Slashdot Log In
Cable Industry Needs to Spend Heavily on Upgrades
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:42 PM
from the think-of-the-children dept.
from the think-of-the-children dept.
BlueCup writes "A report from the cable industry's research arm suggests that Cable-television operators require another round of multibillion-dollar network upgrades to keep up with rivals in the fast-growing high-speed Internet hookup business. The conclusions underscore the challenges posed by the rapid growth of broadband video from YouTube and Google, and the looming threat of a planned $20 billion rollout of high-capacity fiber lines by U.S. phone giant Verizon Communications Inc."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Cable Industry Needs to Spend Heavily on Upgrades
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 126 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Certainly True in Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to get their act together or they'll start to lose customers. They have a 60 GB/month usage limit. What good is a 8 Mbit/s line when you can hit your bandwidth cap in a single day?
...at the best prices too! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you hear that?
It's the sound of tens of thousands of dollars in new bribes starting the march to Congress to make sure that our taxes pay for these upgrades while the cablecos continue to act as if they own the infrastructure.
Why just tens of thousands? Congress is notoriously cheap [opensecrets.org] the best government money can buy at the best prices too!
If you can't beat 'em (Score:1, Insightful)
Come on cable companies...ditch the coax and go fiber. Make the infrastructure interoperable.
Is there really any reason for them to stick with coax? Other than grandfathering themselves in...
Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.igotu.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 19 2002, @04:32PM)
Now? Cablemodem access is pretty much everywhere, and download speeds are pretty decent in general. DSL and Cable both have offerings in the 4-6mbit range, and now there is something else to look forward to...
Fiber. Downtown San Francisco has some of that Verizon fiber available in limited areas, and the access download speeds get into the 60-100mbit range. Let me say that again, since I'm sure a lot of people are going to say "he said WHAT?"
100 megabits. downlink. speed.
Yes, there are still some non-sensical "can't host a server" issues. Yes, uplink speeds are artificially asymmetrical (~60mb down, about 1mbit up. Still an improvement over cablemodem service speeds.) It's part of an experimental rollout, and hard to get installed. So was DSL, once.
HDTV, phone, internet access, 'digital radio', and more on a single line, all for around $100/month, at least for now.
Cable companies have something to worry about. Definately.
Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://rustyp.freeshell.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 29 2003, @09:22AM)
Nobody gets even close to that on DSL. In my area, we can get
Cable really doesn't have much to worry about. It's a lot easier to upgrade and repair cable networks than it is to upgrade and repair fiber, and cable lines can actually handle 100MB from the number of houses they're doing now without much problem.
The issue is that they've got all those pesky analog cable TV channels on there wasting space.
They're slowly phasing out all of the old, nondigital cable boxes and moving everyone over to digital. Once that's done, they'll be far ahead of fiber in terms of getting that last mile in place, and they'll be able to match the speeds fiber is currently offering.
It might cost more, but if I was a betting man, I'd bet more on cable being reliable and maintained over fiber. cable isn't a prototype. We know it works, and we know the network can handle it. Only the switches and the policies need to be changed. Despite the cost of that, I'm pretty sure its still cheaper than all that has to be done to make fiber a reality.
Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... (Score:4, Informative)
and run to a neighborhood hybrid fiber coax router that breaks it out to coax for 500
to 1,000 users typically.
The cable companies already deployed a lot of fiber just for digital cable.
Pleeze. (Score:4, Informative)
Of course the phone company told you it was good. They're the freak'n provider. What were you expecting "Oh, Mr. Johnson, that's really slow. We're providing some really crappy service aren't we?" they don't want to be held to any kind of standard for service, so they aren't going to agree with any notion there's a problem if you'll go with their answers.
And they'll be able to start charging everyone per TV for their services. Which is why they really want to get rid of analog cable. They're like Ma Bell in the 50's wanting to charge you per phone in your house regardless of how many actual phone lines you have. The only reason that was undone was the availablity of wiring for do-it-yourself extensions and the analog nature of the PSTN making it hard to track how many phones a person had.
Plus, the external converter has the added bonus of making it hard to do automated VCR recordings of shows while you're away from home (hello, DVR rental fee!).
Why does nobody recognise digital cable for what it is; an excuse to roll back fair use and home recording rights, and find another way to nickel and dime the consumer?
Until there's legislation passed removing the encryption from cable (so makers of stand alone DVR's and VCR's can integrate digital tuners in their products) or requiring cablecos to provide as many boxes as a customer needs free of charge this will continue.
Let's not jump the gun yet. (Score:2)
(http://www.redorbit.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @03:44AM)
The telecoms may be looking at a bleak future ($$$) after some lawsuits, and who knows what legislation (if any- but I expect telecom's lobbyists to go into overtime over this one)
may transpire.
If nothing else, it will be VERY interesting in the forseeable near-future. Hopefully we won't have to lube up and bend over 'cause of these two things.
*dons tinfoil hat and backs into corner with "trapped rat mentality" due to recent happenings*
If only there was something faster..... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.dontbflat.com/)
yay verizon (Score:2)
(http://sitetheory.com/ | Last Journal: Friday October 24 2003, @10:59AM)
Upgrades required... (Score:1)
-r
They need to upgrade and drop prices! (Score:4, Funny)
And they keep flooding my snailmail box with flyers trying to get me to sign up for digital TV, voip and RR for the low, low price of $120 a month + taxes, so figure $130 a month. No thanks. Don't want it or need it.
I just want internet only. I have a cell phone and TV sucks.
As for RR here, the speed is decent, it's stable and dependable and they've never jacked me around like SBC did on DSL. I'll do without before I ever do business with SBC so I'm stuck with RR..
I wouldn't mind paying what I pay if they would up the speed. I hear some places in the US are getting 3x to 4x the speed I get for half the price. WTF??? Bump up our speed or cut our bills you cheap bastards!
Net neutrality? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 30 2004, @01:33AM)
"Industry controlled 'research' group claims big bills to be paid for infrastucture that video-streaming websites will push out. WEe need to be able to charge Google and other to 'prioritise' their traffic or we won't have enough money. Net Neutrality is therefore a bad thing"
They're already upgrading in a sense... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.vulturesnest.net/)
Now, the main threat to cable operators is alternative forms of television - satellite and IPTV. The satellite operators don't have to pay the cable operators to broadcast their signals, and the phone companies are also monopolies that are rapidly expanding - FIOS, VDSL - techologies that can deliver more video bandwidth than cable, and still have room left over for lots of data.
In an attempt to try to beat the phone companies to the triple play (television, data, phone), the cable companies sank a lot of money into proprietary digital television systems (Motorola and Scientific Atlanta). The telephone companies have been researching alternate systems, and I figure that they'll be able to beat the cable companies based on cost alone.
Right now, the cable companies are trying to convert to digital cable as quickly as they can - for every analog channel that they move off to digital, they can put in between 5-10 analog channels. This space can then be redeployed for cable modems/EMTAs (for data and phone usage). But, there's a downside to this - every new digital subscriber costs the cable company hundreds of dollars in the form of an expensive PVR (a proprietary PVR that cannot be swapped out because of the proprietary encryption). So, they're screwed either way.
-- Joe
Oh you mean the 45Mb/s I AREADY paid for? (Score:4, Informative)
http://saveaccess.org/node/288 [saveaccess.org]
http://www.newnetworks.com/scandalquotes.htm [newnetworks.com]
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/123400026707348
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240
Why is it... (Score:5, Interesting)
come on.. (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday May 23 2003, @04:03PM)
Depends on your ISP (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the reasons I stick with them is they don't traffic shape. They occasionally cap 24/7 bittorrent users (if a user on your node complains). But they don't limit the download and upload ports.
While it took a long time for me to get cable, I think its worth it- Cablevision's network seems future proofed (well, as much as you can be)
No it doesn't (Score:3, Informative)
(http://hackish.org/)
Looming threat? (Score:1)
Multi-unit Dwelling Too Hard? (Score:2, Interesting)
Fiber is'nt enough (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Sunday August 20 2006, @09:16PM)
Sure, in some heavily populated areas the shared coax along the road is satuated. In many others like mine we don't have this problem either because the cable company laid fiber to the pedestal at the bottom of the driveway or the density of cable modem users isn't there.
Exploiting coax to the max (Score:1)
The overall price of hardware that supports fiber optic transmission is considerably small when compared to amount of money a CATV provider needs to invest when routing a completely new network. They can't just dig around (your house, appartment block, a street or a highway). They need approvals, and I mean many approvals. Certain approvals cost a lot of money. Some cities won't even let them dig - they'll rather rent them city-owned (or national Telco-owned) undeground conduits.
Up (Score:2)
and DSL....
They don't so much need upgrades as to get off of their asses
and finish the last mile.
The bastards provide digital cable, but are too cheap to
finish the transition to broadband internet.
There should be some kind of law that mandates uniform service
across all customers of such a utility.
What a bunch of sooks (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 10 2005, @05:16PM)
Obviously you havent bee to Australia
Telstra and Optus Australia's two major Telcos also have major dependance of their Cable TV Empire, so purpose limit the quality of Internet available
Clear statement as low Maximum DSL speeds of 1500kb was implemented to minimise competition to their FoxTel TV
10GB 8mbit cable approx $40US a month.
10GB 1.5mbit Adsl approx $30US a month
billions of dollars were spent rolling out not 1 but 2 competeing cables across Australia forming a duopoly of PAYTV versus the Internet
It took years of legal battles by smaller ISP to roll out faster technology, ADSL2+ 24mbit
but based on the money Optus and Telstra spent on their cable networks they arent gonin upgrade in a hurry.
Re:True (Score:2)
Re:True (Score:4, Informative)
Your local news stations also use satellites to deliver live television broadcasts from various places. For everything else, they use tubes.
They are. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday November 02, @02:49PM)
They are. In buzzword land it's called "triple play". (Data, VoIP, and IPTV.) "Quadruple play" if you add wireless linkage. The overall phenomenon is "The Convergence" - of all forms of communication into a single packet-switched network.
And the wireline services will eat cable's lunch if they don't upgrade. The minimum Cable needs to do is fiber-to-the-curb, after which they can use the coax for the last few feet. Meanwhile the copper pair people are doing the same thing (when they don't run a fiber all the way to the house.) With a shorter run (blocks rather than miles) they can push tens of megabits or better down the copper.
The key is getting enough PRIVATE bandwidth to each house for several video feeds. Then you can switch what gets fed to the house at the curbside router or switch, the central office, or the head end. At that point the settop box or media-center computer becomes a remote control for the distant switching and cable's large-but-shared bandwidth advantage vanishes.
So within the next year or two, as IPTV with video-on-demand deploys among the wireline carriers, cable has to invest in splitting the neighborhoods fine enough to give everybody their own several video streams worth of dedicated bandwidth. Otherwise they can't deliver a version of the video on demand "killer ap" - and it kills them.
Re:True (Score:3, Insightful)
Or do you want them to put LEO satellites into orbit and maintain them and launch new ones and have a huge switching network that would cost them nearly as much as just laying new cable with much more headache?
Re:Overheard in a congessional office... (Score:1)
Who the hell are you to tell us what we can do with our network?
KFG