View Single Post
Old 30-11-2009, 14:43   #663
Felim_Doyle
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK
Age: 62
Services: Digital TV XL TiVo 500MB, Broadband 100Mb SuperHub, Telephone XXL
Posts: 897
Felim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of societyFelim_Doyle is a pillar of society
Send a message via ICQ to Felim_Doyle Send a message via AIM to Felim_Doyle Send a message via MSN to Felim_Doyle Send a message via Yahoo to Felim_Doyle
Post Re: Virgin media possibly getting serious on dodgy boxes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turkey Machine View Post
That's going to be a given, they can't give separate TV and phone packages otherwise.
I'm not sure what the 'phone has to do with it. That comes down the twisted pair copper wires attached to the side of the co-ax to form the siamese twin cable as it's known. I'd have thought that the bandwidth for broadband and IPTV could be shared on the co-ax rather than using distinct frequencies for each IP stream but it is probably not likely given that one will be handled by the cable modem/router and the other by the STB.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon View Post
You've underlined a lot of nice words, but missed out the a couple of important ones ...
I didn't intentionally underline anything, they were links in the original text when I copied and pasted it. No emphasis intended. I was just trying to make the distinction between 'the internet', as most people understand it, and 'an internet protocol network' regardless of it's open or closed status or LAN, PAN, WAN etc. nature.

---------- Post added at 14:43 ---------- Previous post was at 14:01 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oatie View Post
Something about Hull and telecoms, (cant remember or be bothered to look up), but the telecom provider up that neck of the woods doesnt have to conform to national regulations in some way or other?
Kingston-Upon-Hull is an autonomous republic enclave within the UK. I'm not even sure it's part of the EU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oatie View Post
Was proper VoD, (delivered over DSL), but was pretty much telly via IP. Clever stuff at the time. Lost touch with it all now mind.
Excusing any inaccuracies, AFIK, BT developed ADSL in the 80s/90s at their Ipswich research centre purely for VoD. Public access to the internet was relatively new then and nobody saw a need for broadband given that dial-up modem speeds were rapidly reaching 9600 baud and beyond. Unfortunately for them, before deregulation, BT's licence did not allow them to compete in the TV or VoD markets and so the technology was shelved until the need for broadband eventually became a reallity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oatie View Post
Going back to the original topic ...
My question is won't conditional access controls still be needed for IPTV? There will still have to be something that decides what the viewer is entitled to watch.
Felim_Doyle is offline   Reply With Quote