# Could the new HRx have this?



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Just read about the new Google Fiber STB. Here is the what they claim:

_"Google Fiber comes with a set-top box it calls a TV box, a network box or modem and a storage box or DVR. The TV box has eight tuners so viewers can record eight shows at once; it is fully integrated with online video and has a Wi-Fi access point built in so it turns every TV into a Wi-Fi router, meaning no more dead spots in the basement. The TV box also has Bluetooth, so viewers can use Bluetooth-enabled stereo headphones to watch TV without disturbing others.

The storage box stores 2 TB of content, or up to 500 hours of HD programming. The network provides high-speed wireless connections in the home, including a firewall for data security."_

Interesting that Google can have something with these features for a company that has never produced a STB before. If they pull it off, it works well and is basically bug free it makes you wonder why after all these years the D can't come out with a new receiver that come close to working well.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

There's no reason they can't technically, but it would be complicated. Most subscribers are on a setup now that is limited to 8 tuners. Google's solution is a different beast. IPTV is not really comparable to cable or satellite, and Google's network isn't comparable to most IPTV providers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> There's no reason they can't technically, but it would be complicated.


Good point, let's face it, D* doesn't do "complicated" well.



> Most subscribers are on a setup now that is limited to 8 tuners.


Could you clarify that statement?



> IPTV is not really comparable to cable or satellite, and Google's network isn't comparable to most IPTV providers.


Isn't NetFlix IPTV? My NF PQ is as good as D*'s 1080i. Going thru my Sammy BD players.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> IPTV is not really comparable to cable or satellite, and Google's network isn't comparable to most IPTV providers.


The technology used isn't the issue. The issue is the channels and services provided. The end of the DTH satellite model is coming in the US and DIRECTV needs to adapt to that reality. Nobody is going to have sympathy if they claim they are at a technical disadvantage.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't think many DirecTV customers have a SWM16. Most SWM customers have a SWM LNB. I don't think your setup is what would be considered typical. if they came out with an 8 tuner box, a lot of customers would either have to give up their other receivers for a RVU client or get a SWM16.

Netflix isn't really IPTV. I'm not talking PQ here. I'm talking the actual differences of your TV service coming through the Internet connection, like FIOS or Google. Uverse I don't think compares since it's FTTN and copper to the premises. When you've got a gigabit fiber connection to the house, that tends to open up the possibilites.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't think many DirecTV customers have a SWM16. Most SWM customers have a SWM LNB. I don't think your setup is what would be considered typical. if they came out with an 8 tuner box, a lot of customers would either have to give up their other receivers for a RVU client or get a SWM16.


I've often wondered about the "average" sub. Wonder how they'd arrive at that figure?



> Netflix isn't really IPTV. I'm not talking PQ here. I'm talking the actual differences of your TV service coming through the Internet connection, like FIOS or Google. Uverse I don't think compares since it's FTTN and copper to the premises. When you've got a gigabit fiber connection to the house, that tends to open up the possibilites.


Without trying to start an argument, if NF isn't IPTV, what is it? The streaming content, I mean. Don't they fall into the same category as Hulu or Amazon?

Rich


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Would be nice to have WiFi access points and bluetooth in every box. IMHO the problem they have is that they are using 15 year old tech and keep trying to heap new features on it. It may be time for them to rethink the design of their receivers instead for trying to update something that was originally designed for simple a single tuner system.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Rich" said:


> I've often wondered about the "average" sub. Wonder how they'd arrive at that figure?
> 
> Without trying to start an argument, if NF isn't IPTV, what is it? The streaming content, I mean. Don't they fall into the same category as Hulu or Amazon?
> 
> Rich


I guess I never considered those to be IPTV. Services like FIOS and around here, FiOptics I did, where the traditional channel feeds are delivered to the home via Internet. It of course is possible that my definition is incorrect, but I've never thought of Internet streaming like Netflix, Amazon etc to be in the same term, but even FIOS could be considered Internet Streaming, just more restricted on who can see it and a different source.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I guess I never considered those to be IPTV. Services like FIOS and around here, FiOptics I did, where the traditional channel feeds are delivered to the home via Internet. It of course is possible that my definition is incorrect, but I've never thought of Internet streaming like Netflix, Amazon etc to be in the same term, but even FIOS could be considered Internet Streaming, just more restricted on who can see it and a different source.


That's the way I look at it. Don't know if it's correct, but whatever comes to me by the Net, I consider "Internet provided content".

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Bandwidth is the key/limit to everything.

Fiber to the home is expensive. Once in place bandwidth is almost unlimited.
Need more bandwidth? Add another laser to the fiber. A year ago I was at a fiber network company and they said they'd gotten 17 lasers working on one fiber.

What is IPTV really?
FiOS uses one laser to supply all the TV channels at the same time. Not too different from digital cable.

U-verse only sends you the channels you request, but it isn't that different from cable, in that you can only pick from the same "list" as cable/FiOS. What's there for streaming, and delivered over an IP network.

Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc., are an "anytime delivery", where you're not tied to the same "list" as cable/U-who/FiOS.



> _The TV box has eight tuners_


If it's IP delivered, there are no "tuners", since there is nothing to "tune to".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> ...but even FIOS could be considered Internet Streaming, just more restricted on who can see it and a different source.


FIOS isn't internet streaming at all. Their TV signals are delivered via QAM.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> FiOS uses one laser to supply all the TV channels at the same time. Not too different from digital cable.


The technical difference between FIOS and modern cable TV (it is folly to distinguish between analog and digital cable) is more lineal feet of copper coated steel on the cable TV side.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> The technical difference between FIOS and modern cable TV (it is folly to distinguish between analog and digital cable) is more lineal feet of copper coated steel on the cable TV side.


Which has an effect.

But don't some FIOSes bring fibre right into the STB?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> The technical difference between FIOS and modern cable TV (it is folly to distinguish between analog and digital cable) is more lineal feet of copper coated steel on the cable TV side.


You seem to have a limited view/understanding.
FiOS uses three lasers.
Cable needs to select which part of the coax [bandwidth] is down streaming, and which part is up streaming, so they're basically using the bandwidth of one laser to do everything.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Which has an effect.
> 
> But don't some FIOSes bring fibre right into the STB?


Maybe only to the gateway, and copper from there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> But don't some FIOSes bring fibre right into the STB?


To my knowledge, no TV carrier is using FTTD (Fiber To The Desk). I'm pretty sure FIOS is still FTTH (Fiber To The Home).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> To my knowledge, no TV carrier is using FTTD (Fiber To The Desk). I'm pretty sure FIOS is still FTTH (Fiber To The Home).


Fiber to the router is all that's needed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> You seem to have a limited view/understanding.
> FiOS uses three lasers.
> Cable needs to select which part of the coax [bandwidth] is down streaming, and which part is up streaming, so they're basically using the bandwidth of one laser to do everything.


As you pointed out, whether you use one LASER or three, the media is the same. Combine that with the fact that both use QAM technology to modulate their TV signals and the difference is negligible.

The sad fact is that FIOS ultimately can't offer any more channels* than cable can as long as they utilize QAM.

* cable will catch up as they eliminate analog channels.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> The sad fact is that FIOS ultimately can't offer any more channels* than cable can as long as they utilize QAM.
> 
> * cable will catch up as they eliminate analog channels.


I disagree, which shouldn't come as any surprise.
FiOS has the option of adding another laser and doubling their current channels. Cable doesn't.

You really miss the advantage of fiber, don't you?

"One laser" acts like "one channel" on cable.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> Fiber to the router is all that's needed.


Absolutely, but until FIOS goes to streaming channels, that's not an option.

FIOS was (and probably still is) fiber to the Optical Network Terminal (ONT) on the outside of the home. From there, they come into the house with Ethernet, POTS and coax in the old-fashioned way.

http://www.dslreports.com/faq/12565

They may have subsequently combined the TCP/IP onto the coax with MoCA but it still travels over coax as it passes into the home.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> Absolutely, but until FIOS goes to streaming channels, that's not an option.
> 
> FIOS was (and probably still is) fiber to the Optical Network Terminal (ONT) on the outside of the home. From there, they come into the house with Ethernet, POTS and coax in the old-fashioned way.
> 
> ...




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?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> I disagree, which shouldn't come as any surprise.
> FiOS has the option of adding another laser and doubling their current channels. Cable doesn't.
> 
> You really miss the advantage of fiber, don't you?
> ...


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.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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.


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? 
Remember the "old days" of cable A & B?
OAM's use has nothing to do with this.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> 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?
> *Remember the "old days" of cable A & B?*
> OAM's use has nothing to do with this.


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.


----------



## Shades228 (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.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

harsh said:


> 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.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (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.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> 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!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

TomCat said:


> 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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HobbyTalk said:


> 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.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.org/wiki/QAM_(television)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> 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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


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





veryoldschool said:


> 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## volkl (Jun 17, 2007)

TomCat said:


> ...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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

volkl said:


> 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.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> 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 (c) 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.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> 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"


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> 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.


----------

