dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to maxboha

Re: Cooptel Fiber to the home

I assumed that they own at least one of the sets of copper going into houses. Otherwise their venture is doomed to failure, because they'd be a third wire and would be paying to pass houses using a competitor's service. GPON fibre only works if you're the incumbent telephone company in the area, because you can forcibly convert your existing customers.

VDSL2 works fine for IPTV. The range is not that different from where you'd have to put your optical splitters, and the aggregate capacity is similar to fibre since you're using similar uplinks from the DSLAM or OLT) in either case. It still comes out cheaper than fibre. If Cooptel was taking advantage of the larger bandwidth they get from fibre over copper to individual end-users, that might matter, but they're not. And since they're not taking advantage of it, the connections will get aggregated to the phat pipes before the differences between optical or copper would matter.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by Guspaz:

VDSL2 works fine for IPTV.

IPTV over VDSL is limited by the number of televisions it can simultaneously serve while also delivering net access over that same line. In a one TV house it may not be an issue, but get a 3-5 TV house (like many homes with teenagers have) all trying to simultaneously watch a 7-10Mbit HD feed combined with an Internet connection and you're going to run into serious headaches - if not outright impossible to deliver on marginal connections - that you won't experience with something fibre or coax fed.

Sure, what I outlined is an extreme situation, but that outline pretty much shows that there are some real limits with television over VDSL that do not apply to any other delivery medium.


XoX

join:2003-08-19
Qc, Canada
said by Gone:

said by Guspaz:

VDSL2 works fine for IPTV.

IPTV over VDSL is limited by the number of televisions it can simultaneously serve while also delivering net access over that same line. In a one TV house it may not be an issue, but get a 3-5 TV house (like many homes with teenagers have) all trying to simultaneously watch a 7-10Mbit HD feed combined with an Internet connection and you're going to run into serious headaches - if not outright impossible to deliver on marginal connections - that you won't experience with something fibre or coax fed.

Sure, what I outlined is an extreme situation, but that outline pretty much shows that there are some real limits with television over VDSL that do not apply to any other delivery medium.

it's not extreme. Many people have more than one TV like you for the kid or him and her because they like to watch different show.

We must also include pvr function that take at least one stream by recording so if you have 2 pvr in HD recording at the same time with 2 people regarding another show in HD you need 4 stream for about 28 mbit without internet...


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
I never even stopped to consider PVRs. A home with two televisions with two PVRs and two regular receivers is going to use 42Mbit/s *just* for television. What's left over for Internet? 8 at most, and only with perfect line conditions?

Either way, IPTV over VDSL while functional and a "cheap" way for the telcos to get onto the content delivery bandwagon is a kludge at best compared to any of the television delivery methods that existed before. When it comes down to it, coax is an outright elegant solution compared to VDSL, and fibre/RFoG is functionally identical to coax.


XoX

join:2003-08-19
Qc, Canada
reply to Guspaz
How do you know what they have in reserve for the coming month? A fiber network have better room to upgrade i think and i still believe VDSL with high speed and many TV suck. You must be very close to a remote or CO for a good speed. Do not forget to allow for speed increase for Internet. Right now they only offer 20 Mb but who know.

If they chose that place it's because they must have done some calculation before doing it.

I think if they can offer service at a lower price than the one already there they will get client and not fail.

Also since they are not incumbent if i remember correctly they can offer service only where they want. They do not have to provide service everywhere... They can pick the best spot and go from there.


XoX

join:2003-08-19
Qc, Canada
reply to Gone
said by Gone:

I never even stopped to consider PVRs. A home with two televisions with two PVRs and two regular receivers is going to use 42Mbit/s *just* for television. What's left over for Internet? 8 at most, and only with perfect line conditions?

Either way, IPTV over VDSL while functional and a "cheap" way for the telcos to get onto the content delivery bandwagon is a kludge at best compared to any of the television delivery methods that existed before. When it comes down to it, coax is an outright elegant solution compared to VDSL, and fibre/RFoG is functionally identical to coax.

Many people do not think about that part.. the pvr and speed increase for internet.

I think the same way. it's very limited and if the customer is close to 1km (3000 feets) you can not even consider 3 TV with PVR and 20 Mbit internet.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to XoX
said by XoX:

Also since they are not incumbent if i remember correctly they can offer service only where they want. They do not have to provide service everywhere... They can pick the best spot and go from there.

That's not how GPON deployments work. You have to at least pass every house even if they don't subscribe, so that you can service them if they DO subscribe. The only way Verizon could afford it is because they forced people to upgrade when they did it. Google can afford it because they got people to sign up in sufficient quantities in advance.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


XoX

join:2003-08-19
Qc, Canada

1 edit
said by Guspaz:

said by XoX:

Also since they are not incumbent if i remember correctly they can offer service only where they want. They do not have to provide service everywhere... They can pick the best spot and go from there.

That's not how GPON deployments work. You have to at least pass every house even if they don't subscribe, so that you can service them if they DO subscribe. The only way Verizon could afford it is because they forced people to upgrade when they did it. Google can afford it because they got people to sign up in sufficient quantities in advance.

i did not mean jump a house and go to the next one. i mean a zone like downtown area with lots of business where Bell charge you more for the same or say the east sector of the town because it has the most customer possible and wait for the sector with the lowest number of possible customer. They do not have provide the service to the whole town if they chose.

They can also chose to provide a whole building with one or 2 fiber connection and sign up deal with the owner.