cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

torontodigitalq
I Plan to Stick Around

When will Rogers roll out Alt-TV (similar to Bell"s new venture) so we can watch live TV channels on our Internet service?

 

 

 

 

***Edited Labels***

10 REPLIES 10

Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

Gdkitty
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

That requires IPTV at minimum to be able to do.

Currently rogers is not set up that way.. so not possible.
IPTV is the next major step for rogers.. it was originally slated for this year i think?  But were not having great luck with the hardware, etc... so they opted to then buy the tech with Comcast uses for IPTV.

Unfortunately with that.. requires a sort of go from scratch on their IPTV offering.. so 2018 is the only thing really said so far.. and that could even change (and even when in 2018).
After so many failures with the current software, etc on the boxes.... better to be late and get it RIGHT than push out a flakey product just for the sake of having it.



Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

57
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

Depends on the device.  For example, on my iPad I can stream roughly a hundred different channels live per the following link:  This could be "cast" to an appropriate TV/device, but for that I use a STB.

 

http://www.rogers.com/web/support/tv/anyplace-tv/410?setLanguage=en

 

On a computer, it looks like only 8 sports channels live, but lots of on-demand.  Note that this counts towards your internet bandwidth, so you need to watch your usage unless you have unlimited.



Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

torontodigitalq
I Plan to Stick Around

@Gdkitty wrote:

That requires IPTV at minimum to be able to do.

Currently rogers is not set up that way.. so not possible.
IPTV is the next major step for rogers.. it was originally slated for this year i think?  But were not having great luck with the hardware, etc... so they opted to then buy the tech with Comcast uses for IPTV.

Unfortunately with that.. requires a sort of go from scratch on their IPTV offering.. so 2018 is the only thing really said so far.. and that could even change (and even when in 2018).
After so many failures with the current software, etc on the boxes.... better to be late and get it RIGHT than push out a flakey product just for the sake of having it.

 


 According to a recent story in several newspapers this week, no traditional TV subscription or set-top box required, but it's only available on Fiber cable apparently. As far as I am aware Rogers doesn't yet have Fiber cable, which may be the reason regular cable can't carry the service. Without fiber,  Rogers may have difficulty matching the low price of $15 a month  Bell is offer it's subscribers. Once you add set boxes and 3rd party software, the price could skyrocket,  making it unattractive to cable tv cord cutters who just prefer the internet. Definitely lost revenue,  until Rogers comes up with a plan,  to match Bell's alt-tv service and low pricing.

Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

While an alternative.. i dont really thing it much has to do with the fiber cable at all.

If its is available to Fibe customers.. i would say only 10-15% tops of them, actually have FIBER lines to their homes.  If it was necessary, then this would only be available to a small portion of the Fibe customers.
(bell fibe, in most parts are just fiber to the node, just the same as Rogers).
I see many places that Fibe is available, they have a Max of about 50mbps, which is more than capable of supporting the streaming.  But in some of those areas, 100+mbps rogers is available.  More than capable.


The pricing is nice.. somewhat.
Its really only 30 or so channels?  With additional channels costing more (Sports was $25?)  Add that all up.. and its not really any cheaper than cable either.
Just gives a little more flexability on viewing? (other than if its still required to BE on your bell fibe connection? Then you are really only freeing the BOX requirements)



Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

Pauly
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

@Gdkitty wrote:

That requires IPTV at minimum to be able to do.

Currently rogers is not set up that way.. so not possible.
IPTV is the next major step for rogers.. it was originally slated for this year i think?  But were not having great luck with the hardware, etc... so they opted to then buy the tech with Comcast uses for IPTV.

Unfortunately with that.. requires a sort of go from scratch on their IPTV offering.. so 2018 is the only thing really said so far.. and that could even change (and even when in 2018).
After so many failures with the current software, etc on the boxes.... better to be late and get it RIGHT than push out a flakey product just for the sake of having it.


Hello, 

 

While I would normally agree on you for most posts I would beg to differ on this topic. From working in the BDU Industry for 5+ years now, I do not think that is the sole reason why because they do not have an IPTV.   I think if rogers really wanted to launch some sort of TV-Less TV service, they in theory COULD, IPTV or No IPTV.

 

This is basically a TV subscription without having Set Top Box hardware, and without the need for an actual Televison set. Who knew that 20-30 years ago we would be watching TV on something other than an actual TV set, well no one really knew but its here now.

 

Rogers already has it where you install an APP on your Tablet or Smart phone and sign in to watch TV Content on your phone or tablet, but its actually linked to an actual Subscriber account, which is the TV subscription you have at home. All they need to do is basically build a suitable tv pacakge, and make it so there is no requirement to have a Set Top box or TV set,  and make a suitible price point for customers who want cable but do not want to pay the cost.

 

I can see this as being attractive, a lot of people I know want TV content but do not want to pay to rent set top boxes, etc. sometimes the renting of Set Top Boxes can add approx $40 dollars a month or more to your cable bill alone.

 

Ive been saying this for many years now but Ive predicted a time where we can watch TV on a TV without a set top box,  basically the TV can be a smart TV connected to the internet, and have an app on it from your tv provider, and you can tune into your tv subscription on your tv this way without even needing to connect your TV to a cable outlet.  If we're not there yet, trust me, its coming soon. 

 



Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)


@torontodigitalq wrote:

 As far as I am aware Rogers doesn't yet have Fiber cable, which may be the reason regular cable can't carry the service.


As mentioned in posts above, Rogers has for years had Fibre to the Node (FTTN near your home) and coax to your home, which typically has plenty of bandwidth - to offer lots of channels and Gibabit internet service to many homes.

 

Please don't confuse Fibe and Fibre because Fibe is often not FTTN (fibre to the home), but rather only FTTN, often with limited internet speeds significantly slower than cable in most instances due to twisted pair service to the home from the node.  Bell uses the word Fibe to confuse people in their marketing.

 

Rogers could obviously utilize their existing infrastructure to offer "alt-TV", as I mentioned in my previous post - lots of channels available on tablets, however, they choose not to at this time. This is, in part due to the issues that are always cropping up with incompatibilities with certain hardware and software. Trying to get something working with a (proprietary) STB is difficut enough without trying to cater to hundreds of different types of devices and software on those devices.



Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

cash1
I Plan to Stick Around

I order to get Bell Alt TV you need to get Bell internet unlimited - this is the problem with Canadian telecoms. Why not make it available to anyone with an unlimited internet connection. 

Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

Gdkitty
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

Yup.  even though you dont need to watch it ON that internet.. you need to have bell internet to order it.

My guess is this may not last long.. for things like Crave, etc.. they were FORCED to make it available to everyone by the CRTC.  

 


I still dont see much demand for this overall.. due to price.
For the price, its pretty much the SAME as a regular tv sub by the time you add the extra channels.
Unless you are pretty much just getting it to get the local news, etc, ontop of using other things like Netflix.



Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

BS
I'm a Senior Advisor

This product hit the market first by Telus - beat Bell by one day - it was a race between the two to see which of the western providers would get it first.

 

But I agree, wonder how the CRTC is going to view this.  It is sort of like the question that will come soon that the largest IPTV provider no longer requires Internet from them for IPTV - they are running two dedicated streams now, one for TV and one for Internet and you can opt out of their Internet at any time, no penality - just lose your bundle discount.

 

Smaller companies with IPTV have used the Bell demand for both services as their justification.

 

I don't think we will see a Rogers option until Comcast comes in, but maybe they will try to slip it in as a way to get another service out there before IPTV comes into place.

 

Interesting times, as technology changes, and all companies race to the finish line, while I am sure they are also going to have to deal with the large number of people coming off bundle contracts and the reality that there is little difference (just slight differences in mix, and I have found that one company did fit my mix).

 

By the way, I haven't finished my switch over plans, something in life got in the way, but while that happens, new options and changes are coming - I have until say, September.

 

Ahh, "competition", regulation, new technolgy, and my question is how to provide choice and affordability.  I can't afford the costs of Cadillac technology anymore.

 

Good questoin to the OP.

Bruce

Re: Rogers alt-tv coming soon? (similar to Bell"s new venture launched this month)

DominicB
I Plan to Stick Around

It's a trick.  They're trying to trick the cord cutters.  I was on Bell FTTH with triple play.  Even with ALT-SHIFT-CTRL TV they are still locked into that craptastic Home Hub 3000, which decimated my telephone service, and dropped support for coax/hpna inside the home.  Why should I use wireless to connect a 2nd TV upstairs when coax was fine and already there inside my home?  It's a Sagemcom device -- Sagemcom? ... carrier grade?  Lots of carrier grade.  Instead of Nokia, when they gobbled up Alcatel-Lucent, they went with that.  AL was bad enough -- shooting out only 40v to ring a phone.  My $500 Nortel Venture DTAD phones were going nuts saying what did you connect me to?

Each home gets a built-in ONT with integrated ETHERnot router (Optical Network Terminal) that disassembles the GPON frames, and the output is 2 VoIP ATAs (internal, with everything hidden) and two VLANs -- internet on one, IPTV on the other (IGMP IP Multicast).

When I saw the SIP parameters (same as their SIP trunk guidelines), I passed out a 2nd time.  Industry best practices ... in the trash can.  I may as well have broadcast my phone calls on AM radio.

Others on DSL Reports figured out the hidden settings on the IPTV and used their own router in place of HH 3000.  They quit their day jobs to do it.

IPTV is not an efficient way of transmitting video anyway.  It wasn't that much better than Rogers -- the internet was incredibly fast, but still not worth it.  Overkill -- it could do a gigabit, but I'm not running a datacenter.  Meanwhile, they couldn't hold on to 64 kilobit/sec phone call if their life depended on it.

Why the rant?

 

Because they treated poorly and would actually yell.  Reboot it.  If I reboot it, our phone call will go.  I want them separate, like before.  No.  Well, then give me copper for the phone.  No.

A fiber trunk comes down to the street from an OLT (Optical Line Terminal), and then splits into 32 branches right there.  If two are watching CNN on two of those branches, they tune in to one multicast stream.  There is no duplication on live TV.  However, given the number of channels, the efficiency gained here is not much.  It's not the ABC, NBC, CBS network of the 1960s.  All devices on all 32 branches see an identical transmission with respect to data  (that included the incoming part of MY PHONE CALLS and highly sensitive medical fax documents which failed 50% of the time), but each ONT skims over download traffic that's not theirs.  On the IPTV side, they do not duplicate.  This was one of the reasons for that architecture.

But, download traffic of all 32 goes to all 32, which did not sit well with me, when I saw those hackers going at it on DSL Reports.  The PON was a HUB.  Call it what it is.  When Alcatel-Lucent told me that's how it worked, and that AES encryption could be disabled, I flipped out.

A rogue or malfunctioning device is supposed to be isolated, but does have the potential to torpedo the entire street.

Uploading was nice -- light doesn't have brakes so the timing to the PON had to be exact for the merge.  ONLY ONE of the 32 devices could upload at any one instant in time - TDMA.  It kept cycling through all 32 of us suckers but the allocation was a juggling act whose logic only they know.

Do not go there.  You will regret it, like I did.  I worked for them in the 90s and they were never like that.  For them to yell at me the way they did on the phone, well, I don't know how they have any customers at all.

I tried to get more time slice UP for the phone by going gigabit and it didn't help.  It was 1000 down 100 up.  For $99 that was not bad, but it means nothing if you yell at the customer and can't troubleshoot problems and fix them.

Once I said, disconnect this 2nd phone line we tried to use for a fax, and everything went down.  They could not reinstantiate it.

If considering this over DSL, no way!

Topic Stats
  • 10 replies
  • 7666 views
  • 6 Likes
  • 7 in conversation