|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPTV article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Early reference
- 2 27 December, 2005 edits
- 3 Company list
- 4 IPTV 101
- 5 Market Prospects for IPTV
- 6 IPTV Channels
- 7 Broadband Television
- 8 IPTV vs Internet TV vs IP media
- 9 Triple play
- 10 IPTV Xbox at CES 2007
- 11 Should there be WikiProject:IPTV?
- 12 Article Quality
- 13 Should I add a link to On telecoms
- 14 Unreasonable Administration?
- 15 The 'See also' section
- 16 Privacy
- 17 Network Neutrality
- 18 Map of IPTV countries
- 19 Commercial IPTV largely missing from this article
- 20 Canada has IPTV
- 21 Revert war: Is IPTV an acronym?
- 22 External Link
- 23 Australia has IPTV
- 24 Google TV coming to UK
- 25 Ethernet is evil?
- 26 How about mentioning OIPF?
One of the first references of IPTV available on the web is: http://www.santarosa.edu/~lonyett/estrin.html Insider Profile of Judy Estrin President and CEO, Precept Software CMPnet Update Your weekly guide to what's new on CMPnet 11/14/97 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed one of the sections as well as tried to simplify the definition of IPTV given. I'm not sure the article needs to list ALL of the companies involved with IPTV. Maybe shorten the list to give a few examples as well as shorten the list of news sources on IPTV. SuperMoonMan 00:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding to the list of companies, there is BesTV IPTV in China which has more than 1.5 million subscribers not included. Maybe this page could be updated a little bit.--Pashan]] [[User talk:Pashan|☏ (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the list of countries available (as noted further down as well), Canada has IPTV available from multiple sources, and has since 2003 (http://www.sasktel.com/about-us/company-information/history/2000s.html) from SaskTel and Bell, among others.Anaerin (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
iptv.ajayshroff.com IPTV 101 Link removed as it appears to have been added solely for adsense reveue and backlink purposes. Pages offer nothing new on IPTV thats not already on the main wikipedia page.The sites root domain: ajayshroff.com has absolutley nothing to do with IPTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streamline (talk • contribs) 23:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with this opinion, and have tried to remove the link a couple of times, only to have it re-added by the website's author. See User talk:Andrwsc#IPTV talk for details. I believe this link is clearly a violation of policy in Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid on several counts. Andrwsc 19:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Because ajayshroff.com has nothing to do with IPTV, the subdomain has been created. Makes sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajshroff (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you removed all links from the "subdomain" that would answer one point, but this link still has many other issues against linking from Wikipedia. Read my talk page. Andrwsc 19:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Market Prospects for IPTV
I removed the following text from the article:
- According to a report from the Washington DC-based Dittberner Associates the incremental IPTV equipment market will only reach $336 Million in 2013 up from $30 Million in 2005.
- Dittberner forecasts the number of IPTV subscribers will reach 53 Million globally in 2013 from about 2 Million as of end of 2005.
- The report, IPTV Impact on Public Networks, appraises the impact of offering IPTV service on the Access, Aggregation and Backbone networks.
- Although the subscription growth is expected to be slow, the incremental investment to offer IPTV is low, making it an attractive service offering for the traditional telephone companies. Dittberner believes that developing truly compelling service differentiation could speed up IPTV’s market penetration. The report lays out the case for IPTV as a compelling service offering that will ultimately have a major impact on the design of public networks and the way Service Providers do business.
- Dittberner’s report examines worldwide deployments of IPTV and provides an outlook on where the segment is headed. Also provided are the country and regional forecasts for IPTV equipment and IPTV subscribers, IPTV business case and ROI analysis, plus supplier profiles and SWOT analysis.
Following the link takes you to a page with the option to purchase the report cited. This is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia; it is not an ad portal for business purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrwsc (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a website called IPTV Channels and its designed to give FREE online access to IPTV Channels broadcasting aroung the world. There is only a few ads on the site, everything else is free. Have a look at http://www.iptvchannels.co.uk and tell me what you think.
- This is not the kind of things Wikipedia articles should link to. Please see WP:EL for the external links guidelines. Haakon 09:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Would this site not come under 'Rich media' section ?
- I think it would be useful to have this site as you have a section in the article that refers to free IPTV channels available on the web, but there is not an example of this. This adds value to the article as vistors can see an example of a site that has free IPTV channels available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- That site should not be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In the television industry, the description of delivery of programming by DSL is used interchangeably with delivery by broadband and now delivery by IPTV. Is there any difference? Is DSL television just a sub-set of broadband television which is in itself the same thing as IPTV? Paul M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm... yes?
- Broadband describes a form of data transmission - and includes DSL, Cable, and wimax/3.5G etc "real soon"
- Cable TV companies don't use IPTV because their existing system is more efficient. This may change with DOCSIS3, which handles IPTV better. Also... the free InternetTV channels (which are a form of IPTV) can come down cable internet connections too.
- AFAIK, DSL always uses the Internet Protocol (IP). However, DSL was originally designed for TV down phone lines, and I doubt that was using IP, and I'm not sure if any earlier methods of putting TV & Internet down a DSL connection used other protocols.
- The terms are similar enough. I think when people hear "broadband" it's synonymous with "Internet" now. Oops gotta run :) Greg 07:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
IPTV vs Internet TV vs IP media
I work in the IPTV industry for a supplier of equipment. There is a difference between what we mean by IPTV, IP Media and Internet television. IPTV is replacing the tradional broadcasting technologies such as cable, satellite and analog TV pretty much 1 to 1. This includes Quality of service and requires a local backbone with low latancy for rapid zapping thgrough channels and bandwidth to carry realtime TV. Internet TV is often used for low resolution content a la podcast or simply an in-browser experience with flash or video plugins. IP media is a fuzzy term meaning digital media transfered over an IP network. I feel that it is like merging the articles Chrysler and Cars into article Saab.
Then again an IPTV bundling may include other services than broadcast TV very similar to what can be found through a browser on internet. --Starbar 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph "triple play" is referred to as IPTV, internet access and VoIP. That is not really correct. In the industry a triple play is simply voice, cable and internet access. The voice componet can be traditional PSTN supplied voice, etc. 184.108.40.206 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)User: Rmueller 12-06
IPTV Xbox at CES 2007
Check it out. On the net. Anyways, scramble to get this in the article, or maybe in the 360 article. - Thekittenofterra 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Should there be WikiProject:IPTV?
Considering that there are numerous IPTV shows on the web, should we make a WikiProject to help improve the quality of the articles about the shows?
This IPTV article is very bad. Porttikivi 13:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is a really really poor article, and misleads a lot of ppl. Mods should flag for quality it until its fixed.
- IPTV is not any old video stream over the internet eg Desperate housewives portals viewed in a browser over best effort internet. Its got to be QoS'ed or its not IPTV. Its got to be
- IPTV is most simply telco TV and video, being added to data and voice, to compete with cable co.'s who have triple play already. It looks and smells like cable, but being IP it can add some further interactivity
- Technically its going to be IP multicast,
- IPTV has an ITU-T Focus Group that is worth mentioning and should be referenced here, the meeting docs for the group are publicly available. It also has a working definition of IPTV,
- IPTV: IPTV is defined as multimedia services such as television/video/ audio/text/graphics/data delivered over IP based networks managed to provide the required level of QoS/QoE, security, interactivity and reliability.
- ITU-T IPTV Focus Group
- IPTV FG Meeting 3 Doc 82 - IPTV Vocabulary and definitions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please! anyone! put a decent article about this so important technology! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- also, "In the UK, Virgin Media (the current near-monopoly cable TV brand " is unnecessarily inflammatory. Why jab Virgin in an article about IPTV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously, this is possibly one of the most badly written articles I've seen on this site. The article keeps confusing IPTV (it's subject) with Internet TV. It even occurs in the first sentence of the main body! Stormcloud (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just updated this article with the NPVR service offered by On telecoms in Greece. I added a link to their page because no article exists yet on the wikipedia over this company. I received a personal message from a moderator regarding the fact that this URL must be removed because it is considered as promotion of the company. I don't have anything to do with them, I just thought that since there is no article about the company on Wikipedia I should add a link to their website for users to be able to find out what I'm talking about. Do you think this link should be there or not? I don't really care. Maybe I will prepare a short article about them in the coming days... They're my ISP and that's all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it was me that added this part, not signed in... Here's my username... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmmour (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Any edits I've made to the IPTV site (and several others) have been removed by one of the administrators on the grounds that the consider the edits are commercially motivated. I'm a recognized subjective matter expert within the industry, participate in many standards activities related to IPTV and VoIP QoE, write columns, give seminars, and developed several independent information portals on the subject. The administrator concerned obviously made no attempt to look at the links but just removed them. The particular link in question is to the www.iptvtroubleshooter.com web site. At the same time there ARE direct links to company web sites on this page that have not been deleted. It seems amazingly dumb to prevent someone who actually understands a subject quite well from editing a page on the basis that they happen to work for a company that specializes in that area. Adclark88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Adclark88. Your edits and contributions to Wikipedia are welcome and are important to the encyclopedia. Our conflict of interest and reliable source policies are also important, as they are core principles that help ensure our content is verifiable and neutral. Adding an external link from Wikipedia to your websites is not necessary generally, though, as Wikipedia is not a directory of links. If there are links to company websites which are not neutral, not reliable, or not verifiable sources, they can and should be removed, but their inclusion is not justification for including your self-published links. If there is unique content on your website that you believe is missing in the articles, I would be more than willing to help you include that content in the relevant articles, once we can cite that content from a third-party source. user:j (aka justen) 10:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The 'See also' section
I have removed the violation privacy section because it was just lies. IPTV uses multicast to broadcast channels and unicast for VOD. This is no different from the current system and was just misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, in my eyes this section is not "just lies". With IPTV things are fundamentally different to traditional broadcasting systems in so far as not every tv station's signal is transmitted simultanously. (Take VDSL for example: the bandwith would never suffice to transmit more than a few channels at the same time, especially when HDres is used.) Instead the viewer requests a specific programm which will then be delivered via multicast in order to reduce network load for the operator of the streaming servers. The operator is precisely aware of who watches which programm at which time. This leads to serious privacy issues! This article explains a few of these issues: 
I do therefore request the section about privacy risks to be reinserted and will probably do so if no other opinions on this matter are put forward within a few days.220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Anyone who knows the basics of multicast technology, especially when considering IGMP, must admit that you are right. An IPTV service providing company could implement logging of what TV channels are being watched by whom, and when. This is the fundamental design of how IGMP-based multicasting works. Of course, with unlimited bandwidth (say, 10 Gigabit straight to the customer's premises), you could stream all available channels at once, removing this potential privacy issue, but we are not really there yet... /PerLundberg (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the IPTV falls within the scope of Net Neutrality. If for example an IPTV provider decides to broadcast material to a worldwide audience, say, for free, but such content comes as a direct competition to material in another country. Could this material be blocked by the involved internet providers that in many cases are the ones that are promoting the IPTV regulations in several countries (Colombia for example)?.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't apply as ISPs are not involved. The big misconception is that IPTV is TV over the internet - it's TV over a dedicated IP network. This is the only way that the provider and ensure there is enough bandwidth for a decent picture. As a result scope is limited. Stormcloud (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- ISPs like ATT provide IPTV and internet access. They divide the limited bandwidth of the coax in the last mile to home into a band for TV and a band for 5 simultaneous TV programs. If they up the bandwidth to 7 channels, you get less bandwidth for youtube. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Map of IPTV countries
Hi guys and girls,
I just added a map of IPTV countries - countries with at least some IPTV availability. Please, improve this with countries where you know IPTV is available. Preferrably put in URLs to the specific ISPs carrying the services so that it can easily be verified.
Future improvements to this map could be:
- Adding different levels of blue. Darker blue = more than 10% IPTV penetration of the households. One shade darker = more than 20% IPTV penetration. Even darker = 30% and so forth; you're "getting the picture" (no pun intended!).
- The IPTV availability would also be interesting to plot. Ideally, the current color should be "100% or near-100% availability of IPTV". Countries with 50-100% could have a lighter blue, and countries with 0-50% could have an even lighter blue color.
Obviously, it could turn out to be a bit difficult to plot both of these concepts in the same image, so we might have to have two different images for this in the future. "IPTV penetration" versus "IPTV availability".
Also, when talking about the IPTV penetration, we might have to later on change the concept of what IPTV is... if sites like Zattoo or similar are getting widespread use, to the point of it actually competing with "traditional IPTV" (I like that phrase :-).
Could we update the map to Include Australia? The ISP TPG provides rebroadcast national Free to Air and other networks to subscribers on its DSLAM network. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Commercial IPTV largely missing from this article
Can someone please do something about the fact that this article is totally swayed towards telco IPTV (or residential IPTV) and makes hardly any reference to IPTV in commercial environments, despite its huge deployment over the last few years. IPTV in commercial (incl. corporate) environments is going the way of VOIP and is a de facto standard now for media distribution. Can't understand why this article ignores that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Bloomberg provides live Bloomberg TV feeds over private IP links between various universities and it's headquarters.
- OrionNet in Russia provide live TV feeds to customers who cannot install a satellite dish / cable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Canada has IPTV
Canada has IPTV through Bell Entertainment Services. (At least in parts of Toronto). Map needs to be updated to include Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoffit (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Sasktel is mentioned as being one of the first to commercially deploy Internet Protocol (IP) video over digital subscriber line (DSL). Sasktel operates in Saskatchewan, which is in Canada. So, yes, once again, this map needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Revert war: Is IPTV an acronym?
- The acronym IPTV is explained in the head line. Your "Definition 2" is not a definition, just an expansion of the acronym. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- @User:220.127.116.11 Did you ever read the following sentence: "Internet Protocol television (IPTV) is a system through which internet television services are delivered using the architecture and networking methods of the Internet Protocol Suite over a packet-switched network infrastructure ..." Possibly you guess it, it is the introduction of this article. An so the expansion is done. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add an external link to the very first completely free IPTV project which is http://iptv.freemiddlewareplus.com . This must very helpful to those who thinks that IPTV is complex. This is very very simple. Such things must be free but not a Megabucks! See it for yourself. Telsey (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Australia has IPTV
Google TV coming to UK
- In the UK, Google TV is coming in 6 months. The expansion in the UK will let users surf the web and watch tv , program their smartphones as remotes and access special exclusive channels such as YouTubeHD. 
Ethernet is evil?
The article states:
- "...installing new Ethernet cables is expensive for service providers and undesirable for consumers."
- "Traditional home networking technologies such as Ethernet and 802.11 do not provide a good solution to provide connectivity between the Gateway and each Set-Top-Box."
Anyone care to justify these assertions? I have no doubt that most service providers would not be excited about providing ethernet wiring to customers in order to establish service in their homes due to the added expense, but how would having such infrastructure added to one's home as part of an IPTV service installation be considered 'undesirable'? "Undesirable for the customer" according to the service provider who would have to pay for their installation, perhaps. As for the other statement, ethernet is, in fact, an excellent method of providing connectivity between the Gateway and the STB's, provided it is available. The assertions made by the author/authors of these article statements are clearly biased and not based in fact. -Grammaticus Repairo (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have thinned the most egregious statements and requested citations for others. --Kvng (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)