| reply to ATHF
Re: DOCSIS 3.0 They didn't really imply that DOCSIS 3.0 would help video.
What they're implying, that is to increase downstream bandwidth to customers, before DOCSIS 3.0, they'll have to use up channels in the spectrum to deliver more DOCSIS 1.1/2.0 downstreams to load balance downstreams.
Some cable companies use more than one DOCSIS downstream channel to deliver more bandwidth to areas that are overloaded with customers.
By going to SDV, they move unused channels off of dedicated QAMs and put them on SDV QAMs. Thus freeing up channels to add more downstreams for broadband, as well as add more HD channels. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| What happens when they are using all the channels ? Do we get an error message saying that they can't get the channel to us yet ?
I can really see if there is a diverse city that this may happen. Wonder what happens if a DVR needs to go out and record a channel and there is no stream for it.
So many questions that never get real answers from these folks. They need to bring more capacity Verizon is doing it , I hope they don't think it's going to be any different for them.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Comcast Digital ..
| With this tech and which channels are broadcast and which channels are SDV is highly dependent on the area. They will have to look at the demographics and put the statistically lower use channels into SDV. Yes, this may mean that a channel may not be available if the system is not setup correctly. I doubt they would go too far in putting too much in SDV otherwise they would lose customers. The shows will be held at the edge router so it is not like the entire Boston area will be sharing the SDV bandwidth. It will be closer to the node, so that almost everyone on the node will need to be watching a different channel on SDV. They all would need to be different channels as once one person in a given multicast group starts watching a channel any number of people will be able to start watching that channel and no more SDV bandwidth will be used. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by reelbigfish:With this tech and which channels are broadcast and which channels are SDV is highly dependent on the area. They will have to look at the demographics and put the statistically lower use channels into SDV. Yes, this may mean that a channel may not be available if the system is not setup correctly. I doubt they would go too far in putting too much in SDV otherwise they would lose customers. The shows will be held at the edge router so it is not like the entire Boston area will be sharing the SDV bandwidth. It will be closer to the node, so that almost everyone on the node will need to be watching a different channel on SDV. They all would need to be different channels as once one person in a given multicast group starts watching a channel any number of people will be able to start watching that channel and no more SDV bandwidth will be used. I understand that , but what I am saying is what happens if all the SDV channels are in use and a dvr calls out for a channel ? Does it get precedence since it's a dvr ? I mean this could be another tipping point for some customers.
Me personally I am done with Comcast, I am waiting on a line test from covad for a dsl pair and dish network is scheduling an install for me soon.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn:What happens when they are using all the channels ? Do we get an error message saying that they can't get the channel to us yet ? This is already happening in Orange County, CA. You don't get an error message, the channel just doesn't load. It sits there on a solid colored screen and message reads "Channel not loaded."
--
The Toll
|
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to smcallah
Actually, DOCSIS 3.0 is being used for video products. This has been discussed internally for several years... Comcast was talking IPTV before I even heard phone doing it. The idea was to give every home 100 or 200MB of BW which would serve Voice Video and Data.
To be honest, they are playing all avenues and see which one plays best.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
| That seems kind of silly, since coax already delivers well more than 100 to 200mbit of data right now.
It's not like DSL providers doing IPTV, Broadband, and Phone over the same wires where they're limited to that bandwidth.
Coax right now can deliver ~40mbit per 6MHz channel.
Why would they cut down on the amount of data a home can receive right now? That's not going to save them any bandwidth, that's just going to degrade service.
The most IPTV in a cable system will be used for is VOD. Unless they're going to try to sell IPTV to people with FIOS or DSL that don't buy the TV service from their current provider.
Delivering channels over IPTV isn't going to save a cable company anymore bandwidth over using QAM to deliver TV. And in fact, it would cost them more in equipment, since they'd have to swap customer boxes to IPTV boxes instead of QAM boxes. Wouldn't make sense. |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by smcallah:That seems kind of silly, since coax already delivers well more than 100 to 200mbit of data right now. Hrmmmph. cox cant even deliver the 12mbps i pay for now.
*sigh* bonded channels are only going to enable providers to load nodes even heavier!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to smcallah
Did you give your post much thought before you sent it? or.. what?
If they can stream a few hundred MB to each home, how is that silly? If each home has that BW, they stream channels to each home, it's unlimited channel capacity.
You said: "The most IPTV in a cable system will be used for is VOD." Cite your source.. I did. My information comes first hand.. and yours...?
Honestly, your post make no sense.. I'm done.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
| said by fiberguy:Did you give your post much thought before you sent it? or.. what? If they can stream a few hundred MB to each home, how is that silly? If each home has that BW, they stream channels to each home, it's unlimited channel capacity. You said: "The most IPTV in a cable system will be used for is VOD." Cite your source.. I did. My information comes first hand.. and yours...? Honestly, your post make no sense.. I'm done. And did you put in any thought at all before you sent your post?
Cable already sends hundreds of megabits to homes right now. No, it's not all over a broadband modem, but the fact is, the coax is sending hundreds of megabits to people already. In the form of QAMs, analog channels, and DOCSIS, all combined on the same coax.
So again, I'll say cutting it down to 100 to 200mbit would be silly.
And I know my information comes first hand as well, so I'm not going to cite a source, just like you don't cite a source. Why would cable companies go backwards and use IPTV, when QAMs are already capable of delivering video to existing cable boxes?
From your first hand knowledge, cable companies really want to replace their customers' set top boxes with inferior set top boxes?
Your post was the one that made no sense. And now, you're really done. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | wow.. just wow.
For the record... I've had my hands in head end equipment for years... and you?
.. and why would cable use IPTV? Because unlike QAM, which is hard frequency based, data is data. You can have a virtually unlimited amount of programming choices via IPTV over the current system. And to answer your question.. why would they? I don't need to get that from you.. I'll listen to the engineers that are working on next gen tech. Not someone on BBR.
And yea.. unless you state your source, as far as I am concerned, you're nothing more than many people here who get behind their computer and repeat smack, often incorrect, in an attempt to fluff their chest up. My source was stated many times over and over. So don't try the "like you never do" because it won't work. |
|
