dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
283
share rss forum feed

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361

Cable Fiber

Are there any cable companies out there trying to insulate themselves from Google Fiber and FIOS by running fiber all the way to the home?

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

not that I know of, However from a logistics angle the cable plant is far more capable than the telco plant which is why they have not jumped on FTTH. Telcos have no choice because copper pair is not at all capable of matching even a DOCSIS2 cable plant let alone DOCSIS3.

That said optimally someday everything will be FTTH.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to biochemistry
Comcast is in some markets.

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
reply to biochemistry
If DOCSIS 3.1 is successful, why would the cable companies go FTTH, except for greenfields or new build areas? Admittedly D3.1 is not Gigabit FTTH, but properly deployed it should be very competitive, if it actually works. I think many of the cable companies will go FTTCurb or FTTCabinet(SMALL Cabinet). They may, in many areas, want to keep the familiar coaxial cable for the short run on the customer's property.

pattyboy

join:2013-08-15

1 edit
Best case, Docsis 3.1, if it's not pie in the sky, reportedly will not have a releasable product until early 2015. I'm skeptical, as the CableLabs standard has not even been written yet, and if you were making a revolutionary change, (10gbps down/ 2 gbps up), wouldn't you call it DOCSIS 4.0 ?

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
2015 is for CPE being available, not MSOs rolling it out on their networks. More like end of 2016 at the earliest for any MSO network roll out if you're lucky. It will also cost a hell of a lot of $$.

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to pattyboy
The naming convention struck me as ridiculous also. D3.1 is so technically different from D3.0 that it deserved a D4.0 designation. I read that the reason for the D3.1 designation had to do with the masses of cable company stockholders. It seems they fear and loath capital expenditures. By making the upgrade seem to be only a minor change, Cable Labs would avoid the instantaneous rage from the stockholders about future capital expenditures. It seems many stockholders are not happy that the transition to D3.0 was way more costly than Cable Labs had said it would be. The transition to D3.1(D4.0) is going to require much more money and skill than the transition to D3.0 did. But, it should be less costly than building FTTH to every subscriber. The big question is can the upstream upgrade work better than it did for transition to D3.0 upstream. If not, then you will have 608Mbps downstream and 6Mbps upstream for D3.1, after spending billions on the transition. That result might spell the begining of the end of Cable Labs and of hybrid fiber coaxial internet access in a multiple Gbps world.