Eliminate the Coax-Or Else! David Allred, Systems Design Engineer Paul Hardin, Senior Project Manager Craig Malquist, Network Design Engineer PCH.

Eliminate the Coax-Or Else!Lessons Learned from Implementing

IPTV in a Large Campus Network Environment

David Allred, Systems Design Engineer

Paul Hardin, Senior Project Manager

Craig Malquist, Network Design Engineer

PCH

BYU Demographics

• 33,000 Undergrads and Grads

BYU Demographics

• 33,000 Undergrads and Grads• Employees– 4,000 F/T– 1,300 P/T– 14,000 P/T Student Employees

BYU Demographics

• 33,000 Undergrads and Grads• Employees– 4,000 F/T– 1,300 P/T– 14,000 P/T Student Employees

• Church Sponsored – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

BYU Physical Plant

• 295 Buildings on 560 Acres– 87 Academic– 150 Housing– 58 “Other”

• On-Campus Housing– 900 Married Student Apartments– 4,800 Beds for Single Students

• Salt Lake Center

Brief Technology History at BYU

• <1970 Campus TV Cable Installed• Mid-1980’s TV Cable first used for data• Early 1990’s First fiber optic cable installed for

data network• 2001 last major data network upgrade (for IP

Phones)• 2011/2012 Major data network upgrade

planned for data/voice/video convergence

DA

WHY the Mandate to Abandon Coax

• Main Driver – TV industry direction to move from analog to digital television over the air—wakeup call for change

WHY the Mandate to Abandon Coax

• 40 year old campus TV cable plant; losing amplifiers

• Where best to invest technology $$?– Follow lead of IP phones and converge video &

data networks as much as possible

WHY the Mandate to Abandon Coax

WHY the Mandate to Abandon Coax

• Where best to invest technology $$?– Follow lead of IP phones and converge video &

data networks as much as possible– Minimize cable plant

WHY the Mandate to Abandon Coax

• Where best to invest technology $$?– Follow lead of IP phones and converge video &

data networks as much as possible– Minimize cable plant– Upgrade only data side of cable plant• Needed to convert for digital TV anyway• Needed to upgrade data network anyway

Possible Directions• Build a digital coax system on campus• Contract out services to CATV cable provider• Go with IPTV and do it on our own—we

THOUGHT it would be cheaper (we chose this one)

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions! PCH

HOW We’ve Implemented IPTV To-Date

• Began upgrade of network infrastructure in 2001 to accommodate VOIP

• By 2005 we recognized the need to upgrade additional network equipment (primarily edge switches) to deal with multicast

• Prepared multicast for implementation• Implemented 24 SD channels in 2006• Built our own portal/web page using VLC

HOW We’ve Implemented IPTV To-Date

• “Finished” upgrades to network infrastructure; ongoing throughout process

• Had to change cable TV content provider; former provider didn’t want to be on the network

• 2 years after initial 24, we add another 24 SD channels in 2008 and added portable encoders

HOW We’ve Implemented IPTV To-Date

• Later, we bought a portal, but because of web browser/OS incompatibility problems, we rebuilt our own over 2-3 months in 2010

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

Portable Encoder

Wat

chin

g the

Com

pute

rChan g i n g t h e S TB

I n t e r f a c e

Over Air Channels

Transcoding Problems

Using IPTV instead of Campus Cable

NAC (Network Admission Control)

DA

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

• NAC (Network Admission Control)– We didn’t want to

burden the NAC servers with streaming traffic load

– Had to develop separate multicast path into Campus Housing

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

• Portable encoder (to originate anywhere on campus)– Inconvenient because of network architecture and policies – Public jacks on separate segment from campus

• Portable encoder can’t broadcast to campus from public jacks

• Want to broadcast from multiple locations on campus– Need to request ops to reconfigure jack

temporarily (different VLAN) to put it on a different segment of the network that allows the multicast

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

• Watching at computer– Done in conjunction with developing the web

portal (2010)

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

• Developing IPTV Administration Application– Done in conjunction with developing the web

portal (2010); Source listing for web portal, STBs, and dynamic play list for VLC

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

•Redeveloped interface for computer IPTV portal•When new channels were introduced, we found old interface hard coded•Wanted more flexibility with a dynamic channel lineup and interface that accommodated that flexibility•We can control which channels are displayed in different parts of campus (based on IP address)

WHAT the Challenges Have BeenChanged STB Interface—unintended additional work - Pushed new code to 600+ STBs

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

TEC Podiums needed modified» Coordinated redesign of

controller GUI» Had to reprogram

controller• 500+ TEC Rooms had

same code• Custom rooms done

separately

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

• Transcoding Problems– Transmit with different resolutions throughout the

day; changing resolutions as broadcasters first started digital broadcasting

– E.g. commercial would be in different resolution from program content

– Resolved through firmware upgrades

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

• Change in direction on Off-Air channels– Partway through IPTV project we were directed to

not receive over the air channels from antenna,» BECAUSE some broadcasters wanted to be paid for on-

campus distribution of content» BECAUSE we (OIT) thought we were in license violation,

so were going to remove content» BUT University lawyers now feel we are within the law» SO we are now investigating getting it from an antenna

again

WHAT the Challenges Have Been

• Getting people to use IPTV (instead of campus cable)– Cable turned off to only two existing buildings; new

buildings don’t get coax– Put more content on IPTV to get people to use it;

Housing especially complained about lack of content• Some of Housing has CAT3 cable - outdated• Edge Switches were outdated - have been upgraded• We update network as buildings are updated

WHAT User Reaction Has Been

• Users dislike Standard Definition– Looks pretty bad when blown up BIG– Flat panels especially exacerbate the digital artifact

problem when scaling up image to fill display• Users compare picture quality with viewing

experience at home

PCH

Pixelated image in SD onLarge LCD display (simulated)

Same image in HD onLarge LCD display (simulated)

Some SERIOUS pixelization…

Even High Def won’t help this!

WHAT User Reaction Has Been• High Res vs. Standard Res– HR consumes more bandwidth» SD: 2 MB/Channel x 48 channels ~~ 100 MB» HD: 4-6 MB/Channel x 48 channels ~~200-300 MB

SD HD0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

BandwidthMB/CH

WHAT User Reaction Has Been

• High Res vs. Standard Res– Bandwidth restricted

by policy; no room to send HD signal into residence halls; trying to prevent bandwidth hogging

WHAT User Reaction Has Been

• High Res vs. Standard Res– HD Encoders costlier– HD Content cost higher

$$$$ $$

$$

WHAT User Reaction Has Been

• Sports– High motion content results in lots of digital

artifacting—blah!

WHAT User Reaction Has Been

• Don’t use/need STBs in a lot of environments– Housing: one dorm prepared for 50% distribution of

STBs (over 100); ended up renting 5– On-line viewing much more than TV—online content

providers, some of which are free; sports activities– OIT doesn’t have a way to track TV usage (cable or

IPTV)– Customers want to know about sub-channel content

(e.g. 11.1, 11.2); we haven’t dealt with that yet

WHAT User Reaction Has Been

Able to watch content on computer at desk or in room—users like anyplace access

WHERE We Plan to Go From Here

• Removing coax is not a high priority—it’s still functioning—Standard definition analog– As coax & amplifiers get

less reliable, we will pull it out; death by attrition over next few years

– We will eventually schedule shutdown to campus buildings DA

WHERE We Plan to Go From Here

• Not expanding cable plant in new construction or remodels

WHERE We Plan to Go From Here

• IPTV is reasonably good enough for SD to replace analog “in some peoples’ opinion”– BUT Big screens produce big pixels – BUT we are considering adding one HD channel for

sports in Fall 2011 ($8-10K)– BUT we are adding local, isolated, single-building HD» If customer use requires it» If building network architecture can handle it

WHERE We Plan to Go From Here

• Bigger issue than HD vs SD is, is traditional TV dead? – The traditional model is breaking down more quickly than

we want to admit– Replaced by video on demand; JIT taking its place: Hulu,

NetFlix, YouTube, network sites, e.g. Korean dramas, etc.; – However, JIT doesn’t satisfy need for real-time sports, live

events, news (e.g. Japan earthquake, Libya)

WHERE We Plan to Go From Here

• Latest addition has been 4 HD internal channels in new BYU Broadcasting Building

WHERE We Plan to Go From Here

• Implementing internal IPTV channels in campus buildings to replace in-building modulators – We have six foreign language channels– Library has 15 internal channels

• Already have several portable IPTV encoders for live campus events

• Need to add HD Channels when politically or financially viable

WHERE We Plan to Go From Here

• NextGenNet Project– General network upgrade looking to next 10 years– Upgrade infrastructure for HD– Track IPTV channel usage

Conclusion

Eliminating coax costs $$--What are the benefits?• Long term recovery of costs—

maintain single infrastructure • Keep pace with user interests