IPTV Components

Date: November 1, 2004
Pages: N/A
Price:
US$ 2,995.00
Publisher: MRG Multimedia Research Group, Inc.
Report type: Strategic Report
Delivery: E-mail Delivery (PDF)
ID: IF6A92BE211EN
Leaflet:

Download PDF Leaflet

IPTV Components
Hard Copy Print Edition $1,995.00 USD
PDF Single-Departmental License $2,995.00 USD
PDF Corporate-Wide License Ask for a Quote


This report looks at three component technologies that will have a significant effect on the deployment of IP TV services:

-VDSL Components
-Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) Components
-Video Compression Components

The VDSL and FTTP components improve the performance of IP TV networks by significantly increasing the bandwidth that can be provided to each subscriber. The Video Compression components improve the performance of IP TV networks by significantly lowering the bandwidth required to transmit a video stream to each subscriber.

Table 1-1 lists the performance available from the new VDSL technologies along with the distance at which this level of performance is available. In addition, it compares the new VDSL and FTTP technologies with the current ADSL technologies as well as the ADSL-2+ technologies that will be deployed in 2005. The Passive Optical Network (PON) technologies are point-to-multipoint technologies that share the bandwidth from a single fiber coming from the central office with a number of subscribers.

Table 1-1: VDSL and FTTP Performance

Table 1-1 shows that VDSL and even ADSL-2+ will require the deployment of remote systems to get the service close enough to the subscriber for many service providers, especially in North America. This will take a significant investment by these carriers to deploy these services. The Proprietary VDSL in this table is based on currently deployed central office based VDSL technology from companies such as Motorola (based on its acquisition of Next Level Communications). Distance is not an issue with fiber technologies. The Fiber to the Home (FTTH) technologies discussed in this report do require the deployment of fiber to each subscriber’s home. This could take a capital investment from $100 to $200 billion to provide fiber to every home in North America.

Table 1-3 lists the bandwidth required to support an IP TV video stream for both Standard Definition (SD) and High Definition (HD) TV using MPEG-2 and upper and lower bond Low Bit Rate encoding schemes. Both MPEG-4 encoding with H.264 compression and Windows Media 9 are vying to be deployed by service providers. MPEG-4 and H.264 are both standards based technologies. Windows Media 9 was developed as a proprietary technology by Microsoft and is currently being standardized as VC-1 by SMPTE. At this time, both of these encoding schemes have similar performance.

Table 1-3 shows that Low Bit Rate encoding offers a factor of two improvement in performance when it is first introduced (as shown in the conservative estimate). It also shows that it is likely that Low Bit Rate encoding can be improved by another factor of two (as shown in the aggressive forecast).

Table 1-5 shows the number of SD and HD streams that can be provided to subscribers over an IP TV network. It uses the Aggressive Estimate for Low Bit Rate encoding so it shows what may be achieved when the most advanced video compression methods are combined with the most advanced copper based DSL technologies. Bandwidth is much less of an issue with fiber based access technologies. In this report we are focusing on downstream speeds. ADSL-2+, the slowest of these technologies, is capable of support better that 1 Mbps upstream, which is high enough to eliminate upstream latency as a system performance issue for channel changing, or any other system performance consideration. This table shows that:

- Either VDSL-1 or VDSL-2 has enough bandwidth when an aggressive Low Bit Rate codec is used to support any reasonable combination of SD and HD video streams to the home.

- The current, proprietary versions of VDSL can support up to three HD video streams along with up to five SD video streams, which is sufficient for the most demanding user.

- ADSL-2+ is capable of supporting one HD stream along with up to nine SD streams, so it will be a viable, if not generous, HD IP TV offering.

- This aggressive Low Bit Rate encoding allows ADSL to support any reasonable number of SD video streams. Even with this high rate of compression, ADSL will not be able to support HD TV.

Components that support VDSL, FTTP, and Low Bit Rate video compression are well advanced:

- Components are available that comply with the following VDSL, FTTP, and Video Compression standards:
  • VDSL-1
  • APON & BPON
  • EPON
  • MPEG-2
  • Windows Media 9/VC-1
  • Components supporting MPEG-4 with H.264 will be available by the end of 2004
  • Components supporting GPON will start to become available in mid-2005.

The conclusions from this report include:
  • VDSL will be an important technology for IP TV because it will provide the bandwidth required to support HD. Conversely, IP TV will be the impetus for many if not most future VDSL deployments.
  • FTTP will be of increasing significance as service providers give up on squeezing the last drop of performance out of their copper plant using DSL technology.
  • GPON will not be ready for volume deployment until 2006.
  • EPON components are ready for deployment today and are likely to be widely deployed in Asia. This will give EPON a significant advantage over GPON.
  • Set-top boxes supporting MPEG-2, MPEG-4 with H.264 compression, and Windows Media 9/VC-1 will be available in quantity in 2005.
  • Further enhancements in video compression will continue to improve the performance in IP TV systems and will achieve the results outlined in Table 1-5 in time.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 IP TV BANDWIDTH REQUIREMENTS

3 VDSL TECHNOLOGIES AND COMPONENTS


3.1 VDSL Technology
  3.1.1 VDSL-1
  3.1.2 VDSL-2
  3.1.3 ADSL-2 and ADSL-2+
  3.1.4 VDSL Performance Requirements
  3.1.5 Status of VDSL Components
  3.1.6 Conclusions for VDSL

4 FIBER TO THE PREMISE TECHNOLOGIES AND COMPONENTS

4.1 EPON Components
4.2 GPON Components
  4.2.1 Conclusions for FTTP

5 VIDEO COMPRESSION TECHNOLOGIES AND COMPONENTS

5.1 Video Compression Components
  5.1.1 Conclustions for Video Compression Components

6 OPPORTUNITIES, RISKS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Opportunities
6.2 Risks
6.3 Recommendations

7 APPENDICES

7.1 Companies Offering VDSL Components
  7.1.1 Aware, Inc.
  7.1.2 Metalink Ltd.
  7.1.3 Texas Instruments Incorporated
7.2 Companies Offering Fiber to the Premise Components
  7.2.1 BroadLight, Inc.
  7.2.2 Passavé Technologies
7.3 Companies Offering Video Compression Components
  7.3.1 Ateme
  7.3.2 Equator Technologies, Inc.
  7.3.3 LSI Logic Corporation
  7.3.4 Sigma Designs

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure _3-1: Texas Instruments Estimate of ADSL and VDSL Performance
Figure _4-1: PON Architecture
Figure _7-1: Reach of IP TV Services Using Two Pair Bonding
Figure _7-2: VDSLPlus Spectrum Allocation
Figure _7-3: VDSLPlus Block Diagram
Figure _7-4: Total-VDSL Downstream Speeds
Figure _7-5: Texas Instruments Estimate of ADSL and VDSL Performance
Figure _7-6: TI DM642 Component Block Diagram
Figure _7-7: BroadLight XL230 Architecture
Figure _7-8: Equator BSP-15 Architecture
Figure _7-9: Sigma Designs EM8620L Block Diagram

TABLE OF TABLES

Table _1-1: VDSL and FTTP Performance
Table _1-2: Video Bandwidth Requirements
Table _1-3: Video Streams Supported with Aggressive Low Bit Rate Encoding
Table _2-1: Video Bandwidth Requirements
Table _2-2: Video Streams Supported - Key
Table _2-3: Video Streams Supported Using MPEG-2
Table _2-4: Video Streams Supported with Conservative Low Bit Rate Encoding
Table _2-5: Video Streams Supported with Aggressive Low Bit Rate Encoding
Table _7-1: Component Profiles
Table _7-2: Aware, Inc. Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-3: Aware, Inc. Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-4: Aware, Inc. Broadband Video Components
Table _7-5: System Vendors using Aware, Inc. Components
Table _7-6: Capacity Assumptions for Reach of ADSL2+ IP TV Services
Table _7-7: Metalink’s Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-8: Metalink’s Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-9: Metalink’s Broadband Video Components
Table _7-10: System Vendors using Metalink’s Components
Table _7-11: Texas Instruments Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-12: Texas Instruments Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-13: Texas Instruments Broadband Video Components
Table _7-14: System Vendors using Texas Instruments Components
Table _7-15: BroadLight’s Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-16: BroadLight’s Broadband Video Components
Table _7-17: System Vendors using BroadLight’s Components
Table _7-18: Passavé Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-19: Passavé Broadband Video Components
Table _7-20: System Vendors using Passavé Components
Table _7-21: Ateme’s Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-22: Ateme’s Broadband Video Components
Table _7-23: Equator Technologies Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-24: Equator Technologies Broadband Video Components
Table _7-25: IP TV System Vendors using Equator Technologies Components
Table _7-26: LSI Logic’s Fiscal 2003 Financial Results*
Table _7-27: LSI Logic’s Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-28: Sigma Designs Fiscal 2003 Financial Results
Table _7-29: Sigma Designs Broadband Video Component Technologies
Table _7-30: Sigma Designs Broadband Video Components for IP TV Set-Top Boxes
Table _7-31: Sigma Designs Comparison Table for IP TV Components
Table _7-32: System Vendors using Sigma Designs Components

Ask Your Question

IPTV Components
Company name*:
Contact person*:
Phone/fax*:
Email*:
Request invoice
Your enquiry: