Should Cable Operators Just Run Fiber To The Home? Many actually exploring new coaxial/fiber hybrid options... A 2006 report by Cable Labs concluded that "at some point, optimization of the (cable) network becomes more expensive than simply deploying" fiber directly to homes. Cable engineers however argue they've got enough bandwidth tricks up their sleeve (including switched digital video) to compete with FiOS. Hardware vendors are trying to convince cable operators to run fiber deeper into their networks, arguing the move comes with some distinct cost advantages. As it stands, cable operators are largely only exploring FTTP or FTTN in new "greenfield" development builds to avoid taking the capex hit. Multichannel News looks at the cost impact of running fiber deeper into cable networks.
|
  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:21
 ·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| Why yes they should... Isn't fiber the best thing to use today anyways? Sure DOCSIS 3.0 may be out and there's new revisions of DSL out there that can help get more speeds going, but copper as always has its limits. Fiber has its limits as well, but of course it's way above copper's. | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Armstrong Zoom ..
| Re: Why yes they should... Fiber does not have its limits, not much more than light itself. Yes, there is loss in the different grades of fiber and if there are problems with it, but a good fiber run is limited by light and the guide.
Electronics and lasers are the limit in fiber.
I think the real thing here is how much bandwidth is needed?
If Cable has fiber pretty close to the home, and most do, then they are so close to just jump on the last 1/2 mile.
So Docsis limitations are just the same as the current fiber to the home models. Some only allow a split of 20 per fiber run. (Fiber to the home is not a straight fiber run from the CO to your home, there are passive splitters and other things that make it a shared medium)
So the limitations, with Docsis 3 and current BPON systems are close.
I think it is best for cable to just do a small hardware and software upgrade and wait it out, build up capital, and then crush the telco when it is time, when there is better fiber to the home technology.
Why string and use the same crap as the telcos when there are groups right now working on a better way to do fiber to the home? 5 years I think is worth the wait, even 10 which Docsis 3 will buy the cable company, and the telco knows this. | |
| | | | | Re: Why yes they should... fiber, like any channel, does have limits. eventually, the signal degrades over distance regardless of the quality. why are there all sorts of amplifiers for fiber networks then? over the fairly short distance for FTTH, most effects are neglible. | |
| | | | | said by keyboard5684:Fiber does not have its limits, not much more than light itself. Copper also is limited by the speed of light. All electromagnetic communications "travel" at the speed of light. Electromagnetism = light. Physics 101. | |
| | | |  BK
join:2001-09-10
Wheaton, IL | Re: Why yes they should... Nope sorry..
copper uses electrons to 'transmit' information. electrons have mass, albeit tiny, and they can not travel at the speed of light because anything with mass can never reach that. thats not why copper can't compete with fiber though, its lots of factors like the conductivity of copper, temperature, the frequency thats being put through the material all contribute.
and "Electromagnetism = light" .. hmm yea | |
| | | | |  elbm
join:2000-08-03
Reisterstown, MD | Re: Why yes they should... Light only travels at 2/3 the speed of light in a fiber optic cable. Fibers high "speed" or bandwidth is not because the light moves quickly but because the can be controlled and turned into billions of coherent 1 and 0's per second. | |
| | | | | | | said by BK:Nope sorry.. copper uses electrons to 'transmit' information. electrons have mass, albeit tiny, and they can not travel at the speed of light because anything with mass can never reach that. thats not why copper can't compete with fiber though, its lots of factors like the conductivity of copper, temperature, the frequency thats being put through the material all contribute. No. The refractive index of optical fiber and copper are different. The index is actually higher for optical fiber than it is for copper. Optical fiber's refractive index is approx. 1.48, while copper's is approx. 1.1. This means that light travels faster within the medium of copper than it does within the glass materials used in fiber (the higher the index, the slower the light).
Electromagnetism (i.e. light) is one of the four forces of physics. Photons are considered the messenger particles of electromagnetism and photons are indeed massless particles. Photons are essentially the discrete quanta of light (now we enter the realm of quantum electrodynamics or QED which is beyond the purpose of this discussion).
But the speed of c isn't the issue when discussing bandwidth within a medium. The wavelength and frequency of the electromagnetic waves is what determines that, NOT the speed of the waves. Fiber optical light operates at a different wavelength than light traveling along copper does, which allows it more bandwidth (i.e. the ability to efficiently transmit more data per "channel").
My point in this is not to say copper is better than fiber for the transmission of data, but to point out that just because fiber transmits "light" is not what makes it better than copper. Both copper and fiber transmit light, just at a different wavelengths and efficiencies. Fiber is more efficient because it is less prone to interference from outside electromagnetic influences.
and "Electromagnetism = light" .. hmm yea
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but electromagnetism is indeed analogous to light. They are one and the same. "Light" is just what the human eye can detect but this visible light is still a part of the electromagnetic spectrum just as radio, infrared, X-rays, Gamma-rays, microwaves and other "frequencies" of non-visible light are. They all have the same basic properties and follow the same laws.
Again, I just wanted to point out that fiber is not better because it "is optical" or that it transmits data "at the speed of light." Copper communications are also "optical" and also travel at the speed of light, but just at a different frequency. The difference lies in the medium of transmission and the wavelength of the "light" within that medium. | |
|
| | | | | Well you conveneiently left out the laws of propagation = physics 101 | |
|
| | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by keyboard5684:I think it is best for cable to just do a small hardware and software upgrade and wait it out, build up capital, and then crush the telco when it is time, when there is better fiber to the home technology. They won't crush Verizon. And AT&T Uverse is really the same game as DOCSIS 3.0; FTTN for the present, with the option to extend FTTP in the future. The only telcos cable can crush by playing their waiting game are the telcos not already pursuing their own version of FTTN.
Or do you think that I won't be seeing AT&T trucks alongside the Comcast trucks, in my neighborhood, when the time comes to roll out FTTP?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | |  BSD24Tier 4Premium
join:2008-04-30
Middleboro, MA | Re: Why yes they should... said by NormanS:said by keyboard5684:I think it is best for cable to just do a small hardware and software upgrade and wait it out, build up capital, and then crush the telco when it is time, when there is better fiber to the home technology. They won't crush Verizon. And AT&T Uverse is really the same game as DOCSIS 3.0; FTTN for the present, with the option to extend FTTP in the future. The only telcos cable can crush by playing their waiting game are the telcos not already pursuing their own version of FTTN. Or do you think that I won't be seeing AT&T trucks alongside the Comcast trucks, in my neighborhood, when the time comes to roll out FTTP? Common sense. Verizon runs thousands of miles of fiber for FIOS, using poor-to-moderate fiber optic cabling. 10 years down the road much better quality fiber optic cable comes out and is more cost effective, and can maybe even (inter-connect)work with existing (old) fiber lines. Do you think Verizon would completely redo their lines with all new fiber lines or do you think it would be more likely that Cable operators will then take the opportunity to redo their cable network or extend (depending on ability of new fiber optics and compatibility) their existing fiber optic lines out to the home?
Most likely Cable operators would take that opportunity, not Verizon - which just spent billions on their newly created fiber network. | |
| | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | Re: Why yes they should... said by BSD24:Common sense. Verizon runs thousands of miles of fiber for FIOS, using poor-to-moderate fiber optic cabling. 10 years down the road much better quality fiber optic cable comes out and is more cost effective, and can maybe even (inter-connect)work with existing (old) fiber lines. Is this "better" fiber going to offer better capacity than current fiber? Is Comcast going to replace their existing fiber plant with this "better" fiber? And at what cost?
Comcast already has an extensive fiber network. I see their fiber on the poles all around this place. Comcast is still just FTTN; with the "last mile" being coax.
Comcast: FTTN, with Cu (coax) for the "last mile" to the premises.
AT&T Uverse: FTTN, with Cu pairs for the "last mile" to the premises.
Verizon FiOS: FTTP.
AT&T, Comcast, Verizon fiber is all the same stuff. It is just that AT&T and Comcast don't take it all the way to the premises. If there is newer, better fiber coming in ten years, Comcast still has a wad of older, "worse" fiber in their plant.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
|  Netbum
join:2002-04-08
Oakley, CA | I do profess to being a simpleton on this subject,but...
I remember reading about flexible,cheaper fiber technology(flexible glass)?
I guess the extra cost is in the switching and plant upgrades,but why not?
Wouldn't that help cut costs(Flex-fiber)?
FTTP is inevitable anyway imho.
HDTV etc.
NB | |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Cable is good enough for now (unlike POTS lines) Cable engineers are right. DOCSIS 3.0 may not be cheap but it is a lot cheaper per sub than Fiber to the home. With further cable enhancements, like upgrading old cable plants 850Mhz or more and deploying switched digital video, cable will have enough capacity to compete with FTTH for 5, maybe 10 more years. For new deployments, obviously, fiber from the beginning makes the most sense, as the article states. | |
| | Reviews:
·Armstrong Zoom ..
| Re: Cable is good enough for now (unlike POTS lines) Fiber from the beginning is the only choice the telco had.
It was not really a choice.
There are all these agreements that says there is one cable company... well fiber does not count so there ya go.
So again, NOT a technical decision really, an only option. | |
|
 EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetimePremium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA | Why Why would we want to prepare for the future when we can milk an aging infrastructure until it buckles.
--
Ricky Smith
| |
| |  andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
·TekSavvy DSL
| Re: Why said by Edrick:Why would we want to prepare for the future when we can milk an aging infrastructure until it buckles. You work for Bell Canada? | |
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Why said by andyb:said by Edrick:Why would we want to prepare for the future when we can milk an aging infrastructure until it buckles. You work for Bell Canada? Sounds like qworst[qwest] to me.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | well considering better utilization (compression of data, NOT broadcasting all the channels continuously, etc.) can be cheaper and offer the same experience (faster internet and better TV service) for probably a cheaper price and faster deployment, i'd say it is a pretty good deal up to a point. i would also assume the cost to deploy a complete FTTH network get somewhat cheaper of over time (more flexible fiber, seeing how others are wiring MDUs, see other mistakes) up to a point. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Duh Yes. | |
|  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Interesting spin As it stands, cable operators are largely only exploring FTTP or FTTN in new "greenfield" development builds to avoid taking the capex hit. Which could be restated as: Operators are investigating FTTP/FTTH solutions only where it makes financial sense to do so. There are places where it makes sense to run fiber, and there are places where it makes financial sense to keep maintaining the existing copper plant.
There is a difference between making smart financial decisions and penny pinching. | |
| AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
2 edits | Fiber... All (broadband) communications providers will need to migrate to a technology that has comparable capabilities as fiber does today, to the home. The only question is how long will their current technology still be competitive and thus easily viable. Verizon has used the "brute force" approach with their FIOS offering, but all providers need to have a comprehensive realistic plan for making the transition.
The single twisted pair is obsolete in my opinion, today it can provide a competitive broadband Internet connection or video, but not both. Pair bonding has been stated by AT&T as an attempt to resolve some of the issues, although why they don't just use two independent pairs when available is beyond me. The plus side of their attempt is that they have implemented a practical IPTV system and are helping to drive forward that technology.
Cable using their HFC deployment model would appear to have more time and today can be made competitive with fiber deployments such as the FIOS product by Verizon. However, as the article also mentions, they also will need to develop a new premises delivery technology capable of delivering ultra-band services. If they play their cards right, IMO, they will be able to cost effectively make the transition while remaining competitive throughout the process. However, if they delay too long they will also face the same hurdles and burdens that AT&T will soon face for their own procrastination. | |
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Re: Fiber... Good analysis, I think you're pretty much spot on | |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| Fiber FTW Here's why. As it stands, cable operators are bumping up against their bandwidth limits even with 860MHz systems. They apparently won't ever get rid of analog, either. So they gotta do something.
With FTTH, they can be like FiOS and run data and TV on separate lambdas, and even use the data lambda for VoD. That will free up a very significant amount of spectrum. If it weren't for data and video on demand, they'd still have enough room for more HD in an 860MHz system.
Of course, they could do the much, much cheaper thing and rid themselves of all analog except whatever you'd find in the basic tier. Then 860MHz would be enough for quite some time, even without moving to H.264 video. They seem to be very afraid of that route, for some reason.
You'd think they'd be happy to just give a basic non-DVR box away to every expanded basic subscriber. The incremental revenue from iPPV and VOD purchases would more than likely pay for the boxes, cut down on the need for expensive rebuilds, and allow them to add both more HD and faster data.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word.  | |
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Re: Fiber FTW Eliminating analog channels, SDV, and MPEG4 encoding for transport streams are just three ways for cable companies to free up sizable chunks of bandwidth. Yes, cable is playing catch-up for now, but the gap seems to be shrinking. | |
| | Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
| Wrong! Coax cable AS CURRENTLY USED suffers from bandwidth limitations-but if things were done differently, it would not!
Right now, cable sends EVERYTHING to EVERYONE's house. This is the wrong way to do things! What cable needs to do is send ONLY WHAT THE CUSTOMER REQUESTS, the same way that FIOS and U-Verse work. Both do these use a two way converter box, that TELLS the head end what to send to each individual converter box. In this way, instead of the coax having to send hundreds of channels, Internet, etc. it only has to send a few things to each house.
FIOS and U-Verse both essentially have an individual path from each TV converter, cable modem, etc. to the head end. This is the same way that old school phone service works-there is an individual copper pair from each house to the phone office. | |
| | | | | Re: Wrong! cable is doing that via SDV | |
| | | wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·T-Mobile US
| said by qworster:FIOS and U-Verse both essentially have an individual path from each TV converter, cable modem, etc. to the head end. This is the same way that old school phone service works-there is an individual copper pair from each house to the phone office. Wrong! FiOS does not do that for TV. FiOS essentially does what the cablecos would do if they pushed fiber all the way to the home. They convert optical to RF at your home instead of in a node somewhere.
Only VOD does not use the standard cable architecture. (both are done over IP, but cable uses DOCSIS, while FiOS uses the data wavelength (lambda) for that in addition to Internet service. In fact, FiOS is, for all intents and purposes, very much like a cable plant that has about 32 homes per node. Everything is shared between those customers.
U-Verse may be true switched IPTV, but VDSL is uselessly slow at the distances they are trying to run it. PON is just plain better.
Cox's only bandwidth limitation is the 60 to 80 analog channels they choose to keep around taking up half of an 860MHz system. They could move expanded basic to digital (it already is in most, if not all markets, just not exclusively) and drop most of those analogs. That would give them room for somewhere in the vicinity of 150 more HD channels and 10 DOCSIS channels, which would be more than enough for blindingly fast IP given their current node loading. My channel almost never goes over 50% 5 second average, and I live in a populated area with high cable penetration. It's usually more like 15%.
Ten of the things would give them an aggregate 380Mbps per node. Given that they're able to offer 15/1.5 and keep the loading reasonable on one-two channels per node, I think they'd be good past 50Mbps.
--
It's wierdo, not weirdo. Yes, I know that's not the 'proper' spelling of the similar english language word. | |
|
 Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
·Comcast
| Yes Instead of spending all that money on advertising, cable companies should spend some of it on upgrading their network to run fiber to the home. That's the only way they'll be able to compete.
There's only so much you can gain with tricks.
The easiest trick is to compress the hell out of everything which is what many cable operators are doing now. Compression can only be pushed so far before people notice and that line has already been crossed.
SDV is supposed to be cable's savior and while it helps it's not the end all be all. It can end punishing people who don't like to watch what's "in". Not to mention if people have mulitple DVRs in their house it can cause the whole system to go out of whack. It also breaks cable ready and cableCARD TV's.
MPEG-4 is another trick that can help, but that requires replacing all the existing cable boxes out there and it also breaks cable ready TVs as well as 3rd party cable boxes.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Re: Yes Whatever way you slice it though, cable, with 38/30 Mbps of capacity per channel (which can be bonded for higher speeds) is in a much better position with HTC than anything running over regular copper.
Simply put, copper has limits that you bump into pretty quickly. ADSL2+, for longer-distance runs, has limitations of 24/3.5, with most plant having limitations closer to 20/1. That's within a mile of the node; further away and things go south from there.
VDSL isn't much better. It can get much higher speeds, comparable to HFC on DOCSIS 3 even, but the deployment cost of all the VRADs add up, to the point that it doesn't cost that much more to just run fiber, especially when you find out that a fast connection only extends less than a mile from the VRAD.
So, while cable systems can do tricks like DOCSIS 3, SDV and analog-killing (just give everyone digital boxes and the bandwidth problem is solved...Qwest is spending more on their ADSL2+ rollout and they really aren't soending that much), telcos have to move to fiber pretty quickly. AT&T, with their U-Verse product, can't run more than 10/1.5 internet along with TV for a decent distance from the VRAD, whereas Verizon with FiOS has 2.4 Gbps down, 1.2 Gbps up to share among 32 customers, or 622/310(?) to share on BPON networks. Even on BPON, everyone can be downloading at 20 Mbps and uploading at 10 Mbps on the splitter and the network holds up. On GPON the numbers are higher: 75 Mbps down, 37.5 Mbps up. That's with no oversubscription.
So technically even now HTC can't match PON if Verizon decided to turn the heat on. Cable can do 100/50 maybe but at a very high network cost. That's the point at which fiber trumps all. The point is much lower on copper vs. HTC, or copper vs. fiber as we've seen. So cable companies have a bit of runway, whereas telcos who aren't pushing fiber out to customers really don't, if there's any competition, even on DOCSIS 1.1! | |
| |  hobgoblinSortof AgoblinPremium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
kudos:4 | "Not to mention if people have mulitple DVRs in their house it can cause the whole system to go out of whack."
Really!
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
| | | Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Yes SDV is designed to dynamically allocate bandwidth as channels are requested by users. A number of people have multiple dual-tuner DVRs (I'm aware of someone who has 8 DVRs). These people can end up requesting multiple channels when technically "no one" is watching them. If there aren't enough slots allocated by the cable company to take this into account someone could theoretically go to watch a channel and be told it's not available at that time.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
| | | |  major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
1 edit | Re: Yes said by Morac: If there aren't enough slots allocated by the cable company to take this into account someone could theoretically go to watch a channel and be told it's not available at that time. Which is a phenomenon that as a Cocks cable subscriber I have experienced multiple times. Note: my household contains one cable box attached to one TV, and, no DVR. If you contact tech support they tell you they don't know why and then suggest that they switch out the cable box to resolve the issue.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
| |
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Yes Cox uses SDV? | |
| | | | | | major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | Re: Yes Evidently so. | |
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Yes So probably not. I hadn't heard of any cable co's implementing it yet. Not that I'm watching every minute of every day. | |
| | | | | | | | Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Yes said by Ahrenl:So probably not. I hadn't heard of any cable co's implementing it yet. Not that I'm watching every minute of every day. Cox and Time Warner were both fined for using SDV so yes it's in use.
Comcast is testing it in a few locations. | |
|
Reviews:
·ProLog
 ·DIRECTV
| Node Our node looks like an SA6940. The product manual for this states that it is an 870 MHz fiber node. However all of the trunk amplifiers, bridgers and LE's are 750 MHz. So I'm stuck with a top carrier on Ch 118.
Would be cost effective to upgrade those bridgers and LE's to 870 as well, but if you bring fiber to the door then you don't have to worry about powering all of those active electronics. The cost then is only per sub when an ONT is required. | |
|  sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4 | Yeah ... right ... "Cable engineers however argue they've got enough bandwidth tricks up their sleeve (including switched digital video) to compete with FiOS."
Yup ... like
Throttling
and Byte Caps | |
|  RickPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT | Perhaps someday they should run fiber to the home but for now and well into the future there is simply no pressing need to do so.
Docsis 3.0 with it's 50,000k speeds and beyond is the real answer combined with sdv and moving analog channels to digital. This frees up more than enough room to offer plenty of hd and digital tv content as well as all the hsi speeds anyone will need for a very long time. And judging by a poll I started in the comcast forum, their docsis 3.0 tier and particularly their 22Mb tier is going to be a very hot product, with almost 1/4 of users saying they'll upgrade to it and pay 20.00 a month more for it.
»Poll....With the new tiers which will you subscribe to?
Clearly the poll shows that it's not just about speeds..but pricing as well.
Some who are calling for ftth for cable co's are forgetting one other very important factor. And that's cost..as well how long it takes to accomplish these rollouts. While what verizon is doing with fios is great..it's also very necessary for them given their twisted pair network and there is really nothing that says in the end they will be successful at it. Why? Those last two factors...cost..and the time it will take. What I mean is how relevant will it be by the time they're wiring some residences in 4 and 5 years from now when cable has already been there with the speeds several years earlier? Docsis 3.0 is going to take a lot of wind out of fios's sails for sure.
To sum it all up what's going to win is Speeds...cost...and who's first to market in a big way with it. And if you can take a cable company the size of Comcast and say that this year..20% of customers will have it and by the end of next year...almost 100% will...
That answer is pretty clear. I think that if it were memory we were talking about here..fios and ftth is to rambus what docsis 3.0 is to DDR. And despite the perceived technological superiority of ftth..it's ddr that won.
Because of cost. Availability. And it worked well enough.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | | | Re: Perhaps someday they should Quality of service is much better. I dropped rogers 10mb service because of throttling, error res hijacking and their dpi corrupting my file transfers. I dont care if they made a god call and all of a sudden their lines were able to support 10000gb/1000gb transfers. I will never use their service again.
My current provider does not cap or throttle since they have their equipment in Bells CO. They are even running fiber in some areas. The tech that came by to setup my dry loop was not even a bell tech it was one of their own. He said though with the fiber you need a contract. Since it costs them around $1700 to run it right into the house. But some of the test the tech said they were hitting 50/20 I say that is freakin sweet. They are also testing out combining it for IPTV, VOIP and net. If I find out what areas they are laying it in I am moving there. | |
| |  danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | said by Rick:That answer is pretty clear. I think that if it were memory we were talking about here..fios and ftth is to rambus what docsis 3.0 is to DDR. And despite the perceived technological superiority of ftth..it's ddr that won. Because of cost. Availability. And it worked well enough. This analogy dies on the vine. There isn't a perceived technological superiority. It's real. FTTH operators will never have to upgrade their cable plant again. ANYONE running copper will eventually have to run FTTH. Copper is becoming costly for many reasons:
Its becoming just as expensive as fiber to bury as fiber costs have dramatically dropped and continue to drop while copper ironically has risen over the past few years
As long as metal is the conduit it will require power. Power is expensive. If I run fiber it needs significantly less power to deliver 100x to 1000x the bandwidth per watt, Plus I don't have to power the last mile as the customer can now pay for that and the return signal is paid for by the customer to the POP. Saving me significant energy costs althewhile not sacrificing quality one iota.
Quality still gets you customers and more importantly it retains them. If your signal is pixal vision, and has random signal dropouts and for 10$ more a month I get crystal vision and 99.999999% reliability, people will vote for quality and do so in droves.
And finally as has been stated repeatedly copper simply has physical limitations that cannot be overcome no matter how you try. Compared to fiber, where there are no such limitations, the same fiber can carry 10x, 100x 1000x even 10000x more bandwidth with relatively minor infrastructure upgrades. Copper has all but reached its capacity and distance limitations. There hasn't been any significant increase in coppers ability in years.
You cannot compare memory to delivery mechanisms it just doesnt work. You aren't comparing a fancy luxury delivery system to a reliable old one.
You are comparing a reliable future proof, proven, massively already deployed technology to an older proven decaying and increasingly expensive to up keep massively deployed technology.
Copper isn't dead its just dying, slowly but surely its dying. They can only hope to prolong the death but they cannot stave it off.
A better analogy might be the LP(copper) to CD(fiber). | |
|
 dslwanterIt's comingPremium
join:2002-12-16
Niles, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| That's what was done here Armstrong Cable purchased our township and ran fiber from pole to pole and right to the premise. It connects to a box that converts it to coax inside the house. The good thing is it's not susceptible to EMI or RFI, much like you get on traditional hybrid systems. Fiber requires less amps as it can carry the signal much further and is much more durable and flexible.
I'm not going to venture to say that signal quality is that much better than regular coax but I will say it's far more reliable. I have yet to notice a single instance of "noise" on any picture, static on any phones (digital phone service from them), and my signal levels on my modem haven't changed nor has it ever dropped connection.
--
Need a DJ within 60 miles of Youngstown, OH? Check out my service: »www.thebomb102djservice.com | |
| | | If they do then they should have 1 master box that out puts If they do then they should have 1 master box that out puts clear qam for all payed for channels also have a box with a high number of analog out put as well or have low cost mini qma boxes. | |
| | | hmm I feel that when the time comes cable companies will go ftth. The thing is that they will do it when it gets less expensive to do so. They are probably letting verizon do it first and make the tech less expensive.
Heck right now cablevision is doing a darn good job of competing with fios .
Now each cable company is diff though. I hate the fact that the media bundles all cable companies together . | |
|  HD_RidePremium
join:2000-10-18
Trenton, NJ | RE: Should Cable Operators Just Run Fiber To The Home? no, they should do Fiber-To-The-Desk | |
| | | I dont think so None of these companies are expanding so if cable is the fastest in an area then they will probably keep the lead dsl is weak so no I would say the cable companies have nothing to fear from dsl and verizon fios is so limited in the areas that it is not worth talking about so no reason cable is clearly more dominate then anything out so why would they upgrade when they are already on top | |
| quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | Corporations Stockholders want relatively quick gains. They're not as interested in long-term infrastructure investments even if they'd save money in the long run. This directly translates into the engineers trying to squeeze out more short-term bandwidth for lower cost. | |
| | | | | This one is really tough, let me think...... Hell Yeah. | |
| | |
| | RE: Should Cable Operators Just Run Fiber To The Home? HECK YES! | |
| | | Fiber is good for.... Everything!
- A
--
LETS GO METS! | |
|
| |
|
|
