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

#41 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,981 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

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#42 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,375 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
  • 41,981 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
  • 19,375 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
  • 41,981 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
  • 19,375 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
  • 41,981 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
  • 19,375 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
  • 13,268 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
  • 41,981 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

#51 OFFLINE   harsh

harsh

    Beware the Attack Basset

  • Registered
  • 19,375 posts
  • LocationSalem, OR
Joined: Jun 14, 2003

Posted 20 August 2012 - 12:13 PM

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.

I've been making TV for 30 years. That alone doesn't make me an authority on what can be done with TV.

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

The fact that there aren't any reasonable responses to your proposal on what FIOS could do suggests that it is you that has no idea how it could work but the power of fiber must somehow make it possible.

I go back to my 8" water main argument. It doesn't matter what's on the outside if it all has to pass through a relatively small pipe to get inside your home.

In this case, delivering your final insult and saying that you're done is a declaration of no contest. Many of your previous "I'm dones" have ended similarly.

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





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