Ok in the future everyone is going to be broadcasting in HD, will the Satalite companies run out of band width, and the cable companies will get most of the business? I think Band width is going to be a huge problem in the future for Dish and Direct TV when everyone starts going to HD. What do all of you think.
Cable or Sat for future HD
- Thread starter Hawkeyee
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 9
- Views 2K
bandwidth isn't as big of an issue with dish. You run out of bandwidth you send up another sat.
Cable will have problems once you hit around the 20 HD channel barrier. I am however open to letting them run an OC3+ straight to my residence
HD content is still slow coming. With many cable companies and content providers pushing SD standards instead, I doubt there will be any problems.
Cable will have problems once you hit around the 20 HD channel barrier. I am however open to letting them run an OC3+ straight to my residence
HD content is still slow coming. With many cable companies and content providers pushing SD standards instead, I doubt there will be any problems.
Actually, bandwidth may be a bigger issue with satellite than cable. It's not just a matter of sending up another satellite; that satellite will probably require a new FCC license (extremely limited supply, $$$ for new auctioned licenses or buying existing ones) for a limited number of orbital slots (read "new dishes"). OTOH, digital cable's effective bandwidth can be easily expanded through additional "neighborhood headends" (I've forgotten the proper technical term). Cable modem, which is based on digital cable, expands and extends its reach the same way; that's how it built such a big lead over DSL, whose equivalent solution ("remote terminals") is more expensive and harder to deploy.
Also, for HD locals satellite companies need enough bandwidth and spotbeams to cover EVERY local market; cable needs it for only one market. Which is why while some cable systems already have HD locals, satellite won't have them for the foreseeable future.
Of course, OdiOdin's offer to accept an OC3+ to his home brings me to one of E*'s secret weapons: the Baby Bells, especially SBC. E* just announced an expansion of the SBC partnership to deliver VOD via DSL; and when the Bells install fiber-to-the-home networks in the coming years to compete with cable, E* is expected to provide the video component of SBC's FTTH network. (It won't be immediately, but the Bells are preparing for the day cable will force them to go FTTH.) Perhaps our "Mad Scientist" is preparing for a future career installing E* dish farms atop SBC central offices?
Also, for HD locals satellite companies need enough bandwidth and spotbeams to cover EVERY local market; cable needs it for only one market. Which is why while some cable systems already have HD locals, satellite won't have them for the foreseeable future.
Of course, OdiOdin's offer to accept an OC3+ to his home brings me to one of E*'s secret weapons: the Baby Bells, especially SBC. E* just announced an expansion of the SBC partnership to deliver VOD via DSL; and when the Bells install fiber-to-the-home networks in the coming years to compete with cable, E* is expected to provide the video component of SBC's FTTH network. (It won't be immediately, but the Bells are preparing for the day cable will force them to go FTTH.) Perhaps our "Mad Scientist" is preparing for a future career installing E* dish farms atop SBC central offices?
RBBrittain said:
That's all well and good until you get into communities (like mine) where the same company (privately-owned monopoly) owns the cable TV service AND Phone Service AND Cable Internet service AND all DSL Connections...AND spends alll their time trying to stop the hemmoraging of subscribers to Satellite. I just dont see these type companies that are still holding on the the 1980's getting into bed w/ a satellite-provider for that sort of service.
The cost of deploying a new sat is still nothing compared to the cost of upgrading the cable network. Not to mention running fiber into the residence.
I still don't think there will be a problem with bandwidth on either side. No body is making content providers goto HD, and they just assume not to.
I still don't think there will be a problem with bandwidth on either side. No body is making content providers goto HD, and they just assume not to.
Please specify their upper frequency limit and modulation standard. QAM256 has about 38.8Mbps per 6Mhz slot and you can do the math on a system that goes to 867Mhz. They have far more bandwidth that satellite does which operates usually on QPSK with 24Mhz slots.dgordo said:
The only way DBS can have more is more birds and people already balk at Superdish or an extra for 61.5. Cable merely runs a line to your house. Unless and until they field a constellation of LEO birds with flat array antennas used on your home, they can't compete properly when it comes to bandwidth.
BTW, SBC has a long history of promising the sun, moon, and stars and delivering zippo. They were the ones who KILLED the Americast cable overbuild system with the primma donna attitude that "we're phone guys and not cable guys".
They also are patent liars regarding their claim to want to comepte with cable via their partnership with Dish as they turn a blind eye to even DNSC f*cking up installs and their own sales people are foisting 522s and 322s on people who told them they only own ONE d*mn television, not to mention HD boxes on people who told them from the start their TV ISN'T HD. Their attitude towards installers who call to correct these issues is, "f*ck it, install it anyhow and let them deal with it."
Five to ten times a week, no kidding.
Now they claim they're going to run fiber to the home? Not when they can't even build fiber to the neighborhood with remote terminals. They've been promising them in CT since I used to work DSL for a CLEC and that was several years ago now.
And having worked in DSL, I can tell you Video Over DSL didn't work years ago and doesn't work now. When the maximum bandwidth they can hit is a total of 7Mbps over an ADSL line practically on top of the Central Office, while cable has over 5000Mbps downstream capacity from node to end of run(at 256QAM never mind 1024QAM), Video Over DSL isn't going to fly.
The term regarding cable company head ends in the neighborhood is "regional hub" and they usually serve one or more towns. Fiber trunks hand off to the local fiber to the nodes there.
If an operator overbuilds themselves, they can then go to a switched design similar to DBS and double their capacity. They can also push fiber deeper to the neighborhoods where a node serves one block of thirty homes and they are far closer to FTTH than SBC or the other ILECs ever will be.
Cable can, DBS can't because they won't, and DSL can't because it can't.
Oh yeah, a fully built out modern cable operator has the capacity for well over 200 HD channels. Let's see DSL or DBS do that.
- Nov 29, 2003
- 14,583
- 18,696
Over at AVS it is said once Cable gets rid of the analog channels(Comcast plans on doing so in the next 2 years)they will have tons of space for HD, but right know they are pretty filled up as far as space goes.
cable systems use 64 QAM. You have to remember that there is still a good amount of copper out there. Cable still doesn't offer HD in many markets.
It's one thing to crunch the numbers on their theoretical bandwidth. It's another thing to speculate on how much of that they will be able to use for HD.
E* is using 8PSK me thinks.
I still say cable and sat have enough available bandwidth to handle HDtv offerings for years to come.
It's one thing to crunch the numbers on their theoretical bandwidth. It's another thing to speculate on how much of that they will be able to use for HD.
E* is using 8PSK me thinks.
I still say cable and sat have enough available bandwidth to handle HDtv offerings for years to come.
OdiOdin: E* is presently using 8PSK for HD and QPSK for SD.
Wayd Wolf, you seem to have let the Bell-hating ways of CLECs get to you. Me, I think AT&T was the REAL prima donna by deciding to get out of residential long distance just because the FCC finally stopped forcing the Bells to give away the store to CLECs.
One blatant inaccuracy in your tirade: SBC doesn't even support the 322--only the 311, 522, and 811. 522's are given to anyone that wants a DVR because that's the only DVR they offer; and they DO work with only one TV, even in dual mode. (I know firsthand.) Besides, since SBC shipped me a 311 and I had to badger them for three months to get the 522 I had ordered, I know for a fact SBC does *not* upsell. (Not to mention that they ran out of 811's almost immediately after launch--and what's to say that the person without an HD set today isn't planning ahead for the HD set he'll buy tomorrow, or 6 months from now?)
And your Americast quote only proves why SBC is partnering with E* on video: It keeps SBC from screwing up the content side. Ever wonder what happened to Prodigy? SBC's content cluelessness ran it into the ground, and they knew it; so they basically deep-sixed the content side and replaced it with Yahoo!. That worked well enough that they're trying the same thing with E* on video content. (And SBC is still trying to fix many of the screw-ups Ameritech stuck them with on the phone side, so why are you nominating Ameritech for sainthood?)
Notice how I worded my mention of FTTH: It may not happen tomorrow (or even in 5 years), but FTTH is inevitable for the Bells if they're gonna compete with cable, and they're getting ready for it. VOD over DSL may not be that great (though it'll probably be better with dedicated receivers and improved DSL technology), but it's an important milestone towards FTTH.
Wayd Wolf, you seem to have let the Bell-hating ways of CLECs get to you. Me, I think AT&T was the REAL prima donna by deciding to get out of residential long distance just because the FCC finally stopped forcing the Bells to give away the store to CLECs.
One blatant inaccuracy in your tirade: SBC doesn't even support the 322--only the 311, 522, and 811. 522's are given to anyone that wants a DVR because that's the only DVR they offer; and they DO work with only one TV, even in dual mode. (I know firsthand.) Besides, since SBC shipped me a 311 and I had to badger them for three months to get the 522 I had ordered, I know for a fact SBC does *not* upsell. (Not to mention that they ran out of 811's almost immediately after launch--and what's to say that the person without an HD set today isn't planning ahead for the HD set he'll buy tomorrow, or 6 months from now?)
And your Americast quote only proves why SBC is partnering with E* on video: It keeps SBC from screwing up the content side. Ever wonder what happened to Prodigy? SBC's content cluelessness ran it into the ground, and they knew it; so they basically deep-sixed the content side and replaced it with Yahoo!. That worked well enough that they're trying the same thing with E* on video content. (And SBC is still trying to fix many of the screw-ups Ameritech stuck them with on the phone side, so why are you nominating Ameritech for sainthood?)
Notice how I worded my mention of FTTH: It may not happen tomorrow (or even in 5 years), but FTTH is inevitable for the Bells if they're gonna compete with cable, and they're getting ready for it. VOD over DSL may not be that great (though it'll probably be better with dedicated receivers and improved DSL technology), but it's an important milestone towards FTTH.
