| reply to RARPSL
Re: Why IPTV? All of this is good in theory, but until a provider actually deploys IPTV that will not limit the number of TVs per household, I'm afraid it's a crippled product that's inferior to current HFC networks.
In other words, if I had the choice between U-Verse and cable, I'd probably end up sticking with cable due to the number of TVs limitation. |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by fifty nine:if I had the choice between U-Verse and cable, I'd probably end up sticking with cable due to the number of TVs limitation. Agree - get no argument from me on that.
Sweet spot for VDSL is 50 Mbps at 1500 feet. 50 Mbps is not enough bandwidth to support more then three HDTV streams and requires costly deployment of Remote Terminals to shorten copper loop length.
Verizon is taking the right approach. Emulate HFC for rapid time to market and deploy IPTV as it matures. BPON is only 622 Mbps shared by typically 16 customers. That is only 38.8 Mbps per customer. BPON uses ATM that effectively reduces customer payload to only 35 Mbps. 35 Mbps is a lot of bandwidth in today's broadband market by not enough for serious IPTV.
Migration to GPON substantially improves the situation, 2 G and elimination of ATM yields 125 Mbps per customer.
/tom |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:All of this is good in theory, but until a provider actually deploys IPTV that will not limit the number of TVs per household, I'm afraid it's a crippled product that's inferior to current HFC networks. IOW IPTV should (eventually) work great with FTTHome and that's what Fairpoint wants to use it with. BTW, even Verizon tends to limit VOD, etc. to 7 TVs per household. |
|
