«

Spoilt for choice

Ashley Norris wonders whether the revamped TV on
demand service HomeChoice is a useful alternative
to cable

Ashley Norris
Saturday June 26 2004
The Guardian


If you don't fancy swelling Mr Murdoch's coffers
or forking out for cable you may soon have an
alternative - TV and video on demand via an ADSL
broadband line.

If this sounds familiar you are spot on. The
service, HomeChoice, was originally launched in
2000, delivering video on demand and internet
access to homes in the London area. While it was
undoubtedly a pioneering service (video on demand
via ADSL to a TV in 2000 was a world first) and
worked reasonably well, there were some hiccups
with the ADSL, and the quality of the video
(MPEG1 standard) was awful.

I subscribed to the service for a time, more out
of curiosity than anything else. I enjoyed being
able to peruse a vast library of movies and TV
programmes and then, after one click, being able
to watch them. In the days before Sky+, Home
Choice's ability to pause the movie you were
watching seemed revolutionary.

Then after a year or so the service went quiet.
Although it continued to cater for its existing
subscribers, it didn't seem very interested in
attracting new ones.

Then, a couple of months ago HomeChoice announced
that a completely revamped service was being
rolled out across London.

"The new services are all down to local loop
unbundling (LLU)", explains Roger Lynch, Chair
and CEO of HomeChoice's parent company Video
Networks.

"When HomeChoice first launched we had to buy
wholesale ADSL packages from BT, which was very
expensive. Since LLU we have been able to start
putting our own equipment into local exchanges,
which not only significantly improves the
services we can offer, but means our operational
costs are eighty per cent cheaper than when we
worked with BT."

Among those new services are broadcast TV:
HomeChoice offers a similar set of channels to
Freeview, plus fast internet access, with users
receiving a 1Mbps service with its basic package,
with a 2Mbps upgrade if they prefer.

HomeChoice has also come up with some innovative
features. For example subscribers can configure
the HomeChoice box to lock out all its services
bar its on-demand children's channel Scamp, which
makes it ideal for parents hoping to enjoy a
Saturday morning lie-in. Another neat feature is
the way subscribers can create a playlist of
their favourite music videos rather than having
to view the channel's choice of music.

A deal with the BBC means that subscribers can
also view the previous week's editions of
EastEnders, and many other programmes, whenever
they want. And central to HomeChoice is its
library of around 1,000 video-on-demand movies,
which can be paused, rewound and fast forwarded.

The biggest improvement of all is that the
picture quality is now MPEG2, rather than MPEG1,
and is similar to other digital TV services. The
company is likely to upgrade to MPEG4 ("a world's
first", says Lynch), at some point in the year,
which offers even higher quality pictures at
lower bandwidth.

"We are pretty unique in the world in offering
video on demand over ADSL in this way", adds
Roger Lynch. "And at present other services can't
offer a similar system."

Given how attractive movies and TV on demand are
to consumers it does seem incredible that Sky and
the cable companies aren't yet talking about
adding video on demand via broadband to their
portfolio of services.

"I suspect that the cable companies will start
rolling out video on demand at some point in the
next 12 months" says Roger Lynch. "However there
are still parts of their network that will have
to be upgraded before they can do this."

"As for Sky, well it would have to work with BT
to deliver video on demand and I don't think BT
is ready yet. BT recently announced a four to
five year plan to upgrade its network and I am
sure Sky will be looking at what it will be able
to offer in the future."

"We are also looking at new ADSL technologies
such as ADSL2 and ASDSL+ which will enable us to
increase the bandwidth available to each home. So
for example we could offer multiple channels
streamed to different TVs or even high definition
TV."

So is HomeChoice the tortoise to Sky and the cable companies' hare?

At present the service is only available to 1.4
million homes in London, but Lynch insists the
whole of the capital will be able to access the
service soon, and that other cities will follow
next year.

At £35 a month, which includes a 1MB broadband
pipe plus a basic selection of channels, it is
certainly competitive too. And there's no denying
that movies and TV on demand is a compelling
proposition.

HomeChoice might have got the product right this
time. Yet whether it has the marketing nous and
deep enough pockets to take on its competitors
remains to be seen.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

Mark. wrote:
> Saturday June 26 2004
> The Guardian
>
> "The new services are all down to local loop
> unbundling (LLU)", explains Roger Lynch, Chair
> and CEO of HomeChoice's parent company Video
> Networks.
> "When HomeChoice first launched we had to buy
> wholesale ADSL packages from BT, which was very
> expensive. Since LLU we have been able to start
> putting our own equipment into local exchanges,
> which not only significantly improves the
> services we can offer, but means our operational
> costs are eighty per cent cheaper than when we
> worked with BT."

80% cheaper !
So, why did our govt decide we shouldn't have LLU here in NZ?


Peter

In article <>, says...
> Mark. wrote:
> > Saturday June 26 2004
> > The Guardian
> >
> > "The new services are all down to local loop
> > unbundling (LLU)", explains Roger Lynch, Chair
> > and CEO of HomeChoice's parent company Video
> > Networks.
> > "When HomeChoice first launched we had to buy
> > wholesale ADSL packages from BT, which was very
> > expensive. Since LLU we have been able to start
> > putting our own equipment into local exchanges,
> > which not only significantly improves the
> > services we can offer, but means our operational
> > costs are eighty per cent cheaper than when we
> > worked with BT."
>
> 80% cheaper !
> So, why did our govt decide we shouldn't have LLU here in NZ?

Because there are no overall benefits across the whole telecoms sector.

You can expect with LLU that some users in specific niches will get a
better deal, but others will be worse off. The same thing happens every
time the government deregulates something.

>> 80% cheaper !
>> So, why did our govt decide we shouldn't have LLU here in NZ?
>
> Because there are no overall benefits across the whole telecoms sector.
>
> You can expect with LLU that some users in specific niches will get a
> better deal, but others will be worse off. The same thing happens every
> time the government deregulates something.

So everybody in urban areas ends up paying thru the nose so some farmer down
the end of a 35Km gravel road in the middle of nowhere can have a phone
line.

User pays my ass, his phoneline should be costing him $500 a month and mine
should cost $5

If _YOU_ choose to live non urban don't bitch to me that you can't get high
speed internet.

I just bought a different house, the first thing that I told the estate
agents were, if it cann't get xtra high speed AND saturn don't bother
showing me (I like choice).

The Flash said the following on 29/06/2004 23:30:

>>>80% cheaper !
>>>So, why did our govt decide we shouldn't have LLU here in NZ?
>>
>>Because there are no overall benefits across the whole telecoms sector.
>>
>>You can expect with LLU that some users in specific niches will get a
>>better deal, but others will be worse off. The same thing happens every
>>time the government deregulates something.
>
>
> So everybody in urban areas ends up paying thru the nose so some farmer down
> the end of a 35Km gravel road in the middle of nowhere can have a phone
> line.
>
> User pays my ass, his phoneline should be costing him $500 a month and mine
> should cost $5
>
> If _YOU_ choose to live non urban don't bitch to me that you can't get high
> speed internet.
>
> I just bought a different house, the first thing that I told the estate
> agents were, if it cann't get xtra high speed AND saturn don't bother
> showing me (I like choice).
>

I think you have the wrong end of it.
If his line exists now and so does yours it should cost you both the same each
month.
Now if it needs to be established then there is a cost difference and Telecom
already has a user pays policy for for new connections.

Collector_NZ wrote:
> The Flash said the following on 29/06/2004 23:30:
>
>>>> 80% cheaper !
>>>> So, why did our govt decide we shouldn't have LLU here in NZ?
>>>
>>> Because there are no overall benefits across the whole telecoms
>>> sector.
>>>
>>> You can expect with LLU that some users in specific niches will get
>>> a better deal, but others will be worse off. The same thing happens
>>> every time the government deregulates something.
>>
>>
>> So everybody in urban areas ends up paying thru the nose so some
>> farmer down the end of a 35Km gravel road in the middle of nowhere
>> can have a phone line.
>>
>> User pays my ass, his phoneline should be costing him $500 a month
>> and mine should cost $5
>>
>> If _YOU_ choose to live non urban don't bitch to me that you can't
>> get high speed internet.
>>
>> I just bought a different house, the first thing that I told the
>> estate agents were, if it cann't get xtra high speed AND saturn
>> don't bother showing me (I like choice).
>>
>
> I think you have the wrong end of it.
> If his line exists now and so does yours it should cost you both the
> same each month.
> Now if it needs to be established then there is a cost difference and
> Telecom already has a user pays policy for for new connections.

Damn right! I have a friend who just paid several thousand dollars to get a
phone line put in and she only lives just over a kilometer from the main
road. Even Telecom aren't stupid enough to try charging her extra 'line
rental' because she doesn't live in a street, where it may have cost her
$100 to get connected.
--
~misfit~

In article <>,
says...
> The Flash said the following on 29/06/2004 23:30:
>
> >>>80% cheaper !
> >>>So, why did our govt decide we shouldn't have LLU here in NZ?
> >>
> >>Because there are no overall benefits across the whole telecoms sector.
> >>
> >>You can expect with LLU that some users in specific niches will get a
> >>better deal, but others will be worse off. The same thing happens every
> >>time the government deregulates something.
> >
> >
> > So everybody in urban areas ends up paying thru the nose so some farmer down
> > the end of a 35Km gravel road in the middle of nowhere can have a phone
> > line.
> >
> > User pays my ass, his phoneline should be costing him $500 a month and mine
> > should cost $5

Since when did a phone line cost $5 a month? Do you see Telstraclear
moving to charge their Saturn users $5 a month? Why not, after all they
are not using the local loop, and they don't have to maintain a cable
network across the whole country, only in a couple of large cities.

It already costs more to get a connection in rural areas, and most of
them are likely to be too far from the exchange for a good connection.
Your claims don't stack up.

In article <>,
says...
> The Flash said the following on 29/06/2004 23:30:
>
> >>>80% cheaper !
> >>>So, why did our govt decide we shouldn't have LLU here in NZ?
> >>
> >>Because there are no overall benefits across the whole telecoms sector.
> >>
> >>You can expect with LLU that some users in specific niches will get a
> >>better deal, but others will be worse off. The same thing happens every
> >>time the government deregulates something.
> >
> >
> > So everybody in urban areas ends up paying thru the nose so some farmer down
> > the end of a 35Km gravel road in the middle of nowhere can have a phone
> > line.
> >
> > User pays my ass, his phoneline should be costing him $500 a month and mine
> > should cost $5
> >
> > If _YOU_ choose to live non urban don't bitch to me that you can't get high
> > speed internet.

If you chose to live in Dorkland don't bitch about your phone rentals
being too high because the productive backbone of the country live in the
country.