AVS Forum banner

Verizon FiOS HDTV

2M views 19K replies 1K participants last post by  Marcus Carr 
#1 ·
I have heard about the new Verizon FIOS internet and TV services being rolled out across the country. My question is since they are using fiber optics to transmit their signal and with giving them additional bandwidth, will Comcast be ready to compete with them for pure channel capacity?
 
#4 ·
I think that cable companies now run their own fiber into your neighborhood. I don't think that they are going to be too bad off.


The ones I would worry about would be those who are going to depend on that old copper pair to deliver that last mile of service. I'd much rather have a nice fat RG-11 going into the house than a twisted pair.
 
#5 ·
Most cable companies bring the fiber to a node that serves about 100 homes. Depending on your area density, that could be close or far from your house. Either way, it wouldn't take a complete plant upgrade for cable to offer a similar product. Plus, new cable technology (docsis 3.0) is enabling a large amount of bandwidth to the customer.


I do agree FIOS is finally a good alternative to cable. Hopefully with competition they will both improve their product.
 
#6 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CycloneGT /forum/post/0


I think that cable companies now run their own fiber into your neighborhood. I don't think that they are going to be too bad off.


The ones I would worry about would be those who are going to depend on that old copper pair to deliver that last mile of service. I'd much rather have a nice fat RG-11 going into the house than a twisted pair.



LOL. Trust me when I say the plant for that last mile is NOT twisted
 
#7 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonyHD /forum/post/0


I have heard about the new Verizon FIOS internet and TV services being rolled out across the country. My question is since they are using fiber optics to transmit their signal and with giving them additional bandwidth, will Comcast be ready to compete with them for pure channel capacity?

They really don't have to yet, it will be years and years and years before FIOS has the penetration that cable has. Plus, FIOS is running into regulatory issues sometimes on a franchise by franchise rate.
 
#9 ·
Posts here within the past month outlined plans by cable companies to start 'switched broadcast' selection of channels. Time Warner, supposedly, will start it shortly and other large companies must be considering it, too. (See background article ). Such switched channel selection, something like video on demand (VOD) but with no hard-disk head-end drives, would let lower-bandwidth head ends deliver huge channel capacities without upgrading to 860+ MHz bandwidths. Instead of currently tuning channels from a complete menu instantly available at each subscriber's STB, the switched-broadcast technique tunes channels only available at local hubs or head ends.


Widely accessed channels, it appears, would still be sent to each STB all the time. There's no reason fiber-to-the-home (or curb) teleco installations couldn't use the same technique. But an all-fiber setup should be able to deliver all channels directly (and constantly) to each STB. -- John
 
#14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by hokiefan /forum/post/0


Most cable companies bring the fiber to a node that serves about 100 homes.

I think the current average node size is more in the 250-500 range ... yes there are certainly some plants that have hit 100 homes per node ... but that still seems pretty rare. There are also still some plants at 1000 homes per node.


But yes, most people seem to forget that the F in HFC stands for Fiber. Hybrid Fiber Coax ... fiber to the node ... then coax to the house.
 
#15 ·
Do we have to pay more after 7PM for this?


Right now it's hard to say which one to get since FIOS is not availabel in themajority of the markets and they are not really delivering anything yet. Once it's rolled out and working then the comparasions can begin.
 
#16 ·
Oh ... and according to most articles ... initial FiosTV roll-outs will pretty much have the exact same bandwidth and channel capacity as cable ... they are using an RF overlay approach.


Everything gets RF modulated (ie, NTSC / QAM like cable ... or you could even do QPSK / 8PSK like dbs) and sent down the fiber on a particular wavelength. The ONT (box that goes on the side of your house) converts that light back to RF ... and the signal is distributed through your house via coax.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/fee...5305453.html?p
Quote:
The deal, which includes both set-top boxes and unspecified central office equipment, also confirms that Verizon will use an RF overlay strategy for video as opposed to converting those signals to an IP format. A Verizon spokesman said today that the company isnt talking full details on its video service yet, but part of the decision comes from the carriers desire to take advantage of the economics of RF technology.


"The steps here are logical for us," he said. "This will allow us to put full cable TV type video on the fiber. Its simply a business decision. The video component of this doesnt even compete for space with data."


Most of the equipment is actually the latest iteration of gear from Next Level Communications, which Motorola acquired last year. Next Level was among the early leaders in telco video but was unable to get larger carriers to buy in to the system in part because much of it was proprietary.


Under the architecture Verizon is planning, RF video will be sent from a national head end located in Florida through a local CO and over the fiber network to optical network terminal from AFC Communications that sits on the side of the house. From there, it will connect to existing in-home coax through a traditional RF connector.
http://www.screenplaysmag.com/sp305m.html
Quote:
The local fare along with some of the nationally distributed content will be delivered in analog as well as digital format, with all content modulated to RF at 50 to 870 MHz onto 256 QAM carriers and sent out at the 1550 nanometer wavelength.
http://www.lightreading.com/document...e=lightreading
Quote:
Verizon's first rollout of video services is expected to occur sometime next year, and the company has said it will first offer an RF-based video service, equivalent to what is now offered by cable companies. The FTTP RFP the carrier issued -- along with SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: SBC - message board) and BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS - message board) -- in June 2003 even spelled out a video delivery system that would use, "to the extent possible, standard off-the-shelf CATV video equipment."


The RFP went on to say that the video distribution technique planned "is a CATV-like system."

Etc.


Goggle - Verizon Fios "RF OVerlay"


So your video is eventually going to be analog NTSC and 256 QAM in the 50-870MHz spectrum ... basically just like cable TV on a 860MHz plant. Cable does also have to carry voice and data in that same space ... while Verizon isn't ... those get offloaded to seperate wavelengths. So that's a little bit of bandwidth savings.


But basically ... initially ... same as cable. It'll be interesting to see how many (bandwidth-hogging ... but no STB needed) analog channels Verizon carries.


Now ... when Verizon starts delivering IPTV, VOD, etc ... that'll be where things get interesting ... and you'll get some insight on where they might be headed. Of course Verizon's FTTH gives you more options than cable's FTTN ... it'll be interesting to see if Verizon finds a way to (economically) take advantage of that.
 
#17 ·
Potential trouble looms for SBC's Net-based TV


By Leslie Cauley USA TODAY


NEW YORK SBC Communications, which promised to launch its much-ballyhooed Internet-based TV service later this year, will almost certainly have to delay a commercial rollout until at least 2006, some analysts say.


A potential trouble spot is Microsoft's IPTV software platform, still in development. That software will form the heart of the operating system for SBC's entire video network, making it critical to the project

.

The problem? There's a good chance Microsoft won't be able to deliver on the aggressive timetables set by SBC. One other carrier, Swisscom of Switzerland, recently announced delays of its IPTV project because of technology problems. Swisscom is using the same vendors, Microsoft and Alcatel, that SBC is, notes analyst John Hodulik of UBS Investment Research.


"We believe SBC's commercial launch of IPTV could also be pushed back into 2006 from its original target of fourth-quarter 2005," Hodulik wrote in a recent note to clients.


Rick Thompson, an analyst at Heavy Reading, a market research firm, says it could take even longer. "It's possible they might roll out in '06, but what that means to me is a few hundred or a few thousand in select markets, but realistically I expect '07 to '08 to be the service phase."


Any delay would be a setback for SBC, which is pouring billions into its IPTV efforts. It comes as the company is preparing to acquire AT&T. With revenue from local and long-distance service falling, SBC is rushing into the TV business as a way to offset those declines.


A delay in deployment "will hurt them with Wall Street, hurt them with regulators and hurt their stock price," says analyst Adi Kishore of Yankee Group.


SBC insists that things are on track. Lea Ann Champion, who's overseeing SBC's IPTV deployment, notes Microsoft's IPTV software is "working in the lab." Still, she concedes, "We still have a long way to go to get into the marketplace."


Moshe Lichtman, who is heading Microsoft's IPTV effort, acknowledges that things aren't coming together as fast as the company expected. The "eco-system" industry parlance for the gear and software that must mesh flawlessly for IPTV to fly is a concern, he says. "We are a little bit behind where we all thought the eco-system would be," he says.


SBC last year selected Microsoft as its sole vendor for supplying it with IPTV software. At the time, SBC said it planned to begin field trials in mid-2005 and deploy commercial services in late 2005.


SBC in March changed the schedule: It now plans to begin field trials in the third quarter and do a limited commercial launch later this year, ramping up in 2006. It is still planning to make its IP service available to 18 million homes by mid-2008.


Kishore says of SBC's deployment schedule: "I would characterize it as a technology gamble to some extent."


Why? Among other things, Kishore points out, Microsoft is working with a range of vendors that have never worked together before and have limited video experience.
 
#20 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredfa /forum/post/0

Potential trouble looms for SBC's Net-based TV


By Leslie Cauley USA TODAY


NEW YORK SBC Communications, which promised to launch its much-ballyhooed Internet-based TV service later this year, will almost certainly have to delay a commercial rollout until at least 2006, some analysts say.


A potential trouble spot is Microsoft's IPTV software platform, still in development. That software will form the heart of the operating system for SBC's entire video network, making it critical to the project

You would think a company like SBC would know not to depend on the King of Vaporware, Microsoft...I laughed my butt off reading this article...come on, they really thought Microsoft was going to able to commit to a timetable...?!?! Silly people...
 
Top