ViacomCBS looking to sell S&S

[Quoth]

Try it somewhere busy and with more than one client.
Yes, it CAN work, also on 3G. BTW in the same bandwidth channel the 5G is NO FASTER at all.
A mast has usually three sectors. It has less bandwith for a sector than decent VDSL. Each VDSL connection is NOT shared. The total bandwidth of a sector IS shared to all connected.

Anyone having working streaming all the time on 3G / 4G / 5G is living near an underutilised mast. Also the likelihood of an entire family or an apartment block or house full of students even being able to stream at all is low.

It's not broadband. It connects on demand and shares very limited bandwidth. It is not a viable alternative to real broadband as it doesn't economically scale. You'd need far too many masts.

The 5G in most cases will make little difference, it mostly about combining infrastructure and line of site for mass gatherings.

Unfortunately Cable Broadband can't be deployed economically outside towns and cities. I have a friend that lives on a mountainside. Fortunately it's on a main national road route and near a mast so the road has coverage. So he has excellent 3G or 4G for streaming.
I live in a village of about 1,200 that has a mast in the village and near the bypassing motorway. The Mobile speed is rubbish.
The Mobile speed is quite good in the city centre nearly 10km away. But almost everyone has cable broadband and many have fibre to the home.

The Cable and Fibre suppliers add various streaming services here at a discount and have local servers at their main nodes. The Cable also has all the UK TV, 90 % of the TV watched in Ireland on Pay Satellite and Pay Cable TV is actually available FTA for over 15 years, either via an aerial (Irish HD) or a dish (UK). So even before Netflix, Amazon etc the Cable company was massively promoting FAST broadband and upgraded to HFC.
I worked in USA and frankly the cable TV was garbage then compared to the five UK FTA and three Irish FTA (all analogue then, many more of both FTA and all Digital).

Certainly USA Cable broadband used to be poor and Cable TV terrible. So the strategy is now to sell fast always on broadband.
In many European countries over the last 15 years, the operators are now selling multi-play of Fast Broadband (Cable using HFC, Fibre to Cabinet, Fibre to home, VDSL), discounted access to streaming, premium sports broadcast channels, Mobile packages, discounted VOIP with geographic numbers and DECT handsets).
Sky Satellite Pay TV saw this coming so now sell broadband and optional integration to a satellite box. Plenty of people can't get fast broadband and about 10% can't get any broadband.

Streaming Operators are carving a complementary niche to Broadcast TV and the best way to reliably consume streaming is via real Fast Broadband, hence Cable in USA belatedly changing emphasis to Broadband rather than piped broadcast TV.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Try it somewhere busy and with more than one client.
Yes, it CAN work, also on 3G. BTW in the same bandwidth channel the 5G is NO FASTER at all.
A mast has usually three sectors. It has less bandwith for a sector than decent VDSL. Each VDSL connection is NOT shared. The total bandwidth of a sector IS shared to all connected.

Anyone having working streaming all the time on 3G / 4G / 5G is living near an underutilised mast. Also the likelihood of an entire family or an apartment block or house full of students even being able to stream at all is low.

It's not broadband. It connects on demand and shares very limited bandwidth. It is not a viable alternative to real broadband as it doesn't economically scale. You'd need far too many masts.

The 5G in most cases will make little difference, it mostly about combining infrastructure and line of site for mass gatherings.

Unfortunately Cable Broadband can't be deployed economically outside towns and cities. I have a friend that lives on a mountainside. Fortunately it's on a main national road route and near a mast so the road has coverage. So he has excellent 3G or 4G for streaming.
I live in a village of about 1,200 that has a mast in the village and near the bypassing motorway. The Mobile speed is rubbish.
The Mobile speed is quite good in the city centre nearly 10km away. But almost everyone has cable broadband and many have fibre to the home.

The Cable and Fibre suppliers add various streaming services here at a discount and have local servers at their main nodes. The Cable also has all the UK TV, 90 % of the TV watched in Ireland on Pay Satellite and Pay Cable TV is actually available FTA for over 15 years, either via an aerial (Irish HD) or a dish (UK). So even before Netflix, Amazon etc the Cable company was massively promoting FAST broadband and upgraded to HFC.
I worked in USA and frankly the cable TV was garbage then compared to the five UK FTA and three Irish FTA (all analogue then, many more of both FTA and all Digital).

Certainly USA Cable broadband used to be poor and Cable TV terrible. So the strategy is now to sell fast always on broadband.
In many European countries over the last 15 years, the operators are now selling multi-play of Fast Broadband (Cable using HFC, Fibre to Cabinet, Fibre to home, VDSL), discounted access to streaming, premium sports broadcast channels, Mobile packages, discounted VOIP with geographic numbers and DECT handsets).
Sky Satellite Pay TV saw this coming so now sell broadband and optional integration to a satellite box. Plenty of people can't get fast broadband and about 10% can't get any broadband.

Streaming Operators are carving a complementary niche to Broadcast TV and the best way to reliably consume streaming is via real Fast Broadband, hence Cable in USA belatedly changing emphasis to Broadband rather than piped broadcast TV.

Yep. I've got Comcast broadband here in Atlanta, GA. It advertises 1GB speed and generally gets pretty close to that on speedtest. One thing that some providers are doing in rural areas is run T1 lines. After some 20 years of having to use sat. internet (which stinks), my sister who lives in the boonies, just got a T1 put in with speeds up to 100 Mbps. It makes streaming services possible for her.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yep. I've got Comcast broadband here in Atlanta, GA. It advertises 1GB speed and generally gets pretty close to that on speedtest. One thing that some providers are doing in rural areas is run T1 lines. After some 20 years of having to use sat. internet (which stinks), my sister who lives in the boonies, just got a T1 put in with speeds up to 100 Mbps. It makes streaming services possible for her.

I don't see how that is possible since T1 has 1.544 Mbit/s maximum, T2 is 6.312 Mbit/s, and T3 is 44.736 Mbit/s. Even OC-1 is only 51.84 Mbit/s.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Try it somewhere busy and with more than one client.
.

Suburban residential neighborhood in a modest city (250,000).
Not downtown manhattan.
(I was getting 17-24Mb. Not the 30-40Mb range of cable, but since cable wasn't working for months...)

But Downtown manhattan in exactly where 5G shines because of the new frequencies on the block by block transmitters.

And again: I'm not talking marketing speak here but realworld bandwidth use.

I hate to bring them in again, but in real world use:

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

Below are the internet download speed recommendations per stream for playing TV shows and movies through Netflix.

3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality

5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality

25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality

Watch Netflix in HD

To watch Netflix in HD, ensure you have an HD plan, then set your video quality setting to Auto or High. Titles will play in HD as long as you have a connection speed of 5.0 megabits per second or faster.

5G is a layered tech. Using high microwave frequencies over short distances in dense locations and older 4G in low density areas. Total bandwidth will scale with user density. The 5G 1GB promises are peak and as relevant to the streaming world as Google's gigabit fiber. What is relevant in the streaming world is the low end tier in the 30-100 Mb range.

That is what people getting gouged by cablecos for 20/40MB and data caps will now have a choice.

This explains the 5G architecture:


https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-is-5g/

Unlike LTE, 5G operates on three different spectrum bands. While this may not seem important, it will have a dramatic effect on your everyday use.

Low-band spectrum can also be described as sub 1GHz spectrum. It’s the primary band used by carriers in the U.S. for LTE, and bandwidth is nearly depleted. While low-band spectrum offers great coverage area and wall penetration, there is a big drawback: Peak data speeds will top out around 100Mbps.

T-Mobile is the key player when it comes to low-band spectrum. The carrier picked up a massive amount of 600MHz spectrum at a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) auction in 2017 and is using it to quickly build out its nationwide 5G network.

Mid-band spectrum provides faster speeds and lower latency than low-band. It does, however, fail to penetrate buildings as effectively as low-band spectrum. Expect peak speeds up to 1Gbps on mid-band spectrum.

Sprint has the majority of unused mid-band spectrum in the U.S. The carrier is using Massive MIMO to improve penetration and coverage area on the mid-band. Massive MIMO groups multiple antennas onto a single box, and at a single cell tower, to create multiple simultaneous beams to different users. Sprint will also use Beamforming to bolster 5G service on the mid-band. This sends a single focused signal to each and every user in the cell, and systems using it monitor each user to make sure they have a consistent signal.

High-band spectrum is what delivers the highest performance for 5G, but with major weaknesses. It is often referred to as mmWave. High-band spectrum can offer peak speeds up to 10Gbps and has extremely low latency. The main drawback of high-band is that it has low coverage area and building penetration is poor.

AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon are all rolling out high-band spectrum. 5G coverage for the carriers will piggyback off LTE while they work to build out nationwide networks. Since high-band spectrum sacrifices building penetration and coverage area for high speed, it will rely on many small cells. These are low-power base stations that cover small geographic areas and can be combined with beamforming to bolster coverage.

Performance?

Both NSA and SA standards share the same specifications, but NSA uses existing LTE networks for rollout while SA will use a next-generation core network. Carriers are starting with the NSA specification, which means you will fall back on 4G LTE in a non-5G environment.

The standards set by 3GPP closely correspond with IMT-2020 performance targets and are somewhat complex, but here’s a general rundown:

Peak data rate: 5G will offer significantly faster data speeds. Peak data rates can hit 20Gbps downlink and 10Gbps uplink per mobile base station. Mind you, that’s not the speed you’d experience with 5G (unless you have a dedicated connection) — it’s the speed shared by all users on the cell.

Real-world speeds: While the peak data rates for 5G sound pretty impressive, actual speeds won’t be the same. The spec calls for user download speeds of 100Mbps and upload speeds of 50Mbps.

Latency: Latency, the time it takes data to travel from one point to another, should be at 4 milliseconds in ideal circumstances, and at 1 millisecond for use cases that demand the utmost speed. Think remote surgeries, for instance.

Efficiency: Radio interfaces should be energy efficient when in use, and drop into low-energy mode when not in use. Ideally, a radio should be able to switch into a low-energy state within 10 milliseconds when no longer in use.

Spectral efficiency: Spectral efficiency is “the optimized use of spectrum or bandwidth so that the maximum amount of data can be transmitted with the fewest transmission errors.” 5G should have a slightly improved spectral efficiency over LTE, coming in at 30bits/Hz downlink, and 15 bits/Hz uplink.

Mobility: With 5G, base stations should support movement from 0 to 310 mph. This basically means the base station should work across a range of antenna movements — even on a high-speed train. While it’s easily done on LTE networks, such mobility can be a challenge on new millimeter wave networks.

Connection density: 5G should be able to support many more connected devices than LTE. The standard states 5G should be able to support 1 million connected devices per square kilometer. That’s a huge number, which takes into account the slew of devices that will power the Internet of Things (IoT).

Much more at the source.

My local case is that ATT is building out their core base stations along the suburban roadsides, with a three foot orange tube every few hundred feet. Once they officially launch, they'll add the connection stations inside the specific development. Sprint and T-Mobike already have most of their 5G system in place and are waiting on consumer hardware to come down in price. It'll be a year or so before they start selling consumer internet but Liberty is already doubling speeds for "some reason".

In dense city centers, the wireless carriers are installing their stations (which are very small boxes) by negotiating with the municipalities to attach tbe boxes to light poles and trafic signals.

In less denser exurbs, they use proprietary wire to link the stations to their network.

None of it is cheap. It is costing the carriers billions and it is why T-Mobile bought Sprint (they already owned oodles of tbe best spectrum). They aren't spending this for smoke and mirrors marketing (though there is plenty of this in some areas).

They're doing it to take market share away from the cablecos and take advantage of the cordcutting boom.

Free market economics.
Cablecos have been abusing customers for decades and gatekeeping content providers. They've raked in hundreds of billions over those decades.
But they've also made themselves thoroughly detested.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemo.../#7367a43690b5

The pay TV business has been in decline for over five years and the move to higher broadband prices has made them the target of new technologies:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/03/cabl...one-shows.html

Bottom line is the world of 2020 isn't the world of 2019/

There are at least five major technologies (cordcutting, 5G, reusable space launch systems, LEO SAT communications, superbatteries, and electric cars) maturing at the same time and are collectively disrupting a lot of major business.

ViacomCBS isn't alone in getting caught with their pants down.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I don't see how that is possible since T1 has 1.544 Mbit/s maximum, T2 is 6.312 Mbit/s, and T3 is 44.736 Mbit/s. Even OC-1 is only 51.84 Mbit/s.

All I can say is that when I tested it via speedtest, it registered 50 Mbps, which is what she's paying for. You get higher speeds for more money. It could be that AT&T is using T1 as short hand for a dedicated line and that it's technically some thing else, but it sure isn't cable or fiber.

[binaryhermit]

I think ATT has something they used to call UVerse that was fiber to the node then ADSL2 or VDSL from there.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I think ATT has something they used to call UVerse that was fiber to the node then ADSL2 or VDSL from there.

They described it as Fiber to the curb. Fiber to a given development, write to the customer. It's being renamed as ATT INTERNET.

It has a pay TV companion but they've stopped marketing that and aren't signing up new customers. It's expected to be phased out this year.
Instead they are offering up the new ATT TV live TV streaming service.

https://www.cordcuttersnews.com/att-...se-tv-in-2020/

Same story as elsewhere. Pay TV over cable slowly fading away in favor of a mix of streaming solutions, most of which bear no resemblance to cable TV. And companies with big revenues from cable TV are scrambling to adapt.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Oh, I doubt it'll sell fast.
If at all.

Amazon will buy it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

Amazon will buy it.

It's not impossible but if tbey do it it would be for the IP archives. They would fire almost everybody and close up shop in NY.

Amazon's first publishing venture was 100% NYC style and run by a "traitor" from the Manhattan Mafia. All it achieved was massive losses because of tbe boycott. They ended up firing him and moving APub to Seattle and Michigan and refocusing on digital first. Eventually they moved to a market driven low cost model in response to the boycott by B&N and the ABA.

Don't forget the boycott: it is old, enduring, and unending. B&M retailers refuse to carry Amazon pbooks, which renders the entire pbook side of S&S worthless to Amazon.
If Amazon buys S&S they will be immediately be boycotted by the ABA and B&N. (The new guy wants to run B&N as a federation of standalone stores and he is no more an Amazon fan than the old guy.)

APub's successful new model isn't the result of some brilliant strategy but rather it was forced on them by tbe boycott. The same with AmazonBooks: if the b&m stores hadn't boycotted APub, Amazon wouldn't be doing pbook bookstores. It is simply the only way they can get their books before the bookshelf strollers.

Amazon buying S&S to shut them down wouldn't be the best look for Amazon but the NYC model won't work as long as the boycott stands and, besides, the APub model is working fine: Amazon doesn't break out their book sales but the buzz among industry pundits and authors is APub is bigger (moneywise) than Hachette and occasionally S&S's bad years. Like 2019.

Essentially, Amazon buying S&S might be more trouble than it's worth.
APub doesn't put out as many books as the NYC BPHs but they are more profitable despite paying higher royalties. Their customers are happy, their authors are happy, and corporate is happy. And even some prominent genre name authors are migrating to APub. The digital first, genre-driven model is working fine. So the only value in S&S to Amazon is the old books.

That said, there is *some* sense in Bezos, personally, buying S&S and merging it into the Washington Post (because of their political books) but that would be separate from Amazon. And might still invoke the boycott.

As is, the main candidates remain Lagardere, News Corp, Holtzbrink, or a hedge fund looking to streamline operations, reduce dead weight, and then IPO the remaining company. All ahead of Bezos who these days seems a bit more interested in...other things.

There really isn't much need for Amazon to buy S&S.

However, as I said above, if ViacomCBS succeeds in selling S&S the rest of the media company becomes very attractive to Amazon and even more to Apple. Even Google. A bidding war might arise over their archives and studios.

(And no, Apple doesn't do low margin products so S&S won't appeal to them.)

[Quoth]

Or another value to Amazon of S&S is no-one else having it.
They and Qualcomm have done that.