[iptv-users] STB/video stream monitoring

[Alex Moen]

The problem with the MDU's in this area is that the owners will not  
let any new cable be run.  We have to work with what is there.  Kind  
of a pain.  And the company does not want to put pressure on the  
owners, so we do what we can.

As far as the SHE, it really makes a lot of sense if you can get the  
transport agreements, but is sure is nice to be able to just go fix a  
problem in your own headend rather than waiting for someone else to  
fix it.  Bandwidth for the app is not a problem, it's just the  
frustration of waiting for a problem to be resolved.

Alex


On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Kevin Shymkiw wrote:

> For MDU's, why don't you run FTT"x" and put it in a common area, and  
> terminate it into a Multi-Layer Switch?  Then run Cat6 from the  
> Common Area, into each apartment.  This allows you to still target  
> MDU's, and have all the flexibility you would need, just like FTTH.
>
> As well, I guess my mindset is a bit different as far a SHE is  
> concerned, since I am in a company where the Network is so big, and  
> we own so much fiber, that sometimes my ideas, don't scale well for  
> the smaller MSO's/ISP's/CATV Operators =).
>
> Kevin
>
> Alex Moen wrote:
>> Actually, we're kind of moving away from the super head end model.   
>> Transport agreements are getting harder to get.  As long as whoever  
>> is maintaining the SHE is responsive to the other member's requests  
>> and input, things go well.  When the managers of the SHE start  
>> changing things without consent of the group, or are not available  
>> when things break, it can get very frustrating.
>>
>> We are moving to FTTH, but have to deploy video on ADSL2+ to  
>> customers who do not have fiber, or those in areas that cannot get  
>> fiber (ie, apartment bldgs).  We are looking at VDSL, but so far we  
>> haven't found a system that we like or that is mature.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:59 AM, Kevin Shymkiw wrote:
>>
>>> That seems to be the model we want to move to is a "super head  
>>> end".  It seems to make more sense in terms of managing and  
>>> verifying content quality.
>>>
>>> I hear alot of you talking about DSLAM issues, etc... are most of  
>>> you doing IPTV through DSL or VDSL Networks?
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> Frank Bulk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since we use a state-wide shared head end , if there’s an issue  
>>>> with an encoder other service providers in the state see it,  
>>>> too.  Additionally the organization that manages the headend has  
>>>> Ineoquest, too.  Today we pick up the MPEG-2 video over OC-3s, so  
>>>> we have all the ATM PM counters, too, in regards to transport.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>> From: Kevin Shymkiw [mailto:kshymkiw at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:24 AM
>>>> To: frnkblk at iname.com
>>>> Cc: 'Alex Moen'; iptv-users at puck.nether.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [iptv-users] STB/video stream monitoring
>>>>
>>>> In all honesty, we have had alot of Finger Pointing that ended up  
>>>> being bad feeds from the source, especially since we pick up alot  
>>>> of our feeds from other Video/Cable Providers.  But without a  
>>>> doubt, if you have a video probe at your edge before you go to  
>>>> the Copper Plant, it makes it very easy to point the finger at  
>>>> them and have the proof to support it.
>>>>
>>>> We do also seem to have alot of issues, when we are doing >6-8G  
>>>> of Multicast over some of the Cisco Cards we have deployed, so at  
>>>> times, that does come back to bite us.
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>> Frank Bulk wrote:
>>>> When you have this finger-pointing, what does the problem  
>>>> actually end up
>>>> being?  The vast majority of our video quality issues relate to  
>>>> the copper
>>>> plant.  Only a minority have been related our transport gear's  
>>>> ability to
>>>> drop the content off the DSL port.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Alex Moen [mailto:alexm at ndtel.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:35 AM
>>>> To: frnkblk at iname.com
>>>> Cc: iptv-users at puck.nether.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [iptv-users] STB/video stream monitoring
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at Ineoquest's iVMS (for transport quality  
>>>> monitoring) and
>>>> iCMS (for video/audio content quality and end-user experience
>>>> monitoring).  We use both of these products, and they can be both a
>>>> lifesaver and a "finger-pointing" resolver.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ineoquest.com
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone doing any video stream error monitoring/checking from the
>>>> point-of-view of the STB?  I know that there is at least one vendor
>>>> out
>>>> there, Psytechnics, that has a module it can integrate into the
>>>> middleware
>>>> of the STB, but I haven't see IPTV middleware vendors picking that
>>>> up.  I
>>>> know that the Amino 110 writes out some rudimentary stats to the
>>>> drive.
>>>>
>>>> We track most of our video problems based on the 15-minute PM bins
>>>> that our
>>>> transport gear's ADSL ports record, but nothing L4 and up.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally every STB would have something Psytechnic-like built in.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> iptv-users mailing list
>>>> iptv-users at puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/iptv-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> iptv-users mailing list
>>>> iptv-users at puck.nether.net
>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/iptv-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>