how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
1 edit | reply to cdru
Re: 38 Mbps x 8 Re-doing an entire cable network in fiber only will cost more than changing headend gear for DOCSIS3. FiOS' infrastructure deployment costs are already more than the shareholders and investors want to see.
What I am saying in a nutshell that while FiOS can deliver worlds upon worlds of things, you are not bloody likely to see it unless there is a return on investment.
And until you are prepared to pay $1000/month for an internet connection, you will not see much beyond the speeds you are seeing today.
quote:
What I meant when I said that they weren't the same thing is as you pointed out, BPON uses 3 different wavelengths while cable essentially uses a single block of frequencies. With BPON, the 1310nm wavelength is used for upstream traffic and the 1490nm wavelength is used for downstream traffic. The television portion of the service (excluding VOD) is transmitted over the 1550nm wavelength in the form of a RF overlay. In layman terms, it's broadcasing the same 54-860MHz block of frequencies that cable companies use, using only a single wavelength of fiber.
Likewise, with cable upgrades, 54-860MHz will be used for one way TV services, 860-1GHz (and beyond) for data and advanced video services. 5-42MHz is used for the upstream.
There are your three wavelengths. It's the same concept as fiber, except that the medium (and modulation) is different.
Throw in MPEG4 compression for the video portion and you can deliver the same amount of video programming in less bandwidth, freeing up more of it for internet access or other advanced services. | |
| said by fifty nine:Re-doing an entire cable network in fiber only will cost more than changing headend gear for DOCSIS3. That is true, to a point. To keep up with the capabilities of Fios, you have to do node splits to the point where it becomes more cost effective just to run fiber.
FiOS' infrastructure deployment costs are already more than the shareholders and investors want to see. Most investors are idiots. Any investor that does not see the long term potential of Fios and what it does for Verizon is better serve by sticking their money under a rock.
Likewise, with cable upgrades, 54-860MHz will be used for one way TV services, 860-1GHz (and beyond) for data and advanced video services. 5-42MHz is used for the upstream.
There are your three wavelengths. It's the same concept as fiber, except that the medium (and modulation) is different.
You completely missed the point here. Yeah, HFC spectrum can be split into different bands for different services, but that is not the point. What you are missing is that I can take the entire spectrum available on coax and represent it as one lamba. When you run out of bandwidth on coax, that's it, you are screwed. With fiber, I light up another lambda when the existing lambda is 100% utilized. With some very expensive and very precise equipment, you can turn up as many as 64 lambdas, though no FTTH equipment supports that yet.
You are right, 1Ghz HFC upgrades extend the lifespan of the existing coax networks, but with current technology and even some of the stuff in development, you can't extend the life of coax forever. At some point, upgrading the plant is going to be more expensive than replacing it with FTTH.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | | |
|
| said by NetAdmin1:said by fifty nine:Re-doing an entire cable network in fiber only will cost more than changing headend gear for DOCSIS3. That is true, to a point. To keep up with the capabilities of Fios, you have to do node splits to the point where it becomes more cost effective just to run fiber. FiOS' infrastructure deployment costs are already more than the shareholders and investors want to see. Most investors are idiots. Any investor that does not see the long term potential of Fios and what it does for Verizon is better serve by sticking their money under a rock. Likewise, with cable upgrades, 54-860MHz will be used for one way TV services, 860-1GHz (and beyond) for data and advanced video services. 5-42MHz is used for the upstream.
There are your three wavelengths. It's the same concept as fiber, except that the medium (and modulation) is different.
You completely missed the point here. Yeah, HFC spectrum can be split into different bands for different services, but that is not the point. What you are missing is that I can take the entire spectrum available on coax and represent it as one lamba. When you run out of bandwidth on coax, that's it, you are screwed. With fiber, I light up another lambda when the existing lambda is 100% utilized. With some very expensive and very precise equipment, you can turn up as many as 64 lambdas, though no FTTH equipment supports that yet. You are right, 1Ghz HFC upgrades extend the lifespan of the existing coax networks, but with current technology and even some of the stuff in development, you can't extend the life of coax forever. At some point, upgrading the plant is going to be more expensive than replacing it with FTTH. did you forget something NetAdmin and the rest ?....
the WORLDS cable HFC stands for something.....
ohh thats right, Hybrid Fibre Cable......
that means its been using FTTC all this time, and gets split off around 500meters away from the farthest cable coax point....
so all the talk of how FTTC/FTTP/FTTP etc is better how so ?, the new DOCSIS 2.0B/3.0 uses another totally seperate light source end to end just as the FTTC does, gets split locally to the nearest street cab (at most 500 yards away in the UK Virgin Media cable for instance), boosted were needed, and passed directly to the house with that short cable coax part of the hybrid network.
but appart from that ,why hasnt anyone here actually posted about the original story thread and its slight problem, and its a REAL problem unlike the pure FTTC is better than HFC
hypatheticals here, rememebr the world is not just the USA, we have HFC and FFTC/FTTH as well.
that slight problem, Ohh yes, these so called 8x4 banded cable modems SOC chipsets DO NOT HAVE better than "Bronze" certifcation, and not liely to get "silver" or "gold"/fianal certification.
and lastly incase peoples still want to talk up the potential top speeds,rather than the story subject matter, Docsis3 is speced to a limit of upto 125 36Mbit+ bonded channels, thats 5 Gigbit/s down and better than 3 gigabit/s up. and dont forget Euro DS3 gets you even more bandwidth. | |
| said by pip :
the WORLDS cable HFC stands for something.....
ohh thats right, Hybrid Fibre Cable...... Yeah, your point?
that means its been using FTTC all this time, and gets split off around 500meters away from the farthest cable coax point.... That depends on the size of the node.
so all the talk of how FTTC/FTTP/FTTP etc is better how so ?, the new DOCSIS 2.0B/3.0 uses another totally seperate light source end to end just as the FTTC does, gets split locally to the nearest street cab (at most 500 yards away in the UK Virgin Media cable for instance), boosted were needed, and passed directly to the house with that short cable coax part of the hybrid network. Tell us something we don't know.
that slight problem, Ohh yes, these so called 8x4 banded cable modems SOC chipsets DO NOT HAVE better than "Bronze" certifcation, and not liely to get "silver" or "gold"/fianal certification. That will get addressed once DOCSIS 3 actually gets finalized.
and lastly incase peoples still want to talk up the potential top speeds,rather than the story subject matter, Docsis3 is speced to a limit of upto 125 36Mbit+ bonded channels, thats 5 Gigbit/s down and better than 3 gigabit/s up. and dont forget Euro DS3 gets you even more bandwidth. You mistakenly assume that any cable operators is going to dedicate 750Mhz of spectrum just to cable modem service. I can assure you, that won't happen.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
| reply to NetAdmin1
said by NetAdmin1:Most investors are idiots. Any investor that does not see the long term potential of Fios and what it does for Verizon is better serve by sticking their money under a rock. Idiots or not, they have the money, and they care mostly (only) about the bottom line. | |
| reply to NetAdmin1
said by NetAdmin1:That depends on the size of the node. That's why I said they should make them smaller.
I know where my local node is though, and it's within walking distance. | |
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | EatMe
I am not sure you understand the difference between MBps and Mbps, which make me question if you really work in the business. MB is megabyte. Mb is megabit. Internet (and most other "bandwidth") is quoted in Mbps. For instance your internet connection is not 10MBps it is 10Mbps. GigE (gigabit Ethernet) is 1000Mbps or 125MB/s.
As for your inability to saturate a 10Mbps line(only 1.25megabytes per second), I am floored. I can saturate a 10Mbps line with one computer, easily. A lot of my clients saturate a 18Mbps line (the best we can get around here for now) with only two people in the house(and some with only one). As for the houses with 4 or more members, I have a few (6) clients that have dual internet connections running (16Mbps cable plus 18Mbps Uverse) through a dual wan router keeping them saturated. If my clients could afford more bandwidth they would have it. I will remind you of Gate's statement of: who would ever need more than 640k. If it is available there will be tons of applications for its use. | |
|
