# Layer3 TV's plan to reinvent Cable TV



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

http://www.wired.com/2016/04/layer3-tv/


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

There are probably plenty of places where unreliable service is a problem, but not around here. Here the problem is cost and they are not doing anything about that.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

jth tv said:


> There are probably plenty of places where unreliable service is a problem, but not around here. Here the problem is cost and they are not doing anything about that.


Yeah, it seems Layer3/Umio is more about providing a top-notch service/experience rather than competing on cost. But I could see them luring away some of the cable TiVo enthusiasts on this forum. Think about it: you get a powerful box with a slick UI that intelligently integrates your live cable channels, your DVR capabilities, plus all your streaming content. Assuming that they can do all of that well, they would appear poised to beat TiVo at their own game. Throw in superior HD picture quality (thanks to HEVC) and reliability (thanks to their private fiber backbone), and this service would seem like the best way for video enthusiasts to enjoy TV.

The question then, of course, is how much is that superior experience worth? Who knows, maybe they'll end up offering one or two skinny programming bundles at a lower cost. But if they stick with that $80 to $150 price range, it will be a niche product.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

One thing to add about price: that $80 to $150 range quoted in the Wired article didn't mention anything about including internet service. The article made it sound as if Umio was simply a TV provider. But their website mentions "Less Equipment: Umio does it all in one powerful package: Live TV + Internet + WiFi".

If $80 buys you reasonably fast broadband internet plus a modest cable TV bundle plus DVR service (record 7 shows while watching another), along with all the other benefits touted in the article, then that's not a bad deal. So maybe these guys will be competing on both quality and price. For full-service TV + internet households, Umio could be very compelling.

https://umio.tv/coming-soon


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Ok so someone wants to provide a cable service via IP using h.265 to reduce bandwidth requirements. They also want to provide a STB the combines linear channels & streaming services with a universal search feature and also provides recommendations. And what does that sound like?

The article it self is somewhat misleading, lets take this paragraph:

Netflix depends on Internet service providers like TimeWarner and Comcast to transmit its content over the public Internet; however, Layer3 manages its own IP network. It has leased its own 12,000-mile fiber backbone, which takes it into the communities the company serves. To get their signal directly into homesanalysts call this the last milethe Layer3 team has struck deals with large infrastructure companies to carry Internet protocol over their networks. This, according to Binder, is a standard business practice in the industry. Most big cable companies provide their own services, including pay TV services, but they also rent the use of their pipes to other providers.​
So funny, Netflix depends on TimeWarner & Comcast, which is a problem somehow, but this new service is going to rely on "large infrastructure companies" for last mile access to homes. And who are these "large infrastructure" companies - you guessed it the TimeWarner & Comcasts of the world . Which means they plan on using the exact same physical lines that Netflix etc. already use.

I am surprised they have found any cable or telco companies willing to rent them guaranteed last mile bandwidth, didn't think they had that much unused last mile bandwidth available.

As soon as more devices (phones, tablets, streaming devices) get built to support h.265 all the streaming services will start using it to reduce band width requirements. And my guess is as cable moves to IP delivery they will also.

What counts is still last mile bandwidth availability. People who live where there is lots of it (multiple fiber providers) are golden, those who live where there is more limited bandwidth will not see much change, and those of us who live where bandwidth is extremely limited will still be sh** out of luck.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> And my guess is as cable moves to IP delivery they will also.


Cable is just now starting to transition to H.264, I don't think they'll make a widespread transition to H.265 for decade or more.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Cable is just now starting to transition to H.264, I don't think they'll make a widespread transition to H.265 for decade or more.


I have come to think of a decade as not much time. If cable is going to provide any UHD content it will have to have hardware that supports h.265, throughout their system, once that happens I would expect the movement of channels exclusive to higher packages containing the UHD content to move fairly quickly to h.265, but again, a decade for all of this to happen isn't out of line.

I would expect the Streaming services to move faster as more devices get out there that support h.265. I would love it if Amazon streamed 1080p that way, I might actually have enough bandwidth to get it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm betting Netflix, Amazon and Hulu start transitioning to H.265 in the next year or two. The decoding chips will start to become standard in streaming devices and it will help them retain customers that might be facing bandwidth caps and other such issues.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, it seems Layer3/Umio is more about providing a top-notch service/experience rather than competing on cost. But I could see them luring away some of the cable TiVo enthusiasts on this forum. Think about it: you get a powerful box with a slick UI that intelligently integrates your live cable channels, your DVR capabilities, plus all your streaming content. Assuming that they can do all of that well, they would appear poised to beat TiVo at their own game. Throw in superior HD picture quality (thanks to HEVC) and reliability (thanks to their private fiber backbone), and this service would seem like the best way for video enthusiasts to enjoy TV.
> 
> The question then, of course, is how much is that superior experience worth? Who knows, maybe they'll end up offering one or two skinny programming bundles at a lower cost. But if they stick with that $80 to $150 price range, it will be a niche product.


And they admit their goal is a modest of somewhere near more or less a million (same as TiVo?), subscribers, not the several tens of millions of the big MVPD's


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

atmuscarella said:


> Ok so someone wants to provide a cable service via IP using h.265 to reduce bandwidth requirements. They also want to provide a STB the combines linear channels & streaming services with a universal search feature and also provides recommendations. And what does that sound like?
> 
> The article it self is somewhat misleading, lets take this paragraph:
> 
> ...


Layer 3 is doing exactly what the TWCs and Comcasts have always wanted all the other services to do: to PAY for guaranteed last mile access and quality. Layer3 is really an anti-net-neutrality business, but that is what the ISPs prefer. I believe Netflix did pay the ISP's last year, but I'm not sure about Amazon. The ISP's know competition is out there, but TWCs and Comcasts are happy to take the competition's money if their future is to be just ISP companies with a shrinking TV business. TWC, et al. have plans for that day, too.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

U-verse by any other name. It's ATT that's going to be these guys worst nightmare.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tenthplanet said:


> U-verse by any other name. It's ATT that's going to be these guys worst nightmare.


Let me know when ATT starts making house calls in Bimmers or showing up at an exact time.

Impossible to turn around decades of images in a timely manner.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Let me know when ATT starts making house calls in Bimmers or showing up at an exact time.
> 
> Impossible to turn around decades of images in a timely manner.


Sounds like Cisco tech to me right down to the wireless boxes. Price will sink layer 3, what's the biggest complaint you hear about price. Dollars speak louder than words.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tenthplanet said:


> Sounds like Cisco tech to me right down to the wireless boxes. Price will sink layer 3, what's the biggest complaint you hear about price. Dollars speak louder than words.


If I am going to get f'cked by a MVPD, I'd rather have it done by one that treats me like a human.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/bauminator/layer3-tv-inches-toward-launch/403999


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tenthplanet said:


> Sounds like Cisco tech to me right down to the wireless boxes. Price will sink layer 3, what's the biggest complaint you hear about price. Dollars speak louder than words.


There is an element you have missed (besides the 9th planet was demoted).

ACA reports smaller Cable Companies are seriously considering dropping the TV side of cable due to the constant blackouts and declining profits from that side.

Layer 3 could work deals to take over those subs and alleviate much of the backlash if those Companies dropped TV Service in serviced areas.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

There is one thing Layer 3 and everyone else seems to have missed: If they want a glitzy interface that provides access to *all* media, then it should be absolutely trivial to get all your local personal media into the system as well. Complicated server programs that are difficult to configure and need funky special app interfaces are not a good solution for this .


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

So if I am to believe all this cable company CEOs are having a conversation that goes like this with their boards.

Hay guys you know I am really too stupid to make money is the Pay TV business, but there are these really smart guys that have figured it all out, all we have to do is lease our infrastructure to them at wholesale and get out of the retail Pay TV business - how about a big raise? ​
The only way any of this makes sense is if in the end the consumer ends up paying allot more money for their combined Pay TV & ISP costs. Given that they are only looking at million customers sure sounds like they are setting up a premium Pay TV company and looking for those who are willing to pay for it. The simple reality is any cable company could have done very close to the same thing anytime over the past few years by using TiVo hardware and providing better service. Delivery via IP instead of QAM isn't some magic bullet and any cable company can convert to a more efficient video format anytime they are willing to upgrade equipment.

As I have nothing against premium services/products, I wish them well. Perhaps the pubic will surprise everyone and we will find out that the market for a premium pay TV service that provides great service and a superior experience is more than a small niche.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

atmuscarella said:


> So if I am to believe all this cable company CEOs are having a conversation that goes like this with their boards.
> 
> Hay guys you know I am really too stupid to make money is the Pay TV business, but there are these really smart guys that have figured it all out, all we have to do is lease our infrastructure to them at wholesale and get out of the retail Pay TV business - how about a big raise? ​
> The only way any of this makes sense is if in the end the consumer ends up paying allot more money for their combined Pay TV & ISP costs. Given that they are only looking at million customers sure sounds like they are setting up a premium Pay TV company and looking for those who are willing to pay for it. The simple reality is any cable company could have done very close to the same thing anytime over the past few years by using TiVo hardware and providing better service. Delivery via IP instead of QAM isn't some magic bullet and any cable company can convert to a more efficient video format anytime they are willing to upgrade equipment.
> ...


No they could not have done the same with TiVo Hardware.

You are also missing the key point Dan made. Cable is just beginning a .h264 rollout in Hardware. Incredibly high CapEx cost to totally revamp everything to .h265 hardware that does not exist to them anyway.

Layer3 is starting from scratch with its own .h265 based equipment so only needs to purchase CapEx devices for the end consumer as needed. Though it does not say it, it sounds as if the DVR is cloud based. So a very inexpensive "dumb" box with very low CapEx cost compared to the in home DVRs of today.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> I have come to think of a decade as not much time. If cable is going to provide any UHD content it will have to have hardware that supports h.265, throughout their system, once that happens I would expect the movement of channels exclusive to higher packages containing the UHD content to move fairly quickly to h.265, but again, a decade for all of this to happen isn't out of line.
> 
> I would expect the Streaming services to move faster as more devices get out there that support h.265. I would love it if Amazon streamed 1080p that way, I might actually have enough bandwidth to get it.


The latest Amazon Fire TV can decode and playback h.265 (HEVC) encoded material. All of Amazon's UHD content is encoded that way and I believe they have also encoded at least some of their 1080p content that way for sending to boxes that support it, such as Fire TV.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> There is an element you have missed (besides the 9th planet was demoted).
> 
> ACA reports smaller Cable Companies are seriously considering dropping the TV side of cable due to the constant blackouts and declining profits from that side.
> 
> Layer 3 could work deals to take over those subs and alleviate much of the backlash if those Companies dropped TV Service in serviced areas.


We're not the only solar system...the tenth remains..


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Where's the triple play a lot of people will still need phone service.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

tenthplanet said:


> U-verse by any other name. It's ATT that's going to be these guys worst nightmare.


Actually Uverse is a broken mess of a TV service; this is why AT&T bought DirecTV. So, I would say Uverse is its own ugly name as even AT&T is no longer pushing Uverse and even moving some customer from Uverse to DirecTV. Uverse will be on life support for who knows how long. AT&T is all about DircTV as its TV service.

However, I would say that you still have a point. AT&T's attempted bundle with its wireless phone/data service could be a nightmare for anyone, but so far AT&T has done a miserable job of its bundling as per its current offer: it is not that enticing once you read the restrictions.


----------



## Series3Sub (Mar 14, 2010)

atmuscarella said:


> So if I am to believe all this cable company CEOs are having a conversation that goes like this with their boards.
> 
> Hay guys you know I am really too stupid to make money is the Pay TV business, but there are these really smart guys that have figured it all out, all we have to do is lease our infrastructure to them at wholesale and get out of the retail Pay TV business - how about a big raise? ​
> The only way any of this makes sense is if in the end the consumer ends up paying allot more money for their combined Pay TV & ISP costs. Given that they are only looking at million customers sure sounds like they are setting up a premium Pay TV company and looking for those who are willing to pay for it. The simple reality is any cable company could have done very close to the same thing anytime over the past few years by using TiVo hardware and providing better service. Delivery via IP instead of QAM isn't some magic bullet and any cable company can convert to a more efficient video format anytime they are willing to upgrade equipment.
> ...


Yes, and the price for a priority quality access keep going up and up, and considering how our "hands off" FCC has done NOTHING towards "net-neutrality" the above is a great, ever increasing profitable business. Reed Hastings blinked and PAID. Layer3 service has no choice but to do the same, but as you point out, such costs point to only a PREMIUM sort of service, and that is exactly what Layer3 said is its plan: it is targeted at current cable subscribers who have problems (read that being older than Mellennials who have had cable for decades) juggling all those different boxes in the room to find what they want to watch. The rest of us can save a lot of money doing the hunting ourselves and all the switching inputs ourselves, but there is an AFFLUENT group of of adults with grown kids who would easily buy such a service that makes things EASIER for them to find and watch. And Layer3 does not need a whole lot of them (they claim) to turn good profit. Yes, this service is for those of us ready for the "Home" (Shady Pines? )who find the whole cable, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, OTA universe an overwhelming place to get lost, but these people have sufficient affluence to pay a service to make it easy for them, and they will gladly pay becaue that is what money is for; worth it to them to be able to access all the shows in one place in HIGH quality. I have relatives calling me regularly, and I mean A LOT, asking me the heard of a show and want to know WHERE they can watch it or "who" has such and such show be it cable channel, Netflix, etc. In other words, they are exactly the people Layer3 is made for, and I act as the "database" portion of Layer3. The relatives still have to switchto the Roku or cable box and operate it becaue I can't send them the content as Layer3 can.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Series3Sub said:


> Actually Uverse is a broken mess of a TV service; this is why AT&T bought DirecTV. So, I would say Uverse is its own ugly name as even AT&T is no longer pushing Uverse and even moving some customer from Uverse to DirecTV. Uverse will be on life support for who knows how long. AT&T is all about DircTV as its TV service.
> 
> However, I would say that you still have a point. AT&T's attempted bundle with its wireless phone/data service could be a nightmare for anyone, but so far AT&T has done a miserable job of its bundling as per its current offer: it is not that enticing once you read the restrictions.


2 year price guarantee on a triple bundle is certainly enticing.

No data limit on Mobile Devices is also enticing.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Series3Sub said:


> Yes, and the price for a priority quality access keep going up and up, and considering how our "hands off" FCC has done NOTHING towards "net-neutrality" the above is a great, ever increasing profitable business. Reed Hastings blinked and PAID. Layer3 service has no choice but to do the same, but as you point out, such costs point to only a PREMIUM sort of service, and that is exactly what Layer3 said is its plan: it is targeted at current cable subscribers who have problems (read that being older than Mellennials who have had cable for decades) juggling all those different boxes in the room to find what they want to watch. The rest of us can save a lot of money doing the hunting ourselves and all the switching inputs ourselves, but there is an AFFLUENT group of of adults with grown kids who would easily buy such a service that makes things EASIER for them to find and watch. And Layer3 does not need a whole lot of them (they claim) to turn good profit. Yes, this service is for those of us ready for the "Home" (Shady Pines? )who find the whole cable, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, OTA universe an overwhelming place to get lost, but these people have sufficient affluence to pay a service to make it easy for them, and they will gladly pay becaue that is what money is for; worth it to them to be able to access all the shows in one place in HIGH quality. I have relatives calling me regularly, and I mean A LOT, asking me the heard of a show and want to know WHERE they can watch it or "who" has such and such show be it cable channel, Netflix, etc. In other words, they are exactly the people Layer3 is made for, and I act as the "database" portion of Layer3. The relatives still have to switchto the Roku or cable box and operate it becaue I can't send them the content as Layer3 can.


Wrong on so many counts.

Bottom line, that is the primary reason Verizon stopped FiOS expansion in Florida 5+ years ago and ended up selling it - too many old people did not care about quality or high speed internet - much less OTT.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Wrong on so many counts.
> 
> Bottom line, that is the primary reason Verizon stopped FiOS expansion in Florida 5+ years ago and ended up selling it - too many old people did not care about quality or high speed internet - much less OTT.


He's not talking about those senior citizens on a tight budget. He's talking about affluent tv viewers who are willing to pay more for a premium hassle-free experience that doesn't involve multiple devices, remotes and remembering which service offers what programs. Such viewers certainly exist and I would imagine they skew older, although that's not to say that the majority of elderly Americans are affluent or would be the target demo for Umio.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> He's not talking about those senior citizens on a tight budget. He's talking about affluent tv viewers who are willing to pay more for a premium hassle-free experience that doesn't involve multiple devices, remotes and remembering which service offers what programs. Such viewers certainly exist and I would imagine they skew older, although that's not to say that the majority of elderly Americans are affluent or would be the target demo for Umio.


This is exactly the demographic that DirecTV historically targeted. While Dish Network has always led with price, DirecTV always (prior to the AT&T acquisition) led with service. That was either services no one else offered (NFL Sunday Ticket for example), improved quality of service (best HD picture quality) or superior technology (wireless STBs). You paid a premium price for DirecTV too. In fact, DirecTV only started advertising low price entry level promotions when Dish Network started advertising against them by name.

So there is a market there, and one that can be lucrative for the right offering.


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

OTT service now?

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/layer3-tv-announces-allhd-platinum-300327859.html


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

thyname said:


> OTT service now?
> 
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/layer3-tv-announces-allhd-platinum-300327859.html


Still only available in limited areas according to their web page. Perhaps that will change. I wonder what bit rate is required, sounds like their DVR is cloud storage which would help in reducing max. bandwidth requirements.


----------



## brandenwan (Nov 6, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Still only available in limited areas according to their web page. Perhaps that will change. I wonder what bit rate is required, sounds like their DVR is cloud storage which would help in reducing max. bandwidth requirements.


Meh.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

From the Wired article linked in an earlier post:


> To be clear: this is not Internet TV. When you plug your Roku into your television, you must depend on your Internet provider for quality service. This can be a problem. The public Internet can be slow, or have traffic jams when everyone wants to watch at once. Because Layer3 wont have to rely on the public Internet delivered by a middleman, Binder says, the company can manage the transmission of your bandwidth, ensuring the quality of the video.


Practically speaking, what does this mean? Surely it doesn't mean I wouldn't have to pay for HSI service from an ISP in order to use this device, right? And it must require some minimum bandwidth too, right?

The price range mentioned isn't that attractive, and I don't see Smithsonian channel in their lineup. I couldn't find any details of how it operates. Someone said they must use a cloud DVR, yet the device contains a multi-TB drive (?).


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

dlfl said:


> From the Wired article linked in an earlier post:
> 
> Practically speaking, what does this mean? Surely it doesn't mean I wouldn't have to pay for HSI service from an ISP in order to use this device, right? And it must require some minimum bandwidth too, right?
> 
> The price range mentioned isn't that attractive, and I don't see Smithsonian channel in their lineup. I couldn't find any details of how it operates. Someone said they must use a cloud DVR, yet the device contains a multi-TB drive (?).


To be clear, the article that I just posted today talks about OTT service. Layer3 tv is already offering regular tv in DC area (Comcast territory only) that piggybacks on Comcast lines, thus no bandwidth limitations and no data caps (on the latter), which sounds to me like IPtv.

I have yet to meet or speak with anybody who has their service though


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Layer3 definitely says they are not "OTT" because they transmit over their own backbone infrastructure and sign interconnect agreements with local broadband providers to cover the last mile to subscriber homes. They say they are "managed IPTV" with the high level of reliability you'd expect from a traditional pay TV provider rather than OTT services like Netflix, which can be subject to buffering, pixelation, etc. due to network congestion.

They transmit their live TV service compressed in HEVC h.265 at under 4 Mpbs, which sounds a little low to me for 1080i and 720p given that they must use real-time re-encoding on the original h.264 and MPEG2 feeds they receive from the networks. I'll be interested in reading first-hand reports of their HD PQ and how it stacks up against DirecTV, much less the PQ king, Google Fiber.

One advantage their UX has over competitors, including TiVo, is individual user profiles for each viewer in the household. Like the upcoming new TiVo UX, Layer3 is also supposed to learn your viewing habits and make helpful suggestions. They're supposed to launch their own full-time 4K/UHD channel soon; I'm guessing it will be something like what DirecTV already offers, a sampler channel featuring a patchwork of content from various sources. I still think UHD versions of regular cable channels will take a good while to arrive.

They're not cheap but they do offer a ton of channels in HD and supposedly better customer service, billing themselves as "concierge cable". Not sure yet which OTT services such as Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, etc. are integrated into their STBs but that's also supposed to be a selling point. I can see themselves carving out a profitable niche at the high-end of pay TV service.

Looks like they're rolling out to Denver soon...

http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/layer3-tv-goes-big-bundle/407722

http://www.multichannel.com/news/content/layer3-tv-coming-denver-soon-report/407791


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

H.265 at 4Mbps isn't bad. Uverse and DirecTV both use about 6Mbps for H.264, and H.265 should be able to handle another 30% pretty easily.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Dan203 said:


> H.265 at 4Mbps isn't bad. Uverse and DirecTV both use about 6Mbps for H.264, and H.265 should be able to handle another 30% pretty easily.


Yeah, I guess h.265 at, say, 3.75Mbps (not sure of the exact bitrate, other than "under 4") is fine but at that rate I wouldn't expect Layer3 to boast HD quality that's as good as the 1080p on Netflix or Amazon. But maybe no live pay TV service does? I suppose that's not a fair comparison. Layer3 is really competing against DirecTV and whatever local providers are available.

I've read that HBO pumps out their original signals at about 7Mbps (+ an additional 1Mbps for overhead) in h.264. If that 7 were reduced by 30% to be re-encoded on-the-fly to h.265 at equivalent PQ, you're looking at 4.9Mbps, which is a significant step up from 3.75Mbps. So there would appear to be some PQ loss for HBO on Layer3, but I assume that there's at least *some* loss for it on virtually every pay TV provider other than Google Fiber TV, which reportedly passes on the signals they receive from broadcasters without re-encoding to apply additional compression. HBO is probably an outlier in terms of PQ/bitrate too, as the typical basic cable channel likely originates at a somewhat lower bitrate.

I have to say that I'm surprised to read that DirecTV and Uverse use about the same h.264 bitrate because DirecTV had the highest average PQ of any provider I ever used and Uverse had the worst.


----------



## FitzAusTex (May 7, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Wrong on so many counts.
> 
> Bottom line, that is the primary reason Verizon stopped FiOS expansion in Florida 5+ years ago and ended up selling it - too many old people did not care about quality or high speed internet - much less OTT.


I worked at Verizon on the sale of the non-NYNEX, non-Bell Atlantic assets (primarily New England and fGTE/Contel customers) to Frontier, etc.

FiOS rollout/expansion cost played only a small part in sale. Verizon Wireless was the real reason it was sold. Verizon (Residential) is the red-headed stepchild to Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Enterprise. Verizon Communications, the parent, does exactly what the executive management of Verizon Wireless wants done. Those execs convinced the board that wireless is the only future.

As an aside, kinda funny that FiOS started in Keller, Texas (that was a joy to launch), and Verizon no longer owns Texas assets.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> There is an element you have missed (besides the 9th planet was demoted).
> 
> ACA reports smaller Cable Companies are seriously considering dropping the TV side of cable due to the constant blackouts and declining profits from that side.
> 
> Layer 3 could work deals to take over those subs and alleviate much of the backlash if those Companies dropped TV Service in serviced areas.


This post seems very logical because in addition to cost, TV service is inherently divisive since people argue about what channels should be on which tier. I know that some people get incensed about Comcast channels that carry overflow Phillies games. Some of the local cable companies won't carry the network as they feel that they are being blackmailed. But hardcore baseball fans pester the cable company all the time.

Why not just concentrate on high margin internet and let people decide if they want SlingTV or Layer3? I understand the Google fiber optic is having trouble selling their TV service.

I see that their DVR is being made by Pace. Pace makes the DVR and client boxes for my cable system, but the software is all TiVo. What will be different about Layer3 DVR? I see notes that it has 8 tuners, which certainly means that they don't have CableCARD which can handle only 6 tuners.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I thought layer 3 delivered by IP? It shouldn't have any tuners. Just that it can record up to eight IP streams. 

I know it's available in my area in Northern Virginia. I looked at the site yesterday and then someone called me later since I had visited the website. But the prices are high compared with what I pay for the FiOS Ultimate HD tier.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

From their "Technology" page:

User profiles for everyone in your home

That feature alone would be worth some additional pain per month.

edit: p.s. Urf!, perhaps not, given L3TV charges $10 per each additional TV outlet.


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

It would be great if somebody that had Layer3 Tv chimes in with impressions. I have yet to meet one


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It's too expensive for what it is.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> It's too expensive for what it is.


It *is* quite expensive, but then they appear to be aware of this, given they've only opened a kiosk at Northbrook Court (well-heeled area of town).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-layer3-cable-launch-chicago-0922-biz-20160921-story.html

"You're not going to sign up for us because you're going to save money," said Jeff Binder, co-founder and CEO of Layer3 TV. "You're going to sign up for us because you're going to get a lot more value for the same price."​
As others have noted, though, some might be willing to pay extra to get actual HD or better quality, a contrasting approach to Comcast, it appears.


----------



## ITVNut (Oct 26, 2016)

thyname said:


> It would be great if somebody that had Layer3 Tv chimes in with impressions. I have yet to meet one


I have it. The number of HDs is double Comcast. Video quality is the best I've seen. Doesn't have voice yet, but they say coming very soon as well as bunch of app support. Definitely a wayyyy better value than the existing Chicago players. UX is very modern, fast and cool. It costs about $100 for three TVs, 200+ HDs (they have every single channel), Movie channels and a huge VOD library - they say about 15,000 shows and movies, going to 30k by end of year. Would be interesting to see if they would support my TiVO. The rep said they think they will eventually, as they don't have any issue with supporting other devices, said they though it would be less as well with TiVO.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

ITVNut said:


> I have it. The number of HDs is double Comcast. Video quality is the best I've seen. Doesn't have voice yet, but they say coming very soon as well as bunch of app support. Definitely a wayyyy better value than the existing Chicago players. UX is very modern, fast and cool. It costs about $100 for three TVs, 200+ HDs (they have every single channel), Movie channels and a huge VOD library - they say about 15,000 shows and movies, going to 30k by end of year. Would be interesting to see if they would support my TiVO. The rep said they think they will eventually, as they don't have any issue with supporting other devices, said they though it would be less as well with TiVO.


Hmm, I wonder if that Layer3 rep knew what he was talking about as TiVos are only currently configured to work with QAM-based cable TV, not IPTV. If TiVos were ever to work with Layer3's IPTV service, it seems like it would require a lot of cooperation between the two companies to develop the necessary software and who knows if it would even be feasible to port it to existing TiVo hardware. (Given that Layer3 uses HEVC h.265 encoding, only the TiVo Bolt would appear to be a potential candidate for ever supporting Layer3; older TiVos cannot decode HEVC h.265.)

So for a single TV, is the price $80 (with $10 per additional TV)? And currently no apps such as Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, etc. are offered on the box but some of those will be offered soon? Lastly, does Layer3 require that you have a separate high-speed internet with a specific provider (e.g. Comcast, AT&T, etc.)? Or does the Layer3 TV service come with its own broadband access over a certain local provider's pipes that allows only their own traffic to pass through -- meaning that you could theoretically not have internet service at all but Layer3's TV service would still work using the modem built into their set-top box?


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

ITVNut said:


> I have it. The number of HDs is double Comcast. Video quality is the best I've seen. Doesn't have voice yet, but they say coming very soon as well as bunch of app support. Definitely a wayyyy better value than the existing Chicago players. UX is very modern, fast and cool. It costs about $100 for three TVs, 200+ HDs (they have every single channel), Movie channels and a huge VOD library - they say about 15,000 shows and movies, going to 30k by end of year. Would be interesting to see if they would support my TiVO. The rep said they think they will eventually, as they don't have any issue with supporting other devices, said they though it would be less as well with TiVO.


Thanks for chiming in!

Is the interface faster than tivo?

I was also wondering if you could post some pictures of the Guide.

Thanks!



NashGuy said:


> Or does the Layer3 TV service come with its own broadband access over a certain local provider's pipes that allows only their own traffic to pass through -- meaning that you could theoretically not have internet service at all but Layer3's TV service would still work using the modem built into their set-top box?


I believe this ^^^^^ is the case. Only with Comcast


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Hmm, OK, just read this article. In particular, notice the "Important Update" at the end. Here's what I glean: while Layer3 resists the term "OTT" to describe themselves, that's exactly what they are _in some markets_, apparently including Chicago and Washington, D.C., where they've launched so far. In those markets, they have an interconnect agreement in place with one or more local broadband providers, just like Netflix does, to improve streaming performance between the edge of Layer3's IP backbone and the subscriber's home (i.e. "the last mile"). To sign up for Layer3 TV service in such markets, one must already subscribe to broadband internet service from a provider with which Layer3 has an interconnect agreement and *all video streamed from Layer3 counts against any data cap that the internet provider may have in place*.

It appears that there are other markets (although I'm not sure any have launched yet) where Layer3 will serve their subscribers over connection infrastructures that they completely own, all the way to the home. I know that Altice is one of Layer3's backers and given that Altice owns cable broadband provider Suddenlink, perhaps those markets served by Suddenlink will offer Layer3 not as an OTT service but as a true managed IP service, although that's just speculation on my part.

It also seems reasonable to think that, should Layer3 have a successful first couple of years, that they could partner with smaller broadband providers to essentially be their outsourced TV service with native (not OTT) access to their infrastructure for video delivery. A lot of smaller cable TV MSOs, who don't have the negotiating power of big competitors like AT&T and Comcast, are finding that they eek out very little money on their TV business. Why not hand that off to Layer3 in exchange for a small cut of the revenues or a network "rental" fee paid by Layer3?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> They transmit their live TV service compressed in HEVC h.265 at under 4 Mpbs, which sounds a little low to me for 1080i and 720p given that they must use real-time re-encoding on the original h.264 and MPEG2 feeds they receive from the networks. I'll be interested in reading first-hand reports of their HD PQ and how it stacks up against DirecTV, much less the PQ king, Google Fiber.


That could be very good quality. Comcast is running MPEG-2 at an average of around 8-12mbps, depending on the channels, and H.264 at an average of around 3.8mbps in 720p, and it looks pretty terrible. If H.265 is twice as efficient as H.264 and H.264 is twice as efficient as MPEG-2, then 4mbps H.265 is roughly equivalent to 8mbps H.264, or higher than what DirecTV uses, and roughly equivalent to 16mbps MPEG-2, which looks amazing when you find an occasional channel running at that type of bandwidth, and is similar to or higher than what FiOS uses on many channels.



NashGuy said:


> Hmm, I wonder if that Layer3 rep knew what he was talking about as TiVos are only currently configured to work with QAM-based cable TV, not IPTV. If TiVos were ever to work with Layer3's IPTV service, it seems like it would require a lot of cooperation between the two companies to develop the necessary software and who knows if it would even be feasible to port it to existing TiVo hardware. (Given that Layer3 uses HEVC h.265 encoding, only the TiVo Bolt would appear to be a potential candidate for ever supporting Layer3; older TiVos cannot decode HEVC h.265.)


I wouldn't count on it working with TiVo, but it's not that hard to imagine that TiVo could offer it as an OTT-based service with Level 3, and have lots of customizability and integration with other OTT streaming services, so it remains to be seen. It would be a big differentiator for both Level 3 and TiVo.



NashGuy said:


> It also seems reasonable to think that, should Layer3 have a successful first couple of years, that they could partner with smaller broadband providers to essentially be their outsourced TV service with native (not OTT) access to their infrastructure for video delivery. A lot of smaller cable TV MSOs, who don't have the negotiating power of big competitors like AT&T and Comcast, are finding that they eek out very little money on their TV business. Why not hand that off to Layer3 in exchange for a small cut of the revenues or a network "rental" fee paid by Layer3?


Yeah, this is exactly where Level 3 is going. So you look at Frontier, FairPoint, a whole bunch of small cooperatives, small cable providers, and local cable overbuilders, and even medium-sized players like Altice. Outsourcing to Level 3 would hopefully get them a better ability to negotiate good prices for content.

I think the cable companies would bundle it as their own service, but it would allow them to have the same cloud DVR, mobile streaming, and other perks that currently Comcast and AT&T and others are able to develop with their large sizes. Charter, AT&T, and Comcast each are large and have their own systems, some small providers use TiVo, Cox leases X1 from Comcast, and this could be another big DVR/streaming/home entertainment platform.


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

I was today at Tysons Corner mall (Northern Virginia, DC suburbs) and noticed a Layer3 TV booth. Stopped by and chatted with the guy. Unfortunately, the DVR they had there on display was not functional and was playing just a demo, so I could not test it.

A few highlights on our conversation:

- apparently they are now piggy backing on Cox lines in addition to Comcast
- FIOS is coming
- the way he explained to me, the DVR connects to Cox router (or Comcast's) via Ethernet (no coax). Client boxes are wireless and use mesh network created by DVR unit
- he insisted that they are not IPTV, but the way he explained to me, I am not sure how it works. OTT, but with eight tuners (QAM)?!


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

Just got an email saying that they have added NFL channel and RedZone to their lineup. Isn't it a bit late for the season?

Still curious if anybody has them


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

It's only week 17 now.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

And NFL channel has programming all year round.


----------



## Sgt Howl (Jan 18, 2013)

ITVNut said:


> I have it. The number of HDs is double Comcast. Video quality is the best I've seen.


Are you (still) happy with the service? Picture and sound (surround, right?) still good? Reliable delivery? Thanks much for your feedback.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Hmm. Looking at their webpage. They claim all their channels are HD then list things like antenna TV or This Tv. Those channels are not in HD. They list others as well that do not deliver HD. Because they up convert does not mean it is HD. By the same logic, then if I set my TiVo to output 4K then all my channels are 4K. 

Not accusing them of anything. Just is a bit sketchy.


----------



## Pacomartin (Jun 11, 2013)

C SEED | HOME - THE WORLD'S LARGEST OUTDOOR LED TV
Press | PRIMA Cinema
There is always a market for anything. See above for Porsche's half a million dollar TV. Also Prima Cinema selling equipment to watch first run movies for $35,000 plus $500 for film (limited selection of films). Sean Parker (found of napster) want's to sell pay per view movies for $50 two weeks after the movie premiers (with a cut going to cinema houses).
So there is certainly a market for people who will pay extra every month for a better TV viewing experience. Just the ability to go to the beginning of any show caught mid viewing, and the ability to watch most things on TV that aired in the last 72 hours is a big bonus.

My cable company (RCN) charges $10 for a four channel TiVo DVR and for an additional 4 Tuner DV another $29.45. So right there is a customer that has a reason for an 8 channel Layer3 box.


----------



## tneison (Jul 15, 2012)

I have both Layer3 and a Tivo Bolt on Comcast. If anyone is interested in my comparisons I'd be happy to provide them. Pros and cons to each.


----------



## thyname (Dec 27, 2010)

tneison said:


> I have both Layer3 and a Tivo Bolt on Comcast. If anyone is interested in my comparisons I'd be happy to provide them. Pros and cons to each.


Yes please do. Thanks


----------



## tneison (Jul 15, 2012)

So basically Layer3 has much better image quality vs the crap Comcast puts out, that's the biggest advantage for me and it's important. The channel lineup is also a lot better. However the DVR while it has a nice modern UI is missing things tivo has. The biggest for me is the fast forward sucks on Layer3 there is no 30 second skip, 15 minute skip, and it is either too slow or too fast and you overshoot the commercial. The Bolt commercial skip is hard to give up too. Tivo is a much more matured and stable platform, with Layer you do feel like it is still beta. I want to see Layer stabilize and enhance their DVR hopefully quickly. Hope that helps. I'd give it a shot no doubt there is no contract or risk.


----------



## chicagoenergy (Nov 15, 2013)

thyname said:


> It would be great if somebody that had Layer3 Tv chimes in with impressions. I have yet to meet one


I reviewed it here:
Layer3 TV comparison to Tivo


----------

