable but are creating a world first with the first ever broadcast channel to switch to MPEG-4 / AVC encoding.

The move to MPEG-4 allows us to provide superior picture quality, while reducing the bandwidth required to transmit our broadcast channels."

Once VNL has made the switch to MPEG-4, the saving on bandwidth for them should be substantial. This brings the advantages of VNL having to push less bandwidth out and therefore less of the distribution network is taken up. These reductions in demands bring an opportunity for more TV channels, increased Internet delivery speeds, but most interestingly the chances to carry High Definition (HD) programmes.

We understand that VNL have been testing HD within their labs, but would not be draw on the possibility of its introduction. To us it would appear an obvious step, and given BSkyB's very public launch of HD in the UK later this year, it would be a considerably marketing coup to launch in advance of Sky.

Dr. Yaron Simler - President of the Convergent Systems Division of Harmonic Inc and no stranger to the odd acronym or ten - had this to say:

"While much of the industry is still in a planning, evaluation or trial phase, Video Networks Limited is forging ahead with an advanced technology and pay-TV service platform."

Video Networks Launches World's First MPEG-4/AVC Broadcast"The first commercially available encoding platform to support MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC and SMPTE VC-1, Harmonic's DiviCom MV 100 enabled VNL to provision a compelling video-over-DSL service while in parallel developing the elements of an MPEG-4 environment.

It is rewarding to see that we are moving toward the world's first broadcast TV service based entirely on an advanced codec. This has established both VNL and the DiviCom MV 100 as significant forces in shaping the future of the television market."

Here is another article with respect to IPTV
HD as we know it is just the beginning for IPTV

Aug 15, 2006 8:00 AM

Patrick Pfeffer, chief network architect at telecom engineering consulting firm Detecon, says a competitive IPTV programming portfolio demands HD.

Last week’s announcement from Harmonic that it had introduced an MPEG-4 H.264 AVC encoder that promises to reduce the bit rate required to deliver HD via IPTV to the range of 6Mb/s, raised an interesting question.

Will MPEG-4 H.264 encoders save the day for IPTV providers who decide to make their service offering via their existing copper infrastructures, or will such encoders not influence the battle with service providers offering fiber to the home (FTTH) and fiber to the premises (FTTP) in the long run?

HD Technology Update turned to Patrick Pfeffer, chief network architect at telecom engineering consulting firm Detecon, for some insight.

HD Technology Update: What is your feeling about the receptiveness of IPTV operators to include HD channels as part of their programming lineup?

Patrick Pfeffer: Adding HD programming is a must. There is no way around it. HD is in some cases a feature differentiator, but more often a requirement to attain feature parity with existing video incumbents, such as cable MSOs and DBS. The need for HD has forced the fiber-poor IPTV providers (long copper loop) to embrace the still young MPEG-4. HD was so important that IPTV providers are willing to spend more on the more expensive MPEG-4 STB.

HDTU: Will HDTV create a line of demarcation between IPTV deployments that rely on FTTH or FTTP versus those that rely on existing copper infrastructure? Or, will new efficiencies in MPEG-4 H.264 compression keep the latter competitive in terms of HD delivery?

PP: The improvements of MPEG-4 H.264 will lead to a bit rate reduction of about 20 percent in the next few years. There is a lot of room in the MPEG-4 standard to allow chipset vendors to introduce standard-compliant but proprietary algorithms to improve the bit rate. However, this bit rate improvement will happen at the same time as more and more HDTV sets are deployed within the home.

Today, one estimates that there is one HD set in the living room and two SD sets in the bedroom or kitchen. Non-fiber rich network providers serving their subscribers from the central office with ADSL2+ can offer a triple play with one HD, two SD, two VoIP and a few Mb/s for high-speed Internet. However, regardless of the progress of MPEG-4, I do not believe they will be able to serve more than one HD stream, which will become a requirement in a few years.

A last note, in many countries the regulations will forbid the IPTV provider from offering a network PVR. In that case, the PVR would need to be done locally on the STB. Concurrent recording and watching will mandate higher bit rate pipes. The prowess of MPEG-4 will not be sufficient.

HDTU: Can content owners (i.e. broadcasters) do anything to maintain the highest quality possible for their HD programs to be delivered via IPTV networks? Or, are they simply turning over their reputation — in terms of the quality of their HD pictures and sound — to telcos and IPTV system operators?

PP: A digital signal is carried unaltered from its source to its destination. As we often say, “garbage in, garbage out.” Special attention has to be given to the input of the IPTV video encoding and distribution chain. After that you can count on the IPTV providers to carry the bits with the greatest care, meaning no packet loss and minimal jitter. It is, after all, their core expertise.

It is extremely important that content owners for their SD and HD content deliver to the IPTV provider signals of the highest quality. High-quality ATSC is preferred to statistically muxed satellite feeds. While transcoding has improved dramatically, it is something I usually try to avoid for HD content. You don’t compromise HD quality because HD is about quality.

I am tempted to say that in general, an HD video signal is better carried over MPEG-4 than MPEG-2. At the same bit rate, MPEG-4 output will far outclass MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 has built in mechanisms to mitigate for decoder starvation that can result from a lossy signal. An MPEG-2 stream, when starved, will display those annoying green macro blocks on the screen. An MPEG-4 decoder will hide the lack of data to a level imperceptible to most eyes.

HDTU: Are there any unique opportunities HDTV opens to IPTV operators? For example, HD relies on a 16:9 aspect ratio. With more screen real estate than a 4:3 SD display, could that be used in any clever ways to take advantage of IPTV’s interactive capabilities?

PP: It is a good question. HD will allow more interactivity, but more because of its resolution than its real estate. I expect to see a better combination of video and text applications. I believe we will see an HD video browser. The interactivity is more a function of the HD set than of the HD stream.

HDTU: What sorts of added CAPEX demands will HD place on IPTV operators, if any? Will budgetary demands retard IPTV HD deployment?

PP: HD is more expensive than SD. And while the gap is shrinking, it will always exist. For HD content, an IPTV provider needs special satellite receivers, high frequency switches, the storage of HD VoD content requires more hard drives, the bandwidth must be higher and finally an MPEG-4 STB is needed. However, as I mentioned earlier, HD is not an option, it is a requirement. Today, the major problem with HD for IPTV providers is not the cost of MPEG-4 STBs but their availability in quantity and different flavors (hard drive with different sizes for example).

HDTU: Is there anything else you would like to add?

PP: HD is not the end of the road. In a few years, we will have super HD with better resolution and 60fps. With the rapid pace of today's market, not moving ahead with service improvements means falling behind competitively.

In summary, for IPTV providers, a winning product portfolio means HD, and HD means MPEG-4.

[Steeroid]

Originally Posted by ballkey

Some user reviews are here:

http://www.satellites.co.uk/php-bin/...ad.php?t=71952

Verdict seems to be 'NOT NOW'.

NOW.

Kicked out Asianet from my hometown house as parents were not happy with either service or quality. Got Tata SKY - yes it doesnt have as many channels as others but the picture and sound quality is world class, and they're adding a few channels every month.

Overall - VERY HAPPY.

[sharathjeppu]

Awesome amount of information. Thanks Rangaraj.

[Su-47]

Originally Posted by rangaraj

Regarding the trials in India - it really is not a workable solution - the actual bitrate on a xDSL line to an average home is around 2Mbps max. On this the likes of MTNL/Times Broadband/HP want to run a triple play service which includes EPG, VOD etc.. Tried telling them that it would not work, but then when telecom/IT guys who do not know much about Video start implementing solutions based on theoritical knowledge, roadblocks do occur !!

Are thr trials only confined to xDSL? Isn't anyone in the DTH (or cable) space in our country thrilled by the potential of HD?

[Su-47]

Originally Posted by Su-47

Are thr trials only confined to xDSL? Isn't anyone in the DTH (or cable) space in our country thrilled by the potential of HD?

I forgot to say "Thank You" for your explanations. Thanks rangaraj

[rangaraj]

Originally Posted by Su-47

Are thr trials only confined to xDSL? Isn't anyone in the DTH (or cable) space in our country thrilled by the potential of HD?

Neither TataSky nor Zee have immediate plans.. There was some talk of SunTV's platform being that.. The big problem is the cost of STB.. We are not a mature market and therefore the ARPU (Average Revenue per user) is not much though the numbers are high. So PVR's (STB's with drives to record material aka TIVO), H.264 STBs are going to be expensive.. Remember the MPEG-2 boxes are in the tail end of their technology deployment - lots of volume, lots of revenue earned, lots of royalty claimed and therefore the prices are low. H.264 technology is relatively new and the first versions of these will be expensive till the global volumes pick-up. The royalty for a suite of patents that vendors have to pay through MPEG-LA is much higher than MPEG-2. So overall, till the ARPUs increase and the rates of these STBs are large (globally), i doubt we will see them in India for satellite.. With regard to HD, there is no legislation to do it. In the US, the content service providers did not shift to HD for the love to providing a better service to their customers. They were forced to by the FCC . All broadcasters were forced toward the digital television implemenation by a certain timeline. In Australia, the story was the same. The other factor was the availability of receivers - most of the LCD/Plasma TV's nowadays are HD ready. It is when the overall population, the spectrum regulatory body (who want to free up analog spectrum) force the movement towards digital and from there move up the quality chain, HD will become reality. We have just about transitioned from B/W sets to colour thanks to the reduction in prices and the non-availability of picture tubes. Worldwide picture tube manufacturing is consolidating and there is a move towards LCD/Plasma and other similar technologies. Once that shift happens, the camcorder resolutions increase to HD as compared to SD, there will be some public pressure. There is a HUGE cost involved in shifting to HD - the technical infrastructure in studios, transmission equipment, distribution, access devices and of course playout devices. We are just about implementing CAS (conditional access systems). Once the revenue streams and the ARPU's flow into the system, the broadcasters/service providers will have the money to transition to HD. Equipment available gobally will be SD/HD compliant and that will make the transition easier. The more mature markets are just about shifting (with considerable pain and cost) towards HD. I would give it quite a few years before discussion along those lines happen in India. We are still are a society that accept VCD quality!