Gogo1
join:2004-05-27
Brooklyn, NY
| Now comes with twice as many crap channels as before!
"DOCSIS 3.0) will allow the cable provider to increase standard definition channels from 100 to 200+"
Bit pointless when only enough decent content is made to fill about five hours (generous) of air time a week across all time slots and all channels. What will they do with the other 33595 TV hours? Reruns? Infomercials? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by Gogo1  :Bit pointless when only enough decent content is made to fill about five hours (generous) of air time a week across all time slots and all channels. What will they do with the other 33595 TV hours? Reruns? Infomercials? If you like sports, there are many more hours of HD available than that.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
needforspeed59
Cruise Ship Just Passing Through
join:2001-05-02
Glendale, AZ
| reply to Gogo1
It sure doesn't take long for someone to crap on what seems like a pretty good-news story. What equates to qulaity air time is completely subjective. Heck, opinions in our home vary from me, my wife and my two kids. Myself; I am looking forward to more HD programming. I love movies in HD. More speed? Bring it on, baby!
--
Great success! High five! |
|
AMDUSER
Premium
join:2003-05-28
Earth
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Gogo1
If it was me, I would install the Vyyo Inc 3 Ghz spectrum overlay. It would effectively upgrade the cable system to 3 Ghz without having to rebuild the cable systems.
In some areas, Cox is deploying it, »www.cable360.net/ct/news/thewire/22781.html .
That would allow for quite a bit more channel bonding as well. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| said by AMDUSER :If it was me, I would install the Vyyo Inc 3 Ghz spectrum overlay. It would effectively upgrade the cable system to 3 Ghz without having to rebuild the cable systems. In some areas, Cox is deploying it, » www.cable360.net/ct/news/thewire/22781.html . That would allow for quite a bit more channel bonding as well. Thanks! Can you please give a couple of sentences that puts this into meaning for those of us who are on the primer? What exactly is happening here? 
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
imrf
Premium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | reply to AMDUSER
Just curious, have you looked into how that works? From what I just read, it's that same ultra-wideband crap that's flopped a bunch of times. They don't upgrade the whole network to 3Ghz, rather it overlays and injects data at certain points in the network. |
|
anonimuz
@shawcable.net | All they are doing is putting in 3Ghz passives. In other words, mainline splitters and taps. The plant is still at the mercy of their actives (amplifiers), which stated is 1 Ghz. It'll be a while before they start mass producing 3 Gig amps. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Gogo1
said by Gogo1 : Bit pointless when only enough decent content is made to fill about five hours Cable bandwidth not only delivers TV but also data.
Increasing upper end from 750 or 850MHZ to 1000 substantially increases capacity that can be used for multiple purposes.
Each 6 MHZ channel deliver about 40 Mbps.
1)DOCSIS 3 allows MSO to bond multiple channels to increase transfer rate.
2) HDTV requires a little under 20 Mbps
3) SDTV about 3 Mbps.
As programming migrates to HDTV format it puts strain on cable plant capacity.
Switching can be layered on top of this making video on demand feasible.
Personally I'd rather see they migrate to a fiber centric outside plant rather then take another interim step. That said this is a significant increase in capacity.
/tom |
|
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ | reply to anonimuz
The attenuation that 3ghz signal would cause would require all plant to be rebuilt to compensate....
It' can get bad enough on a 750 plant I would hate to be at the end of a line on a 3ghz plant.... |
|
noneyabidness
@comcast.net
| reply to tschmidt
Why not just abandon separate HD/SDTV and DOCSIS channels altogether and convert everything to DOCSIS?
Television programming could be handled by IPTV either through an MSO's established service or third parties.
In essence, you sell bandwidth (in conjunction with preconfigured IPTV settings) and give consumers the choice of how they use this bandwidth. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Fubar
Correct.
Now to another point. I think sometimes that people need to stop reading b2b press releases for their information. The 3ghz gear is trying to be pushed to gain sales. It's a pure business move of someone trying to hawk their gear. In the real world, as to where it means anything to the consumer, it's not being implemented because it's a huge mess for cable operators to implement. (as you said above)
This just brings us back to the "it works in the lab, but lets see it in the field" point. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to noneyabidness
said by noneyabidness :
In essence, you sell bandwidth (in conjunction with preconfigured IPTV settings) and give consumers the choice of how they use this bandwidth.
This very point you're making has been brought up by Comcast back in the late 90's and again in about 2004. I've stated the same thing here and cited this point many times.
It's what they are working towards, however, as you know, while telco is doing it, there is still more issues for a cable system to implement this technology and make it stable enough to work. |
|
AMDUSER
Premium
join:2003-05-28
Earth
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to funchords
What this does is add quite a bit of capacity to the cable system. It doubles downstream capacity and adding four times the amount of upstream bandwidth.[Depending on how it is setup .] The other part about it, is that it will work with existing equipment. There is some work needed, like amps and cable taps changed to a 3 Ghz capable one, and some equipment at the headend will have to be added.
This would add room for quite a bit of HD, faster internet, and more channels without upgrading to FTTP.
It is also considerable less, $125 per home passed, vs. $1,500 - $2,000 for FTTP.
»www.lightreading.com/document.as···id=85046 .
This may help explain it, better than I can..
»vyyo.myspin.com/assets/flash/spe···lay.html |
|
Smokey
Even drunk on a bet ya make it to Canada
Premium
join:2003-05-20
Va Beach
clubs: | reply to Fubar
Wasn't Cox talking about deploying that on just a "few select" plant runs? Mainly bushiness areas to bring down the costs to service medium businesses?
--
Para Bellum!! |
|
Fubar
join:2001-02-20
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Smokey :Wasn't Cox talking about deploying that on just a "few select" plant runs? Mainly bushiness areas to bring down the costs to service medium businesses? 3ghz? Not that I ever heard... |
|
