Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cable Industry Needs to Spend Heavily on Upgrades

Posted by ryuzaki0 on 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."

126 comments

  1. True by Eightyford · · Score: 0

    The cable television industry does need to invest heavily in upgrades. These upgrades are called satellites.
    Of course, they could also kill two birds with one stone and put cable television on a faster internet.

    --
    Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
    1. Re:True by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Why do they need satellites?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:True by kaiser423 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Satellite? You want to add half a second minimum of latency to everything that you do?

      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?

    3. Re:True by omeomi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do they need satellites?

      Because they're so big and bloated that it would be almost weird for them not to have a number of moons?

      That's a good question, though. You can already get satellite internet if you really want it, but it's expensive, relatively slow, and has high latency, given the distance of the satellite. Why would anybody who has other high-speed options actually want satellite internet?

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    4. Re:True by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more from the video side, and the implications that
      that would have on their "high speed internet" options. It they
      convert to satellite for video, they still need infrastructure to
      do the internet and phone over, and satellite wont cut it, as far
      as I know. So, satellite for just the video puts them in the
      position of having to maintain all the old plumbing, along with
      getting the new satellites operational. I dont see how this works,
      but, heck, I've been wrong before, so I thought I would ask.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    5. Re:True by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Informative

      They need satellites because, contrary to popular belief, television *broadcasts* from content providers aren't delivered by *magic*. They are sucked down to each local cable branch via satellite dishes. I worked on a buildup of a provider headend before and they had a small satellite farm there just for receiving multiple broadcasts which they planned on sending out via a new fiber network.

        Your local news stations also use satellites to deliver live television broadcasts from various places. For everything else, they use tubes. ;)

    6. Re:True by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      Iridium (the satelite phone people) offer a broadband service, but I couldn't vouch for its speed. The sats are in LEO, maybe it's not too bad.

      --

      -Bucky
    7. Re:True by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Tubes, ha, you crack me up.

      I had a feeling that satellites were used to deliver the
      signal to the cable providers, the main branch I used to
      drive past on the way to school, all those long years
      ago had a dish visible from the freeway.

      I was wondering if that was what the original post I was
      responding to was refering to, or to satellite delivery
      to the end consumer.

      And if it is delivery to the cable co, the I would have
      expected thay they would have the satellites already.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    8. Re:True by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the cable providers need more satellites to bring more content to subscribers at their headends. Believe it or not coax has massive bandwidth, and in most major cities they already have fiber to the pole. A multiplexer splits that signal out at each node then individual cable lines run to each residence. Cable companies in most cases are limited only by the bandwidth the headend provides. That is why Comcast and others can double or triple the bandwidth they provide to you without stepping foot inside your home.

    9. Re:True by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Will that be content that people really want to watch, or will it be
      just more channels of junk. This could be an opportunity to have
      more specialized, more niche stuff.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    10. Re:True by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "That's a good question, though. You can already get satellite internet if you really want it, but it's expensive, relatively slow, and has high latency, given the distance of the satellite. Why would anybody who has other high-speed options actually want satellite internet?"

      This isn't a great answer, but I'll offer it. My dad goes on camping trips a lot. I remember him mentioning that he brought his dish with him a couple of times. If he could have gotten internet that way, bonus!

      That said, I wouldn't call that mass market or anything. Heh. I just wish we had that when I went camping with him.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  2. Certainly True in Canada by lkypnk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My ISP, Rogers Communications has all sorts of bandwidth shaping and usage restrictions in place. This is, from what I've read, apparently so they can have the bandwidth available for their VoIP and on-demand streaming TV services.

    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?

    1. Re:Certainly True in Canada by nxtw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My ISP, Rogers Communications has all sorts of bandwidth shaping and usage restrictions in place. This is, from what I've read, apparently so they can have the bandwidth available for their VoIP and on-demand streaming TV services.


      That's a lie. From what I understand a docsis channel can trasnmit 27 mbit/sec., which is plenty of voice calls. With an average of 100-500 customers on each HFC node, they'd be hard pressed to fill up just one channel worth of voice calls -- basically, if every single customer on that node had the voice service and a few hundred used the phone at the same time, they might have a problem.

      I wonder how popular on-demand really is - I can't ever say that I've watched a show on-demand; just a few music videos. I'd think the use of the on-demand channels is mostly limited to a) those that have digital cable but not the DVR, b) those that actually want to watch the limited content available, and c) those who aren't frustrated by the confusing interface.
      During those times when I do actually watch something on demand, it usually ends up failing 1/10 times -- worse if something happens to degrade my signal.

      Anyway, since it seems that most digital cable channels have low bandwidth allocations (and on-demand probably uses even less bandwidth), I'd say that they use no more than 2 mbits/second on each on demand stream, and probably less. If they can really achieve ~38mbit/sec on a QAM256 channel, they can probably do at least 15 on demand streams per channel. The nature of on-demand doesn't really lead to lots of people watching it at the same time... ...so I suspect they're using those two services as convenient excuses to not provide unlimited service.
    2. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "They need to get their act together or they'll start to lose customers."

      1-Are they losing customers now?

      2-Do you see any hints of them losing customers in the immediete future?

      3-Is anyone in Canada competing with them equally (this leaves out dial-up)?

      If none of the above are the case then why throw out "a guess"?

      "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?"

      And exactly how many of Roger's customers are hitting their cap? Why does the minority feel they're a majority all of a sudden?

      Now on to the story. They'll need to upgrade because DOCSIS 3.0 (most don't even use 2.0) uses a multiplexing scheme that's not compatiable with the old equipment.

    3. Re:Certainly True in Canada by ZakuSage · · Score: 1

      Not here in Atlantic Canada. I live in Halifax, and the major cable company (Eastlink) provides one of the fastest and most stable cable internet services in North America. My connection is 10 Mbit/s, no bandwidth cap.

    4. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Twiceblessedman · · Score: 1

      Same with cogeco cable and it's 60gb cap~

    5. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Doytch · · Score: 1

      Check out 3Web.

      I have their high speed DSL plan (West Toronto)and it's pretty damn nice. No bandwidth cap/shaping, and no Bell shoulder surfing. The one caveat is that their technical support line has probably five people on it so it takes a long time to get through. But if you're on /., you can probably figure out most issues by yourself. I haven't had problems with them since they upgraded their systems a couple of years ago.

    6. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it isn't a lie. Please stick to topics you know about.

      I worked for Time Warner for a number of years, ending a little over a year ago when I went into my own venture. TW was getting the technical details of rolling out their voice offerings to this area (Chicago/Milwaukee) and put some fairly horrible limits on home res services (how about advert'ing a 5mbit line on commercials/mail/etc.. then setting the QOS at 2mbit max..) It's pathetic.. It's a loophole that they say "up to -whatever number here-mbit connection!!!" when they make sure (at least in this area) that 90% can't get it.. I would be willing to bet that based on their limit claims (geographical distance, number of modems on the node pulling at once, etc) that the tactics may very well be illegal.
      I currently have the 5mbit service, running at a steady 400kb during any time of the day. I like 4 miles outside the Milwaukee city limits.
      Want to tell me it's a lie that they cap the lines?

    7. Re:Certainly True in Canada by elzurawka · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have a 60 gig cap, then your speed should only be 5Mbit. For an extra 4 dollars for modem rental, you can get a 6Mbit line, and a 100 Gig cap. Still not too good, but i think its worth 4 dollars.

      I have also heard from a friend on the inside that they will start to charge you for every gig you go over your limit starting in the next few months. You wont get cut off, or slowed down, you will just notice a big increase in your bill the following month. Im not 100% sure about this, but my friend who works in their business office told me this, so i think its true.

      Other then that rogers is crap. Slow durring the day, traffic shapping, and slow speeds.

      Altho i also heard that they will be offering a 12 Mbit connection for 100CND$ a month, but you still have a 100GB cap. I can do 200 Gigs at 6Mbit, why do i need more speed if i can only use it for a week, and then have to pay through the nose per GB?

      --
      -EL
    8. Re:Certainly True in Canada by aevan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I could be wrong, but I THINK the 'lie' referenced here is needing that bandwith for the VOIP, not the fact of the traffic is being shaped. The necessity of that shaping is the questionable part ("the lie").

    9. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you actually sitting there downloading 200 GB in one week? On a 6Mbit connection, you'd have to download at full-speed continuously for almost 76 hours to hit that 200GB cap.

    10. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're lucky, here in Australia I am on 8mbps cable for AU$70 a month, and I get 12GB a month before getting capped.

    11. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Aidski · · Score: 1

      My 4 roommates and I have that exact program. There's only so much one can download in a month. We've never hit that limit, even when we try to.

    12. Re:Certainly True in Canada by nxtw · · Score: 1

      Please read the entire post before replying in a condescending manner. I was referring to the pathetic excuse of VoIP/on demand services using too much bandwidth. While I didn't make that immediately clear in my post, reading past the first sentence would have made that easy to understand.

    13. Re:Certainly True in Canada by nxtw · · Score: 1

      as for the TWC network I am on, you only get less than the rated speed if they were having temporary issues or you happened to live on a very crowded node during peak times. Otherwise, you can regularly use all 5mbit/384k. On Business Class's 7/1 (mbit) plan, we have no trouble using all of that bandwidth.

      Latency is pretty horrible, and is usually at least 45 ms. The network is often subject to jitter and occasionally packets arriving out of order, which causes problems for voice.

      DSL otoh has ping times as low as 17ms to some destinations and an average of 30-40 ms. Unless you go for business class cable, it's also faster (6/768 vs 5/384) and cheaper ($45 vs. $28) than cable.

    14. Re:Certainly True in Canada by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      That's a lie. From what I understand a docsis channel can trasnmit 27 mbit/sec., which is plenty of voice calls. With an average of 100-500 customers on each HFC node, they'd be hard pressed to fill up just one channel worth of voice calls -- basically, if every single customer on that node had the voice service and a few hundred used the phone at the same time, they might have a problem.

      This is true, but you're making one fatal assumption: That they're putting 100-500 customers on a node. It isn't a cake walk to just add a new node. The planned 500 people or so a node can vary wildly depending on the nieghborhood, and I'd hate to be the guy who has to do node planning.

      Enabling 256QAM isn't just flipping a switch, either. A lot of things have to fall into place and there are often problems with SNR, etc, and if they don't, the upgrades are extremely expensive and time consuming, not to mention that it is often difficult to just pin the problems down, it takes a lot of experience and some good luck to quickly root out issues.

    15. Re:Certainly True in Canada by nxtw · · Score: 1
      TWC seems to manage here with their digital phone, lots of on-demand programming, 10+ HD channels, 45 music channels, 20 international channels, 75 analog channels also simulcast in digital, home and business class data services, 50 digital cable channels, 40 movie channels, and so on.

      Enabling 256QAM isn't just flipping a switch, either. A lot of things have to fall into place and there are often problems with SNR, etc, and if they don't, the upgrades are extremely expensive and time consuming, not to mention that it is often difficult to just pin the problems down, it takes a lot of experience and some good luck to quickly root out issues.


      *Every* channel here seems to use QAM256.
    16. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      Cogeco recently upped our connection to 7Mb... but left the cap at 15GB.

      What kind of nonsense is that?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    17. Re:Certainly True in Canada by petecarlson · · Score: 1

      Latency is pretty horrible, and is usually at least 45 ms. The network is often subject to jitter and occasionally packets arriving out of order, which causes problems for voice

      Packets ariving out of order is jitter... Unless perhaps jitter means something else in the wired world.

    18. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are a total moron,

      is what I would seem to be saying to you, and what you would understand from this post if you read only the first line. However, if you were smart enough to read past the first sentence, it should be easy to understand that that is not what I am saying. Cheers.

    19. Re:Certainly True in Canada by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      Packets ariving out of order is jitter... Unless perhaps jitter means something else in the wired world.

      Packets arriving out of order is only a possible side effect of jitter. Jitter means that packets are arriving at varying intervals, rather than in a predictable manner. You can have one packet every 10 ms, then one in 40ms, then 20 in 30 ms, then 1 ever ms and *that* is jitter. Its usually caused by weird pathing, where different packets take different routes, so when jitter gets bad enough, you often see mis-ordered packets as well. But that's not a necessity to call it jitter.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    20. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not here in Atlantic Canada. I live in Halifax, and the major cable company (Eastlink) provides one of the fastest and most stable cable internet services in North America. My connection is 10 Mbit/s, no bandwidth cap.


      Absolutely correct. Eastlink (formerly Dartmouth Cable and Shaw cable) have always been the North American industry leader in cable internet service provision and will continue to be.

      When cable internet first came out on Dartmouth Cable I had a 5Mbit down AND UP connection with a shell account on their server and static IP address and permission to run any servers I wanted all for $40/month. Granted, those glory days are long gone, but Eastlink still leads the pack on the whole continent as far as I can tell.

      My experiences with Rogers Cable and Bell DSL in central Canada were a horrible letdown after having experienced the top notch service from Eastlink. Rogers are a bunch of crooks in general.

      The problem that American cable companies seem to have (Comcast in particular) is an inability to physically secure their lines so that every joe that does a bad coax tapping job to steal cable TV can disrupt network service for thousands of users, it happens regularly. I have never seen that happen in Canada. They must not have the proper policing or security measures and policies for use in residentail apartment buildings.

      Coaxial will always be superior to UTP for networking signals, its simple physics. Fibre was promised well over ten years ago but has still failed to materialise in most localities. I begin to wonder if it ever will.

      Unfortunately I am now stuck on a dial-up connection that maxes out at 28.8Kbps. I sure miss those days of 5Mbps down and up back in the old days on Dartmouth cable. Hopefuly I'll get back to an area that Eastlink services someday.
    21. Re:Certainly True in Canada by Jardine · · Score: 1

      My 4 roommates and I have that exact program. There's only so much one can download in a month. We've never hit that limit, even when we try to.

      You're not trying hard enough.

    22. Re:Certainly True in Canada by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      Try living in Australia:

      http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/isp.cfm/Telstra-BigPond /1.html

      8 or 17Mbit with a 200MB cap, then excess charges at 15c/MB - this is the one they market at Mums and Dads who have no idea - then wonder why they have thousands of dollars of excess charges! Telstra also charge uploads+downloads, not just downloads. Get infected with a trojan or unknowningly leave a P2P running, have to sell the house... (yes, there have been cases like this)

      That cable is also very limited in area it covers, but most Australians can get ADSL, albeit limited to 1.5Mbit in most places, and relatively low download limits. Most ISPs are better value compared to Telstra, but Telstra uses its monopolistic power as most people still think they are the only game in town.

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    23. Re:Certainly True in Canada by elzurawka · · Score: 1

      int he past i had 200GB of traffic...this includes up and down...and in a month, not a week. Im saying taht i can already go over teh monthly limit at 6 Mbit, why would i need 12? so i can go over it in a week instead of a month? I control my bandwidth alot more, and seed less torrents no to conserve bandwidth.

      --
      -EL
  3. Overheard in a congessional office... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will not spend money to upgrade until you pass this favorable law that we can benefit from.
    One year later..
    We will not spend money to upgrade until you pass this favorable law that we can benefit from.

    1. Re:Overheard in a congessional office... by kfg · · Score: 1

      One year later. . .

      Who the hell are you to tell us what we can do with our network?

      KFG

  4. ...at the best prices too! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

    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 the best government money can buy at the best prices too!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:...at the best prices too! by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you hear that? It's the sound of tens of thousands of dollars in new bribes starting the march to Congress....while the cablecos continue to act as if they own the infrastructure.

      Don't worry, it is somewhat kept in check by deep-pocket Telco's who want to keep the Cablers down to get a peice of the media pie. Think of it like Hitler and Mousolini being on different sides.......on second thought, don't.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:...at the best prices too! by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you mean Hitler and Stalin? Mussolini certainly would not have been a match for either. Unless that is your point with Telcos vs Cable?

    3. Re:...at the best prices too! by GreggBz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cable companies subsides are a fairly new thing, and far fewer than phone company subsidies. Most Cable Companies worked pretty hard to build their own plant, and indead own their infrastructure. The government had more prerogative to ensure the development phone and power companies, not MTV and HBO companies.
      Perhaps you are thinking of Verizon, MCI and Bell South.

      And remember, it's now the Cable Companies that compete with the phone companies as their networks and products begin to overlap.

  5. If you can't beat 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    join 'em.

    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...

    1. Re:If you can't beat 'em by LRBenson · · Score: 1

      Coax will not go away for some time if ever; as far as I know there is only one company currently offering Fiber to the home. Many ISP's are stating they have a fiber network but this is only a half truth; they have a mostly fiber infrastrucutre and may even have fiber on the poles or under ground with the rest of the telecom companies however from there they are almost all coax from the pole\ground ped to the home.

  6. Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by martinbogo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember when cablemodems were first rolled out? About one megabit speed, when everyone else was on 56k dialup, and we sat and watched and waited for the cable companies to roll out. ISDN was king, and DSL was something hard to get.

    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.

    --
    "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
    1. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lucky you. In Central Florida (and from what I've heard most of Florida and most of Georgia), cable modem is 5MB/sec down, .5 up for the cheap rate.

      Nobody gets even close to that on DSL. In my area, we can get .5MB down, .1 up and the phone company told us that was remarkably good (of course they advertize it as capable of doing more).

      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.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    2. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by mrcolj · · Score: 1

      I've been on full fiber for about a year now, on the nation's largest and fastest all fiber network in Orem, Utah. The basic plan, what any home would get, including me, has 15 Mbps down (and 15 Mbps up!), but the business plans get 100 Mbps up and down! And I pay $38/mo. I'm from San Francisco (Novato), but this is one more advantage to leaving California...

      --
      --Colin Jensen
      colinandbethany.com
    3. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by radish · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with healthy competition, and I don't think cable has anything to worry about. Verizon is offering FIOS to a few people in/around NYC, and I hear it's pretty fast (for now). You need new equipment installed both in and outside your residence, which AFAIK rules out most people living in apartments. On the other hand, I just upgraded my cable from 15mbps to 30mbps simply by filling in a form on a webpage and waiting 10 minutes. I have no complaints at all about my cable service and wouldn't touch Verizon even if they did offer service here.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 1

      I'm in gainesville, we have cox @ 9Mb down, but only 1Mb up. I don't even know what DSL speeds here are.

    5. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when cablemodems were first rolled out? About one megabit speed

      I had my first CM in Hawaii in the 1996,97 time frame. I had a linux machine providing NAT to two Win 3.11 machines. I could download faster from the internet then my 10base2 coax network could get it to the Windows machines (maybe 350KB/sec). For on island transfers, the service was fast, traffic leaving the island was a different story and at times, about the speed of dialup but that was not the fault of the CM or the local infrastructure. I returned to the mainland US not long after that and had to wait another five years before it came to my area. When it did, it was only 1.5mb

      Maybe the isolation of the island made the area a good testing ground. I also had wireless television cable to my house there (different company then the wired internet/tv cable referenced above). I had a small funky looking directional antenna on my roof aimed at the center of the island and got about 30 channels. In a strange twist, that wireless cable company completely shutdown overnight with no warning, their phones shutoff, office closed, and never even cashed my payment for that month. They didn't even come back to get their antenna or the converter box from my house.

    6. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by Yehooti · · Score: 1

      It angers me to see what some of you folks are getting and comparing it to what I can get. I'm in the Los Angeles area and have aDSL going through AT&T copper. I get about 30 KBps down and half that up. There are two big orange fiber cables terminated about a block from my house and they've been there undisturbed since they were pulled almost two years ago. RCN, I think, owns them but they don't want me to have fixed IP's and won't quote me a price to connect to me without phone, TV, and I don't want to know, extras. TV is mine--I have a big dish and it works flawlessly. I have a cell phone that provides phone service reliably. I need internet service that will allow servers and be faster than my copper lines offer and not block ports!

      Guess I have to ask, those of you with really impressive throughput rates, do you have fixed IP's?

    7. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you may not know is the cable modems are aerial fiber hanging below the power lines,
      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.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    8. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by OmnipotentEntity · · Score: 1

      Where I live, both Cable and DSL run on the same line to the outside world. So it really doesn't matter what you get, you're still bottlenecked by that one line.

      --
      "Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
    9. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      DSL and Cable both have offerings in the 4-6 mbit range, and now there is something else to look forward to . . . speeds get into the 60-100 mbit range.

      Woa dude, careful there. That much porn can kill ya

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    10. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by Derosian · · Score: 1

      Fiber is insanely faster, so much faster that questioning whether the network can handle it isn't a matter of the cables, it is your computer and the computer on the other end that is slowing you down.

    11. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by kayditty · · Score: 0
      Remember when cablemodems (sic) were first rolled out? About one megabit speed
      I don't know about you, but mine was 10Mbps.
      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?"
      Most non-stupid people don't get confused by statements of not-so-mindboggling proportions. 100Mbps to residential users might have been news in 1998, and I'm not just talking about Sweden, Japan, or South Korea. Hell, I know people in the US who had VDSL around 1999.
      Cable companies have something to worry about. Definately (sic).
      Definitely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11112
    12. Re:Not to say that cable is dead ... but ... by rshimizu12 · · Score: 1

      We are probably going to see ISP's start to deploy fixed point Wimax if the telco's start kicking competitors off their networks and driving up prices. So in other words broadband speed is going to increase like crazy and so will the competition.

  7. Let's not jump the gun yet. by rts008 · · Score: 1

    After this: (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/18/1 333217), let's see how things work out.
    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*

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  8. If only there was something faster..... by dontbflat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    like fiber. Verizon is doing fiber. Why cant the cable companies. They already send the data through a fiber cable to the main cable box for the block, whats an extra few hundred feet. (I know this because in Henderson, NV Cox has done this to the neighboorhoods). It may not be done for every city, but there is no reason it cant be. To answer a post above, Satelite is not the answer. Its costly, bandwidth limiting, and has a long delay. I would never get satelite internet and if cable went that route, they would have less internet customers. Imagine playing CS at 500ms pings. ew...dialup all over again.... Fiber is the way to go. Just run some DWDM fiber and life will be good.

    1. Re:If only there was something faster..... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      years ago a website I ran got hacked so of course I couldn't trust any files on the server and reloaded the site by FTP via sattelite; what a nightmare. FTP uploading lots of smallish php file with a chatty protocol like FTP and 500 mS ping times made the process insufferable; far better to use dialup for that than sattelite!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:If only there was something faster..... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand the faster is better argument. If Slashdot loads in 0.5 seconds (plus lag time for tacoda.net and other 3rd party ad companies) that's good enough for me.

      Is everyone else downloading 1GB files that they need Right Now Dammit?

    3. Re:If only there was something faster..... by Nutria · · Score: 2, Informative
      They already send the data through a fiber cable to the main cable box for the block, whats an extra few hundred feet

      Because there are 20-200 houses for every neighborhood fiber-cable router. It would cost a lot of money to run fiber to every house, which would probably include replacing all the boxes on the side of everyone's houses.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:If only there was something faster..... by Courageous · · Score: 1

      You can get GIGE on copper. No company has the headend capacity to run even GIGE for all their customers. The only use for all this fantastic curb bandwidth is stuff the headend caches. Which, I suppose, could be Akamai like nodes and other big proxy caches and what not, so the bandwidth isn't utterly a waste.

      C//

    5. Re:If only there was something faster..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is everyone else downloading 1GB files that they need Right Now Dammit?

      Yes.
    6. Re:If only there was something faster..... by finiteSet · · Score: 1
      FTP uploading lots of smallish php file with a chatty protocol like FTP and 500 mS ping times made the process insufferable;
      Why not upload one big tar/zip file?
      --
      If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
    7. Re:If only there was something faster..... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Why not upload one big tar/zip file?

      That assumes that he has shell access on the server. Which isn't all that common at the low-end of web hosting.

      I probably would've run an FTP client with multiple threads (say 4 or 8) to better maximize the throughput. That way while some threads are waiting for responses, you've still got data transfering. Unfortunately, that requires that your provider allows for multiple connections to the FTP server (somewhat uncommon).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    8. Re:If only there was something faster..... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Is everyone else downloading 1GB files that they need Right Now Dammit?

      Yes, aren't you?

      Try telecommuting when a particular job involves media files. Fortunately it's rare, but it's getting more and more common at our company where job folders are starting to climb into the double and triple digit megabyte range.

      (I'm starting to wonder if a 6TB SAN is going to be big enough...)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Upgrades required... by MeatFlap3 · · Score: 1
    What has happened to the thousands of miles of "dark fiber" that some claim is going to waste?

    -r

    1. Re:Upgrades required... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What has happened to the thousands of miles of "dark fiber" that some claim is going to waste?

      Don't touch it! It keeps the galaxy together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  11. They need to upgrade and drop prices! by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 3, Funny

    What pisses me off is I'm paying $45 a month for Road Runner PLUS a $10 a month penalty for not subscribing to cable TV. So after adding taxes, my RR bill is $57 a month. That's BS..
    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!

    1. Re:They need to upgrade and drop prices! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $57 dollars -- $10 penalty for not having cable TV. I am not paying a penalty for not having cable TV. Have you tried inquiring about Earthlink via Time Warner.

    2. Re:They need to upgrade and drop prices! by Traiklin · · Score: 1

      you're getting it cheap.

      for me to get a whopping 3mb down and (I think) 1.5mb up it costs $60 a month WITH digital cable.
      We have the big package where we have a regular digital reciver, a broadband box (a DVR) Basic Cable, Extended cable, HBO, Cinemax, Stars & Encore no phone (cause really when the power goes out so does your phone, plus everyone who does have it we have talked to said the serivice is HORRIBLE, it's out more then it's working) and we pay something like $140 a month for it. they charge us $15 for the DVR (which I am looking into building my own) $5 for the cable box (which they should get fined for since you can't even get channels past a certain number without the fucking thing) and $5 for the modem (which we are going to be buying our own).

      I welcome the day when Verizon brings that fiber here, maybe then the cable company will get it's shit together and lower the damn price...but knowing Verizon they will start with the major cities first then work their way to the smaller citys by the year 2200.

    3. Re:They need to upgrade and drop prices! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      With comcast its actually cheeper to get the economy package TV and internet than internet alone; appearently the filter to limit the basic cable down to economy blew-out and we're now getting everything exect the pay channels anyways.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:They need to upgrade and drop prices! by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Heh...your price sounds quite nice. My connection costs $110+tax a month for 5MB/768KBs. Half of the price however is to allow me the privelage of useing ports that should have never been blocked in the first place.

  12. Net neutrality? by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Translation of the original article:

    "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"

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  13. They're already upgrading in a sense... by The+Vulture · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The cable operators, for the longest time, have been stagnant, as they never had any competition. They have the local monopoly, and the phone companies could never offer traditional cable television. When DOCSIS cable modems came out, it was a new form of competition - something that was standards based.

    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

    1. Re:They're already upgrading in a sense... by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

      You know what scares the crap out of the cable companies? As they race to score a triple play, they are finding that once fast data is there, the other two parts of the triple play are far from a sure thing. Digital tv and phone service are just more data.

      Earlier this year, Comcast had a triple play going with my family. We had cable modem, digital tv and their phone service. Well, their phone service was unreliable as hell and we were unluck enough to get bad phone hardware from them, twice. So, we switched to Vonage and it has worked very well. About a month later the introductory offer wore off on the internet and tv and the +$100 Comcast bill and the shitty dvr made me look around for something different. I now have Dish and fairly happy with it (the dvr still sucks-- if they were going to infringe on Tivo's patents, they should have done a lot better job of it).

      The last thing any of the cable (or phone) companies want, is to be commodity suppliers. Thus their fear of net neutrality regulations.

    2. Re:They're already upgrading in a sense... by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1
      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.

      FYI most telecoms in the midwest are deploying ADSL2 (ITU G.992.5 Annex M) which yeilds ~24Mbit down 1Mbit up. This is actually the IPTV delivery platform for companies like CenturyTel. and several midwest Co-Ops

    3. Re:They're already upgrading in a sense... by TCaM · · Score: 1

      the reality is about 6 digital channels in standard definitionfor one analog, the 5-10 number is more like what the sat companies with their limited bandwidth have. As far as needing expensive PVR units you are mistaken, PVR/DVR is an option with sat, cable or and other furute tv provider, one that the cunsumer will pay for ala carte. Also consider that any modern CATV provider already has fiber to their sub areas and in newer areas have lots of unfilled conduits that can hold fiber with little effort. Contrast this with older telco builds where it's all direct bury copper and I think you can see the upgrade costs.

  14. They are. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If course, they could also kill two birds with one stone and put cable television on a faster internet.

    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.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:They are. by rshimizu12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is really great for consumers. The cable companies are now forced to compete against the telco's. I predicted awhile back that IPTV is going to be a catalyst for greater competition and more bandwidth. Now Rupert Murdoch 's Direct TV is going to compete by deploying Wimax over satellite to deliver IPTV. So we will probably see reduced rates for TV.

  15. Won't someone think of the Tubes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Unless we start sending hot pepperoni pizzas (over the Internet) given the profiles in growth we see no reason to go fiber all the way to the home," he says.

    Oh noes!

  16. Remember, the internets is not a dump-truck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a series of tubes!

  17. Oh you mean the 45Mb/s I AREADY paid for? by lohphat · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://muniwireless.com/community/1023
    http://saveaccess.org/node/288
    http://www.newnetworks.com/scandalquotes.htm
    http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000267073488 /
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060131/2021240_ F.shtml

    1. Re:Oh you mean the 45Mb/s I AREADY paid for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, I was about to post similar links, more people need to know about how we were ripped off by the telecom company scam!

  18. Why is it... by abscissa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is it, that cable companies couldn't just roll out fibre cables to the home? Apologies that I am so naieve. I know it would be a huge investment, but wouldn't it basically cover ever future technology etc. in one? Is the cost that prohibitive? Whatever technology they can dream up within the next 20 years (and beyond) they can transmit over fiber. I mean how long have we had coax?

    1. Re:Why is it... by nick.ian.k · · Score: 1

      The worst part is that there's a ton of fiber out there that *could* be used, but isn't. I live on the south side of Chicago, mere blocks from the Dan Ryan Expressway, and there's a shload of dark fiber running underneath it. Comcast or AT&T could be jumping on the chance, given that the Ryan's all torn up for the rennovation project right now, but they're not. Stupid, isn't it?

    2. Re:Why is it... by kayditty · · Score: 0

      There's really no need to justify the extra expenditure, minimal as it actually is. They already have fiber rolled out to particular areas. Every cable network that I know of in the US is "HFC" - hybrid fiber/coax. The 6MHz wide channel that's feeding your cable modem can already support 38Mbps down and 10Mbps up. Upgrading to fiber is just a matter of dragging the fiber from the street one block down to your doorstep. I think they'd rather just play it out and squeeze out (I used out twice) every bit of change they can.

  19. come on.. by skydude_20 · · Score: 1

    come on.. just buy into level3 or other that have already done the pure fiber/ip networks...

    --
    Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
    1. Re:come on.. by ffejie · · Score: 1

      "come on.. just buy into level3 or other that have already done the pure fiber/ip networks..."

      Last I checked, Level3 didn't own fiber that runs anywhere near my house. And if it does (by chance) run near my house, it doesn't run into my house. The last mile is so crucial. As stated numerous times in these comments, the Cable Companies already have a large fiber plant that runs TV and Data, but the last mile runs over coax. And for people saying: "So build out the last mile," you need to realize how expensive this is. Verizon is spending $20B on a fiber rollout. Last I looked, it was costing $750-$1500 to pass each home and another $750-$1000 to actually wire the house when the customer requests service. Yikes! These prices will no doubt continue to go downward, but that's a long way to profitibility when you can only get about $1200 a year from each house. Remember that a lot of that revenue goes to actually running the network or buying channels from content providers. No idea, but the ROI might be 5 years or greater.

      --
      Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
  20. Depends on your ISP by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm lucky enough to be served by Cablevision, who has dumped a ton of money in their infrastructure. Sites like Youtube, Google Video, etc. are no problem when you have 15mbps down and 2mbps up (With overhead, etc. it's realistically 13.5 down and 1.5 up to internet, behind a router). It's expensive ($55 a month) but extremely reliable and an excellent service.

    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)

    1. Re:Depends on your ISP by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be too sure. Just because the network's future-proofed doesn't mean that the company is

      Cablevision's had some *huge* financial troubles --- mainly as a result of dumping so much money into their infrastructure. During one of their financial crises, they completely pulled out of my town in the middle of one of their massive upgrades, leaving the people there high and dry with a fractured network that no sane company would want to buy.

      (Un)fortunately for the town, an insane company purchased the network, devised a hodgepodge method to link the old stuff with the new stuff, and then screwed their customers with terrible service. They've the fourth cable franchise in 12 years for the town. 2 have gone bankrupt, and the other (cablevision) pulled out due to financial troubles.

      And it's not because their rates were low. They were much higher than normal cable rates should be. Cable companies have a reputation for being poorly run, offering awful customer service, and sucking in general.

      I've been happyily on DSL, (and more recently fibre) internet and satelitte TV for several years. It's a godsend compared to the troubles that my neighbors go through. It costs less, my service is more reliable, and is generally superior to cable in every way possible. I also like the idea of supporting capitalism and free-competition.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  21. No it doesn't by Rufus211 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ars Technica already has posted a follow-up to the original story that says this isn't actually needed.

  22. Broadban in Silicon Valley sucks too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's any consolation, broadband in Silicon Valley is about on par with the lower rates you quoted. That's rather ironic, considering all of the development work for Internet technologies which goes on here.

    Also, there seems to be an inverse corelation between wealth and broadband speed. The wealthier the area, the poorer the bandwidth. Saratoga, Los Gatos, even Silvercreek all are lacking.

    This is all due to how spread out the Valley is. Still, it's rather ironic.

  23. Looming threat? by LuminaireX · · Score: 1

    "Looming threat" to you. Godsend to the rest of us. Sink or swim, dudes

  24. Re:yay verizon by antonlacon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because Verizon isn't a renamed Bell Atlantic?

  25. Since we're talking about What people pay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I'm currently using my college's WiFi for my downloading needs, and a
    free dialup connection @ home for basic news reading & checking email,

    but recently I've seriously considered getting Cox Communications Internet,
    but tell me /. : What is the best balance in terms of down/up speeds $ Per Month
    service in the Phoenix, AZ area?

  26. Multi-unit Dwelling Too Hard? by BikeRacer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know why, with all the billions Verizon is spending, apartment buildings are "too difficult" for FIOS deployment at this time? I don't know that I want to switch away from my trusty cable modem, but I'd like the competition to spur higher upstream speeds from my cable provider.

    1. Re:Multi-unit Dwelling Too Hard? by Grendel32 · · Score: 1

      Verizon does have equipment that can accomodate MDU's. The issue is often the property owners, who for whatever reason do not want verizon comming into their complex. Either due to construction issues or aesthetic issues if the equipment needs to be placed on outside structures. Also due to the way the complex is situated may make it extremely difficult for engineers to place the fiber. From what I understand each MDU is handled on a case by case basis due to these issues

    2. Re:Multi-unit Dwelling Too Hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps its the point of contact, in apartments you have a lock box that is feeding in many case 16 units or more, i dont know how fios is impemented but maybe they dont have a method implemented to feed that many customers from a single point of contact. whereas homes usually service 4 homes from the point of contact in the street. just my guess.

    3. Re:Multi-unit Dwelling Too Hard? by zojakownith · · Score: 0

      my whole apartment complex just got through having verizon fios contracts come and install it, we had to clear out a few feet of closet space and that was it.

      my guess is the problem some people might have is someone going into your home, installing something you dont even want. So the operators of the complex dont let the installation happen.

      --
      I have bad karma....

      Open source is heavenly, Microsoft is the devil, SCO is going to hell

  27. Pleeze. by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Informative
    Nobody gets even close to that on DSL. In my area, we can get .5MB down, .1 up and the phone company told us that was remarkably good (of course they advertize it as capable of doing more).

    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.

    Cable really doesn't have much to worry about....

    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.

    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.

    1. Re:Pleeze. by sponga · · Score: 1

      Not really I live in Southern California and our basic digital cable box has the option to record to vcr on the fly for every channel. Tested it for majority of on-demand, PPV and every other channel and it works right away.

      With digital cable there is way more abundance of content available. On-demand has so much stuff on it is impossible to watch it all; so I don't think the average consumer is being hurt as much as you guys wish to think.

      The money is in the triple play packages and customer support. You can tell the customer all you want about how they are trying to rip you off and they just don't care as much but continue to use their service fine and continue to save money; why because we are unfortunately a minority in this media crowd and the tech crowd wants to dissect it.

    2. Re:Pleeze. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have time to comment on this fully right now but I just want to say how much full of shit this post is. Cable companies want to get rid of analog channels so they can lock the customer in? Come on. Do you know how much cost is involved in running a massive cable network in cities? Do you know how much space analog signal takes up in alloted cable frequencies? There are so many services that can be offered, including better broadband modem speeds if analog channels were eliminated. Have you read anything at all about the Cable Card initiative for tvs? Current digital boxes are actually using somewhat standardized Cable Card QAM tuners.

      Your post is full of anti-corporate rhetoric. If you think these companies are that much out to get you.. go and try to apply for a job at one and work there for awhile. You'll see how much goes into operating a city-wide cable or phone service. I'm amazed at how reasonable the prices really are.

    3. Re:Pleeze. by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      I don't have time to comment on this fully right now but I just want to say how much full of shit this post is. Cable companies want to get rid of analog channels so they can lock the customer in? Come on. Do you know how much cost is involved in running a massive cable network in cities?

      Yup, and the support costs for all those boxes is huge, too. Which is why they get passed on to the consumer.

      Your post is full of anti-corporate rhetoric. If you think these companies are that much out to get you.. go and try to apply for a job at one and work there for awhile. You'll see how much goes into operating a city-wide cable or phone service. I'm amazed at how reasonable the prices really are.

      Joke's on you, pal. I do work for a cable company, I've worked for three so far, and I'm sitting here at work right now typing this.

      If you want to discuss DVR's and DRM, might want to read the thread attached to this post first.

      As far as prices go: hey, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Prices for service are good. Unfortunately most people don't agree with you. I hear it all the time "this cable TV is too expensive". My gripe is having to pay for something (multiple TV's) I didn't have to before. And that now recording programs isn't as easy as it used to be with an external tuner involved, all this happening right around the same time content providers are trying to outlaw anything that can record anything being broadcast and wanting to charge everyone per use for content. Awfully, coincidental wouldn't you say?
    4. Re:Pleeze. by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      Not really I live in Southern California and our basic digital cable box has the option to record to vcr on the fly for every channel. Tested it for majority of on-demand, PPV and every other channel and it works right away.

      Ah, but what if you went away for awhile? Would you be able to record shows off three differnt digital channels (at differnt times of course) while you were gone?
    5. Re:Pleeze. by sponga · · Score: 1

      VCR is dead anyways and they stopped really selling them on the shelves by the masses so the whole vcr argument is really minute. My other box has a DVR on it and it has complete scheduling of recordings. Just press list on the changer and it list all the stuff I programmed to record in the future and much other stuff which I can all catagorize it in many ways.

      There is live tv guide so you can select everything in the future. It works, provides plenty of content and is cheaper than before with triple play.

      http://www.timewarnercable.com/corporate/products/ digitalcable/

    6. Re:Pleeze. by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      VCR is dead anyways and they stopped really selling them on the shelves by the masses so the whole vcr argument is really minute.


      Okay, and when did they stop selling DVD-recorders? And non-cableco PVR's?
      This arguement applies to them as well.
    7. Re:Pleeze. by TCaM · · Score: 1

      My local cable company charges 1.99 a month for a cablecard. IF tivo or any other company would actually cupport cablecard they could easily enable access to record digital content without having to go througn hoops, such as ir controllers and serial cables to control cable/sat boxes.

  28. Unknown crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a time when my friend was running a program (that took several minutes to produce any output), it would always crash, but when his son did it, it would always work.

    It took me a while to figure out that the screen saver was kicking in and interfering with the program (can't remember the details). When his son was running the program, he would always move the mouse around while sitting - but my friend will just sit and wait, the screen saver will start, and the other program will quit because of the interference from the screen saver. It was an interesting afternoon!

  29. DSL over Cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I couldnt care about the cable companies. I have Alltel DSL right now, and I am happy with it. Sure I only have the basic DSL, but even then my pings for most games are decent and I get good uploads for my server. However, one reason I am going to stick with DSL is because I am able to host my server on port 80, whereas one of my friends who has cable had a hell of a time trying to get it to run on port 80. I will most likely just upgrade my DSL to the fastest we have around here (something like 6MB down, .5mb up) for the sole fact that I can host my server on port 80. That and my DSL is quite reliable.

  30. Fiber is'nt enough by Danathar · · Score: 0

    Just having fiber is NOT enough. Both Verizon and the Cable Companies face the same problem. That no matter what type of infrastructure you have, in many cases the limiting factor is your Upstream connection to the level 2 or 1 ISP. Theoretically Docsis 1.0 cable modems can do 38 Mb/s downstream and 10Mb/s upstream and have been around for YEARS. I don't know of a single cable operator that sells those rates to their residential customers. The latest version of DOCIS allows for a theoretical 160mb/s down and 120mb/s up (except for some European companies).

    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.

    1. Re:Fiber is'nt enough by kayditty · · Score: 1, Insightful
      What? Did you just copy from the fucking Wikipedia article or something?
      That no matter what type of infrastructure you have, in many cases the limiting factor is your Upstream connection to the level 2 or 1 ISP.
      I know it's REALLY hard to understand... But ISPs have MASSIVE amounts of transfer speed. Just trust me. Ok, the cable companies generally have less than the Bells (OBVIOUSLY), but they both have an INCONCEIVABLE AMOUNT OF 'BANDWIDTH.' We aren't talking about a single OC-3, or half of the time, even an OC-12.
      Theoretically Docsis 1.0 cable modems can do 38 Mb/s downstream and 10Mb/s upstream and have been around for YEARS. I don't know of a single cable operator that sells those rates to their residential customers.
      It isn't theoretical. They CAN do that, easily, and they do. The reason that they don't sell you a 38Mbps connection is, maybe, because the HFC channel you're on is shared with the rest of your area????!?!?
      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.
      Hahah. When I first read this, I thought you were touching upon the point that I made immediately above, and somehow, asinine as it may be, managed to dismiss it. However, now that I've read it, I realize you were making an even more asinine assertion. You're not going to saturate coax that easily. They've ran 10Gbps over coax, and probably much more. The saturation point is at the cable channel that you're receiving your signal on. It is shared among many users, even in more sparsely populated areas (well, I guess).
    2. Re:Fiber is'nt enough by majortom1981 · · Score: 1

      The big problem is the bandwidth of the node. Anyway my isp cablevision has been doing 10/1 for years. In november we got upgraded to 15/2 and 30/2 When docsis 3 comes out cablecos will be able to competew with verizon. Also cablecompanies have fiber to the nodes. Articles have been leaving that out. IT only takes getting more bandwidth to the node.

  31. It's not all about speed... by kshakir · · Score: 1

    I miss Comcast since switching to RCN in the Boston area. :( My wife loves the cubbies on WGN and I love my wife, so we switched to RCN.

    Regrettably, Comcast's 6dn/0.75up for $60 turned out to be a better deal for nerds and non-windows users (aka anyone not afraid of hosting their own ssh/web/etc).

    With RCN we have 10dn/0.75up for $50, but RCN charges us a $20 penalty to unblock incoming port 80. If you do end up paying their ransom money, you can't have multiple ip's on RCN with port 80 access. Back on Comcast, we didn't need NAT, port mapping, or any of those other hacks for our computers.

    Btw, to those who say "the $20 is for a static ip", I say Comcast never changed my "dynamic" ips for years.

  32. Exploiting coax to the max by MaksimS · · Score: 1

    IMHO, CATV operators' investment in FTTH (Fiber-To-The-Home) and similar fiber optic based technologies is not that mindboggingly huge as someone might think. Every (sane) CATV operator already placed an extra empty conduit along the trenched route to you home. It's left there on purpose, for future use. Later on, when they need to fill it with a new cable - they use a technique known as "jetting" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jetting/.

    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.

  33. I have satellite internet... by Tony+Lechner · · Score: 0

    ...and let me tell you, if you think it's the answer to any problem whatsoever, you are dreaming. Hughes is pushier, cheaper, and sneakier than Comcast, SBC, charter, and time warner... probably even combined, as they know you have no place else to go. $700 charge if you quit in the first 15 months, non-negotiable. And don't even get me started on the quality of service...

    Frankly all you /.'ers make me jealous... talking about a 5mb asymmetric like it's a 14.4k.

  34. Up by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

    I'm *still* waiting for cable internet after 9 years....
    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.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  35. What a bunch of sooks by carl0ski · · Score: 1

    I hear complaints and sooking 60GB allowance isnt enough, compainies limiting speeds to "keep for non Internet purposes"

    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.

  36. Socialism? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    I'll pass

    1. Re:Socialism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's ignorantly knee-jerk even for slashdot!

  37. I wouldn't blame TiVo. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    IF tivo or any other company would actually cupport cablecard they could easily enable access to record digital content without having to go througn hoops, such as ir controllers and serial cables to control cable/sat boxes.

    IR controllers hooked up with serial are unecessary for many provider's digital converters. The S-video port on the converter can be used by the TiVo to control the reciever. But I expect this port to disappear with the HDMI push and some cableco's already disable it.

    It's funny how when people are annoyed about the lack of a CableCard interface on X product they always blame the manufacturer of the device for not getting with the times. I'd wager TiVo would love to sell you a DVR with a CableCard slot, and it's the folks at the other end of the deal puting the kaputs on it. TiVos currently store the recordings after they have been descrambled by the digital converter, this being a necessary step given they are two separate boxes not made to interface with each other too much. There's probably debate how this will change once the descrambler is part of the TiVo.

    There's a good reason you don't see TV tuner cards with CableCard slots, none of the content providers want anyone to be able to set up a homebuilt DVR and make straight to mpg encodings of digital broadcasts. They need the broadcast flag to be in place and "accepted" by the public before that can happen.

    The disagreement with TiVo might be that as a stipulation of the CableCard license, the TiVo has to store the shows in their encrypted format from the cable signal, and decode through the card during playback. TiVo might have issue with their product being tied to the provider's CableCard for viewing recordings. After all, if a customer changes cable companies that CableCard will no longer be authorized and the consumer will lose the ability to view their old programs (just like they had never bought a TiVo and had just rentered their provider's DVR and had to return it).

    I predict when CableCard compatable TV tuner cards do arrive people will find not really worth the price. I forsee a Windows-only driver, recording only to a Microsoft DRMed format. And limited streaming functionality. Full resolution viewing only on a HDCP-compliant monitor or other output device.

    The replier to my original post may say I'm spouting off anti-corporate crap. But I really feel this is all about removing your ability to own a copy of content without buying it separately from the studios. The cablecos and device makers hands are somewhat tied in things because of their dependence on the content being available to them, but the cableco also stand to make a lot more money from where this is going too.

    Imagine Comcast selling you copies of programs you watched directly over the cable box. You push a button on your remote during a movie let's say, and Comcast sends an order to a studio distributor. A copy of Spanglish on HD-DVD is set to be is delivered to your service address (supplied by the cable company) and charged to your Comcast bill (with a normal retail markup for Comcast), all while you're still watching the movie on Starz.

  38. Lots to like about Comcast on-demand by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    wonder how popular on-demand really is - I can't ever say that I've watched a show on-demand; just a few music videos. I'd think the use of the on-demand channels is mostly limited to a) those that have digital cable but not the DVR, b) those that actually want to watch the limited content available, and c) those who aren't frustrated by the confusing interface.

    Our Comcast on-demand service has totally changed the way my daughter and I watch on television. Aside from things like live sporting events or the occasional teen-oriented show ("What Not to Wear" seems to be a current hit among my daughter's friends), we use on-demand almost exclusively. Comcast offers an extraordinary array of older movies for free. Right now they have nearly all the major Hitchcock works, some letterboxed, as well as many other great films from the past few decades.

    When On-Demand first arrived, the best thing about it was ADV's Anime Network channel. This introduced us to a wide array of anime offerings. At the time, ADV showed complete series from some of its biggest franchises like Evangelion, Azumanga Daioh, and Chobits. I guess they didn't see the expected bump in DVD sales because now their offerings are pretty limited. Fortunately this space has been filled by Adult Swim and, especially, Comcast's own Anime Selects service. At first the AS offerings were a mish-mash of older anime series and some incredible gems, like Ghibli's Grave of the Fireflies, but now there are many more choices including demanding programs like Boogiepop Phantom.

    Oh, and once in a while we watch a for-pay recent feature film. At $3-4 it easily competes with video rental shops, especially chains like Blockbuster which carry mostly mainstream titles anyway.

  39. not the real reason by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 1

    Rogers Home Phone, if run through the Hybrid Fibre-Coaxial (HFC) network, is a separately provisioned VLAN from TV and Internet. They have their own dedicated bandwidth. If any one of those services goes down, the others are not affected. Typically, only physical damage to the network would cause an outage for all three. I would also note, however, that Rogers Home Phone also is a rebranding of the Call-Net / Sprint Canada local service in areas that support it. There's also a legacy VoIP-over-Internet service that's offered (carried over from the acquisition) but they don't really market it.

    The main reason for the bandwidth shaping & caps, to my understanding, is the sheer volume of BitTorrent traffic on the Rogers network (I've heard notes of 40 to 60%!). In an asymmetric network, upstream traffic is limited, thus heavy P2P hurts all neighbours that are associated with an HFC plant. Originally Rogers crippled BitTorrent upstream by detecting connections via multiple hosts, except on port 1720. Lately I've found they've improved the shaping to be much more reasonable across all ports (but it's still not as good as years past) and increased the overall bandwidth cap.

    Rumors are that they're going to create offerings with even higher bandwidth caps. And really, why not? If people are willing to pay for the impact of their use, let'em fill 60 gigs a day. Though, given today's average rates, one has to wonder the nature of such activity -- high traffic like that usually is indicative of either running a business (in which you should not be using residential services!) or trading large amounts of media, which may or may not be copyrighted. ISPs have to strike a balance here - they want to protect consumers' rights to privacy , as more bandwidth = more $$$. At the same time, they're under political pressure to spy on their customers to find pirates.

    Note, while I'm a former Rogers employee, which might lend some credibility to this, but I really have no proprietary knowledge of their actual plans and/or challenges related to the caps, this is based on my reading, conversations, and speculation.

    --
    -Stu