![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Time to find a new industry!
Time to find a new industry!
webwat: Apparently one of the reasons for the government's "open access" model is that users should be able to locally link to content and applications from multiple providers. For example you can get alternative IPTV, or remnotely monitor/backup work security cameras (or home security for that matter), replicate offsite "business continuity" servers, or buy locally hosted cloud applications. One idea was that remotely answer your home doorbell over a connected security system while you are at work.
The theory is that multiple bandwidth intensive applications from different providers can be used on the same connection, and some of them might require different VLANs or QoS ? without changing ISP. The local performance limiter should be the contention on the access systems, instead of bottlenecks we now have on ADSL bitstream even between users in the same area. However It looks like fibre ISPs might buy/wholesale Layer2 bitstream as well, so could be confusing. I hope its compulsory for all ISPs to locally peer anyone who wants to, and I guess the fibre co would have to be allowed to run a Layer3 peering exchange at the CO.
I guess we can assume that kiwis will do more than just download in the future. Eventually NZ might become a net exporter of information and financial services too, if we are innovative enough!
richms: Are you talking about because they only spec a single fiber to the house, if you want multiple ISPs in the house? That would be a big concern of mine since depending how many people I have living here there could be 3 adsl connections active at once.
richms: I would assume in those cases you would patch the pay tv provider thru to the pay tv box, the ISP to a firewall router and then to the internal wiring, the telephony provider to the phone or pabx or whatever.
If the ports are there and able to be configured like that, I dont see a problem so long as there is sufficiant cables between the ONT and the homes patch panel area.
richms: I would say that the CPE in that case would be managed by the customers smart home integrator, or by themselves.
richms: ISP/IPTV/VOIP providers need to have a designated outlet that their problems end at which IMO would be the one on the side of the box provided by the fiber provider.
richms: Customer managing their alarm should go out on the internet and to a web or whatever interface provided by the security monitoring company. No way that consumers should be directly connecting untrusted PCs to the alarm system.
richms: Watching TV on the PC would be a seperate service I would expect that the IPTV providers would charge more for and there would be no need for it to be tied to the ethernet that they provide to give content to their settop boxes.
richms: If TVs start to have IPTV devices in them I would expect multiple NICs, one to connect to the customers LAN for their own content, and one to connect to the IPTV provider to get the live and ondemand paid content. No reason to have the 2 ever join, and for management I would expect that it would be non desirable to have that happen.
richms: I would say that the CPE in that case would be managed by the customers smart home integrator, or by themselves.
richms: Dont see how it falls apart, either you pay someone to support integrated complex systems, purchase all from one supplier who will do it for you or have them as seperate systems that are not connected.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |