TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-23-2014, 01:15 PM   #151
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Fiber is very profitable if you amortize it over an appropriate amount of time, like 30 years. And Verizon isn't even doing a good job with FIOS. If they switched to MPEG-4 to be able to offer an even better channel lineup, and they offered a gigabit internet product, they would be that much more competitive with cable. They are price competitive, but not enough so. They should get more aggressive, and they will get more of the market. Instead, they are finding creative ways to nickel and dime their subscribers.
30 years? That's exactly why they aren't rushing to build out their fiber network.

Level3 almost went bankrupt creating a backbone fiber network. And are stuck between a rock and a hard place for a very long time. That isn't going to turn out to be a good investment. Other companies did go bankrupt creating cross country fiber networks.


It isn't like VZ gets the market to themselves if they build out either. They have immediate competitors. AT the same time it isn't like the business isn't changing. The ability to charge for phone, tv and internet is getting weaker all the time. And what if wireless becomes a much cheaper way of getting internet to most homes?

The CFO recently said their capital is going towards wireless right now because the returns are much higher and wireless is more promising. They aren't going to start thinking about expanding FIOS again until they make more money from the capital they have already deployed.

It will be interesting to follow what Google is doing and see how that works in the longer run.

Last edited by trip1eX : 05-23-2014 at 01:27 PM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 02:00 PM   #152
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
And that's after Level 3 acquired a lot of that fiber backbone at less than actual price when it acquired Global Crossing in 2011.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 03:06 PM   #153
stevel
Dumb Blond
 
stevel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 24,187
TC CLUB MEMBER
I've read there's a LOT of "dark fiber" around the country - fiber that was laid out but never used.
__________________
Steve
stevel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 03:58 PM   #154
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
And what if wireless becomes a much cheaper way of getting internet to most homes?
Highly unlikely, due to the current laws of physics. But in the event that ever did happen, then all those massive profits they are currently raking in from wireless data will evaporate like a fart in the wind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by murgatroyd View Post
And the government isn't much better -- they don't think past the next election cycle.
The main problem with the government is that they are bought and paid for by the corporations. So the root problem is still the for-profit corporations.

Speaking of the devil... http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/C...pproved-129075

Last edited by tarheelblue32 : 05-23-2014 at 04:22 PM.
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 04:10 PM   #155
randian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
And what if wireless becomes a much cheaper way of getting internet to most homes?
Impossible. Not enough spectrum, and the high-frequency spectrum required to deliver big bandwidth has terrible building penetration requiring much denser deployment than they have now, eliminating any savings. They have enough to keep up with burgeoning mobile data demand, but home data demands are another kettle of fish.
randian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 04:42 PM   #156
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
I pay $59.99/month for 75 down/35 up service. If I switched back to Cablevision, they would change me $49.95 for 15 down/3 up.
You must be grandfathered in to something, as that's not the current pricing.

Quote:
Forgot about the SD locals. AFAIK, the SL3 feedhorn assembly is the standard for HD installs everywhere. If you still have an SD TV they usually still hook it up to an HD receiver. The only SL5 installs happening anymore are all SD installs in markets where the SD locals are on 119 spotbeams, or for foreign language packages. They are, however, planning to stop to doing SD only installs if they have not done so already.
I guess they are allowing the SL3s in Hartford-New Haven for new installs, but I very, very rarely see one. Seems to me they are defaulting to SL5's. Either that, or barely anyone has installed a DirecTV dish recently.

Quote:
Of course, it wasn't just look angles that drove Dish to a dual arc system. They only had 22 transponder licenses at 119 (which is where they started) and 29 at 110 (acquired from MCI and News Corp, ironically enough) with no other assets in the area. DirecTV on the other hand, had all 32 transponders at 101, 3 at 110 and 10 at 119, plus had full slot Ka licenses at 99 and 103. Each Ka slot has twice the total bandwidth of a Ku DBS slot, so DirecTV has a massive amount of bandwidth within a 20 degree arc, most it within a 4 degree arc.

There was no way Dish could do HD on their 110/119 assets, so they cut a deal with Rainbow's Voom all HD service to acquire their 61.5 assets and cut a deal with Angel Broadcasting to get their 61.5 licenses. That let them get into HD, but as you point out, it was barely above the horizon from the West Coast. To solve that problem they leased the entire slot at 129 from the Canadians and stuck Echostar-V there until the Canadian Ciel Satellite Group launched Ciel-2. Dish also uses a Canadian satellite (Nimiq-5) at 72.5 and a Mexican one (QuetzSat-1) at 77. Thus, the 2 arc solution was born, at the cost of higher operating expenses (twice the uplinks) and paying satellite lease fees.
Yeah, they needed the bandwidth. In the age of HD locals for close to 200 markets, however, the dual-arc solution does save quite a bit of bandwidth, as there's a big chunk of the country that is covered by both arcs.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2014, 04:51 PM   #157
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
30 years? That's exactly why they aren't rushing to build out their fiber network.
Infrastructure has to be amortized out over a 30-year period. The problem is Wall Street investors and company executives at both Verizon and AT&T who are too childish and impatient to be able to look at a 30-year payback on a major capital expenditure and go ahead with it. Without FTTH, the telcos have no wireline future.

Quote:
Level3 almost went bankrupt creating a backbone fiber network. And are stuck between a rock and a hard place for a very long time. That isn't going to turn out to be a good investment. Other companies did go bankrupt creating cross country fiber networks.
Backbone fiber is different from last mile fiber.

Quote:
It isn't like VZ gets the market to themselves if they build out either. They have immediate competitors. AT the same time it isn't like the business isn't changing. The ability to charge for phone, tv and internet is getting weaker all the time. And what if wireless becomes a much cheaper way of getting internet to most homes?
Wireless can't meet home bandwidth demand in all but the most rural areas (and even barely then) for the foreseeable future. Whoever owns the biggest pipes to the customer's place of residence will win, no matter whether it's QAM, IPTV, OTT, whatever. FIOS puts Verizon back in the game as a last-mile provider with a big pipe, and is far more robust than anything else widely deployed in the US.

Quote:
The CFO recently said their capital is going towards wireless right now because the returns are much higher and wireless is more promising. They aren't going to start thinking about expanding FIOS again until they make more money from the capital they have already deployed.
That's the problem. These companies are all run by people who think like screaming 2-year-olds "I WANT IT NOW". They seem to be incapable of adult though, which, in the business that they are in, involves 30-year amortization of large amounts of capital expenditure.

Quote:
It will be interesting to follow what Google is doing and see how that works in the longer run.
Google is in it for totally different reasons, although the fiber to the press release rollouts are rather entertaining. I don't know why Verizon hasn't actually done gigabit yet, even though they aren't in any Google Fiber areas, since their existing GPON infrastructure can do gigabit with a visit to the customer's house to switch them from MoCA to Ethernet. They have 18 million homes passed with FIOS, and they are currently building out to several million more in NYC, so that's a lot of actual gigabit that they could offer and advertise on (even if the actual take rate is tiny).
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2014, 07:23 AM   #158
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...however, the dual-arc solution does save quite a bit of bandwidth, as there's a big chunk of the country that is covered by both arcs.
I'm not sure how you figure that. Each local market requires a certain amount of bandwidth, mostly delivered by spot beam. It doesn't matter where that spot beam originates, it is still the same total bandwidth. For national channels, Dish broadcasts them twice, once for each arc. Since the mix of satellites and their corresponding transponder capacities vary from one arc to the other, they can't even use the same set of statistical multiplexers to encode the content. They must completely duplicate almost all of the uplink equipment and consume double the bandwidth.

But, this is a discussion for another thread, and another discussion site.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2014, 10:20 PM   #159
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
I'm not sure how you figure that. Each local market requires a certain amount of bandwidth, mostly delivered by spot beam. It doesn't matter where that spot beam originates, it is still the same total bandwidth. For national channels, Dish broadcasts them twice, once for each arc. Since the mix of satellites and their corresponding transponder capacities vary from one arc to the other, they can't even use the same set of statistical multiplexers to encode the content. They must completely duplicate almost all of the uplink equipment and consume double the bandwidth.

But, this is a discussion for another thread, and another discussion site.
The spot beams have to be way bigger than the DMA, as DMAs are not designed to match an elliptical shape that comes from the equator at a certain satellite position... So having two arcs for much of the middle of the country helps a LOT.

Yes, national stuff is duplicated, and the northeast corner and western half of the country only have access to one arc, although the western part of the country has far fewer DMAs anyways. The biggest mess of DMAs is throughout the midwest, south, Texas, and Florida, which is exactly where both arcs are workable...
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 12:05 AM   #160
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The spot beams have to be way bigger than the DMA, as DMAs are not designed to match an elliptical shape that comes from the equator at a certain satellite position... So having two arcs for much of the middle of the country helps a LOT.

Yes, national stuff is duplicated, and the northeast corner and western half of the country only have access to one arc, although the western part of the country has far fewer DMAs anyways. The biggest mess of DMAs is throughout the midwest, south, Texas, and Florida, which is exactly where both arcs are workable...
None of which answers the question of how this saves any bandwidth. The DMAs have to be covered and whether they come from the eastern arc or the western, it is the same bandwidth. DirecTV covers the same DMAs, with the same elliptical beams from GEO. The same local channels are delivered. I see no savings there. Then you have to transmit all SD and HD national channels twice.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 02:40 AM   #161
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Infrastructure has to be amortized out over a 30-year period. The problem is Wall Street investors and company executives at both Verizon and AT&T who are too childish and impatient to be able to look at a 30-year payback on a major capital expenditure and go ahead with it. Without FTTH, the telcos have no wireline future.



Backbone fiber is different from last mile fiber.



Wireless can't meet home bandwidth demand in all but the most rural areas (and even barely then) for the foreseeable future. Whoever owns the biggest pipes to the customer's place of residence will win, no matter whether it's QAM, IPTV, OTT, whatever. FIOS puts Verizon back in the game as a last-mile provider with a big pipe, and is far more robust than anything else widely deployed in the US.



That's the problem. These companies are all run by people who think like screaming 2-year-olds "I WANT IT NOW". They seem to be incapable of adult though, which, in the business that they are in, involves 30-year amortization of large amounts of capital expenditure.



Google is in it for totally different reasons, although the fiber to the press release rollouts are rather entertaining. I don't know why Verizon hasn't actually done gigabit yet, even though they aren't in any Google Fiber areas, since their existing GPON infrastructure can do gigabit with a visit to the customer's house to switch them from MoCA to Ethernet. They have 18 million homes passed with FIOS, and they are currently building out to several million more in NYC, so that's a lot of actual gigabit that they could offer and advertise on (even if the actual take rate is tiny).
WEll I disagree whoever owns the biggest pipe to the consumer will win. Good enough and much cheaper usually wins.

And what if the biggest mobile internet pipe wins not the biggest wired line?


We all wouldn't mind having fiber connections. And I think that's where you're coming from. so I understand your sentiments

But ...wireless is where its at right now for these companies. And fiber is on the backburner because it isn't proving to be a great investment.


And I have no idea how much bandwidth is possible in wireless cellular tech over the next 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. I don't know if or how they could use it in conjunction with a fiber network for covering the last mile. I kind of doubt anyone here knows enough to predict that picture over time. The real point is tech changes. Fiber may prove to be overkill for the last mile to a home. And who knows how much speed a person will require in the future. Again good enough and much cheaper is typically a good place to be in the marketplace.

Plus this whole thing about gigabit connections being some sort of nirvana is ....not that i wouldn't want one, but ...I mean most of the traffic today is netflix. For any kind of text or reading or information my 30mbit connection seems pretty fast to me.

What do all these South Koreas out there do with their super fast connections that we are missing out on. I really haven't noticed the difference in my internet connection since it was 5-10 mbps a few years to the 30 mbps I have today except for the speed of large downloads.

Last edited by trip1eX : 05-26-2014 at 02:48 AM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 08:29 AM   #162
JosephB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevel View Post
I've read there's a LOT of "dark fiber" around the country - fiber that was laid out but never used.
There is, but unfortunately it's not really useful for last mile ISP services, it's laid in major corridors between cities but not around neighborhoods.
__________________
Current: TiVo HD w/lifetime, 2 x 2 Tuner Premieres

Former: S1, S2 TiVos, UltimateTV, SD DirecTiVo (x3), SA 8300HD w/Passport Echo, DirecTV HR-24 (x2) , DISH 722k, DirecTV Genie + 2 mini
JosephB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2014, 08:31 PM   #163
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
None of which answers the question of how this saves any bandwidth. The DMAs have to be covered and whether they come from the eastern arc or the western, it is the same bandwidth. DirecTV covers the same DMAs, with the same elliptical beams from GEO. The same local channels are delivered. I see no savings there. Then you have to transmit all SD and HD national channels twice.
Everywhere in the eastern half of the US except PA and northeast, you can put some DMAs on Western and some DMAs on Eastern. Eastern only reaches about halfway into Texas and on up, but there are far fewer DMAs to deal with west of that line. Since locals are a huge chunk of their bandwidth, this helps them to have enough bandwidth to cover all of the DMAs. IIRC, Chicago is such a huge market that it's duplicated on both arcs, so that they have more flexibility with installations and some support for legacy split arc setups.

I'm not saying it's the desired way to do things if you were building a system from the ground up, but without the two arcs, DISH would be sunk bandwidth wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
WEll I disagree whoever owns the biggest pipe to the consumer will win. Good enough and much cheaper usually wins.

And what if the biggest mobile internet pipe wins not the biggest wired line?
U-Verse was built to have the same speeds, a few better features, like a 4-tuner DVR, and somewhat lower picture quality than cable in 2008-2010. It held its own for a year or two beyond that, and now it's falling behind rapidly. Comcast offers 50mbps as their standard package, with an option for 105mbps. U-Verse can only get 18-24mbps out to most locations, 45mbps to some, and they are limited to 4 tuners. Comcast's X1 has 6 tuners, only 5 of which are accessible, one for live TV, and 4 for recording, but they may open up the 6th at some point, and they are already a tuner head of the best U-Verse installs. And U-Verse's limit is for the whole house, not just that TV. With Comcast you can have as many tuners as you want, you could even have an HTPC with 24 tuners or more if you wanted. Sure, that's a fringe case, but the point is, they can scale X1 up, where U-Verse can't.

A bigger issues comes with 4K. U-Verse likely can't do 4K at all, if they can, it will several cripple the rest of the system. As it is, if you have too many shows DVR'ing, the internet slows down, which is pretty pathetic. Comcast can easily do 4k on existing QAMs on their rebuilt systems, or even on older systems if they start the MPEG-4 conversion.

Mobile doesn't have the bandwidth. There is no way to stream TV over mobile in any scalable way. LTE networks today are slammed in many major metro areas, and that's just for mobile apps, some limited video consumption, and the usual smartphone kind of stuff. You'd need a few orders of magnitude more mobile bandwidth. As it is, half of mobile traffic today is offloaded to wifi. If you got rid of just the wifi that uses cable, DSL, VDSL, and fiber to offload cell phone traffic, the LTE networks in many places would basically grind to a halt. And that's still with everything else going through cable, DSL, VDSL, fiber, or satellite.

Quote:
We all wouldn't mind having fiber connections. And I think that's where you're coming from. so I understand your sentiments

But ...wireless is where its at right now for these companies. And fiber is on the backburner because it isn't proving to be a great investment.
The reason that it's on the back burner is because the executives and the shareholders are childish, immature thinkers who can't see a 30-year amortizing of a multi-billion-dollar physical plant. FIOS only got built because of the previous CEO who was able to think like an adult, and look forward into the future, and he realized that he needed to roll the trucks, backhoes, and start deploying a bigger, fatter pipe than anyone else to stay relevant. Now in some ways, AT&T though ahead more with the first large-scale IPTV deployment, but they screwed up on the physical plant by running their futuristic IPTV system over 100-year-old copper, and spending billions making shoestring and bubble gum connections on their ancient copper that costs far more to maintain in the long run, and can't compete with coax.

To me, aside from not working with TiVo in it's current state, the ultimate would be an IPTV fiber system, which could partially be built as an FTTB system for MDUs, with VDSL for the final few hundred feet, with speeds of 100mbps or so, and an easy upgrade path in the future to either pull CAT-6 cable to each unit, or go full fiber. Verizon's VDSL system isn't bad, although it sounds like it only works in certain situations where they can get access to the coax for the video side of things, while bringing the internet in over VDSL.

What is even crazier with AT&T is that they didn't even build a robust VDSL system. They didn't push the VRADs out far enough, and they did the absolute minimum needed to offer triple play, and they did little FTTH. They could have even done a mixed deployment, with fiber for easy locations, like above ground utilities, or situations like where my parents live, where the developers put in extra conduits for future fiber connectivity back in the late '90s, which are now sitting there unused, waiting for someone to pull fiber through. It would be about the easiest fiber install imaginable.

Quote:
And I have no idea how much bandwidth is possible in wireless cellular tech over the next 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. I don't know if or how they could use it in conjunction with a fiber network for covering the last mile. I kind of doubt anyone here knows enough to predict that picture over time. The real point is tech changes. Fiber may prove to be overkill for the last mile to a home. And who knows how much speed a person will require in the future. Again good enough and much cheaper is typically a good place to be in the marketplace.

Plus this whole thing about gigabit connections being some sort of nirvana is ....not that i wouldn't want one, but ...I mean most of the traffic today is netflix. For any kind of text or reading or information my 30mbit connection seems pretty fast to me.
Fiber is cheaper over the long haul compared to AT&T's kludge with VDSL, but aside from that, wireless will not be handling everything for a very, very long time. Applications that saturate wireless networks seem to come along faster than the wireless companies can add more bandwidth, and that's without home-based connectivity running over wireless, and with half the traffic being offloaded. At the same time, home bandwidth use is going way up with a ton of unicast streaming video, and other uses for bandwidth rapidly increasing as well.

It is true that most users don't need gigabit, but the phone companies are in a situation where their copper is too slow, so the next step is fiber to the house. FIOS is doing well with 50/25 and 75/35 plans, which technology are more limited by the inside wiring than by the GPON fiber system. The inside wiring maxes out somewhere around 100-150mbps for MoCA, while the fiber can handle gig symmetrical. With fiber to the house, they could also make a robust IPTV system like Google Fiber, and pass the feeds straight through to the customer.

We don't know what the future bandwidth needs are exactly going to be, but we know that bandwidth demand is going to keep going up. It doesn't matter whether cord cutting ever becomes more than a tiny minority of people that Karl Bode loves to write about every day, or if people just start using more WatchESPN, more HBO Go, and other MSO-based streaming products, bandwidth demand is going to go up quite a bit over the next few years. And if 4k catches on, it will go up even more.

Quote:
What do all these South Koreas out there do with their super fast connections that we are missing out on. I really haven't noticed the difference in my internet connection since it was 5-10 mbps a few years to the 30 mbps I have today except for the speed of large downloads.
I'm actually perfectly happy with my 105mbps Comcast connection, which I really want is better uploads, and better picture quality for my TiVo, which is what Verizon FIOS offers. Given that I want to get a job in a FIOS area anyways, I likely will be able to do this in the not too distant future.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 11:31 AM   #164
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Everywhere in the eastern half of the US except PA and northeast, you can put some DMAs on Western and some DMAs on Eastern. Eastern only reaches about halfway into Texas and on up, but there are far fewer DMAs to deal with west of that line. Since locals are a huge chunk of their bandwidth, this helps them to have enough bandwidth to cover all of the DMAs. IIRC, Chicago is such a huge market that it's duplicated on both arcs, so that they have more flexibility with installations and some support for legacy split arc setups.

I'm not saying it's the desired way to do things if you were building a system from the ground up, but without the two arcs, DISH would be sunk bandwidth wise...
So now they are duplicating Chicago locals on both arcs, along with ALL the national SD and HD channels. And this is somehow SAVING bandwidth? You've offered NO explanation of this claim. The DMAs are the same size and in the same places whether you are transmitting from the eastern sky, the western sky or anyplace in between. The DMAs contain the same channels regardless of from which slot they are transmitted. The only "bandwidth savings" Dish enjoys is that which comes from reducing the horizontal resolution of HD content and then overcompressing it.

There is absolutely no "bandwidth savings" by virtue of simply transmitting local channels from a slot that just happens to be more vertically overhead than another.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 12:02 PM   #165
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post

U-Verse was built to have the same speeds, a few better features, like a 4-tuner DVR, and somewhat lower picture quality than cable in 2008-2010. It held its own for a year or two beyond that, and now it's falling behind rapidly. Comcast offers 50mbps as their standard package, with an option for 105mbps. U-Verse can only get 18-24mbps out to most locations, 45mbps to some, and they are limited to 4 tuners. Comcast's X1 has 6 tuners, only 5 of which are accessible, one for live TV, and 4 for recording, but they may open up the 6th at some point, and they are already a tuner head of the best U-Verse installs. And U-Verse's limit is for the whole house, not just that TV. With Comcast you can have as many tuners as you want, you could even have an HTPC with 24 tuners or more if you wanted. Sure, that's a fringe case, but the point is, they can scale X1 up, where U-Verse can't.


A bigger issues comes with 4K. U-Verse likely can't do 4K at all, if they can, it will several cripple the rest of the system. As it is, if you have too many shows DVR'ing, the internet slows down, which is pretty pathetic. Comcast can easily do 4k on existing QAMs on their rebuilt systems, or even on older systems if they start the MPEG-4 conversion.
Well no one said Uverse was better than cable.

I said the best pipe doesn't automatically mean winning. Good enough and much cheaper usually is what wins in the marketplace. It doesn't sound like U-verse is even good enough compared to cable. But also you have to ask yourself whether most customers care about the limits you mention. You also have to view U-verse in terms of this DTV acquisition. What kind of internet speeds can they deliver over Uverse if DTV handles most of the video in the distant future?

And jsut like you're comparing Uverse to cable why not compare cable to fiber. Is fiber going to be so much better than cable to the consumer. WE know technically it is a better technology in terms of bandwidth. But will that matter to the consumer experience?

And what if you start providing gigabit connections over fiber to people for $60 or so? I wonder how habits change as far as sharing goes. With that kind of bandwidth and the wifi technologies of today I can imagine alot more bandwidth sharing will be going on between households.

And again are the people in the world with these really fast connections doing anything with them that we should be doing? I guess I always hear about the fast connections but I never hear about what they are doing with them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Mobile doesn't have the bandwidth. There is no way to stream TV over mobile in any scalable way. LTE networks today are slammed in many major metro areas, and that's just for mobile apps, some limited video consumption, and the usual smartphone kind of stuff. You'd need a few orders of magnitude more mobile bandwidth. As it is, half of mobile traffic today is offloaded to wifi. If you got rid of just the wifi that uses cable, DSL, VDSL, and fiber to offload cell phone traffic, the LTE networks in many places would basically grind to a halt. And that's still with everything else going through cable, DSL, VDSL, fiber, or satellite.
On one hand you like to bring up 30 years when talking about fiber. ON the other hand you don't seem to be seeing mobile technology past today.

No one said wireless has the same bandwidth as cable or fiber today or will have in the future. I'm just saying who knows in 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years how much faster it gets and who knows what kind of wireless/fiber hybrid system is possible in the future if any. Who knows how habits change.

LTE already might be a good enough internet connection for some people according to the speeds some say they get. Then consider that many, white collar types at least, have internet access at work. How much do they need that home internet connection?

Can a lower income person afford both?

What if the golden age of charging for data, tv and phone is over?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
The reason that it's on the back burner is because the executives and the shareholders are childish, immature thinkers who can't see a 30-year amortizing of a multi-billion-dollar physical plant. FIOS only got built because of the previous CEO who was able to think like an adult, and look forward into the future, and he realized that he needed to roll the trucks, backhoes, and start deploying a bigger, fatter pipe than anyone else to stay relevant. Now in some ways, AT&T though ahead more with the first large-scale IPTV deployment, but they screwed up on the physical plant by running their futuristic IPTV system over 100-year-old copper, and spending billions making shoestring and bubble gum connections on their ancient copper that costs far more to maintain in the long run, and can't compete with coax.
Well 30 years amortizing doesn't mean they make money or have a decent return. It just means every year they write off 1/30th of their initial capital outlay.

The phone company's copper networks are ancient and are lacking in bandwidth. But what kind of speeds can ATT deliver over Uverse if they turned that network into internet only and delivered tv over Direct TV?

And an ancient network doesn't mean that building out a fiber network asap is a guaranteed money maker. I don't see why focusing on wireless now over fiber is so unreasonable given the returns of fiber and demand for mobile data.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post


Fiber is cheaper over the long haul compared to AT&T's kludge with VDSL, but aside from that, wireless will not be handling everything for a very, very long time. Applications that saturate wireless networks seem to come along faster than the wireless companies can add more bandwidth, and that's without home-based connectivity running over wireless, and with half the traffic being offloaded. At the same time, home bandwidth use is going way up with a ton of unicast streaming video, and other uses for bandwidth rapidly increasing as well.

It is true that most users don't need gigabit, but the phone companies are in a situation where their copper is too slow, so the next step is fiber to the house. FIOS is doing well with 50/25 and 75/35 plans, which technology are more limited by the inside wiring than by the GPON fiber system. The inside wiring maxes out somewhere around 100-150mbps for MoCA, while the fiber can handle gig symmetrical. With fiber to the house, they could also make a robust IPTV system like Google Fiber, and pass the feeds straight through to the customer.

We don't know what the future bandwidth needs are exactly going to be, but we know that bandwidth demand is going to keep going up. It doesn't matter whether cord cutting ever becomes more than a tiny minority of people that Karl Bode loves to write about every day, or if people just start using more WatchESPN, more HBO Go, and other MSO-based streaming products, bandwidth demand is going to go up quite a bit over the next few years. And if 4k catches on, it will go up even more.



I'm actually perfectly happy with my 105mbps Comcast connection, which I really want is better uploads, and better picture quality for my TiVo, which is what Verizon FIOS offers. Given that I want to get a job in a FIOS area anyways, I likely will be able to do this in the not too distant future.
Bandwidth demand will probably go up. You don't when that will stop. You don't know if or when the next breakthrough will come that allows them to stream data much more efficiently than before through the same connection. You don't know the financial limits of what consumers want to pay for either. You don't know how much more data will go over wireless in the next 10 years and bypass last mile wired connections to the home.

I can already see that something might give when consumers are confronted with paying $50/month for wired data and $30-$50/month per person for mobile data. At some point a healthy portion of consumers will look at these 2 bills and one day discover that mobile data is all they need.


These companies are right to be leery of overbuilding. That can kill a company. Same thing as being too short sighted. You're just going from one extreme to the other. Neither in and of itself is a solution.

We don't know whether 4k will catch on or not. You don't know if customers really want to pay for more bandwidth either. You don't know if customers want to pay for mobile data and wired data. We don't know how many can afford it and which they would drop first.

I think you are looking at this from mostly a "what I want today" point of view. Not as much of a financial point of view of the average customers and the corporations. VZ has a market leading position in wireless. And wireless data is booming. It makes sense it is a priority.

Consumers as a whole don't always behave how I do. They don't always go for the best option either.

btw, I had FIOS and Comcast in same area and picture quality didn't seem any different. As happy as I was to get FIOS, I really couldn't tell the difference in the end.

Last edited by trip1eX : 05-27-2014 at 02:26 PM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 02:55 PM   #166
tarheelblue32
Registered User
 
tarheelblue32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 860
It looks like wireless is the answer after all! (sarcasm)


"AT&T’s solution for rural Americans without access to broadband service arrived this week with the introduction of an $80/month plan bundling a mandatory wireless home landline with a 10GB usage-capped Internet plan.

AT&T Wireless Home Phone and Internet has undergone market testing in selected northeastern areas (largely outside of AT&T’s landline service territory). This week the service became available nationwide and is marketed to customers disconnected (or soon will be if regulators approve) from AT&T’s traditional landline service. AT&T is petitioning to dismantle its rural and outer suburban wired landline network and transfer customers to wireless service. But AT&T’s wireless replacement is both expensive and usage capped with an allowance that is just a fraction of what AT&T DSL offers:"

http://stopthecap.com/2014/05/27/att...10gb-internet/


With great wireless deals like this, who really wants FTTH anyways? (double sarcasm)
tarheelblue32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 05:51 PM   #167
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
So now they are duplicating Chicago locals on both arcs, along with ALL the national SD and HD channels. And this is somehow SAVING bandwidth? You've offered NO explanation of this claim. The DMAs are the same size and in the same places whether you are transmitting from the eastern sky, the western sky or anyplace in between. The DMAs contain the same channels regardless of from which slot they are transmitted. The only "bandwidth savings" Dish enjoys is that which comes from reducing the horizontal resolution of HD content and then overcompressing it.

There is absolutely no "bandwidth savings" by virtue of simply transmitting local channels from a slot that just happens to be more vertically overhead than another.
You're totally missing the point here. There are a ton of DMAs out there, and if you can feed one from EA, and the neighboring one from WA, you save a LOT of bandwidth. Since you can do this for much of the eastern part of the US (south and west of OH/WV/VA basically), the bandwidth savings are rather large. Obviously spot beams aren't perfect so you can't re-use the same bandwidth on the same satellite for two neighboring DMAs, and sometimes for several DMAs, since the shape of the spots is determined by the angle of the satellite to the earth, and often has a totally different shape than the DMA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
Well no one said Uverse was better than cable.

I said the best pipe doesn't automatically mean winning. Good enough and much cheaper usually is what wins in the marketplace. It doesn't sound like U-verse is even good enough compared to cable. But also you have to ask yourself whether most customers care about the limits you mention. You also have to view U-verse in terms of this DTV acquisition. What kind of internet speeds can they deliver over Uverse if DTV handles most of the video in the distant future?

And jsut like you're comparing Uverse to cable why not compare cable to fiber. Is fiber going to be so much better than cable to the consumer. WE know technically it is a better technology in terms of bandwidth. But will that matter to the consumer experience?
The problem is that U-Verse was engineered to equal cable in 2010, maybe 2011. It's now falling behind, and with 4k video and bigger DVRs (through the MSOs) just starting to come out, it's rapidly going to fall farther behind.

It could find a place in the market at a much lower price point, the problem is with a video service, there isn't much room to price lower, as the carriage fees are so absurdly high just to get the content.

Fiber isn't that much better than coax, but the phone companies don't have coax, so they have to go to fiber. FTTN just isn't good enough to compete with where coax is going.

Quote:
And what if you start providing gigabit connections over fiber to people for $60 or so? I wonder how habits change as far as sharing goes. With that kind of bandwidth and the wifi technologies of today I can imagine alot more bandwidth sharing will be going on between households.
The people who are sharing internet connections are already doing it with 50+mbps cable connections. Most people don't as it's a bit tricky to set up, and people are concerned about privacy/security/liability with other people on their connection.

Quote:
And again are the people in the world with these really fast connections doing anything with them that we should be doing? I guess I always hear about the fast connections but I never hear about what they are doing with them.
No one really needs a gigabit. But your home internet connection not being the bottleneck for anything would sure be nice. Upload speeds are also far better than what we have today.

Quote:
On one hand you like to bring up 30 years when talking about fiber. ON the other hand you don't seem to be seeing mobile technology past today.

No one said wireless has the same bandwidth as cable or fiber today or will have in the future. I'm just saying who knows in 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 years how much faster it gets and who knows what kind of wireless/fiber hybrid system is possible in the future if any. Who knows how habits change.
The thing is, it will take years just for the wireless companies to dig out of their current bandwidth crunch, and to keep up with the rising demand for mobile video applications. At the same time, home video bandwidth consumption will just keep going up with more streaming and 4k. Looking into the future, there will be even more of a gulf between wireless and wireline, not less.

Quote:
LTE already might be a good enough internet connection for some people according to the speeds some say they get. Then consider that many, white collar types at least, have internet access at work. How much do they need that home internet connection?
Some people use LTE as their main connection, but the plans are heavily capped, and have to be, as peak speeds are similar to cable, but the capacity just isn't there. Anything more that very light, casual use is just too much for wireless networks to handle.

Quote:
Well 30 years amortizing doesn't mean they make money or have a decent return. It just means every year they write off 1/30th of their initial capital outlay.
I know. But if you amortize over 5 years, or even 10 years, of course a fiber network is going to lose money. They make good returns on a 30-year amortization.

Quote:
The phone company's copper networks are ancient and are lacking in bandwidth. But what kind of speeds can ATT deliver over Uverse if they turned that network into internet only and delivered tv over Direct TV?

And an ancient network doesn't mean that building out a fiber network asap is a guaranteed money maker. I don't see why focusing on wireless now over fiber is so unreasonable given the returns of fiber and demand for mobile data.
Also, bringing video in via satellite won't help what internet packages they can offer, as they already share bandwidth between the two sides via QoS.

They can't compete with their ancient copper networks. It's do or die, and they don't seem to understand this basic concept because of their childish outlook on long-term investments in infrastructure.

Wireless and wireline are two different things. They should be investing in them and operating them as separate, profitable businesses, not bleeding wireline dry for wireless and basically just putting it out there to die. Unfortunately, regulators are just letting them let their phone networks die. It should be like use it or lose it- upgrade you network or lose it to someone who will.

Quote:
Bandwidth demand will probably go up. You don't when that will stop. You don't know if or when the next breakthrough will come that allows them to stream data much more efficiently than before through the same connection. You don't know the financial limits of what consumers want to pay for either. You don't know how much more data will go over wireless in the next 10 years and bypass last mile wired connections to the home.
You have it all backwards. Wireless networks are going to offload congested wireless networks. Your thought process is basically saying that the traffic is going to bypass the giant 16-lane highway for little, congested main street, and that doesn't even factor in the expense of mobile data, specifically because it is narrow and congested.

Quote:
I can already see that something might give when consumers are confronted with paying $50/month for wired data and $30-$50/month per person for mobile data. At some point a healthy portion of consumers will look at these 2 bills and one day discover that mobile data is all they need.
That doesn't work when you have 10GB of shared data or something vs. 300GB+ on a home connection.

Quote:
These companies are right to be leery of overbuilding. That can kill a company. Same thing as being too short sighted. You're just going from one extreme to the other. Neither in and of itself is a solution.
They are being extremely short sighted. If they weren't they would be laying as much fiber as they could ever year until their entire network was fiber, and all the copper could be eliminated.

Quote:
We don't know whether 4k will catch on or not. You don't know if customers really want to pay for more bandwidth either. You don't know if customers want to pay for mobile data and wired data. We don't know how many can afford it and which they would drop first.

I think you are looking at this from mostly a "what I want today" point of view. Not as much of a financial point of view of the average customers and the corporations. VZ has a market leading position in wireless. And wireless data is booming. It makes sense it is a priority.

Consumers as a whole don't always behave how I do. They don't always go for the best option either.

btw, I had FIOS and Comcast in same area and picture quality didn't seem any different. As happy as I was to get FIOS, I really couldn't tell the difference in the end.
You're not looking at the long-term viability of these businesses. Copper landlines have no long-term viability. They are too small a pipe. These companies need a bigger pipe. FIOS was Verizon's answer, but they only built it out something like halfway and then gave up, because they got a new CEO who thinks like child, not the far more adult-like CEO they had previously. If your current method of doing things has ZERO long-term viability, you have no option but to do something else. And that's what FIOS is. U-Verse is a little more muddy, as it's sort of a stop-gap technology that sort of works now, but it clearly headed for obsolescence unless the platform is switched over to a physical fiber infrastructure.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2014, 11:09 PM   #168
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
You're totally missing the point here. There are a ton of DMAs out there, and if you can feed one from EA, and the neighboring one from WA, you save a LOT of bandwidth. Since you can do this for much of the eastern part of the US (south and west of OH/WV/VA basically), the bandwidth savings are rather large. Obviously spot beams aren't perfect so you can't re-use the same bandwidth on the same satellite for two neighboring DMAs, and sometimes for several DMAs, since the shape of the spots is determined by the angle of the satellite to the earth, and often has a totally different shape than the DMA...
So, let me get this straight...if I beam down 100mbits/sec from two different points in the sky, it magically consumes less than an aggregate 200mbits/sec of bandwidth????

I don't know what maps you are looking at, but on the ones I use, cities don't move around, and the DMAs don't change much. So, if you know what you're doing, it isn't any harder to maximize frequency reuse when laying out spot beams. One of the interesting benefits DirecTV got from using the Spaceway satellites was that their phased array antennas allowed the size and power distribution of the spot beams to be adjusted. This allowed DirecTV to adjust the beams as they brought up additional DMAs, but this was all from one arc. If you want to use the same frequency in two adjacent spots you don't need a different arc, just a different satellite in the same arc. In fact, DirecTV (and I have to assume Dish as well) uses the same frequency twice in the same DMA by transmitting from two satellites in the same arc.
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 07:37 PM   #169
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
So, let me get this straight...if I beam down 100mbits/sec from two different points in the sky, it magically consumes less than an aggregate 200mbits/sec of bandwidth????
NOOOOOOOO!

Quote:
I don't know what maps you are looking at, but on the ones I use, cities don't move around, and the DMAs don't change much. So, if you know what you're doing, it isn't any harder to maximize frequency reuse when laying out spot beams. One of the interesting benefits DirecTV got from using the Spaceway satellites was that their phased array antennas allowed the size and power distribution of the spot beams to be adjusted. This allowed DirecTV to adjust the beams as they brought up additional DMAs, but this was all from one arc. If you want to use the same frequency in two adjacent spots you don't need a different arc, just a different satellite in the same arc. In fact, DirecTV (and I have to assume Dish as well) uses the same frequency twice in the same DMA by transmitting from two satellites in the same arc.
Since the spot beams end up having to hit at least a couple of DMAs in order to cover one, you end up needing several sets of spot beams to cover all the DMAs. Since the biggest hodge-podge of DMAs is in the area that DISH can cover with either arc, they can checkerboard which DMAs are on EA vs. WA in that area, and thus reduce the number of number of sets of spot beams that each arc needs. It's not as efficient as if it was a single arc like DirecTV, but it is still a significant bandwidth savings over a single arc of equal capacity to their current EA or WA. The most bandwidth constrained part of the US for DISH is the northeast, as it is EA only, and the western part of the country, which is WA only, has relatively few, very geographically large DMAs. However, given that the Northeast isn't quite as bad of a hodge-podge as the Midwest and South, and much of it is either near the ocean, or near Canada, where no other DMAs exist, the puzzle all fits together for DISH.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 08:54 PM   #170
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
NOOOOOOOO!....
Fine...then there is no bandwidth savings. The only way to "save bandwidth" is to push more data through the same bit rate pipes. So, you admit that there is no bandwidth being saved.
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 05:21 PM   #171
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Fine...then there is no bandwidth savings. The only way to "save bandwidth" is to push more data through the same bit rate pipes. So, you admit that there is no bandwidth being saved.
Oh, I see what you're saying. No, there's no bandwidth saved per se. Eastern Arc simply adds MORE bandwidth than what they had before from Western/split arc setups.

I was thinking in terms of bandwidth saved vs. if they had only one arc. Neither DISH arc has enough bandwidth to serve the whole country, even if either of them had a decent "view" of the whole country...
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 05:19 AM   #172
Series3Sub
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 594
Still a bit off topic, but the Dish's dual arc is a temporary solution (for many years to come--should it still be a major DBS by then, most likely owned by Verizon by then) and not an efficient one. The big plan is to bring everything back to 110/119 and TWEENERS, and better compression technology such as Broadcom's new encoding tech that can send 4K over existing internet to the home or the next MPEG (still being worked on, I think) with performance at least as good as Broadcom's. Most of the EA is LEASED slots with one being for Dish Mexico and owned by Echostar, I think. The HD sat at 129 for the WA is also leased and must return for Canadian use after the 15 year lease ends.

The EA was created primarily because some parts of the east coast are NOT able to see 129 (used mostly for HD) and Dish simply did not have the bandwidth at its legacy WA to meet the requirement of must carry rules. That is an unacceptable business situation. The dual arc was a compromise because Dish could not acquire other slots closer to its legacy WA and the FCC was holding those precious "tweener" slots for the failed Spectrum 5 (114 was one of those slots), so Dish had to do a dual arc. Now, it seems Dish may get 114 after all. The tweeners and the jump in encoding tech well see every thing back to the WA arc, but that is years away. For what it is worth, DirecTV continues to hold and "use" transponders at 110 (only a few) and 119 (something like 10) that are Dish's primary sat slots. So Dish doesn't even have all the bandwidth at those slots.
Series3Sub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2014, 12:19 PM   #173
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Series3Sub View Post
Still a bit off topic, but the Dish's dual arc is a temporary solution (for many years to come--should it still be a major DBS by then, most likely owned by Verizon by then) and not an efficient one. The big plan is to bring everything back to 110/119 and TWEENERS, and better compression technology such as Broadcom's new encoding tech that can send 4K over existing internet to the home or the next MPEG (still being worked on, I think) with performance at least as good as Broadcom's. Most of the EA is LEASED slots with one being for Dish Mexico and owned by Echostar, I think. The HD sat at 129 for the WA is also leased and must return for Canadian use after the 15 year lease ends.

The EA was created primarily because some parts of the east coast are NOT able to see 129 (used mostly for HD) and Dish simply did not have the bandwidth at its legacy WA to meet the requirement of must carry rules. That is an unacceptable business situation. The dual arc was a compromise because Dish could not acquire other slots closer to its legacy WA and the FCC was holding those precious "tweener" slots for the failed Spectrum 5 (114 was one of those slots), so Dish had to do a dual arc. Now, it seems Dish may get 114 after all. The tweeners and the jump in encoding tech well see every thing back to the WA arc, but that is years away. For what it is worth, DirecTV continues to hold and "use" transponders at 110 (only a few) and 119 (something like 10) that are Dish's primary sat slots. So Dish doesn't even have all the bandwidth at those slots.
What the heck are the Canadians going to do with 129? It's so far west, it can't serve Toronto or Montreal, so it can really only serve Vancouver. They'll keep leasing to DISH. For east coast markets, EA is a big deal, and I doubt that they're going to let it go anywhere.

DirecTV has Spanish language stuff on 119, I thought 110 is empty now? They had HD up until 2008 when it moved over to 99c/103c.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2014, 10:15 PM   #174
trip1eX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
You're totally missing the point here. There are a ton of DMAs out there, and if you can feed one from EA, and the neighboring one from WA, you save a LOT of bandwidth. Since you can do this for much of the eastern part of the US (south and west of OH/WV/VA basically), the bandwidth savings are rather large. Obviously spot beams aren't perfect so you can't re-use the same bandwidth on the same satellite for two neighboring DMAs, and sometimes for several DMAs, since the shape of the spots is determined by the angle of the satellite to the earth, and often has a totally different shape than the DMA.



The problem is that U-Verse was engineered to equal cable in 2010, maybe 2011. It's now falling behind, and with 4k video and bigger DVRs (through the MSOs) just starting to come out, it's rapidly going to fall farther behind.

It could find a place in the market at a much lower price point, the problem is with a video service, there isn't much room to price lower, as the carriage fees are so absurdly high just to get the content.

Fiber isn't that much better than coax, but the phone companies don't have coax, so they have to go to fiber. FTTN just isn't good enough to compete with where coax is going.



The people who are sharing internet connections are already doing it with 50+mbps cable connections. Most people don't as it's a bit tricky to set up, and people are concerned about privacy/security/liability with other people on their connection.



No one really needs a gigabit. But your home internet connection not being the bottleneck for anything would sure be nice. Upload speeds are also far better than what we have today.



The thing is, it will take years just for the wireless companies to dig out of their current bandwidth crunch, and to keep up with the rising demand for mobile video applications. At the same time, home video bandwidth consumption will just keep going up with more streaming and 4k. Looking into the future, there will be even more of a gulf between wireless and wireline, not less.



Some people use LTE as their main connection, but the plans are heavily capped, and have to be, as peak speeds are similar to cable, but the capacity just isn't there. Anything more that very light, casual use is just too much for wireless networks to handle.



I know. But if you amortize over 5 years, or even 10 years, of course a fiber network is going to lose money. They make good returns on a 30-year amortization.



Also, bringing video in via satellite won't help what internet packages they can offer, as they already share bandwidth between the two sides via QoS.

They can't compete with their ancient copper networks. It's do or die, and they don't seem to understand this basic concept because of their childish outlook on long-term investments in infrastructure.

Wireless and wireline are two different things. They should be investing in them and operating them as separate, profitable businesses, not bleeding wireline dry for wireless and basically just putting it out there to die. Unfortunately, regulators are just letting them let their phone networks die. It should be like use it or lose it- upgrade you network or lose it to someone who will.



You have it all backwards. Wireless networks are going to offload congested wireless networks. Your thought process is basically saying that the traffic is going to bypass the giant 16-lane highway for little, congested main street, and that doesn't even factor in the expense of mobile data, specifically because it is narrow and congested.



That doesn't work when you have 10GB of shared data or something vs. 300GB+ on a home connection.



They are being extremely short sighted. If they weren't they would be laying as much fiber as they could ever year until their entire network was fiber, and all the copper could be eliminated.



You're not looking at the long-term viability of these businesses. Copper landlines have no long-term viability. They are too small a pipe. These companies need a bigger pipe. FIOS was Verizon's answer, but they only built it out something like halfway and then gave up, because they got a new CEO who thinks like child, not the far more adult-like CEO they had previously. If your current method of doing things has ZERO long-term viability, you have no option but to do something else. And that's what FIOS is. U-Verse is a little more muddy, as it's sort of a stop-gap technology that sort of works now, but it clearly headed for obsolescence unless the platform is switched over to a physical fiber infrastructure.
It's never been an argument that copper isn't crap. The issue is whether it is worth it to build out a fiber to the home network. ...whether it is a good investment or not. There is a difference. And really the issue is more whether VZ should be concentrating on wireless now or fiber buildout. I don't think they closed the door on fiber so much as said hey, wireless is so much better for us. Mobile data is exploding. I don't think that's childish or short sighted.

And there is a difference between building out a fiber to home network in a vacuum with no competitors and building one into a market where you have competitors and competitors who will have much lower costs with a good enough network. And that's just cable. There's also satellite for tv.

VZ has a market leading position in wireless and can charge the most because by most accounts they have the best wireless network. I'd probably focus on that too instead of fiber.

Wireless is connected to the 16 lane highways. IT wouldn't replace them. It's about bypassing the congested main street.

It doesn't even have to be cellular. Some form of wifi that covers the "last mile" could take over. And again if Uverse just provides internet and satellite does the video ...down the road then....is that a good enough technology combination for the next 20 years? What would those projected costs and profits be compared to building a fiber to the home network?

And yes your home internet has a much larger data cap today. Of course. Do most people come close to hitting that? What will be the data caps of wireless tomorrow? And the speeds? Will people want to pay 2 internet bills? And what point does the consumer start to say, 'Hey you know what? Wireless internet is good enough for me.'

You don't know.

So stop being so certain of the next 30 years.

Last edited by trip1eX : 06-02-2014 at 10:26 PM.
trip1eX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2014, 01:40 PM   #175
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
I think a lot of the conversation has been focused on the wrong issues. When talking about wireless, we seem to be discussing 4G LTE as the "state of the art." It is not.

LTE as currently implemented by Verizon, AT&T, etc., is a rushed to market version of "real" LTE, which is just now being rolled out as LTE-Advanced.

Beyond LTE-Advanced there are newer spectrum bands (at higher frequencies) that are being developed. While the higher frequencies can support higher bit rates, they don't penetrate buildings as well, making them undesirable for mobile uses but just fine for "pole to home" purposes. Add in some of spectrum manipulation tricks that Artemis and companies like them are building to deliver each user within a cell the full capacity of the link, and there is no longer any need for a wire of any kind running into the home in order to deliver a gigabit connection.

But that is more technology. I direct everyone's attention to the issue of Net Neutrality. The principle that all bits are equal on the internet is about to die at the hands of the FCC. It now seems inevitable that the internet will bifurcate into one layer that everyone has access to and another layer that costs lots and lots of money to use. So, yes, people may prefer to take the crowded local road when the "16 lane superhighway" costs 100 times as much to use. Your subscription to Netflix, Amazon and your cable company's IP delivered content may come over the gigabit link, but most everything else will be coming over a link that will make 4G look as fast as lightning.

No company is going to make a network infrastructure investment that takes 30 years to provide a return on investment. Let's look back at the world of 1984:
  • In January, Apple introduced the Macintosh - the first personal computer with a graphical user interface (although, it was B&W with a resolution of 512x342 pixels) using an 8Mhz 16 bit processor with 128k of RAM for a price of $2495.
  • The fastest communication link available to home users was 1200 baud dial-up modems.
  • Ethernet existed in two forms: Thick Ethernet with vampire taps and transceiver cables, and "Thin-net" Ethernet, running on RG-58, with BNC T-connectors. Maximum speed was 10 megabits/second.
  • IBM introduced the IBM PC/AT, with a 6Mhz 80286 CPU and 640K RAM but no hard drive for around $6000

So if you were making an investment that would pay off in 30 years, what would anyone of thought of back then? 5 years is a long time in IT and telecomm, 10 years is an age. 30 years is literally an eternity. I'll guarantee you that 30 years from now fiber optic cable will NOT be the most commonly used delivery medium for end users. I don't know what it will be, but it will be something no one has thought of yet.
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2014, 09:01 PM   #176
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by trip1eX View Post
It's never been an argument that copper isn't crap. The issue is whether it is worth it to build out a fiber to the home network. ...whether it is a good investment or not. There is a difference. And really the issue is more whether VZ should be concentrating on wireless now or fiber buildout. I don't think they closed the door on fiber so much as said hey, wireless is so much better for us. Mobile data is exploding. I don't think that's childish or short sighted.
One should not come at the expense of the other. Yes, they are one separate company, but they are two different services, and should be invested in separately. Not investing in fiber is childish and short sighted. For the telcos, it's do or die. DSL is already an almost dead technology and no one really wants POTS anymore. U-Verse VDSL is a super expensive way (in the long run) of buying time, as it's already maxed out on bandwidth, and has no room to grow for 4k video or faster internet, or 12-tuner DVRs or anything else.

Quote:
And there is a difference between building out a fiber to home network in a vacuum with no competitors and building one into a market where you have competitors and competitors who will have much lower costs with a good enough network. And that's just cable. There's also satellite for tv.
That's a tough one, as the markets with little competition can easily yield high uptake rates, but competitive markets are key, as the longer they wait, the longer and more entrenched the competitors get.

Quote:
It doesn't even have to be cellular. Some form of wifi that covers the "last mile" could take over. And again if Uverse just provides internet and satellite does the video ...down the road then....is that a good enough technology combination for the next 20 years? What would those projected costs and profits be compared to building a fiber to the home network?
The cost is whether AT&T even wants a seat at the table. U-Verse is maxed out, and they need to do fiber in order to stay competitive. Of course, they should have just done fiber in the first place, as U-Verse is an incredibly expensive and difficult to maintain kludge.

Quote:
And yes your home internet has a much larger data cap today. Of course. Do most people come close to hitting that? What will be the data caps of wireless tomorrow? And the speeds? Will people want to pay 2 internet bills? And what point does the consumer start to say, 'Hey you know what? Wireless internet is good enough for me.'

You don't know.

So stop being so certain of the next 30 years.
There's not enough bandwidth in wireless. All the new bandwidth coming in from technology advances gets eaten up for mobile use. Wireless internet works in extremely rural areas, and basically nowhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
I think a lot of the conversation has been focused on the wrong issues. When talking about wireless, we seem to be discussing 4G LTE as the "state of the art." It is not.

LTE as currently implemented by Verizon, AT&T, etc., is a rushed to market version of "real" LTE, which is just now being rolled out as LTE-Advanced.

Beyond LTE-Advanced there are newer spectrum bands (at higher frequencies) that are being developed. While the higher frequencies can support higher bit rates, they don't penetrate buildings as well, making them undesirable for mobile uses but just fine for "pole to home" purposes. Add in some of spectrum manipulation tricks that Artemis and companies like them are building to deliver each user within a cell the full capacity of the link, and there is no longer any need for a wire of any kind running into the home in order to deliver a gigabit connection.
Yeah, a gigabit connection shared with 10,000 other people. Verizon FIOS has 2.4gbps shared with 32 people, and they can just run more fiber to bring the split ratio down if they want to do gigabit to the home.

Quote:
But that is more technology. I direct everyone's attention to the issue of Net Neutrality. The principle that all bits are equal on the internet is about to die at the hands of the FCC. It now seems inevitable that the internet will bifurcate into one layer that everyone has access to and another layer that costs lots and lots of money to use. So, yes, people may prefer to take the crowded local road when the "16 lane superhighway" costs 100 times as much to use. Your subscription to Netflix, Amazon and your cable company's IP delivered content may come over the gigabit link, but most everything else will be coming over a link that will make 4G look as fast as lightning.
The CDNs will all pay, and we'll all end up paying more for everything, so AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can make more money. Actually, almost all of the CDNs pay for better peering today. It's horrible what the telcos and cable cos are doing, they are basically using mob tactics to extort money out of content providers, but with a non-neutral connection, things aren't just going to slow to a crawl.

Quote:
No company is going to make a network infrastructure investment that takes 30 years to provide a return on investment. Let's look back at the world of 1984:

...

So if you were making an investment that would pay off in 30 years, what would anyone of thought of back then? 5 years is a long time in IT and telecomm, 10 years is an age. 30 years is literally an eternity. I'll guarantee you that 30 years from now fiber optic cable will NOT be the most commonly used delivery medium for end users. I don't know what it will be, but it will be something no one has thought of yet.
It's infrastructure. You can keep swapping out the ends to get faster and faster speeds. Fiber laid many years ago is still in service with equipment that they could only dream of back then. In 30 years, the technology is going to be way better, but it still has to either run over copper (coax) or fiber.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2014, 10:33 AM   #177
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...It's infrastructure. You can keep swapping out the ends to get faster and faster speeds. Fiber laid many years ago is still in service with equipment that they could only dream of back then. In 30 years, the technology is going to be way better, but it still has to either run over copper (coax) or fiber.
Yes, and nearly every company that laid fiber 30 years ago is out of business today. The companies that bought up the fiber assets on the cheap did well, but the actual installers lost their shirts. The economics have not much changed since then. Installing fiber as a backbone network makes money, bringing it to the home costs more than you can possibly recoup unless you have significant market penetration. When Verizon stopped expanding FiOS they had passed 18 million homes with FiOS and only 5 million customers (they are up to around 6 million now). Until they can get another 4 million or so subscribers, they are not getting an acceptable ROI. At the rate they are going, that will take about 4 to 6 years. At that point, they may start expanding again.

The bottom line is they were way too optimistic about the market share they would capture and built out FiOS too quickly. Compare the pace of Google Fiber - they are going much slower having seen what happened with FiOS.
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Last edited by Diana Collins : 06-04-2014 at 10:58 AM.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2014, 11:07 AM   #178
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...Yeah, a gigabit connection shared with 10,000 other people. Verizon FIOS has 2.4gbps shared with 32 people, and they can just run more fiber to bring the split ratio down if they want to do gigabit to the home...
No, a multi-gigabit connection shared with a few hundred households. What AT&T has shown is that running fiber to the neighborhood makes financial sense. Verizon has shown that running it to the premises is a much harder model. The major cost is the labor (my original FiOS install took all day). However, if you service those homes wirelessly, then all you have to do is drop ship the customer a receiver. Just like satellite transmissions are able to reuse frequencies by employing vertical, horizontal, left hand circular and right hand circular polarization, there are techniques being developed to allow multiple clients on the same frequency without the sharing of the allocated bandwidth (this is what Artemis has already demonstrated).
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2014, 04:20 PM   #179
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
Yes, and nearly every company that laid fiber 30 years ago is out of business today. The companies that bought up the fiber assets on the cheap did well, but the actual installers lost their shirts. The economics have not much changed since then. Installing fiber as a backbone network makes money, bringing it to the home costs more than you can possibly recoup unless you have significant market penetration. When Verizon stopped expanding FiOS they had passed 18 million homes with FiOS and only 5 million customers (they are up to around 6 million now). Until they can get another 4 million or so subscribers, they are not getting an acceptable ROI. At the rate they are going, that will take about 4 to 6 years. At that point, they may start expanding again.

The bottom line is they were way too optimistic about the market share they would capture and built out FiOS too quickly. Compare the pace of Google Fiber - they are going much slower having seen what happened with FiOS.
Verizon is already making good money off of FIOS, and they would do even better if they actually wanted to actively compete with cable, not just be a "me too" kind of product like they are now. The only way FIOS is losing money is if you do some phony accounting and amortize the physical fiber infrastructure over a very short period of time like 5 or 10 years. If you amortize it correctly, FIOS is doing quite well. The difference in backbone and last-mile fiber is that Verizon is a duopoly player (if you count cable), whereas the backbone providers way over-built, and then technology made a lot of that fiber useless (at least for long enough for the companies to go under).

Google Fiber is a totally different business model, and a totally different goal.

If AT&T had done U-Verse the right way and done fiber from the get-go, they would have a larger market share than they do, both because they wouldn't be subject to the ~3000' and ~5000' (single pair and pair bonded) limitations of VDSL, and because they could deliver a better product. They would also have saved the billions that they threw away on upgrading their 100-year-old copper network, and maintaining the kludge that U-Verse created.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Collins View Post
No, a multi-gigabit connection shared with a few hundred households.
I was referring to your references to wireless, which are ridiculous. Cellular towers can serve thousands of people. The only place that cellular can possibly replace wireline is in very rural areas, with a lot of LTE spectrum, and with DBS for the video side of things.

Quote:
What AT&T has shown is that running fiber to the neighborhood makes financial sense. Verizon has shown that running it to the premises is a much harder model. The major cost is the labor (my original FiOS install took all day). However, if you service those homes wirelessly, then all you have to do is drop ship the customer a receiver. Just like satellite transmissions are able to reuse frequencies by employing vertical, horizontal, left hand circular and right hand circular polarization, there are techniques being developed to allow multiple clients on the same frequency without the sharing of the allocated bandwidth (this is what Artemis has already demonstrated).
It's not physically possible to push that much bandwidth through the air, and it won't be for a long, long time. And even then, as wireless technologies have gotten faster and faster and faster, they still aren't that reliable. Signals still drop and get interrupted. Wired technologies don't. Fast Ethernet was far superior to 802.11b more than a decade ago, and today, Gigabit Ethernet is still far superior to 802.11n or 802.11ac.

AT&T screwed up bigtime. They built a kludge that's already completely out of bandwidth, while their cable competitors are having fun torturing AT&T by slowly turning the heat up. AT&T just keeps trying to add to the big kludge that they have already wasted billions on, and spend millions upon millions maintaining every year instead of doing it the right way and running GPON fiber.
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2014, 04:54 PM   #180
Diana Collins
Registered User
 
Diana Collins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New York City Suburbs
Posts: 1,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
Verizon is already making good money off of FIOS, and they would do even better if they actually wanted to actively compete with cable, not just be a "me too" kind of product like they are now. The only way FIOS is losing money is if you do some phony accounting and amortize the physical fiber infrastructure over a very short period of time like 5 or 10 years. If you amortize it correctly, FIOS is doing quite well. The difference in backbone and last-mile fiber is that Verizon is a duopoly player (if you count cable), whereas the backbone providers way over-built, and then technology made a lot of that fiber useless (at least for long enough for the companies to go under)...
First of all, you don't "amortize" an asset, you amortize debt. You depreciate an asset. Both have very specific rules under GAAP. However, neither are what is relevant here. What you are calling "amortization" is actually Return On Investment (ROI). ROI is calculated using a variety of factors including cost of money, opportunity cost and others. Again, there are accounting rules - companies, particularly public ones like Verizon, can't just make this stuff up. The fact is that the ROI on fiber to the premises is poor...less that could be earned by simply putting the money in the bank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
..I was referring to your references to wireless, which are ridiculous. Cellular towers can serve thousands of people. The only place that cellular can possibly replace wireline is in very rural areas, with a lot of LTE spectrum, and with DBS for the video side of things...
Wireless is not just cellular. You continue to insist that the it will be years and years before anything faster than LTE is available. Of course, faster wireless options exist today. While the implementation costs is probably as high as fiber to the home, 802.11ad can deliver over 6 gigabits/per second. You seem to be stuck thinking of wireless as strictly one session per channel. There are so many ways to slice up a channel, without reducing effective throughput on any session, to list them all would take pages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...It's not physically possible to push that much bandwidth through the air, and it won't be for a long, long time. And even then, as wireless technologies have gotten faster and faster and faster, they still aren't that reliable. Signals still drop and get interrupted. Wired technologies don't. Fast Ethernet was far superior to 802.11b more than a decade ago, and today, Gigabit Ethernet is still far superior to 802.11n or 802.11ac...
Sorry, you are wrong...you can push that much bandwidth through the air, and you can do it today (at a price). The only challenge is to make it economical and consumer oriented - neither of which are years long processes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
...AT&T screwed up bigtime. They built a kludge that's already completely out of bandwidth, while their cable competitors are having fun torturing AT&T by slowly turning the heat up. AT&T just keeps trying to add to the big kludge that they have already wasted billions on, and spend millions upon millions maintaining every year instead of doing it the right way and running GPON fiber.
So, how many multi-billion dollar telecommunications companies have you run? It is easy to play Monday morning quarterback. AT&T did what they could with they what had and the resources they were willing to spend. Last time I checked, AT&T as a whole was doing rather well. Their business doesn't start and end with UVerse. At the rate people are dropping traditional POTS service AT&T could probably solve a lot of their last mile problems bonding multiple pairs together. Even with their problems, UVerse is growing, while the cable companies that are "torturing" them continue to lose subscribers.

But they and Verizon have both, independently, come to the conclusion that wireless transmission of some form will have better ROI than pulling more cable. You may think you're smarter that they are, and smarter than the rest of us, and you may be right...but I wouldn't bet on it.
__________________
Current Setup: 2 Roamio Pros, 5 Minis on FiOS (all with lifetime)

Moderator, DBSDish.com 1999-2000
Co-Founder and Administrator, DBSForums.com 2000-2006

Last edited by Diana Collins : 06-04-2014 at 05:07 PM.
Diana Collins is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVoŽ is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |