1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Could the new HRx have this?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV HD DVR/Receiver Discussion' started by HobbyTalk, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    :confused:

    You've been "the great ethernet" advocate over DECA/MoCA, so what is it that you don't get/see here if fiber comes to the router and then "copper" from there? :confused:
     
  2. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    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.
     
  3. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    You're re-using terms that are likely to confuse most. Router, at the residential level, is something installed inside the home to establish a LAN off of a single Internet address. The ONT, on the other hand, splits (routes, if you must) at the IP - POTS - CATV level.
     
  4. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    Keeping the name calling out of it:
    What the hell don't you understand when fiber has the equivalent [bandwidth] of running multiple coax to the home? :confused:
    Remember the "old days" of cable A & B?
    OAM's use has nothing to do with this.
     
  5. Drucifer

    Drucifer Well-Known Member

    9,420
    245
    Feb 12, 2009
    NY Hudson...
    I remember rabbit ears on top of TV sets.

    All these new in home super STB don't mean anything to most of us because we are limited to the sole service that feeds our homes. In my case, that DSL. For some of my friends and relatives, it still 2W copper.
     
  6. Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    46
    Mar 18, 2008
    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.
     
  7. TomCat

    TomCat Broadcast Engineer

    4,153
    100
    Aug 31, 2002
    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.
     
  8. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    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.com/2011/12/09/verizon-stops-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.com/t/networking/us-broadband-speeds-lag-behind-global-counterparts-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.
     
  9. HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,687
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    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!
     
  10. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    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.
     
  11. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    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.
     
  12. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    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.
     
  13. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    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.
     
  14. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    I don't know where you get this idea.
    There are three lasers used:

    1. carries TV
    2. handles the IP downstream
    3. 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.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS
     
  15. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    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.
     
  16. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    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.org/wiki/QAM_(television)
     
  17. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    183
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    By the same token, MoCA or HomePNA certainly aren't going to swamp WiFi in a bandwidth competition.
     
  18. veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    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.
     
  19. hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    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.
     
  20. volkl

    volkl Legend

    129
    1
    Jun 17, 2007
    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.
     

Share This Page