SureWest: A Short Trip Report

Continued from ‘SureWest: Holiday Thoughts‘….

1. First off, a correction. Back when SureWest’s services were first installed a bit over a month ago, I was told that each high-def video stream was 8 Mbps in size, with standard-def counterparts at 4 Mbps each. This seemed way low, considering I knew that SureWest is currently using MPEG-2 video compression and in light of the impressive video quality I was seeing, but the technician was adamant. As it turns out, he was thinking about the future, not the present. The stats I was quoted were actually for H.264 (aka MPEG-4 AVC, aka MPEG-4 Part 10), which SureWest plans to eventually migrate to (although Murray said that even 8 Mbps is optimistic; particularly for high-motion material, and more generally until H.264 matures, a 10-12 Mbps high-def stream is more likely). Currently, for HD SureWest is IP-wrapping a conventional 19.2 Mbps stream coming off an ATSC encoder (SD channels are ~3.5 Mbps). Knowing this makes it much clearer in my mind why the company is reserving a minimum of 48 Mbps bandwidth just for video (and VoIP)!
2. Speaking of VoIP, we had a refreshing (in light of other providers’ continuing bluster) discussion on network neutrality. I asked them if, for example, they planned (or were at minimum getting pressure from sources such as the board of directors, investors, or content providers) to block customers’ access to third-party VoIP providers like BroadVoice, SunRocket or Vonage, thereby favouring SureWest’s own VoIP offering, to block access to video services like Joost in favour of SureWest’s own IPTV product, or more generally to block or degrade access to high-bandwidth third-party services that might swamp the network. DeMuth pragmatically pointed out that ingenuity eventually triumphs over any access barrier that’s put in place. Examples include Skype’s clever surmount of firewalls (another link), and encrypted BitTorrent traffic. He also suggested that putting bandwidth caps on supposedly ‘unlimited’ services, as providers like Orange, Rogers, and Verizon are doing, is a customer-unfriendly action that tend to backfire. Instead, he points out that most consumers aren’t extremely techie and most also don’t have abundant time on their hands. If SureWest can create a services bundle that’s reliable, feature-rich and fairly priced, customers will choose that package even if competitive alternatives to each service are available.
3. I was impressed with the amount of industry cooperation on IPTV that SureWest reports is occurring, even in the absence of a formal organization such as the cable industry’s CableLabs and its DOCSIS standards. DeMuth and Murray freely admitted that their company has cobbled together an IPTV system using multiple vendors’ products, unlike (for example) the integrated Microsoft TV system (whose representatives spoke with no shortage of admiration about SureWest’s accomplishment back at NAB). "A rising tide lifts all boats" appears to be SureWest’s strategy; the company has hosted numerous other worldwide IPTV implementers over the past few years (with the exception of direct competitors such as AT&T and Verizon, DeMuth was quick to clarify), as well as ‘plugfests’ for head end, settop box, middleware, encryption and other piece-of-puzzle providers.
4. Finally, I see SureWest as an example of the fact that while the greed-fueled irrational exuberance (followed by the quick tumble) of the dot-com era may have had a lot wrong about it, it also created a fiber-and-other infrastructure that’ll benefit the tech industry far into the future. SureWest’s fiber system is built on the foundation of a now-bankrupt startup called WINfirst, whose N. Sacramento facility SureWest now occupies (after buying the WINfirst assets for pennies on the dollar).