Comcast Technology Topic - Page 40 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 36Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-25-2016, 10:03 AM
Member
 
a68oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Castle, IN
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerodynamics View Post
I am building an HTPC and considering a Ceton InfiniTV in an attempt to consolidate equipment. Before committing, I would like to try out a cablecard while still using our X1 stb. We have only one stb and one outlet. Is it possible to use the cablecard and stb at the same time on the same outlet, perhaps with a splitter? And what would this do to our billing?
efball may be paying only $1.50 for a 2nd cablecard but that is not the way the Comcast help pages explain it. In my market I previously had to pay for a 2nd outlet (approx. $9-$11) for a 2nd device. A 2nd outlet includes a cablecard and converter box. Since you don't need their converter box, they give you a $2.50 credit for customer owned equipment. The $1.50 2nd cablecard charge is for a 2nd cablecard in the SAME device. This applied to the original Tivo 3 which required 2 cards. I have since upgraded my Tivo and now pay for only one outlet


I tried to find the relevant FAQ pages but they seem to be offline at the moment. Log in to your account and search for cablecard and see if you can get anything to come up.


Keep in mind that Comcast has gobbled up hundreds of different cable system across the country and the billing is not uniform. But the FAQ pages explain how it is supposed to be billed. YMMV


You can still split your cable and feed your 2nd device, but the cablecard has to be authorized/activated which they will see as a 2nd device and charge you.

Alan Oliver
Tivo user since May 2000
a68oliver is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 06-26-2016, 07:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Yeah, Comcast is a mess. They have different billing practices in different markets, some markets have the new "unified" channel lineup while others don't, some systems in a given market have been rebuilt, some haven't. If they had serious competition in a large part of their footprint they would either radically change their business practices, or they would go bankrupt. They survive only as a monopoly who people have no choice but to subscribe to and deal with their utter and total incompetence.
Rudy1, sgbroimp, bac522 and 1 others like this.
BiggAW is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 09:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sgbroimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: CT Shore
Posts: 1,048
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Yeah, Comcast is a mess. They have different billing practices in different markets, some markets have the new "unified" channel lineup while others don't, some systems in a given market have been rebuilt, some haven't. If they had serious competition in a large part of their footprint they would either radically change their business practices, or they would go bankrupt. They survive only as a monopoly who people have no choice but to subscribe to and deal with their utter and total incompetence.
Even with a lot of rehearsing, I could not have stated that better..............
bac522 and BiggAW like this.
sgbroimp is offline  
Old 06-28-2016, 06:58 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Comcast: Prepping Next-Gen Video Services
In this LRTV interview, Comcast's Elad Nafshi outlines where MSO stands with cloud DVR, OTT video, college and gigabit services.

http://www.lightreading.com/video/vi...v/d-id/724383?
PaulGo is online now  
Old 06-29-2016, 02:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bac522's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgbroimp View Post
Even with a lot of rehearsing, I could not have stated that better..............
Second that...
BiggAW likes this.

Last edited by bac522; 06-29-2016 at 02:44 AM.
bac522 is online now  
Old 07-03-2016, 07:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
timc1475's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Illinois USA
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 629 Post(s)
Liked: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
Comcast: Prepping Next-Gen Video Services
In this LRTV interview, Comcast's Elad Nafshi outlines where MSO stands with cloud DVR, OTT video, college and gigabit services.

http://www.lightreading.com/video/vi...v/d-id/724383?
Insightful video thanks! Although "Mr. Elad" needs to look into the camera at this level when promoting Comcast instead of the interviewer so much. IMO

I spoke with a Comcast rep yesterday about when their rollout for the xi5 & xi6 box & Docsis 3.1 would be.

Surprisingly I was told the xi6 Comcast surrogate box to compliment the xfinity current box which is 4k & HDR capable will be available for my area this upcoming week. He said I should receive an email with further information. AFAIK the xi5 was to come first but we'll see...

I found two articles online I'll list below that add to the info.

Docsis 3.1 rollout he said will be next month for Illinois, again info should be forthcoming via email. Interesting to me is that this modem will have speeds of 1 gig down & 35 mgb up all on existing cable lines & infrastructure. Not to be outdone by Google optical fibre networks slowly creeping around, Comcast also is trickling that service as well which is capable of 2 gigs u & down.

As streaming services utilizing 4k & HDR elevate this added internet speed will be needed to move those massive data bits from point A to B & back. IMO

We all know the reps are not always spot on regarding correct information but time will tell.

Docsis 3.1 Link: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/com...nta/2016-03-15

xi5 Link: http://www.multichannel.com/news/cab...ble-box/405030

Samsung 78JS9500 Main Living Room / Sony XBR-55X850c Basement

Last edited by timc1475; 07-03-2016 at 07:45 AM.
timc1475 is offline  
Old 07-03-2016, 08:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 42
From my understanding the Xi5 should be available in limited areas during the month of July and the Xi6 should be available next year (2017).
PaulGo is online now  
Old 07-03-2016, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by timc1475 View Post
Insightful video thanks! Although "Mr. Elad" needs to look into the camera at this level when promoting Comcast instead of the interviewer so much. IMO

I spoke with a Comcast rep yesterday about when their rollout for the xi5 & xi6 box & Docsis 3.1 would be.

Surprisingly I was told the xi6 Comcast surrogate box to compliment the xfinity current box which is 4k & HDR capable will be available for my area this upcoming week. He said I should receive an email with further information. AFAIK the xi5 was to come first but we'll see...

I found two articles online I'll list below that add to the info.

Docsis 3.1 rollout he said will be next month for Illinois, again info should be forthcoming via email. Interesting to me is that this modem will have speeds of 1 gig down & 35 mgb up all on existing cable lines & infrastructure. Not to be outdone by Google optical fibre networks slowly creeping around, Comcast also is trickling that service as well which is capable of 2 gigs u & down.

As streaming services utilizing 4k & HDR elevate this added internet speed will be needed to move those massive data bits from point A to B & back. IMO

We all know the reps are not always spot on regarding correct information but time will tell.

Docsis 3.1 Link: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/com...nta/2016-03-15

xi5 Link: http://www.multichannel.com/news/cab...ble-box/405030
A lot of this discussion is way beyond my comprehension!

One point-if I heard and understood correctly, ALL existing cable lines are really capable of delivering a speed of 1G or even faster!

Question, wouldn't a speed of even one 10th of that be able to deliver 2 4K quality streams to a home?
If I heard correctly, the "up" speed will increase from its currently pitiful 5mbps to 35.

What I don't understand at all is what other features there are other than speed in the new systems they are proposing. I understand the current X1 system stores your recordings in the cloud, not in a box in your home. Here is where I am confused. Is Comcast saying, you can download what you have stored in the cloud to devices like your tablet so you can watch it anywhere?

We have two homes. One has an almost complete package of most of their offerings via package through the HOA. The other home, we can carry just the basic package, although we also have to pay for the DVR. We can watch many live channels via XfinityGo that aren't on the basic pkg.. We can also watch many other channels via streaming like HBO, Showtime, AMC, espn, etc.

We "dial up" these programs via a laptop and cast it via chrome cast to our plasma screen. What is really missed (if we did not have a DVR) is the ability to pause and resume the live and streaming feeds by using a remote. Our DVR remotes get a real workout-especially the 30 second skip button.

I guess what I am asking is - can/will we be able to not have overlapping subscriptions for service?

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment I may receive
snidely is offline  
Old 07-04-2016, 07:34 AM
Member
 
nrs111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Thinking of switching from DirecTv/ Frontier Uverse internet to Comcast. Are the different models numbers (Xi5 or 6) clearly labeled on the boxes? Don't trust what I'm being told on the phone.
nrs111 is online now  
Old 07-04-2016, 09:39 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 42
All of the X1 boxes that I am familiar with have the model number on the box. You cannot have any of the Xi3,5 or 6 boxes without a XG1 or an XG2v2 box since these boxes do not have tuners and rely on the tuner built into the XG1 (DVR) or XG2v2 (non-DVR) boxes.
PaulGo is online now  
Old 07-04-2016, 11:45 AM
Member
 
nrs111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
All of the X1 boxes that I am familiar with have the model number on the box. You cannot have any of the Xi3,5 or 6 boxes without a XG1 or an XG2v2 box since these boxes do not have tuners and rely on the tuner built into the XG1 (DVR) or XG2v2 (non-DVR) boxes.

Thanks for the help!
nrs111 is online now  
Old 07-04-2016, 12:01 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,870
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrs111 View Post
Thanks for the help!
I just checked my Xi3 and although it has a model number it is not "Xi3" but a Pace model number. So the Comcast designated model number may not be on the X1 box.
nrs111 likes this.
PaulGo is online now  
Old 07-05-2016, 11:47 AM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Like I said, they make a profit, but it's not that big. If they charged a whole lot less, they would lose money. That's called business 101.
You still seem to be missing the $390 MILLION part.


Quote:
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Linear QAM channels are inherently limited because they are linear broadcast channels. Internet bandwidth for streaming 4k can be increased by adding more DOCSIS QAMs (or a wider DOCSIS 3.1 band), or by splitting nodes, and pushing fiber deeper and deeper into the field, to get the to the eventual N+0 node configuration. The newer systems with deep fiber and 16 or more DOCSIS QAMs would do pretty well with more 4k. The older systems with only 8 DOCSIS QAMs would probably clog up quite a bit, although with some smart node splits they would probably be fine. But they are freeing up bandwidth for DOCSIS 3.1 anyway, which will add a TON of HSI capacity, and they will continue to push fiber deeper into the field. What remains to be seen is what happens to old <750mhz systems. Eventually, all systems will just be all DOCSIS 3.1, with small nodes, so it won't matter if you're watching Comcast IPTV, streaming OTT SVOD, or doing anything else that uses bandwidth. It will all just be bits and bytes, and when they no longer have linear channels, if more people watch OTT SVOD, then less people will be watching IPTV, so there will be more bandwidth available for it.
I'm not really comparing apples to oranges. Everything still comes down to bits moving across Comcast's network infrastructure. There certainly are differences in the specifics of how internet gets delivered vs regular cable TV but it honestly doesn't matter. It's still all coming down the same pipe (either at the fiber level or coax level) and that pipe can only handle so many bits at any one time. There is also the issue the coax can only handle so much which means Comcast would either have to run fiber to every home(good luck with that ever happening) or transfer all regular TV service to an IPTV based system.
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-05-2016, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
You still seem to be missing the $390 MILLION part.

I'm not really comparing apples to oranges. Everything still comes down to bits moving across Comcast's network infrastructure. There certainly are differences in the specifics of how internet gets delivered vs regular cable TV but it honestly doesn't matter. It's still all coming down the same pipe (either at the fiber level or coax level) and that pipe can only handle so many bits at any one time. There is also the issue the coax can only handle so much which means Comcast would either have to run fiber to every home(good luck with that ever happening) or transfer all regular TV service to an IPTV based system.
TiVo is not very profitable relative to it's size, so cutting the price on their boxes significantly would be a really stupid move.

It absolutely is apples and oranges. QAM is separate from IP, and IP is way more efficient when you're looking at HEVC. HFC could carry around 10gbps of bandwidth per node with DOCSIS 3.1 if it were all-IP, around 5-6gbps on DOCSIS 3. So it's just a matter of how they use that capacity. When you're N+0, you're looking at dozens of houses per node, so they have as much bandwidth as fiber, and certainly more than enough for 4k TV at scale. Everything converts to copper eventually, FTTH just does it at your house. Deep-fiber HFC does it at the neighborhood level, but provides a ton of bandwidth while doing it. It's all a matter of how much they want to invest in their systems.
BiggAW is offline  
Old 07-05-2016, 05:59 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
TiVo is not very profitable relative to it's size, so cutting the price on their boxes significantly would be a really stupid move.
Once again you are totally ignoring what I'm saying. At $850 for the box and "service" TiVo is making several hundred per box. Even with low volume that's still a lot of money.

It just doesn't cost anywhere close to $850 to make a TiVo and that includes hardware, legal fees, software development, guide data(which TiVo likely doesn't pay for anyways). If TiVo only made $50/box profit (which is ABSOLUTELY not the case) it would still profit over $25 MILLION a year. Relative to its size I'd call that pretty damn profitable and the actual profit has to be way more than that.

Quote:
It absolutely is apples and oranges. QAM is separate from IP, and IP is way more efficient when you're looking at HEVC. HFC could carry around 10gbps of bandwidth per node with DOCSIS 3.1 if it were all-IP, around 5-6gbps on DOCSIS 3. So it's just a matter of how they use that capacity. When you're N+0, you're looking at dozens of houses per node, so they have as much bandwidth as fiber, and certainly more than enough for 4k TV at scale. Everything converts to copper eventually, FTTH just does it at your house. Deep-fiber HFC does it at the neighborhood level, but provides a ton of bandwidth while doing it. It's all a matter of how much they want to invest in their systems.
Again, not apples to oranges comparison. The physical network infrastructure(fiber lines, coax, routers, etc) can only handle so much bandwidth. In that sense QAM and IP doesn't matter. It's all ONE PIPE. You certainly are correct that there are more efficient ways to use that pipe but it still is just ONE PIPE. Also, Comcast still has millions of customers using regular cable and while a fair number of people are dropping regular cable in favor of streaming there are still millions that aren't. Regular cable TV is QAM so freeing up that bandwidth to use more efficiently isn't going to be easy.

Sure, DOCSIS 3.1 might allow for 10Gbps but how many homes do you think are using that 10Gbps? If you ever look at Comcast internet plans it always says "UP TO" a certain speed.

In some areas Comcast offers a 2Gbps internet plan (if you are willing to pay $300/month) but guess what happens if lots of people in your area start streaming? That 2Gbps drops quickly. And if a large number of those streaming in your area are doing so in 4K? It drops A LOT. If enough other customers start putting a lot of stress on the network your 2Gbps will be FAR less than that.

Again, it's all ONE PIPE. Why do you think regular cable TV from Comcast looks so bad? It has to compress the hell out of the regular cable(QAM) to free up bandwidth on that ONE PIPE to allow for other things like 2Gpbs internet connections.

IT'S. ALL. ONE. PIPE.
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-05-2016, 06:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
Once again you are totally ignoring what I'm saying. At $850 for the box and "service" TiVo is making several hundred per box. Even with low volume that's still a lot of money.

It just doesn't cost anywhere close to $850 to make a TiVo and that includes hardware, legal fees, software development, guide data(which TiVo likely doesn't pay for anyways). If TiVo only made $50/box profit (which is ABSOLUTELY not the case) it would still profit over $25 MILLION a year. Relative to its size I'd call that pretty damn profitable and the actual profit has to be way more than that.
"Making". They have to run their office, pay their employees, pay overhead, marketing, etc, etc.

Quote:
Again, not apples to oranges comparison. The physical network infrastructure(fiber lines, coax, routers, etc) can only handle so much bandwidth. In that sense QAM and IP doesn't matter. It's all ONE PIPE. You certainly are correct that there are more efficient ways to use that pipe but it still is just ONE PIPE. Also, Comcast still has millions of customers using regular cable and while a fair number of people are dropping regular cable in favor of streaming there are still millions that aren't. Regular cable TV is QAM so freeing up that bandwidth to use more efficiently isn't going to be easy.

Sure, DOCSIS 3.1 might allow for 10Gbps but how many homes do you think are using that 10Gbps? If you ever look at Comcast internet plans it always says "UP TO" a certain speed.

In some areas Comcast offers a 2Gbps internet plan (if you are willing to pay $300/month) but guess what happens if lots of people in your area start streaming? That 2Gbps drops quickly. And if a large number of those streaming in your area are doing so in 4K? It drops A LOT. If enough other customers start putting a lot of stress on the network your 2Gbps will be FAR less than that.

Again, it's all ONE PIPE. Why do you think regular cable TV from Comcast looks so bad? It has to compress the hell out of the regular cable(QAM) to free up bandwidth on that ONE PIPE to allow for other things like 2Gpbs internet connections.

IT'S. ALL. ONE. PIPE.
It's absolutely apples to oranges. Comparing QAM bandwidth, which on Comcast is entirely linear to IP bandwidth is just nonsense. Right now, they are capacity constrained because they are still using a system that broadcasts channels out over QAM, and hasn't fundamentally changed since the days of analog one-way RF plants, even though most of the actual transmission today is over fiber to HFC nodes, with a relatively small portion of the trip on actual coax wire. Once you move into an IP world, and do everything over IP, suddenly you have no limits on the number of channels offered, 4k content, etc, etc, since it's basically a shared bandwidth pipe to a small number of homes, and they can use it for whatever they want. If a plant has 10gbps downstream, some houses might be watching 4k IPTV, while others are pulling games off of Steam at 1gbps.

IPTV isn't going to come in one fell swoop. You make it sound like I'm suggesting Comcast get out of the TV business, which is absurd. They will migrate over time, just as they migrated from analog to digital, from QAM to IPTV, and most customers who already have IP-capable boxes, won't notice the difference, except maybe a gateway to allow current generation hardware to use DOCSIS 3.1 bandwidth. How fast they go depends on how much they want to spend putting gateways out, and replacing old non-IPTV enabled boxes. My guess is that within a year, we see 4k delivered over IPTV on DOCSIS 3.1-capable plants, with new X1 boxes that have DOCSIS 3.1 modems in them. They could deliver IPTV today to X1 boxes with their built-in DOCSIS 3 modems. Over time, they will eventually move to an entirely IP delivery system with the entire 50-860mhz in one giant DOCSIS 3.1 block.

The cable TV business has jack **** to do with whether it's IP delivered or QAM delivered. U-Verse and VantgeTV use IPTV, while Comcast uses QAM. They compete against each other. The cable TV business will go on with IPTV delivery, and most users won't be the wiser, since they had no clue what QAM was in the first place.

DOCSIS 3.1 will likely be delivered with plans up to 1gbps, and as they expand the amount of bandwidth on the plant, that will allow IPTV and gigabit internet for dozens of houses to be provided on a single node.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The 2gbps plan has jack **** to do with the HFC plant, since it is delivered via Metro-E, and provides effectively dedicated bandwidth on a 10gbE MetroE link back to Comcast's network. It will NOT slow down no matter how many people hammer it, and it's fundamentally MetroE, not a shared HFC product. Yes, HFC can slow down with heavy congestion, and it does on my node, but I live in just about a worst case scenario in an area with a ton of apartments on a node that's on a 625mhz plant with only 8 DOCSIS QAMs. In most areas, it's blazing fast 24/7, and even for me, the worst I've ever seen could still sustain 2 UHD streams at once.

Yes, they have to compress their QAM-based video heavily so that they have room for HSI, but definitely not for 2gbps connections, since those don't exist on HFC. The biggest reason that they have to compress so much is that they refuse to use SDV, which has been offering the same fundamental bandwidth advantages as IP for a long time, just without the same flexibility of large bandwidth blocks and newer compression that IP-based systems use. Their transition to MPEG-4 has been to accommodate 1gbps HFC-based DOCSIS 3.1 internet offerings, but the quality hasn't really changed. It was crap before, and it's still crap. 4 HD is way too many for MPEG-2, and 10 HDs is way too many for MPEG-4, even with the insane bandwidth savings they are getting out of more advanced statistical multiplexers.
BiggAW is offline  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:26 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
"Making". They have to run their office, pay their employees, pay overhead, marketing, etc, etc.
Yes, I know there are other costs. I considered that. All of that still doesn't account for over $500 MILLION($390 MILLION after hardware production costs) of revenue a year.


Quote:
It's absolutely apples to oranges. Comparing QAM bandwidth, which on Comcast is entirely linear to IP bandwidth is just nonsense. Right now, they are capacity constrained because they are still using a system that broadcasts channels out over QAM, and hasn't fundamentally changed since the days of analog one-way RF plants, even though most of the actual transmission today is over fiber to HFC nodes, with a relatively small portion of the trip on actual coax wire. Once you move into an IP world, and do everything over IP, suddenly you have no limits on the number of channels offered, 4k content, etc, etc, since it's basically a shared bandwidth pipe to a small number of homes, and they can use it for whatever they want. If a plant has 10gbps downstream, some houses might be watching 4k IPTV, while others are pulling games off of Steam at 1gbps.

IPTV isn't going to come in one fell swoop. You make it sound like I'm suggesting Comcast get out of the TV business, which is absurd. They will migrate over time, just as they migrated from analog to digital, from QAM to IPTV, and most customers who already have IP-capable boxes, won't notice the difference, except maybe a gateway to allow current generation hardware to use DOCSIS 3.1 bandwidth. How fast they go depends on how much they want to spend putting gateways out, and replacing old non-IPTV enabled boxes. My guess is that within a year, we see 4k delivered over IPTV on DOCSIS 3.1-capable plants, with new X1 boxes that have DOCSIS 3.1 modems in them. They could deliver IPTV today to X1 boxes with their built-in DOCSIS 3 modems. Over time, they will eventually move to an entirely IP delivery system with the entire 50-860mhz in one giant DOCSIS 3.1 block.

The cable TV business has jack **** to do with whether it's IP delivered or QAM delivered. U-Verse and VantgeTV use IPTV, while Comcast uses QAM. They compete against each other. The cable TV business will go on with IPTV delivery, and most users won't be the wiser, since they had no clue what QAM was in the first place.

DOCSIS 3.1 will likely be delivered with plans up to 1gbps, and as they expand the amount of bandwidth on the plant, that will allow IPTV and gigabit internet for dozens of houses to be provided on a single node.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The 2gbps plan has jack **** to do with the HFC plant, since it is delivered via Metro-E, and provides effectively dedicated bandwidth on a 10gbE MetroE link back to Comcast's network. It will NOT slow down no matter how many people hammer it, and it's fundamentally MetroE, not a shared HFC product. Yes, HFC can slow down with heavy congestion, and it does on my node, but I live in just about a worst case scenario in an area with a ton of apartments on a node that's on a 625mhz plant with only 8 DOCSIS QAMs. In most areas, it's blazing fast 24/7, and even for me, the worst I've ever seen could still sustain 2 UHD streams at once.

Yes, they have to compress their QAM-based video heavily so that they have room for HSI, but definitely not for 2gbps connections, since those don't exist on HFC. The biggest reason that they have to compress so much is that they refuse to use SDV, which has been offering the same fundamental bandwidth advantages as IP for a long time, just without the same flexibility of large bandwidth blocks and newer compression that IP-based systems use. Their transition to MPEG-4 has been to accommodate 1gbps HFC-based DOCSIS 3.1 internet offerings, but the quality hasn't really changed. It was crap before, and it's still crap. 4 HD is way too many for MPEG-2, and 10 HDs is way too many for MPEG-4, even with the insane bandwidth savings they are getting out of more advanced statistical multiplexers.
Yes, IP and QAM work different. I get that. But they are still using ONE PIPE. Changing from QAM to IP might fix the problem but, like you said, "IPTV isn't going to come in one fell swoop". QAM isn't going anywhere anytime soon. All users will be affected, they may not know what QAM or IP is but they will all have to get new boxes. Don't you remember how long it took to transition from analog to digital? The same thing will be necessary of ALL Comcast users. Same thing for any TiVo users using Comcast. Which also goes back to one of my points about the downsides of TiVo. Someone bought a new TiVo recently and Comcast switches over to IP. Their TiVo is now useless. They'll have to buy a new TiVo...and lifetime "service". I could just go to Comcast and swap my X1 box for a new one that uses IP instead of QAM.

As far as the 2Gbps connections maybe my research on what HFC means is wrong but everything I've found says that "HFC" stands for hybrid fiber-coaxial. That indicates to me that at least part of the connection is traveling over coax. The so called "last mile". So, if the 2Gbps connection doesn't use HFC then wouldn't that mean it would require FTTH? I can currently get the 2Gbps connection(if I was willing to spend $300/month) and I'm 100% sure I don't have fiber coming into my home and I was told by Comcast that no special installation was needed.

Regardless of what can or will be done in the coming years the fact of the matter is that the state of the Comcast network RIGHT NOW can't handle mass usage of 4K. I never said it wouldn't ever be the case. I'm just saying it can't RIGHT NOW. Too much of the ONE PIPE is taken up by QAM that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And even is QAM was totally killed off it still might not be enough without extreme investments in expanding the current infrastructure. Don't forget that something like 4K Netflix requires TRIPLE the bandwidth compared to a regular Netflix HD stream.
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-06-2016, 01:38 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
All of the X1 boxes that I am familiar with have the model number on the box. You cannot have any of the Xi3,5 or 6 boxes without a XG1 or an XG2v2 box since these boxes do not have tuners and rely on the tuner built into the XG1 (DVR) or XG2v2 (non-DVR) boxes.
I'm not sure what version of the secondary box I have but it doesn't seem to take up a tuner from my main box. I can still have 6 tuners in use at the same time on the main DVR and still watching a 7th channel on the secondary box.
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-06-2016, 02:33 PM
Member
 
JaytheDreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Chicago, IL.
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 65
I talked to a Comcast rep last month and asked about the X5 or whatever 4K device they have in line and his reply was X5 is out in testing mode mainly for employee test users now and might get to customers in 2 to 3 months.

______________
Thanks,
Jay

My humble setup
JaytheDreamer is offline  
Old 07-06-2016, 05:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
Yes, I know there are other costs. I considered that. All of that still doesn't account for over $500 MILLION($390 MILLION after hardware production costs) of revenue a year.
Well the bottom line is that TiVo can't sell boxes for cheap and make money. Somebody has to pay the bills.

Quote:
Yes, IP and QAM work different. I get that. But they are still using ONE PIPE. Changing from QAM to IP might fix the problem but, like you said, "IPTV isn't going to come in one fell swoop". QAM isn't going anywhere anytime soon. All users will be affected, they may not know what QAM or IP is but they will all have to get new boxes. Don't you remember how long it took to transition from analog to digital? The same thing will be necessary of ALL Comcast users. Same thing for any TiVo users using Comcast. Which also goes back to one of my points about the downsides of TiVo. Someone bought a new TiVo recently and Comcast switches over to IP. Their TiVo is now useless. They'll have to buy a new TiVo...and lifetime "service". I could just go to Comcast and swap my X1 box for a new one that uses IP instead of QAM.
It's not going to happen overnight. You don't know what you're talking about here. X1 boxes are already IP capable, and may be using IPTV for VOD and Cloud DVR, although no one seems to be quite sure if they are in some markets, all markets, or haven't used it yet.

Quote:
As far as the 2Gbps connections maybe my research on what HFC means is wrong but everything I've found says that "HFC" stands for hybrid fiber-coaxial. That indicates to me that at least part of the connection is traveling over coax. The so called "last mile". So, if the 2Gbps connection doesn't use HFC then wouldn't that mean it would require FTTH? I can currently get the 2Gbps connection(if I was willing to spend $300/month) and I'm 100% sure I don't have fiber coming into my home and I was told by Comcast that no special installation was needed.
Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Go over to DSLReports, and look at the installation photos. The 2 gig service, like I said above is MetroE. It is fiber terminated into a rackmount CPE that's designed for business server rooms. They have to physically run a fiber line to your house, just as they do for a business. It has NOTHING to do with the HFC system, and has no impact on it (other than the fact that it would take a heavy user OFF of the HFC node when they get MetroE). The 1000/35 service is DOCSIS 3.1, and that is on select HFC plants that have been switched to MPEG-4. The 1gbps service may or may not require an install, as it's just a DOCSIS 3.1 modem, the 2gbps symmetrical service absolutely 100% requires a professional installation by a specialized installation team, probably a business team who normally does business MetroE installs. The connection they install can be upgraded to 10gbps symmetrical via provisioning, they are provisioning something like 2200 symmetrical for the 10G port, and 1100 symmetrical for the 1G port.

Quote:
Regardless of what can or will be done in the coming years the fact of the matter is that the state of the Comcast network RIGHT NOW can't handle mass usage of 4K. I never said it wouldn't ever be the case. I'm just saying it can't RIGHT NOW. Too much of the ONE PIPE is taken up by QAM that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. And even is QAM was totally killed off it still might not be enough without extreme investments in expanding the current infrastructure. Don't forget that something like 4K Netflix requires TRIPLE the bandwidth compared to a regular Netflix HD stream.
The Netflix HD stream has shrunk quite a bit, and yes, 4k requires a lot more bandwidth. Comcast's network could handle a massive expansion of 4k streaming without too many problems. Maybe a few localized areas would need some node splits, and some of the older systems probably would have to be rebuilt so that they can have 16 or 24 channels like the modern systems, but the modern rebuild systems that already have deep fiber have so much bandwidth on them that even a massive sale of 4k TVs in the area wouldn't make them skip a beat. As much as Comcast is a horrible company, abusive of their monopoly, and serves only as a monopoly provider, their broadband network is actually really well engineered and they're pushed a LOT of fiber out deep into the field. The only exceptions are old non-rebuild systems where they don't have the capacity for more than 8 DOCSIS QAMs, and then it's still pretty solid, but not as good.

This post transmitted by Comcast's oldest and creakiest system in Connecticut.
BiggAW is offline  
Old 07-07-2016, 07:39 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Well the bottom line is that TiVo can't sell boxes for cheap and make money. Somebody has to pay the bills.
Yes, they can. Like I said several times now, there is no way all the costs to "pay the bills" is over half a BILLION dollars(600,000 boxes sold per year x $850/box). Plus, if it was cheaper their volume would probably be higher.

Quote:
It's not going to happen overnight. You don't know what you're talking about here. X1 boxes are already IP capable, and may be using IPTV for VOD and Cloud DVR, although no one seems to be quite sure if they are in some markets, all markets, or haven't used it yet.
Well you are right about one thing. It sure won't happen over night. I haven't seen anything that says the X1 boxes are IP capable. Maybe that's a very recently released updated version of the X1 box? Maybe the ones that support 4K support IP? X1 doesn't even play DVR recordings from the cloud. Recordings are played from the hard drive with secondary boxes playing recordings from the main DVR over a MoCA network. Recordings are also stored on the cloud but those recordings are used for viewing from a computer or mobile device. If X1 WERE to use IP instead of QAM I would hope to see decent picture quality. As it is I'm getting close to dropping Comcast to go to DirecTV even thought Comcast's X1 UI is FAR FAR better than the crap DirecTV has to offer.

Quote:
Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. Go over to DSLReports, and look at the installation photos. The 2 gig service, like I said above is MetroE. It is fiber terminated into a rackmount CPE that's designed for business server rooms. They have to physically run a fiber line to your house, just as they do for a business. It has NOTHING to do with the HFC system, and has no impact on it (other than the fact that it would take a heavy user OFF of the HFC node when they get MetroE). The 1000/35 service is DOCSIS 3.1, and that is on select HFC plants that have been switched to MPEG-4. The 1gbps service may or may not require an install, as it's just a DOCSIS 3.1 modem, the 2gbps symmetrical service absolutely 100% requires a professional installation by a specialized installation team, probably a business team who normally does business MetroE installs. The connection they install can be upgraded to 10gbps symmetrical via provisioning, they are provisioning something like 2200 symmetrical for the 10G port, and 1100 symmetrical for the 1G port.
Then I must be thinking of the 1Gbps option. I know that Comcast has some gigabit option that comes over the coax without having to run fiber to the home.


Quote:
The Netflix HD stream has shrunk quite a bit, and yes, 4k requires a lot more bandwidth. Comcast's network could handle a massive expansion of 4k streaming without too many problems. Maybe a few localized areas would need some node splits, and some of the older systems probably would have to be rebuilt so that they can have 16 or 24 channels like the modern systems, but the modern rebuild systems that already have deep fiber have so much bandwidth on them that even a massive sale of 4k TVs in the area wouldn't make them skip a beat. As much as Comcast is a horrible company, abusive of their monopoly, and serves only as a monopoly provider, their broadband network is actually really well engineered and they're pushed a LOT of fiber out deep into the field. The only exceptions are old non-rebuild systems where they don't have the capacity for more than 8 DOCSIS QAMs, and then it's still pretty solid, but not as good.

This post transmitted by Comcast's oldest and creakiest system in Connecticut.

As I have said it all comes down to ONE PIPE. You can send QAM signals or IP signals down that pipe but it's still the SAME PIPE. So if Comcast's network could handle a massive expansion in 4K streaming then why can't they dedicate more bandwidth, since few people are using 4K at the moment, to QAM signals and compress the signal less until they can switch to IP instead of QAM? I've had Comcast for years and the HD channels used to all look great. Now many look like crap. Overall the picture quality is at its worst in the 7 years I have had HD service from Comcast. With as much as they are pushing fiber deeper into the field I would expect an improvement in picture quality, even over QAM. In may instances HD versions of channels like FOX and ABC look no better than the SD version. They look so bad because Comcast has no choice but to compress so much. So if the network can't even allow for decent looking 720p why should I believe it's anywhere close to being able to supporting 4K in an mass usage?

Also curious about the "node split". Wouldn't that just make things worse? Wouldn't that just take the existing bandwidth and just slice it up to smaller pieces? Wouldn't a "node split" effectively require a doubling of bandwidth to the point of the split?
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-08-2016, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,597
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
Yes, they can. Like I said several times now, there is no way all the costs to "pay the bills" is over half a BILLION dollars(600,000 boxes sold per year x $850/box). Plus, if it was cheaper their volume would probably be higher.
That's the problem. They don't make a lot of money because they are relatively low volume high overhead for an electronics company.

Quote:
Well you are right about one thing. It sure won't happen over night. I haven't seen anything that says the X1 boxes are IP capable. Maybe that's a very recently released updated version of the X1 box? Maybe the ones that support 4K support IP? X1 doesn't even play DVR recordings from the cloud. Recordings are played from the hard drive with secondary boxes playing recordings from the main DVR over a MoCA network. Recordings are also stored on the cloud but those recordings are used for viewing from a computer or mobile device. If X1 WERE to use IP instead of QAM I would hope to see decent picture quality. As it is I'm getting close to dropping Comcast to go to DirecTV even thought Comcast's X1 UI is FAR FAR better than the crap DirecTV has to offer.

All X1 boxes are IP-capable and include DOCSIS 3 modems. No one can seem to figure out if they are using IP for VOD and Cloud DVR, or if they are using traditional QAM like older boxes user, but they can support IP in the future if they aren't using it already, and they have the ability to seamlessly flip between QAM and IPTV without the user knowing the difference. Some areas have Cloud DVR functionality, but how exactly that works is also kind of difficult to pin down. They also work as local DVRs, which is how they were first rolled out, and the only way they work in many markets.

I have heard Genie is actually pretty good, but I haven't used it myself. From what I've heard, Genie isn't as good as TiVo, but is far better than X1. I do know for a fact, from having used both side by side, that TiVo's interface is way better than X1, so I'm hoping Genie is a lot better, as I want to get DirecTV when I live in a place where I can get it.

Quote:
Then I must be thinking of the 1Gbps option. I know that Comcast has some gigabit option that comes over the coax without having to run fiber to the home.
Probably. The 1000/35 option is coming available over the course of the next few months in a few markets, and will spread to more markets over time, after the MPEG-4 migration is done. They are using DOCSIS 3.1, they never rolled out gigabit over DOCSIS 3, although a few smaller providers have, as it's theoretically possible with a 32 channel DOCSIS 3 setup.

Quote:
As I have said it all comes down to ONE PIPE. You can send QAM signals or IP signals down that pipe but it's still the SAME PIPE. So if Comcast's network could handle a massive expansion in 4K streaming then why can't they dedicate more bandwidth, since few people are using 4K at the moment, to QAM signals and compress the signal less until they can switch to IP instead of QAM? I've had Comcast for years and the HD channels used to all look great. Now many look like crap. Overall the picture quality is at its worst in the 7 years I have had HD service from Comcast. With as much as they are pushing fiber deeper into the field I would expect an improvement in picture quality, even over QAM. In may instances HD versions of channels like FOX and ABC look no better than the SD version. They look so bad because Comcast has no choice but to compress so much. So if the network can't even allow for decent looking 720p why should I believe it's anywhere close to being able to supporting 4K in an mass usage?
QAM is inherently incredibly inefficient when used without SDV, since every signal is coming down all the time. It's one cable, but the DOCSIS and QAM sides are so fundamentally different that comparing them is futile and pointless. The 4k streaming shares bandwidth with everything else coming in over IP, like Steam, and non-4k Netflix and Amazon Prime, and Spotify and Xbox live, even though it's totally different than QAM. They have been increasing internet bandwidth steadily over the past decade or more, as that's where the money, profit margins, and future of their business is, not in cable TV. It's also where they now have a relative monopoly in many areas, as their speeds are so much faster than what even most VDSL connections can offer.

Yes, their TV looks like crap. They need to either go to IP or SDV in order to give more bandwidth to each channel, but commenting about how they compress QAM has jack **** to do with the DOCSIS side's ability to deliver streaming 4k. Absolutely nothing. Their broadband network is ready for widespread 4k streaming, even though the QAM side looks like dog poo. Pushing fiber deeper into the field has absolutely nothing to do with picture quality, they could be pushing QAM out over a one-way RF system and it could look better, it just depends on how they compress it. Deep fiber is all about broadband and VOD where you are sharing bandwidth with everyone else on the node.

Quote:
Also curious about the "node split". Wouldn't that just make things worse? Wouldn't that just take the existing bandwidth and just slice it up to smaller pieces? Wouldn't a "node split" effectively require a doubling of bandwidth to the point of the split?
OMG. You need to read up on how an HFC system actually WORKS. You are CLUELESS. When you split a node in half, replacing it with two nodes, you now have about half the number of subscribers sharing the same pool of available bandwidth that each node has, so generally, it makes things faster and has less congestion. HFC started with large areas on a single node, and as they push the fiber deeper and deeper, now only a small area runs on each node. As they get to N+0, where there are no amps, just nodes running small areas of the plant, they will have more and more bandwidth available to each user, because fewer users will be on each node to share it.
BiggAW is offline  
Old 07-14-2016, 06:17 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
That's the problem. They don't make a lot of money because they are relatively low volume high overhead for an electronics company.
I still don't understand why you have this crazy idea that TiVo has such high overhead. Low volume? Yes, probably because the cost is so damn high. If you charge a ridiculously high cost for something you probably aren't going to sell that many. High overhead? Not really.


Quote:
All X1 boxes are IP-capable and include DOCSIS 3 modems. No one can seem to figure out if they are using IP for VOD and Cloud DVR, or if they are using traditional QAM like older boxes user, but they can support IP in the future if they aren't using it already, and they have the ability to seamlessly flip between QAM and IPTV without the user knowing the difference. Some areas have Cloud DVR functionality, but how exactly that works is also kind of difficult to pin down. They also work as local DVRs, which is how they were first rolled out, and the only way they work in many markets.
What would be the point of using Cloud DVR when watching recordings on the box? It doesn't even make sense. Why cause congestion on the network? Sure, it might use IP instead of QAM but I think we can agree that using NO bandwidth is better than using a small amount of bandwidth.

Quote:
I have heard Genie is actually pretty good, but I haven't used it myself. From what I've heard, Genie isn't as good as TiVo, but is far better than X1. I do know for a fact, from having used both side by side, that TiVo's interface is way better than X1, so I'm hoping Genie is a lot better, as I want to get DirecTV when I live in a place where I can get it.
Since I've been considering switching to DirecTV(since Comcast signal sucks so bad) I've used the box at a few AT&T stores. It really does suck. It is a tiny bit faster but feature wise it's about equal with my old non-X1 Motorola box from Comcast. Menu navigation is very unintuitive, search sucks and the remote is awful. I've said in previous posts that I don't like the TiVo remote(I think you called it a "peanut"?) but even that is excellent compared to the DirecTV remote. The X1 UI, despite being a little sluggish at times(but not enough to really make it a pain to use), is the best I have used.


Quote:
QAM is inherently incredibly inefficient when used without SDV, since every signal is coming down all the time. It's one cable, but the DOCSIS and QAM sides are so fundamentally different that comparing them is futile and pointless. The 4k streaming shares bandwidth with everything else coming in over IP, like Steam, and non-4k Netflix and Amazon Prime, and Spotify and Xbox live, even though it's totally different than QAM. They have been increasing internet bandwidth steadily over the past decade or more, as that's where the money, profit margins, and future of their business is, not in cable TV. It's also where they now have a relative monopoly in many areas, as their speeds are so much faster than what even most VDSL connections can offer.

Yes, their TV looks like crap. They need to either go to IP or SDV in order to give more bandwidth to each channel, but commenting about how they compress QAM has jack **** to do with the DOCSIS side's ability to deliver streaming 4k. Absolutely nothing. Their broadband network is ready for widespread 4k streaming, even though the QAM side looks like dog poo. Pushing fiber deeper into the field has absolutely nothing to do with picture quality, they could be pushing QAM out over a one-way RF system and it could look better, it just depends on how they compress it. Deep fiber is all about broadband and VOD where you are sharing bandwidth with everyone else on the node.
I agree that sending every signal all the time is a dumb idea. Compressing QAM may not directly have an impact on the ability to stream 4K but it does indirectly have an impact since QAM does take up bandwidth on the same pipe that IP uses. Compressing the QAM signals more means more bandwidth that can be given to IP traffic. Pushing fiber deeper into the field does have an impact on picture quality because more fiber means more bandwidth which means less need to compress so much.


OMG. You need to read up on how an HFC system actually WORKS. You are CLUELESS. When you split a node in half, replacing it with two nodes, you now have about half the number of subscribers sharing the same pool of available bandwidth that each node has, so generally, it makes things faster and has less congestion. HFC started with large areas on a single node, and as they push the fiber deeper and deeper, now only a small area runs on each node. As they get to N+0, where there are no amps, just nodes running small areas of the plant, they will have more and more bandwidth available to each user, because fewer users will be on each node to share it.[/QUOTE]


So lets say there is an area of 1,000 homes being serviced by one node capable of 100Gbps total to those 1,000 homes. Now lets say you were to split that node. Now you have two nodes each servicing 500 homes. It seems to be that for the split to be a benefit the total bandwidth for that 1,000 home area would need to increase. If I was previously on a node getting 1/1,000 of 100Gbps and now I'm on a node that is getting 1/500 of 50Gbps how does that make anything better? At some point in the line you'd have to upgrade the infrastructure to that area to supply more bandwidth.

I found this image for example.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/e/ea/Inoc.jpg

When you split a node you would have to have more bandwidth going from the head-end to the point of the split(see the middle switch with the 2 fiber nodes coming off of it). The problem is that the head-end doesn't have enough bandwidth to feed all the nodes. And as we both know that head-end is serving both IP and QAM signals. It's still ONE PIPE from the head-end. You can split the node as many times as you want but unless you make that pipe from the head-end "bigger" you aren't going to solve the problem. What my point has been is that the ONE PIPE feeding all those nodes from the head-end just isn't "big" enough especially with QAM still a major part.

If the infrastructure was already good enough to support mass 4K streaming then there would be A LOT of unused bandwidth at this point since very few people are streaming in 4K. If that was the case then the extra bandwidth could be used for typical QAM TV broadcasts requiring less compression of current QAM TV signals resulting in a much better picture. Yes, I get it, QAM is bad and will eventually go away in favor of IP but it isn't the case right now. Especially where I live. If Comcast could provide a less compressed QAM signal I'm pretty sure they would so they wouldn't have to deal with people like me calling up day after day, week after week telling them my picture sucks(I have a supervisor tech coming tomorrow) and threatening to switch to DirecTV. The fact that they aren't doing that makes be believe that they CAN'T do it right now. Even without a very detailed technical understanding of how the specific technology works it just takes some common sense to realize the network is not even close to allowing mass 4K.

If the bandwidth currently exists but isn't even close to hitting capacity for IP services then transfer that bandwidth to where it would actually make a difference.....QAM. Seems pretty simple to me.
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-15-2016, 07:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
egnlsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 2,501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Yes, it is all coming down the same pipe, but all are on different channels. It's like each channel has its own little car coming down that pipe. Whether a car has only 5 people riding in it or 50, the car takes up the same amount of room in that pipe. What's done with 1 channel doesn't affect another channel. You could compress the crap out of 50 services and put them all on channel 4 and you wouldn't see a thing on channel 7.

With channel bonding, the internet is in that pipe in 8, 16, 20, 24, or 32 channels (depending on the system). It doesn't have anything to do with, or any effect on any of the QAM channels, or vice-versa. You could compress the crap out of and have 4000 QAM video services, and still enjoy 4K all over the place.

When a node is split, it cuts in half the number of homes that share that bandwidth.

CIAO!

Ed N.

Last edited by egnlsn; 07-15-2016 at 09:52 AM.
egnlsn is online now  
Old 07-15-2016, 06:20 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by egnlsn View Post
Yes, it is all coming down the same pipe, but all are on different channels. It's like each channel has its own little car coming down that pipe. Whether a car has only 5 people riding in it or 50, the car takes up the same amount of room in that pipe. What's done with 1 channel doesn't affect another channel. You could compress the crap out of 50 services and put them all on channel 4 and you wouldn't see a thing on channel 7.

With channel bonding, the internet is in that pipe in 8, 16, 20, 24, or 32 channels (depending on the system). It doesn't have anything to do with, or any effect on any of the QAM channels, or vice-versa. You could compress the crap out of and have 4000 QAM video services, and still enjoy 4K all over the place.

When a node is split, it cuts in half the number of homes that share that bandwidth.
My point is that if the bandwidth exists for 4K but isn't being used(very few people are using 4K at this point) then the QAM channels shouldn't need to be compressed as much. With the road so empty why not move some of those people into other cars? Why cram so much into a single car?

With the node split wouldn't that mean that either 1) the bandwidth would also be split so that half the homes would get half the original bandwidth or 2) that the bandwidth would have to be doubled so that each node is getting the same original total bandwidth to half the number of homes?
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-15-2016, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
egnlsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 2,501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
My point is that if the bandwidth exists for 4K but isn't being used(very few people are using 4K at this point) then the QAM channels shouldn't need to be compressed as much. With the road so empty why not move some of those people into other cars? Why cram so much into a single car?

With the node split wouldn't that mean that either 1) the bandwidth would also be split so that half the homes would get half the original bandwidth or 2) that the bandwidth would have to be doubled so that each node is getting the same original total bandwidth to half the number of homes?
That's exactly what channel bonding does. DOCSIS 1 and 2 had just 1 channel (car). DOCSIS 3.0 started off with 4 channels, but can have up to 32. In my system, they are now bonding 24 channels.

Each node gets the total original bandwidth.

CIAO!

Ed N.
egnlsn is online now  
Old 07-16-2016, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
holl_ands's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,599
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Liked: 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
My point is that if the bandwidth exists for 4K but isn't being used(very few people are using 4K at this point) then the QAM channels shouldn't need to be compressed as much. With the road so empty why not move some of those people into other cars? Why cram so much into a single car?

With the node split wouldn't that mean that either 1) the bandwidth would also be split so that half the homes would get half the original bandwidth or 2) that the bandwidth would have to be doubled so that each node is getting the same original total bandwidth to half the number of homes?
DOCSIS 1.0/2.0 and older STB/DVR's were limited to 54-864 MHz Operation [Up to 135 Analog and/or QAM Channels]....and current DOCSIS 3.0 compatible Cable Modems and Next Gen STB/DVR's [typically incl. MPEG4] go up to 1002 MHz [Up to 158 QAM Channels]. BTW: IF all 158 carried 38.8 Mbps QAM256, total Fibre-Optic load would be up to 6.1 Gbps, although DOCSIS 3.0 Cable Modems support a slightly higher 42.9 Mbps/Channel data rate.

Node Splitting means that RF Cable Network feeding a particular Neighborhood from a Cable Headend (aka Headend) is SPLIT into TWO INDEPENDENT SUB-NETWORKS, now fed by TWO vice ONE Cable Headend....where the second, NEW Cable Headend [located at a Central Cable Plant] includes Cable Modem Management, Cloud-DVR/VOD/PPV Program Management/STORAGE, Video Management for "Real-Time" Video Streams [incl. SDV if ever implemented] and the EXISTING Inventory of Fibre Optic to QAM Modulators (and maybe some Analog Channel Modulators) that are likely located within 1/2-mile of your location.

Since the number of USERS on a particular Neighborhood Cable Distribution Network are SPLIT between the two INDEPENDENT Headends, the available ALLOCATABLE Capacity on each Sub-Network (such as for Internet or IP Video Delivery or SDV/VOD/PPV Video Delivery) is thereby DOUBLED. Note that the [10 to 40 Gbps] Fibre-Optic data rate load allocated to EACH of the FO-To-QAM MODULATOR Boxes has ample room to support higher Internet Speeds and more Video Programs

Bear in mind that those COMCAST systems transitioning from MPEG2 to MPEG4 for majority of Video Programs (except Local Channels) can roughly DOUBLE their Video Capacity. And if COMCAST adopts SDV (Switched Digital Video) for most of their "Real Time" Programs Streams, they could easily DOUBLE their Video Capacity one more time. And don't forget that HVEC for 4K is FOUR TIMES more efficient than MPEG2 [measured several years ago]....so data rate capacity requirement isn't very much higher than 1080i HD via MPEG2....and efficiency has improved and will continue to improve as HVEC Encoder/Decoder Technology becomes more mature.

Last edited by holl_ands; 07-16-2016 at 09:23 PM.
holl_ands is offline  
Old 07-17-2016, 02:08 AM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 286
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by egnlsn View Post
That's exactly what channel bonding does. DOCSIS 1 and 2 had just 1 channel (car). DOCSIS 3.0 started off with 4 channels, but can have up to 32. In my system, they are now bonding 24 channels.

Each node gets the total original bandwidth.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems that would be they are putting more "people in the cars".

Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post
DOCSIS 1.0/2.0 and older STB/DVR's were limited to 54-864 MHz Operation [Up to 135 Analog and/or QAM Channels]....and current DOCSIS 3.0 compatible Cable Modems and Next Gen STB/DVR's [typically incl. MPEG4] go up to 1002 MHz [Up to 158 QAM Channels]. BTW: IF all 158 carried 38.8 Mbps QAM256, total Fibre-Optic load would be up to 6.1 Gbps, although DOCSIS 3.0 Cable Modems support a slightly higher 42.9 Mbps/Channel data rate.

Node Splitting means that RF Cable Network feeding a particular Neighborhood from a Cable Headend (aka Headend) is SPLIT into TWO INDEPENDENT SUB-NETWORKS, now fed by TWO vice ONE Cable Headend....where the second, NEW Cable Headend [located at a Central Cable Plant] includes Cable Modem Management, Cloud-DVR/VOD/PPV Program Management/STORAGE, Video Management for "Real-Time" Video Streams [incl. SDV if ever implemented] and the EXISTING Inventory of Fibre Optic to QAM Modulators (and maybe some Analog Channel Modulators) that are likely located within 1/2-mile of your location.

Since the number of USERS on a particular Neighborhood Cable Distribution Network are SPLIT between the two INDEPENDENT Headends, the available ALLOCATABLE Capacity on each Sub-Network (such as for Internet or IP Video Delivery or SDV/VOD/PPV Video Delivery) is thereby DOUBLED. Note that the [10 to 40 Gbps] Fibre-Optic data rate load allocated to EACH of the FO-To-QAM MODULATOR Boxes has ample room to support higher Internet Speeds and more Video Programs

Bear in mind that those COMCAST systems transitioning from MPEG2 to MPEG4 for majority of Video Programs (except Local Channels) can roughly DOUBLE their Video Capacity. And if COMCAST adopts SDV (Switched Digital Video) for most of their "Real Time" Programs Streams, they could easily DOUBLE their Video Capacity one more time. And don't forget that HVEC for 4K is FOUR TIMES more efficient than MPEG2 [measured several years ago]....so data rate capacity requirement isn't very much higher than 1080i HD via MPEG2....and efficiency has improved and will continue to improve as HVEC Encoder/Decoder Technology becomes more mature.
All that makes me think that, if anything, Comcast picture quality should be getting BETTER. In reality the opposite is true. It's getting worse.

Increased bandwidth, more fiber, splitting nodes, switching from MPEG2 to MPEG4, etc should all be better for picture quality. Right? So I guess my real question is why, in the 7 years I have had Comcast HD service, is the picture quality at the worst it has ever been? Why, in some cases, is the HD channel hardly any better than the SD version of the same channel? I couldn't even watch the MLB All-Star Game this year because of how bad the picture was. With the AWFUL picture quality Comcast is putting out my only logical conclusion is that, whatever the technical reason, Comcast is only doing it because the network is so stressed there isn't much choice but to decrease quality.
jimv1983 is offline  
Old 07-17-2016, 06:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
egnlsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 2,501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems that would be they are putting more "people in the cars".
They are making twice the number of cars available. If a car can comfortably seat, say, 200 people, and there are 250 crammed in there, nobody's going to be comfortable and it's going to be an unpleasant ride. If they add another car, then there are 125 people in each car. Yes, there's plenty of room for more passengers to get on (some will get on in one car, some will get on in the other car), but everyone's going to be a whole lot more comfortable regardless of how many more get on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
All that makes me think that, if anything, Comcast picture quality should be getting BETTER. In reality the opposite is true. It's getting worse.

Increased bandwidth, more fiber, splitting nodes, switching from MPEG2 to MPEG4, etc should all be better for picture quality. Right? So I guess my real question is why, in the 7 years I have had Comcast HD service, is the picture quality at the worst it has ever been? Why, in some cases, is the HD channel hardly any better than the SD version of the same channel? I couldn't even watch the MLB All-Star Game this year because of how bad the picture was. With the AWFUL picture quality Comcast is putting out my only logical conclusion is that, whatever the technical reason, Comcast is only doing it because the network is so stressed there isn't much choice but to decrease quality.
I can't speak to what you see. I signed up for Comcast HD when it first became available here, which was 7 or 8 years ago, and the picture quality was amazing. My wife actually sat there with her jaw dropped the first time she saw it. I left for DirecTV because Comcast was very slow to add HD channels, and D* had a couple of channels that I wanted. I returned to Comcast a couple of years ago because of a bundling offer that saved me a ton of money. The number of HD channels has increased significantly, and the picture quality is just as excellent as ever.

I never had any complaints about the D* picture quality, either.

CIAO!

Ed N.

Last edited by egnlsn; 07-17-2016 at 06:57 AM.
egnlsn is online now  
Old 07-17-2016, 08:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
egnlsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 2,501
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands View Post
Node Splitting means that RF Cable Network feeding a particular Neighborhood from a Cable Headend (aka Headend) is SPLIT into TWO INDEPENDENT SUB-NETWORKS, now fed by TWO vice ONE Cable Headend....where the second, NEW Cable Headend [located at a Central Cable Plant] includes Cable Modem Management, Cloud-DVR/VOD/PPV Program Management/STORAGE, Video Management for "Real-Time" Video Streams [incl. SDV if ever implemented] and the EXISTING Inventory of Fibre Optic to QAM Modulators (and maybe some Analog Channel Modulators) that are likely located within 1/2-mile of your location.
When you say "Cable Headend," I assume you mean the beginning of the coaxial distribution system, not the actual headend, which can be several miles away.

CIAO!

Ed N.
egnlsn is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off