Verizon, Time Warner Cable Fight Over The Definition Of Fiber NAD rules again in Verizon's favor in continuing ad dispute Last month we noted how Time Warner Cable, Cox, Cablevision and Comcast have all been slapped on the wrist by the the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau. Why? They continually run ads that try to confuse customers into thinking that having core network fiber is the same thing as running fiber to the home. Verizon -- given they actually do run fiber to the home -- has filed complaints against these ads with the NAD and has repeatedly seen NAD rule in their favor. In response, Time Warner Cable recently filed their own complaint with the NAD. According to the complaint, the cable company argued that Verizon was being misleading about offering "100% fiber" -- given that Verizon does use existing coaxial cable with MOCA for networking inside the home. Apparently the NAD wasn't convinced by Time Warner Cable's argument, and has dismissed Time Warner Cable's complaint. From a NAD statement: NAD did not share the challenger’s concerns with the advertiser’s claim to offer "100% fiber optic TV, Internet, and phone," "over 200 all-digital, all-fiber channels," and "100% fiber optic picture and sound." The challenger contended that these are products that do not exist; NAD determined that consumers would reasonably understand these advertisements the same way as they understand claims that Verizon FiOS uses "100%" or "pure" or "undiluted" fiber optics: that the entirety of the FiOS network is comprised of fiber optics. In a statement provided to Broadband Reports by Verizon, the company takes the opportunity to send a little high-test snark in Time Warner Cable's direction: No two communication and entertainment providers are made exactly alike, and that’s decisively the case between Verizon and Time Warner. Verizon’s FiOS network is 100 percent fiber optics, direct to the home, and Time Warner’s is a traditional cable network bred from 1940s community antenna television roots. It’s no wonder Time Warner wanted to muzzle Verizon from talking about its all fiber optic network and its superior service capacities. Of course both companies have had their fair share of misleading advertising over the years -- though cable industry (and Qwest) pretense that core network fiber is the same as FTTH has been a particularly obnoxious practice. Comcast also had their wrist slapped by the NAD for this particular marketing tactic, refused to stop running said ads, and now faces a pending inquiry from the FTC for false advertising.
|
  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | By TWC's definition.... Uverse would be considered fiber as well, as their build is somewhat similar, with the exception of the medium (POTS vs RG6) for the last mile.
FTTP should be the minimum required for a '100% fiber network' definition, meaning anything of the past the demark point. | |
|  |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| Re: By TWC's definition.... said by en102:Uverse would be considered fiber as well, as their build is somewhat similar, with the exception of the medium (POTS vs RG6) for the last mile. FTTP should be the minimum required for a '100% fiber network' definition, meaning anything of the past the demark point. Uverse can get away with it somewhat as they do have some FTTH deployments in new builds.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
| | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: By TWC's definition.... I agree. The sad part, is that Uverse FTTH is kept to the limits of Uverse FTTN. | |
|
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| I agree. If Verizon really wanted to be a PITA, they could offer a special by-request-only ONT that has a 1000mbit fiber NIC in it for the internet. It would be rather funny, although Joe Consumer wouldn't know or care.
I think a big part here is the general trend in the US towards consumers not wanting to know how anything works, and companies exacerbating this by not telling anyone how things. It would be nice if ISP's had maps available on their site of where nodes and amps are, what sort of backhaul the nodes have, frequency maps for each system, and the like, as well as simpler explanations about how HFC, in the case of TWC, works, and how it is built out, etc. | |
|
2 edits | Verizon How can Verizon criticize TWC for using "1940s technology" when they are using the same technology?
Only differences between Verizon and the cablecos TV network:
Node is in your house
Guide data and ondemand delivered over IP
No analog
Otherwise it's the same damn thing, and for the most part cable company networks ARE fiber networks. The majority of the distance between you and the headend is covered by fiber! | |
| |  nycdavePremium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:7 | Re: Verizon But that is the problem with the argument - it isn't fiber all the way to the premises - TWC still runs an HFC network.... | |
| | | | | Re: Verizon said by nycdave:But that is the problem with the argument - it isn't fiber all the way to the premises - TWC still runs an HFC network.... I don't think the cable companies ever advertised fiber all the way to your house.
On the TV side of things, the service can be the same with 1GHz and analog crush.
On the internet side of things, what Verizon is offering today can be done with DOCSIS3. In fact the cable companies are already offering more download speed than they are, and Verizon is yet to match them.
If Verizon truly wants to differentiate themselves they need to step up their game. IMO, Paxio is really the only US provider who is taking advantage of its fiber network by offering gigabit speed.
At the speeds they're offering and the TV service, Verizon's fiber service is nothing more than cable with a node in your house.
To me, a fiber to the home speed should be some mind blowing speed like gigabit or even 100Mbps. Leave 25, 35 and 50Mbps for the cable providers. | |
|
| pnolte
join:1999-10-21
Chino, CA | Not the same thing here. I have a fiber line coming out in my garage.... not copper. No fiber to a box 3 miles away and rotting copper the rest of the way. | |
| | | | | | |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Verizon What a crock of shit argument.
Anyone and everyone on this site knows the difference. "All fiber" means FTTH (or FTTP).
Cable is NOT FTTP, yet Comcast, er I mean Xfinity and Time Warner try to sell themselves as such. Indeed, they have fiber to the node, but not to the house.
To argue that to call it "all fiber" the network inside the house has to be fiber is nonsense.
Even if the network INSIDE the house was all fiber, you would argue that it wasn't all fiber because most computers use Ethernet as their NIC interface, and the feed had to be converted to copper someplace.
Then, if the computer had a fiber optic NIC, you would argue the pathways inside the computer were metallic, and until the end user had a fiber optic pipe running right to the processor, cable and Fios were no different.
Again, what a crock of shit argument...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Verizon Exactly! What a crock of shit.. well, on a differnt level.
Where is TWC (which this article is about, NOT comcast) saying that they're running fiber to the home? I think PEOPLE need to stop taking the ads farther than they really are going.
Second, Verizon is ALSO trying to imply that cable ISN'T fiber, which as you say, is a crock of shit. Verizon is FAR from innocent in their ads as they're trying to make cable look like it's not a fiber based service, which is is. Sorry, but this is kinda like two brothers fighting. You've got one that smacks his brother, and then gets hit himsef and runs crying to his mother.. "mommy!!! Billy hit me!!!" Verizon is no angel and the sooner people realize this, the better.
Also, about a year ago, on this very site, I remember people trying to use this SAME "it's not fiber to the home, so it's not fiber" argument, ONLY, it was being used on Comcast digital voice. People were crying all over the place that Comcast's digital voice ISN'T "all digital" becuase once the service left the eMTA it traveled over the house's copper service. FURTHER, these arguments were pushed harder saying "since the phone set isn't digital either that it can't be "digital service" either..."
So what is it people?? What is it going to be? If something hits an analog line, is it still digital? or isn't it? This is the "crock of shit" argument being made here as well, only, you're defending it against the status quoe here.
People chose their battles emotionally here rather than logically.
Veizon is no angle. They are forcing this debate and now wanting to bring it into the courts. TWC is accurate in their ads they their systems are fiber core systems. They're not implying that they are an "all fiber connection" are they???! No. And further, there IS an amount of copper in all connections, however, that amount of copper is insignificant when looking at the whole picture. Just as Comcast's CDV IS all digital, so is Verizon's FiOS "SERVICE".. Comcast CDV is digital up to the point of dmark as is Fios. Cable TV service is fiber/coax based and fiber ends at the node about up to a mile away. Big woop.
As it was said earlier, in the greater picture is doesn't matter. There are a few differences in the service that makes the REAL difference anyway. The consumer really doesn't largely care HOW the service gets there as long as it works, looks good, and is a value to them. If this wasn't the case, then Uverse would be a failure as the overall service that AT&T is using is really twine and tin cans tied together to make a triple play service, but the definition at large on this site. In the end, however, U-Verse delivers a product and I don't think the majority of customers care HOW U-Verse gets to them so long that it does. In the pecking order, U-Verse's delivery system is the OLDEST and most out-dated form or delivery even over cable.
On another note, for a small perfectage of customers, cable has FTTP.. there are some people that have a tap right off the node split and have, at most, about 150' of cable between them and fiber.. but guess what, the service is still the same as if the node was a mile down the road.
In the end - does it matter?
The arguments that go on around on this site are INCREDIBLY silly and totally un-necessary B.S. anyway.. so does it really matter? It's ALL crock of shit, as you say.. and honestly, I'm really not attacking you so much as the back and forth that goes on over such insignificant cheer-leading arguments from users that actually care about such garbage news... right?
In the most part, I actually do agree with your points.  | |
| | | | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Verizon Touche! | |
| | | | | | | | Most true thing I've read in a long time..
well said! | |
|
| | | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Silly, the copper used in your home is no different than today's HFC infrastructure. It's exactly the same, provided that your home is 5,000,000 sq. ft. and you have 50 people all trying to access the internet from the same house. | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Verizon Ive never seen Cat5 rated F1 and F2 trunks. | |
| | | | | | | | said by jmn1207:Silly, the copper used in your home is no different than today's HFC infrastructure. It's exactly the same, provided that your home is 5,000,000 sq. ft. and you have 50 people all trying to access the internet from the same house. The problem is that MoCA tops out at what, 100Mbps? 270Mbps? That is hardly comparable to the speed that a fiber optic provider should be providing. | |
| | | | | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Re: Verizon said by fifty nine:said by jmn1207:Silly, the copper used in your home is no different than today's HFC infrastructure. It's exactly the same, provided that your home is 5,000,000 sq. ft. and you have 50 people all trying to access the internet from the same house. The problem is that MoCA tops out at what, 100Mbps? 270Mbps? That is hardly comparable to the speed that a fiber optic provider should be providing. Nobody with FTTH is absolutely locked down by MoCA speeds. For FiOS, MoCA is really only needed for set-top-box communication and for VOD/PPV programming. Even the latest ActionTec routers are capable of 1Gbps speeds when connected using an ethernet cable from the ONT. Verizon simply went with a standard MoCA installation to save money on labor costs, but it is not an inherent limitation. | |
|
| | |  MannusPremium
join:2005-10-25
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Frontier FiOS
·Verizon FiOS
 ·Dish Network
| said by djrobx:said by pnolte:Not the same thing here. I have a fiber line coming out in my garage.... not copper. No fiber to a box 3 miles away and rotting copper the rest of the way. Just rotting copper from the ONT to your TV and computer. Since copper is so vile, maybe Verizon shouldn't be able to call FiOS "all fiber" until they offer fiberoptic connections within the home. You know, fiber NICs and fiber inputs on the back of the set tops. /s Not in my case. I am on cat5 to my router. Theonly thing I use the coax for is my outside OTA antenna. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·voip.ms
 ·America Online
·Dish Network
| Re: Verizon said by Mannus:said by djrobx:said by pnolte:Not the same thing here. I have a fiber line coming out in my garage.... not copper. No fiber to a box 3 miles away and rotting copper the rest of the way. Just rotting copper from the ONT to your TV and computer. Since copper is so vile, maybe Verizon shouldn't be able to call FiOS "all fiber" until they offer fiberoptic connections within the home. You know, fiber NICs and fiber inputs on the back of the set tops. /s Not in my case. I am on cat5 to my router. Theonly thing I use the coax for is my outside OTA antenna. Networked using Cat7 here. It maybe over kill, but I enjoy it.
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Ubuntu 10.04 64 * SuSe 11.2 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
"I could always tell you the truth, but would you believe?" | |
| | | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | That's copper. | |
| | | | | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Verizon Exactly... just not CAT 3 / POTS or RG59U/RG6. | |
|
| | | | | Whatever is in the home is the customer's network. The ONT is an interface between the two networks. Yea, fiber everywhere would be nice. | |
| | | | pnolte
join:1999-10-21
Chino, CA | The copper in my house doesn't run through trees and sit in the rain or crack from the sun. Plus if I do have a problem internally, I can replace it without having to make phone calls and asking someone to come out. Just looking at the cable (from the cable company) coming out of the ground and terminating in my garage, I can see cracks and splits all along it. Glad I dont connect with that. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Verizon Must be nice that you 'dont connect with that" as if you were the one to build the network you're connected to.. but anyway.
Your argument that you're making is weak.. SOOOO weak.. Those cables that sit out in the rain, crack from the sun, etc etc are the same issues that fiber lines will ultimately face. All drops eventually need to be replaced.. there are plenty of lines out there that ARE in good shape and function well for years.
Really, pick a new fight becuase the one you're trying to make/imply here is silly.. When youre fiber line needs to be replaced, and it will eventually need to be replaced, who AREN'T you going to be calling?
All I'm saying is be realistic about your beliefs.. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Verizon said by fiberguy:Must be nice that you 'dont connect with that" as if you were the one to build the network you're connected to.. but anyway. Your argument that you're making is weak.. SOOOO weak.. Those cables that sit out in the rain, crack from the sun, etc etc are the same issues that fiber lines will ultimately face. Except that usually fiber is usually buried within sealed conduits. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Verizon .. except in areas where they run it overhead... and not all conduits, for underground, are sealed as you improperly imply. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Verizon said by fiberguy:.. except in areas where they run it overhead... and not all conduits, for underground, are sealed as you improperly imply. Except, that as YOU improperly imply, the rule for fiber is to be buried within sealed conduits vs. cable where the rule is to be hanging off poles. Why ? because in newer deployments (as fiber is), the preferred method is to bury within sealed conduits. One is the rule, the other the exception. Exactly the same, as YOU do not seem to understand, that in a fiber deployment the VAST majority is fiber except for the small coaxial connections to the ONT vs for cable where a VAST majority is coax with a small smattering of fiber at the core or main transmission lines. You are trying, wrongly, to confuse the issue by both having a mix of fiber and coax and of deployment over poles, to make them equivalent, while they are not. A fiber plant with sealed underground conduits (as Verizon has) is vastly superior to a legacy upgraded HFC plant (as cable companies have).
"Not that hard to understand", "even to you", to use your own words. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Verizon said by fiberguy:... but, one thing I don't do is spin, ////////////// As for caps - while it's a valid point, it's still a weak argument to make when comparing the ability of the services. Verizon could add a cap tomorrow if they really wanted to.. and if they did, guess what, now you're playing on the same levels again. except that Verizon has no caps. "Could" is just pure spin (strawman argument) to deflect attention from what they have: a superior product that users are very happy with. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | said by pnolte:The copper in my house doesn't run through trees and sit in the rain or crack from the sun. Plus if I do have a problem internally, I can replace it without having to make phone calls and asking someone to come out. Just looking at the cable (from the cable company) coming out of the ground and terminating in my garage, I can see cracks and splits all along it. Glad I dont connect with that. Your FiOS fiber is not split to 200 heavy users within your house, either. Cable Internet is a bunch of oversold capped shit defended by a bunch of shills. Clear and simple. Mod away. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by djrobx:Since copper is so vile, maybe Verizon shouldn't be able to call FiOS "all fiber" until they offer fiberoptic connections within the home. You know, fiber NICs and fiber inputs on the back of the set tops. /s Thats probably illegal under OSHA, Tort, FDA, and FTC. A toddler will burn out their eye playing with the fiber. God help you trying to force consumers to not kink or damage the fiber like they do with copper wiring. | |
|
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by pnolte:Not the same thing here. I have a fiber line coming out in my garage.... not copper. No fiber to a box 3 miles away and rotting copper the rest of the way. What's so magical about the medium though?
It's still shared downstream access with everyone else on your BPON/GPON segment, and it's still multiplexed upstream access to get your data back to the CO.
Where FiOS has the advantage right now is that their chosen technology requires them to scale to 16 or 32 connections per network segment, whereas DOCSIS has no strict limitations and could be several hundred subscribers per segment. The cable companies keep knocking that number down, from 750-1000 subscribers per HFC node back in the late 90's to closer to 125-250 subs today. If they scaled that up to 16 or 32 homes per DOCSIS node, they could match everything Verizon is delivering all without replacing that "rotting copper" already at your house. | |
| | | |
See 17 replies to this post |
| en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | TWC still offers analog (or at least for the last mile) with TV over NTSC (channel 2-99).
Uverse/FiOS/DTV/Dish all require a box. | |
| | | Reviews:
·EPB Fiber Optics
| Re: Verizon said by en102:TWC still offers analog (or at least for the last mile) with TV over NTSC (channel 2-99). Uverse/FiOS/DTV/Dish all require a box. I can get channels 2-78 without a box with my FIOS provider. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | But one has 2x the TV capacity over the other. No analog, no VOD, no DAVIC, no DOCSiS on FIOS's "coax" system. | |
| | | | | Re: Verizon said by patcat88:But one has 2x the TV capacity over the other. No analog, no VOD, no DAVIC, no DOCSiS on FIOS's "coax" system. Pretty much. And this brings us to today's history lesson. Before Verizon had over 100HD channels, they had to get rid of all of their analog. Otherwise they were limited in capacity.
So can you guess what the cable companies are doing now?
As for the other things, they will use maybe 10-20 channels out of what, 158? Let's say 20. That leaves 138 for video.
2 per QAM HD is nice but not necessary given the bandwidth coming from the satellites. Some channels may need 2 per QAM but many are fine with 3.
There is plenty of room, once analog is gone. Verizon has proven that. | |
| | | | bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | Re: Verizon The problem is that cable is still out of space.
3 HD per QAM is crap, it looks like crap, and the fact that services like U-Verse look even more like crap doesn't really excuse it.
The problem is larger TVs. 3 HD per QAM looks OK on a 32" TV, but even on my 40" it's an artifact-ridden mess whenever there's motion.
Comparing good HD (e.g. CBS over-the-air in my market) to lower-bitrate HD, the difference is stunning.
We look at expanding use of VOD-type services, more channels used for DOCSIS (4 channels is just the beginning), and cable providers have to start referring to hacks like SDV and 3QAM.
For most users, most of the time, cable has enough bandwidth today. I don't think anyone can dispute that. But there's very little room for growth here without major network investment.
FiOS doesn't have this problem because their interactive services don't have to compete with the 1GHz cable bandwidth. VOD and Internet service with FiOS is on a separate wavelength.
Cable has done a great job of staying competitive with FTTP, but FTTP delivers better service now (higher upstream, less-compressed HD) and the only way cable is going to be able to effectively compete in the future will be to drive fiber deeper into the network. Fortunately, cable companies have been doing that for years.
At some point, though, you start to ask whether it would have been more effective just to run the fiber to the house. | |
|
| | It's all Marketing BS anyways. Nether side is 100% honest. | |
| bnceo
join:2007-10-11
Bel Air, MD | And the Bickering Continues Remember folks. Time Warner, Cox, Comcast, and Cablevision only started using the words "fiber optic" when FiOS came out. It's their very intention to confuse customers into thinking FiOS is just same technology that the Cable Co. are using. But it's not. It's the last mile that is the difference.
So while people on Comcast and others continue to worry about surfing the net at peak hours, I'll just chill here and not worry about "up to" speeds with my great FiOS. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | TWC is ignoring one very simple fact MOCA is used in the customer's premise and that is not part of Verizon's network. Verizon's network is from the box outside the home to the verizon plant.
Ask Time warner to fix a coaxial cable inside the house and they will claim the same thing: That the line inside your house is not part of their network and not their problem. | |
| etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Bottom line is... that cable companies by using DOCSIS3.0 offer the same or faster speeds that Verizon's FIOS does... and at a fraction of the cost may I add not to mention that DOCSIS3.0 penetration rate is astronomically higher than FIOS.
So for Verizon to make this an issue is just dumb as they are riding in the declining side of the curve in terms of FIOS deployments.
As for that other dumb telco... well, we already know what their problem is... twisted cooper pairs. | |
| |
See 35 replies to this post | |
| | about fiber all cable company's are using a hybrid coax/fiber setup and telephone company's like verizon uses the same thing so this whole thing about fiber is BS!!!Q! | |
|
1 edit | ahhahahahha Considering Verizon is stopping the FIOS roll out obviously as of right now all fiber isnt the way to go either.
PS fios really isnt all fiber either. businesses get true all fiber. Our conenction here at work is ALL FIBER all the way to our switch. | |
| | | | Re: ahhahahahha said by majortom1029:Considering Verizon is stopping the FIOS roll out obviously as of right now all fiber isnt the way to go either. PS fios really isnt all fiber either. businesses get true all fiber. Our conenction here at work is ALL FIBER all the way to our switch. You are making an assumption that Fiber isn't the right decision because Verizon isn't immediately investing in it right now.
By that same token, you could argue that I believe a diesel engine in my truck isn't the way to go just because I continue to drive my gasoline powered truck. It ignores the fact that I don't have the cash onhand to sell my truck and purchase a diesel truck to replace it.
If I have $10,000 and I'm given the following options:
A: A product which costs $15,000 and costs $1000/yr to operate.
B: A product which costs $10,000 and costs $3000/yr to operate
Even if I were going to operate that product for 10 years, it doesn't change the fact that I only have $10,000 to spend. I'd want to be able to choose option B, but I cannot while still maintaining my budget. | |
| | | | | Re: ahhahahahha But what if your gasoline truck is on the verge of dying then what ? | |
| | | | | | Re: ahhahahahha said by majortom1029:But what if your gasoline truck is on the verge of dying then what ? It doesn't matter if it was on the verge of blowing up into a fireball. If I only have $10,000 to spend, I can only spend $10,000.
One of the issues is that not all investors think the same way. Some investements are based on certain returns and company behavior. If the Verizon CEO made the most impassioned speech and convinced everyone in the world that deploying fiber to every household was the best investment decision they could make...
Some investors would still dump them because they are required to behave in a certain manner. I've placed some of my funds into certain risk categories, and if my investment manager sunk those funds into something outside of that category, no matter how much he felt that was the 'better' decision, I'd be pissed because that is not what I asked him to do with my money. I have interests that he is not part to. | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | It all depends on what the CEO's sales pitch is like to Wall Street investors.
Can you sell 'we can deploy to ~50% of our market in 2 year and get a small profit'
or
Sell 'it'll cost a bit and take 5 years to deploy to 35% of the market, but the ROI is huge, and maintenance costs will be significantly smaller, and has room for future growth on the base product w/o significant cost'
AT&T = the first style
VZ = the second style
Cable is closer to the first, in that the cost is incremental, and deployment is quick. | |
|
 lolcakeThere WILL be cake.Premium
join:2010-06-03
Trois-Rivieres, QC
·Cogeco Cable
2 edits | competition by ignorance quote:
Node is in your house
Guide data and ondemand delivered over IP
No analog
Most of people believes that the fiber is fast and reliable. I have nothing to say against that.
BUT, the fiber link is over 150 feet from your home: the rest of the wiring is done with coaxial cable.
Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC) is quite reliable if the setup at home, if your ISP is reliable and the if coaxial nodes in the post are in good shape. But, HFC is not FTTH.
Now, there's a marketing purposes behind all of this. If you're a cable operator (or whatever) and you say that you have fiber on your network infrastructure, people will thing that you have a fast network.
Because, in most of people's mind, fiber means "speed and robustness". Even if you're offering a shitty and capped service.(sorry for the huge words) | |
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Comcast is Hybrid Fiber-Coax, Verizon is Fiber to the Premis Comcast is Hybrid Fiber-Coax with Coax to the Premise (HFC CTTP), while Verizon is Fiber to the Premise or Home (FTTP or FTTH) with the in-home wiring up to whatever boxes they plug in (could be HFC, Ethernet, radio, etc.).
Any ads to the contrary are misleading and wrong.
Theoretically, *with* their currently installed base, Verizon could put in an in-home box that has their FTTP connection on one end, and 10GB fiber ethernet output on the other, and run IPTV through that. Said box might have to have an adjunct card or box to convert Verizon's current analog fiber TV signals into IPTV, though, until they go all-digital (with MPEG's AVC (H264) today, they could easily go all-IP on the TV side). The customer's computer would have a 10GB fiber card in it, and they'd have IPTV software on their computer. Then, Time Warner could eat crap, because Verizon's network really would be 99% fiber (the last 1% would be electronics in the various connected boxes).
Until then, they all need to be more specific. | |
| | bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | Re: Comcast is Hybrid Fiber-Coax, Verizon is Fiber to the Premis To be technical, Verizon's TV service is all-digital now (they previously had a few analog channels, but those were dropped).
The fact that it's modulated into an analog waveform using QAM and sent over fiber (then converted to coax at your house) is irrelevant. All digital signals are analog at some point.
Verizon's network IS 100% fiber. The CPE network is neither owned nor operated by Verizon. It's the customer's network. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Boring Verizon should just STFU & just deliver digital voice w/o taxes, and fees-- kill off long term contracts and early termination fees and start competing for real. The consumer really doesn't want to hear b/s anymore. They want the real deal competition. | |
| | Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI | Re: Boring they should just say, "it's not 100% fiber unless it's 100% fiber up-to ethernet." | |
|
1 edit | Not really FiOS is 99% Fiber to the home then 1% is coverted to copper signals in the home. HFC is not HFC has more speed issues then FTTH cause of node saturation so FiOS has a edge there. | |
| | Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI Reviews:
·Charter
1 edit | Re: Not really FTTH has the SAME issues with node saturation. The issue HFC has is it signals over COAX only have so many free channels. The more bonded channels to use to increase speed, the fewer customers can be on the same line. But it all comes down to where your bottleneck is.
If two ISPs, one FTTH and one HFC, has a 1gb fiber to a node and both have 10 customers to the node, which is faster? The cable user may only have 100mb to the node and the FTTH customers may have 1gb to the node, but the node is only 1gb anyway. Now all of the FTTH customers can have one user saturating the node and reducing quality for them all.
Obviously FTTH has a lot more *potential*. but with FioS customers still using 25/25 or 50/50, DOCSIS 3.0 can easily handle that. When we start seeing 100mb becoming standard, then cable is going to have issues competing, but they already have the fiber to the node infrastructure ready, they just need fiber to the home. | |
| | | | | Re: Not really It's evident that you really do not know what you are talking about. | |
| | | | Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI Reviews:
·Charter
1 edit | Re: Not really said by fiberoptix:It's evident that you really do not know what you are talking about. More than likely, you don't.
HFC and FTTH both have fiber to the nodes. The ONLY difference if how you connect to the nodes. FTTH has a dedicated 1gb connection. While cable has a shared COAX.
DOCSIS will actually support 1gb over COAX in the future, but you still have the issue of COAX vs fiber. Fiber has 0 interference while COAX will increase as more users are on the same line plus any extra from EMI/etc.
Anyway, right now the issue really isn't how fast you connect to the node, but how fast the node is relative to the amount of users on it. A network is only as strong as its weakest link.
Right now, HFC can supply up-to 160/120 and FTTH is 1gb. Buutttt... If your ISP only gives you a 100mb connection, you won't be able to tell the difference. Actually, you won't be able to tell the difference between HFC and FTTH until you reach cable's cap of 160/120. Well, you could tell the difference if your signal strength is bad, but that's besides the point.
So, until ISPs start handing out internet speeds greater than 160/120, the only real issue is how fast the node is and how fast your ISP is. As an over-subscribed node or ISP will result in poor service. | |
|
smillPremium
join:2007-04-01
Aguadilla, PR | FTTx Gents, and ladies
Both At&t and most CableCo (MSO) use a Copper medium to complete the delivery of services to the Demarc at your premise. So the question at hand is were is the copper in the delivery of services? before and through the Demarc or just after?
The True distinction that NAD was looking at is were does the Optical Electrical conversion take place in the network.
Verizon using GPON/BPON TDM transport technology has the OLT at the Central Office/ same as the CMTS for the CableCO, then here is the distinction Verizon GPON/BPON ONU/ONT (Demarc) that performs the OE conversion is at your property (garage, basement, side of house).
Were as the CableCO and Uverse OE is somewhere out on the street, and then they use Copper to complete the delivery to the Demarc (Fiber Node on a pole, or a VRAD FTTN cabinet on the corner).
As far as the capabilities FiOS GPON is a CableCO all Fiber Network because they have not used IPTV but instead broadcast all their channels like the CableCO on the 1550nm lambda to the ONU/ONT.
DOCSIS 3.0 does have much of the same features as FiOS GPON.
Were At&t has an edge is their Video Delivery is not like the CableCO or FiOSTV as they do use IPTV. Their Achilles heal is the Copper UTP they use is inferior to the spectral bandwidth of Coax Cable.
CableCO DOCSIS is a bus network, At&t Uverse is P2P like the PSTN, Verizon FiOS is also an Optical Bus P2MP topology too; Verizon saving grace is Glass has more spectral bandwidth than any copper or RF solution, known to man kind today.
The Dirty little secret about GPON is with every evolution (Bandwidth jump) because it is a Bookend solution they will have to spend CAPEX and increase OPEX to perform "Fork Lift upgrade to the OE components in the network, Or in My Eyes FiOS is a Long way from being Cash flow positive.
IMHO FiOS is doing an Injustice to Fiber as most people can tell the difference between DOCSIS Service and FiOS services.
Only P2P dedicated fiber just like the PSTN is were you will tell your on a real All Fiber Network!
This is what Google FTTH will be! | |
|
| |
|
|
