Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Could the new HRx have this?


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    DaBears

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 5,940 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:19 PM

2 questions about this come to mind. First why bother with a HD in these units. They should have stuck to could storage. They're already throwing money out the window to prove a point.

Also if you read the article exactly as it's written every TV would have this functionality and I don't believe that is the case, or will be, once this goes live. I thought Google might try to be the new "TiVo" with this by assigning id's to the shows and then having a "master" version of the show then populating a guide like normal but it just references that show. This would remove in house storage needed.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   TomCat

TomCat

    Broadcast Engineer

  • Registered
  • 3,693 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2002

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:52 PM

You're completely missing (or ignorant of) the reality of how FIOS TV works. FIOS uses QAM on the TV component of their product. As such, it carries all of QAM's limitations with it. Adding another LASER (or a dozen) doesn't magically expand the capacity of QAM (let alone the capabilities of the terminal devices that tune and demodulate QAM).

Until such time that FIOS goes to SDV or some manner of IPTV, QAM leaves FIOS's TV channel capacity absolutely limited to the same capacity as a fully digital cable system.

Well, we could talk all day and night about how some posters here are "completely missing (or ignorant of) the reality of" a number of things that should be easily understood, and the recent attacks on you are just another example of what is becoming the norm.

Neither QAM nor IPTV is all that limited. They are more alike than they are different. Both have real-world limitations and both have realistic avenues for future expansion, but FIOS is actually ahead of the game there regardless of whether it uses QAM or not. The fact that QAM has limitations that are more restrictive than IPTV is sort of a moot point, because whether they can expand or not is more rooted in the amount of installed infrastructure available than in those particular restrictions.

But assuming it did matter (which it does not), the critical difference it this, which is that you can't expand the fixed bandwidth of a QAM channel, which means that you have to be able to squeeze a certain number of whole channels into it. There may be room left over after two channels or three channels, but not enough to allow an entire extra channel without paying a QoS price that might be unacceptable, which means it is inefficiently using its bandwidth. DBS transponders and OTA TV both face the same dilemma (which is why all will likely be replaced by a protocol more similar to IPTV at some point down the road, retrofitted into the DBS and OTA infrastructure).

IPTV, on the other hand, is limited by the pipe only, which means you can use certain techniques to leverage the available bandwidth more efficiently. Netflix is a good example; IPTV techniques are much more dynamically massagable than having to live within the restrictions of QAM. So I think your point is well taken in that regard.

And I have to agree, absolutely. QAM presents a particular limitation. It is not a hard limitation, though, and it is possible to squeeze more channels into existing QAM using bit reduction techniques. It also is not that dissimilar to the limitations of streaming technology, which also have particular limitations and also can increase program count through bit reduction.

So, using QAM might box them in more than using IPTV, but are they really boxed in? Not really, and ironically, much less than a conventional cable sytem, regardless of whether either or both use QAM, or don't. In a discussion about whether they are boxed in or not, the techniques they use turn out to not matter that much. Installed infrastructure is the limiting factor. Yes, "QAM leaves FIOS's TV channel capacity absolutely limited to the same capacity as a fully digital cable system". You could not be more correct about that from the point of view of what limitations QAM presents. But whether one or the other can expand or is limited is based on how much infrastructure they have in place that is not being used already. A typical cable system is maxed out and is using all of their installed infrastructure, while FIOS is only using a fraction of theirs.

In fact, since they own their infrastructure and it seems that we here in the USA are having trouble getting much internet bandwidth at all to the masses, FIOS has the upper hand there as well. The Google build-out is supposed to be 100 Mb down, and 100 Mb up; those are science-fiction numbers, unheard of until now. For all practical purposes the internet can't begin to approach that, and cable TV cant either. Fiber can, QAM or no QAM.

If there were magically another 300 content channels available beyond the hundreds that we have now, and they were desirable channels on the quality level of top cable channels, I think FIOS would have the advantage in being able to adapt to that regardless of the technique they use. As some have said , simply "adding another laser" might be just about all that they need, because it is very likely that FIOS today contains much more dark fiber than it does active fiber.

It is very easy and cost-effective to gamble on futuring for expansion in fiber. Most copper phone lines installed as far back as the early 80's contained fiber all the way to the home, just in case the technology ever came along to make using it practical. Verizon would have been completely foolish to not future FIOS infrastructure for the possibility of such an expansion. Same with the Google build-out in Kansas City.

30 years later, it is also not out of the realm of possibility that a garden-variety cable drop might also contain a dark fiber for hopeful future use. They certainly have a lot of dark fiber already in their existing cable plants, ready to go.

But again, there is a critical difference; FIOS is fiber to the home, while a conventional cable system uses fiber trunking to cellular nodes, and uses copper technology from there to the home, and there is no "dark" extra coax lurking within that infrastructure. Oops. No 300 extra channels for you.

The toughest part of the delivery is always what is referred to as the "last mile", and cable does not have that infrastructure yet in place for expansion, while FIOS most likely does. Cable has to sunset analog channels first, and that will take a very long time. FIOS can expand tomorrow if they need to.
It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

#28 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 32,338 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 12 August 2012 - 05:15 AM

One has to wonder why anyone even mentions FIOS anymore, as they are an orphan in terms of having a small percentage of the U.S. HDTV access market with no intention whatsoever to invest in more infrastructure and grow that business.

http://venturebeat.c...fios-build-out/

Verizon is focusing on their core business / competency (wireless)...and the fiber cable onslaught of a few years ago is a dead duck now.

I've seen at least 6 local projects for fiber cable expansion alone in one city here get terminated.

As for the OP...it's an intriguing concept. It's also dependent on affordable and available high-bandwidth Internet service - neither of which are available in many parts of the U.S. at this time.

http://www.infoworld...ounterparts-321

When you have a top ten city, for example, that cannot offer more than 3 Mbps Internet access to over 60% of its residents...this type of technology is ahead of the market in multiple ways. Natonally....5 Mbps (only) is the average. It's embarrassing in many ways. Banking equipment on the idea of ready access to higher broadband access might be a bit premature.

Edited by hdtvfan0001, 12 August 2012 - 05:22 AM.

DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#29 OFFLINE   HobbyTalk

HobbyTalk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,659 posts
Joined: Jul 14, 2007

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:34 AM

As for the OP...it's an intriguing concept. It's also dependent on affordable and available high-bandwidth Internet service - neither of which are available in many parts of the U.S. at this time.


What does high bandwidth service have to do with built in WiFi access ponts and bluetooth? Even a home with 1M DSL could make use of having WiFi available throughout the home. Anyone could sit in their bedrom and listen to programming via a bluetooth headset and not bother momma. Heck, I have a bluetooth adaptor on my home stereo so I can stream music from my phone, would be nice to use it for D. The HR34 is suppose to be D's "high tech" receiver, they should have this low tech in them!
DirecTV HR34 - 3 HR25's
Panny 42PX77U - Slingbox Pro
tgif: let's RV

#30 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 12 August 2012 - 05:41 PM

OAM's use has nothing to do with this.

Because FIOS has chosen a TV distribution system that is compatible with digital cable, it is similarly hobbled. FIOS uses only one center frequency (870MHz). NONE of the rest of the bandwidth is available for QAM TV. None. Nada. Add the big box of Crayon LASER colors and you've still only got 300 channels (give or take 85).

Even if FIOS were to make additional QAM bands available, they would still be limited to what frequencies the terminal devices (TV's, TiVos, etc.) can tune. Sure, they could force everyone to use an in-house DVR and STBs at every TV like DIRECTV does but that's not going to go over well when compared to the alternatives available currently.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#31 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 12 August 2012 - 05:55 PM

Neither QAM nor IPTV is all that limited. They are more alike than they are different.

QAM and IPTV are only alike in that they can be used to send a TV stream. Beyond that, they're quite dissimilar.

QAM is an analog multi-channel modulation scheme while IPTV is a packet based IP transmission scheme.

IPTV doesn't require any kind of time base while QAM demands that absolutely everything be precisely synchronized. With IPTV, you can preload programming but with QAM, you can't jump ahead or cache.

If you lose the stream with QAM, you've lost part of the program. With IPTV, the packets can be (and likely will automatically be) retransmitted.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#32 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 12 August 2012 - 06:36 PM

Because FIOS has chosen a TV distribution system that is compatible with digital cable, it is similarly hobbled. FIOS uses only one center frequency (870MHz). NONE of the rest of the bandwidth is available for QAM TV. None. Nada. Add the big box of Crayon LASER colors and you've still only got 300 channels (give or take 85).

Even if FIOS were to make additional QAM bands available, they would still be limited to what frequencies the terminal devices (TV's, TiVos, etc.) can tune. Sure, they could force everyone to use an in-house DVR and STBs at every TV like DIRECTV does but that's not going to go over well when compared to the alternatives available currently.

Not sure [nor care] what you're looking at that isn't using the whole bandwidth.
What I've been trying to explain is:
Fiber has the feature of using several frequencies of lasers, where it is independent of the others.
Cable uses QAM & fiber, and copper for the final leg. Because of the copper, it's limited to only one laser.
When you bring fiber to the house, "the terminal box" [gateway/router for U-verse] can deliver the information from all the lasers over copper to the box/receiver requesting it.
Any QAM "limitations", can have double the capacity, simply by adding another laser on the fiber for the gateway to route.
You're simply [it seems] "stuck in the copper world", and have yet to grasp what multiple wavelengths of light offer over the same fiber.
Just the way TV channels are stacked on copper, lasers can be stacked on fiber, where each laser has the bandwidth of one copper cable.
A.K.A VOS

#33 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:33 AM

Cable uses QAM & fiber, and copper for the final leg. Because of the copper, it's limited to only one laser.

I don't dispute that fiber offers great gobs of bandwidth. I like fiber a lot as it allows me to run an 100FX Ethernet segment over 850 feet between buildings. The simple fact is that FIOS fiber doesn't come inside the home either and as such, its wonderful properties don't enter into the FIOS TV picture.

What you're utterly failing to recognize/admit/get your head around is that FIOS TV is stuffed into a single RG6 coax from outside the home and as such, it is necessarily limited to the capacity of coax and the modulation scheme used (QAM). For all intents and purposes FIOS is a glorified CATV system coupled with a whole lot of bandwidth (coming in via copper Ethernet) for broadband Internet service and a smidgen for POTS service (over CAT3).

FIOS doesn't use the same scheme that uVerse does. uVerse TV, phone and data travels via coax (not MoCA, BTW) or occasionally twisted pair and they've only managed four (maybe five now) channels for the whole home.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#34 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 13 August 2012 - 08:42 AM

What you're utterly failing to recognize/admit/get your head around is that FIOS TV is stuffed into a single RG6 coax from outside the home and as such, it is necessarily limited to the capacity of coax and the modulation scheme used (QAM). For all intents and purposes FIOS is a glorified CATV system coupled with a whole lot of bandwidth (coming in via copper Ethernet) for broadband Internet service and a smidgen for POTS service (over CAT3).

I don't know where you get this idea.
There are three lasers used:

  • carries TV
  • handles the IP downstream
  • handles the IP upstream.
Fiber doesn't run "through the home" but does to the home, where the fiber signals are converted to separate copper lines.

IIRC: the three are in the 1310 to 1550 nm range.

FYI: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Verizon_FiOS

Edited by veryoldschool, 13 August 2012 - 09:01 AM.

A.K.A VOS

#35 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 32,338 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:38 AM

What does high bandwidth service have to do with built in WiFi access ponts and bluetooth? Even a home with 1M DSL could make use of having WiFi available throughout the home. Anyone could sit in their bedrom and listen to programming via a bluetooth headset and not bother momma. Heck, I have a bluetooth adaptor on my home stereo so I can stream music from my phone, would be nice to use it for D. The HR34 is suppose to be D's "high tech" receiver, they should have this low tech in them!

While WIFI and Bluetooth are all well and good...

...the source of content and the speed of accessing it may be dependent on bandwidth as well - which is not all internal to the home. The HR34 or any other device can only download (VOD), stream, etc. based on the bandwidth supported (examples). Further dampening the content delivery speed through a WIFI pipe to a device certainly doesn't speed things up.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#36 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 14 August 2012 - 08:20 AM

Fiber doesn't run "through the home" but does to the home, where the fiber signals are converted to separate copper lines.

If the fiber never enters the home, it doesn't matter if you have petabit bandwidth clinging to your siding. If you can only see 1000MHz of bandwidth, it doesn't matter how large a block it is cut out of.

What you're insisting is akin to saying that if there is an 8" water main not far from your meter, you have "up to" 1600gpm capacity on your side of the meter. That's not how it works.

The Wikipedia article essentially echos what I've been saying all along so citing it only reaffirms my claims. Along with it, you should consider this Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia....AM_(television)

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#37 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 14 August 2012 - 08:27 AM

Further dampening the content delivery speed through a WIFI pipe to a device certainly doesn't speed things up.

By the same token, MoCA or HomePNA certainly aren't going to swamp WiFi in a bandwidth competition.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#38 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 14 August 2012 - 08:42 AM

If the fiber never enters the home, it doesn't matter if you have petabit bandwidth clinging to your siding. If you can only see 1000MHz of bandwidth, it doesn't matter how large a block it is cut out of.

OK, you're completely hopeless, and clinging on to non existent limitations.

"if you have petabit bandwidth clinging to your siding", then you have access to a petabit.
If this was till on a pole down the street, as it would be with cable, then you don't through one copper line.

At this point I think you're just circling the drain trying to coverup your misguided post about QAM limitations for fiber that are only there for those using copper.
A.K.A VOS

#39 OFFLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 32,338 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:59 AM

By the same token, MoCA or HomePNA certainly aren't going to swamp WiFi in a bandwidth competition.

OK, you're completely hopeless, and clinging on to non existent limitations.

"if you have petabit bandwidth clinging to your siding", then you have access to a petabit.
If this was till on a pole down the street, as it would be with cable, then you don't through one copper line.

At this point I think you're just circling the drain trying to coverup your misguided post about QAM limitations for fiber that are only there for those using copper.

VOS - I suspect you've forgotten more about this topic than I or others will ever know...so I'll cling you your information accordingly.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#40 OFFLINE   volkl

volkl

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 129 posts
Joined: Jun 17, 2007

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:49 PM

...The Google build-out is supposed to be 100 Mb down, and 100 Mb up; those are science-fiction numbers, unheard of until now....


I went to the Google display in KC, and they are going to provide 1000Mbps up and down. One has to go to a special speednet dot test in order to even test such speeds. They say 1 GB up and down, and they print the same thing on their website; however, in their printed pamphlets they prefer to print 100 times faster than what most Americans have today. No ESPN and no HBO, as yet.

I asked to see "the cable," and they do not have it to show us. All the network boxes had ethernet going to them. My guess is that it will not be fiber to the home, but copper.

Edited by volkl, 14 August 2012 - 02:03 PM.


#41 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 14 August 2012 - 02:17 PM

I went to the Google display in KC, and they are going to provide 1000Mbps up and down. One has to go to a special speednet dot test in order to even test such speeds. They say 1 GB up and down, and they print the same thing on their website; however, in their printed pamphlets they prefer to print 100 times faster than what most Americans have today. No ESPN and no HBO, as yet.

I asked to see "the cable," and they do not have it to show us. All the network boxes had ethernet going to them. My guess is that it will not be fiber to the home, but copper.

I wouldn't make that guess as it would be very hard to get 1 Gb/s up & down through copper, any significant distance.
A.K.A VOS

#42 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:34 AM

OK, you're completely hopeless, and clinging on to non existent limitations.

You're trying to twist the discussion to be about the media but the real discussion is about what is carried on the media.

"if you have petabit bandwidth clinging to your siding", then you have access to a petabit.

The coax from the ONT that carries the QAM modulated portion of the FIOS TV signal simply can't carry more than about 1.1GHz worth of QAM modulated RF bandwidth. FIOS TV uses the lower part of the RG6 for QAM TV and the rest of the RG6 capacity is wasted on MoCA (capping the usable frequency at somewhere around 1.3Ghz) for on demand content.

If this was till on a pole down the street, as it would be with cable, then you don't through one copper line.

Since the same QAM signal goes through each and every subscriber's cable, one copper cable is the same as every other copper cable (save the 50MHz MoCA portion at 1450MHz or below). A unique FIOS TV signal isn't being muxed and demuxed for each household as required as you seem to think.

At this point I think you're just circling the drain trying to coverup your misguided post about QAM limitations for fiber that are only there for those using copper.

I'm not talking about fiber limitations and that's something you've managed to ignore mightily. I'm talking about TV delivery limitations for FIOS which sends essentially the same signal (plus capacity for maybe five or six demand channels via MoCA) to each and every subscriber home over a single RG6 cable from the ONT.

If FIOS were to abandon QAM and go to an different distribution model, things would be decidedly different but those who have done their homework understand that's not how it works currently.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#43 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:40 AM

The coax from the ONT that carries the QAM modulated portion of the FIOS TV signal simply can't carry more than about 1.1GHz worth of QAM modulated RF bandwidth.

So what seems like 14 pages back:
Should FIOS add another laser feeding the ONT, and also use QAM on it, then the ONT could switch between the two feeds as the receivers request, and have twice the channels available, without any of the limitations of cable, right?
A.K.A VOS

#44 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 18 August 2012 - 01:28 PM

Should FIOS add another laser feeding the ONT, and also use QAM on it, then the ONT could switch between the two feeds as the receivers request, and have twice the channels available, without any of the limitations of cable, right?

As there's no switching "polarity" built into QAM tuners and every reason to expect that viewers are going to want to watch (or record) programming from different feeds (wanting to use opposing polarities simultaneously), your proposed system is entirely impractical.

There would need to be an "+" feed and a "-" feed so that TV tuners, receivers and DVRs could differentiate between channel 100 on the "+" feed and channel 100 on the "-" feed. I can't imagine how you would present the guide (it seems insufferable to only show what's available on the current "polarity").

Every device that changed its channel would need to know if any other tuners were active and which bank they were using and depending on the result, could tune or would be denied access to the desired channel. Imagine trying to coordinate DVR timers based on the non-negligible chance that the necessary feed isn't active for the duration of the recording. Imagine trying to prioritize the "polarity" based on a system that combines live channel surfing.

As long as they employ QAM for TV, FIOS has no more tricks available to them than any conventional cable company has access to; especially since they're using essentially the same STBs.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#45 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 August 2012 - 01:38 PM

As long as they employ QAM for TV, FIOS has no more tricks available to them than any conventional cable company has access to; especially since they're using essentially the same STBs.

I was just suggesting a way that shows how QAM isn't the limiting factor it is with cable.
Whether they would do this is a whole other topic, but it's doable.
With cable it isn't, so all of the limitations/other means would be needed.
If the ONT had home runs to the receivers, there shouldn't be the "problems" that you suggest, as every STB has to communicate with the system and therefore the ONT, but then, you're never going to see things other than from your position, so [again] this becomes pointless.
A.K.A VOS

#46 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:44 PM

Whether they would do this is a whole other topic, but it's doable.

That's kind of like saying that TiVo could develop a DIRECTV DVR based on the HR34. It could be done but the likelihood is so vanishingly small as to be absurd.

A practical solution would be to kill MoCA and use the bandwidth for a whole lot more TV. You would still need to get the STB manufacturers to modify their QAM equipment for the additional TV bandwidth but the other issues your proposal carries wouldn't exist.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#47 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:51 PM

That's kind of like saying...

Actually what you should be saying is...

"In Your Opinion" QAM is limited and until something else comes along..., instead of trying to suggest there is some technical limitation, which there isn't with fiber.

I won't argue with an opinion, but will with a stupid statement about some mythical technical limitation, that I know isn't there.
A.K.A VOS

#48 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,985 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 18 August 2012 - 08:21 PM

Actually what you should be saying is...

You shouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth; especially when I don't agree with them.

"In Your Opinion" QAM is limited and until something else comes along..., instead of trying to suggest there is some technical limitation, which there isn't with fiber.

They've got a whole lot more bandwidth than they know what to do with now and yet, the limitation is in full force. The QAM limitation is real and not practical to overcome by extending the technology. Asking the STB manufacturers to go further down the rabbit hole of modulated RF is an incredibly backwards and outdated idea.

You've made no attempt to address the issues that I've raised about your feed switching scheme yet you maintain that it is doable. I submit that the reasons I've cited (and others), your proposed switched QAM system is NOT doable. It is almost as silly as asking DIRECTV to use cablecard tuners (something that has been contemplated by the FCC more than once).

Dangling the carrot of fiber is a red herring as long as it is RG6 that is doing the dirty work. Your clinging to fiber's significant advantages is a failure to recognize where the rubber meets the road.

My solution is two-fold:

1. The NEC needs to get over treating residential Ethernet like some sort of life or death Internet backbone (while they look past functionally identical, albeit slower, technologies on RG6 and CAT3).

2. The CE manufacturers need to standardize on an IP-based transmission scheme (be it DLNA or something similar) and deploy it with all haste.

We know that the industry is going to get there sooner than later so they might as well start with FIOS who seems to be considerably less terrified of meeting limited energy licensing requirements than DBS or CATV installers.

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK


#49 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Never say 'never'.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,127 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 18 August 2012 - 08:33 PM

You shouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth; especially when I don't agree with them.


Putting words in another's mouth is misquoting another, not saying "what you should have said" sorts of phrases.

--
l44 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message from lax guy may contain information that is confidential, privileged and/or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby instructed to: (a) not read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message, any part of it, or any of its attachments; [blah, blah, blah] (B) completely delete this message and all of its attachments from your system and © notify the sender immediately of the inadvertent transmission. There is no intent on the part of the sender to waive any privilege, including the attorney-client , doctor-patient, mentor-mentee, employer-employee, officer-suspect, psychiatrist-patient, or parent-child privileges that may attach to this communication.
"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#50 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 42,088 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 18 August 2012 - 08:42 PM

You've made no attempt to address the issues that I've raised about your feed switching scheme yet you maintain that it is doable. I submit that the reasons I've cited (and others), your proposed switched QAM system is NOT doable.

Dangling the carrot of fiber is a red herring as long as it is RG6 that is doing the dirty work.

You may summit what ever you want. I don't think two lasers carrying TV is that hard, but then I've worked in the fiber networking for several years, so I may have a better understanding that you.
You've simply made some ridiculous statements like:

If the fiber never enters the home, it doesn't matter if you have petabit bandwidth clinging to your siding. If you can only see 1000MHz of bandwidth, it doesn't matter how large a block it is cut out of.

This clearly shows once again your clueless about how something works.

"I'm done"
A.K.A VOS




Protected By... spam firewall...And...