Originally Posted by ScoopsHD
Deregulation does not mean forcing cable companies to run FTTH. Deregulation is to open up the existing infrastructure which isn't really possible with HFC for Video. Who is going to pay to run Fiber to every home? Even FIOS has stopped deployment of new fiber across the US... its expensive. The government isn't going to do it and they can't force a private company to do it. Eventually the cable companies will see a diminishing ROI on their HFC networks and start building out GPON, or FTTH, or some other form of technology.
Quite true. It would require someone to build out FTTH. While it might not happen overnight, a plan like NYC's to give Verizon the rights to overbuild the whole state of CT with Fios in exchange for 100% coverage would be pretty cool, although they are not doing Fios at the moment, except for previous commitments like NYC. Although I don't know the numbers, I think CT would be easier to do than NYC, as most of our cables on are telephone poles as opposed to a maze of underground runs, although they don't have any existing CO's to house equipment.
The other option is to deregulate the other way, i.e. outlaw cable franchises. If there were two cable companies, each with their own HFC plant, things would be a lot better, as they would compete head to head. In towns where there are two cable providers, rates are 33% lower, and the services are generally a lot better. Yeah, it's expensive, and wouldn't help more rural areas that don't justify the cost of triplication (AT&T, Comcast, and Cableco X), but it has proved successful in the past, either with POTS+HFC+HFC or POTS+HFC+FTTH.
In CT, the DPUC could at least try by revamping the franchising so that Verizon or cableco X could get a statewide license to operate, and then give a different company the rights over cableco X's existing franchise in the state.
The reason Verizon stopped is because their shareholders have a short-term view and don't get the basic concepts of frequencies, bandwidth, compression, etc, that techies know. Fios is highly successful, well implemented (at least the infrastructure, the boxes suck, but that is easily remedied), and will be highly lucrative for profits over the long run, but the investors are looking and seeing a long ROI, and in their greed, don't like it.
I actually like U-Verse's platform better since it can be deployed on VDSL, but I think AT&T should have a plan to go 100% FTTH for the areas it wants to offer U-Verse in, and just use VDSL to get into the market quickly.
Originally Posted by ScoopsHD
That Wiki article is a primer on HFC in general... its not 100% valid for every company's method of deployment. And typically, there is no increase in frequency without a rebuild (whether a full re-run of the entire HFC plant or via upgrading active amplifiers and coax). So just because Comcast in Bolton is 860mhz does not mean Comcast in Middletown is suddenly 860mhz.
Why wouldn't the plant be 860mhz capable, other than the regional head-end itself? Isn't good coax good up to 3ghz, and amps good up to 1ghz or more? I know the RG-6 that's standard for decent house wiring is good to 3ghz, and don't they use RG-11 or better on the poles?
Even if the gear is not 860mhz capable, isn't it pretty easy to put new gear in, considering all of the power, fiber, and right-of-way is already in place?
As a point of reference, DOCSIS 2 gear is only good to 860mhz (checked my modem's spec sheet), but DOCSIS 3 appears to be good to DOCSIS 3, so they could offer some incentives to get most of the aggregate bandwidth to DOCSIS 3 for a 1ghz build-out, leaving the majority of customers on DOCSIS 2 (since 3/4 of the customers only use 20% of the bandwidth or whatever that figure is).
Originally Posted by CharlieABC
And the lesson is Comcast (insert monopolistic incumbent name here) will always say "it's too hard, costs too much, etc" and eventually another company will come along with replacement technology or the Feds will deregulate. Employees for "Ma Bell" told us all along the way what a disaster it would be, etc, etc. It wasn't and now the reality is now landlines are becoming an endangered species due to replacement technology.
I don't know what the technology or implementation will be - don't care. But don't wonder why nobody will cry tears for Comcast when it is finally gone. High prices, low number of channels, poor customer service - classic monopoly syndrome who's days are numbered.
Give me locals in HD, plus ALL national networks in HD, with no weather or tree interference or the typical sat glitching I see in my friend's living room and you will gladly have my money.
What I'm kind of worried about is FTTH from ma bell taking over, and then there not being any competition, since FTTH doesn't have the open access requirements, although I don't think that's a worry anytime soon, as cable can always just keep a craptastic system and drop the prices way down since they haven't spent any money on it since they were broadcasting Reagan. That will require fiber to differentiate their product by adding more features and channels and whatnot, which is easy when you have that much bandwidth.
DirecTV has Hartford-New Haven locals, plus some NYC (although not WNET for reasons I cannot explain). Hartford-New Haven locals can also be picked up OTA. They also have 99.9% signal reliability, which Comcast cannot come close to (the irony of it all is that ice fade is bad on Comcast), and if you make sure you have a clear LOS where you mount the dish, you won't have tree issues.
As long as you root for the good team (Redsox) Dish has you covered too.
Theoretically, the company with the physical copper wire to your house should just cream the one with a bird 26,000 miles away, but that doesn't seem to be working very well lately.
If Comcast disappeared tomorrow, I would cry a lot. Not for video or phone, but for HSI. Their HSI is legitimately a good product. 12/2 with bursting to 18/3 for $43/mo is great, I just hate that they tax it more if you don't have their video service. I would hate to be stuck on DSL at 1.5mbps.