Reply With Quote
And this addresses what exactly?
Really? For not wanting government imposed restrictions, like you do?You commented on your hatred of Comcast earlier... But then we already know you're an authoritarian...
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
And this addresses what exactly?
Are you saying that the method of data paths, switching, alternate rouses, etc. differ from the era of that type of equipment?
What is new that makes my knowledge of 18 years ago obsolete on such a topic?
I mean, we can talk from switched t-1 to ds3.. And you would be talking tech somewhat obsolete about 10 years ago. Replaced by OC3 and OC12, consumers now get a full fiber going to their home, doing GBps on a tri-channel... It's crazy stuff what gets to home now.
Yes, I know. Communication capacity is increased from the time I worked in the field. The basic concepts have not.
Actually, it is. It's much more complicated these days, with DPI and failover routing. Then again, we didn't have the sheer size of network we have now.
No to mention a top of the line router fits on a mini-atx box these days.
And really, what really outs you as being behind is your claim that the cable co. infrastructure hasn't changed, and that your neighbor downloading porn makes Spurtstalk load slowly, and that's prima facie proof of bandwidth lacking
sorry about that guys.
It's more that new tech has been built on top of the older concepts, thanks to availability of tech. A decent DPI box can do milions full descramble and categorization of packets, reassembly and routing PER SECOND.
There are still bottlenecks in some places. Rerouting can only accomplish so much. Then the way cable internet is designed, there is only a limited bandwidth shared by multiple users. Sure, it's fiber optic to a certain point, but then is limited by copper wire speeds, shared by all the users on that hub.
Comcast switched over their hubs interconnects to fiber since they started their HD offerings. Coax simply has no bandwidth for their full HD feed + Internet multicasting. Switchig to fiber there was basically mandatory for them if they wanted to offer HDTV. Thy already did that switch.
Up until about a year or two ago, they started to have problems even with that setup because compression on the HD feeds was getting worse and now they were having bandwidth problems in the last mile. Enter Docsis 3.0 and switched cable, a concept very similar to UVerse IPTV. Basically, channels with high bandwidth now share the same bandwidth, and are switched over when the consumer tunes to it.
Comcast will probably go full IPTV until it finally ditches coax and moves to FTH.
FWIW, under the broadband access government programs, these companies get subsidies for a lot of these upgrades. The problem is that adoption is dismal because price and quality of service is terrible. What most US ISPs advertise as broadband is not even classified as such by both the FCC or the rest of the world.
You can't make this up. Comcast has assigned me an IP address in Fort Wayne IN while I'm in Santa Fe, NM. This is ing up my NBA league Pass and I'm dealing with ther CS right now.
ing HATE Comcast.
Splain something to me. I have AT&T UVerse. Copper
to the house from the terminal. But to the cross connect
a couple of blocks over they have fiber. So they got all
the bennies of fiber to cross connect then copper to the
user. I ask a tech the other day, if and when they were
going to run fiber to the homes, he said not for a very
long time.
But Time-Warner ran fiber to all terminals and then
copper to the house.
Maybe you smart guys can explain all this to me. I
am an old communicator, when the trans-oceanic cable
would transmit 2-5 WPM. Back in 1950.
I will give them high grades for one thing. I don't believe
I have ever gotten a garbled message.....LOL
Oh, about the topic. The government will screw up a
wet dream. No further comment.
UVerse uses straight out IPTV. Basically, they have a full feed on fiber to your local hub, and the boxes are not tuners, but merely a stream box with a h264 decoder + decrypter.
Whenever you tune a channel, an IP connection gets made to the local station through the coax and you get streaming video coming in. It's really effective and cost efficient, since it reuses the existing coax setup and you're only using up the bandwidth that you need for TV access while freeing the rest for Internet usage. Even if you have 4 boxes recording 4 channels on each, you're only using bandwidth for 16 channels, which is obviously a lot less than the 100+ channels cable co. packs in the same coax cable.
Why doesn't cable companies do this? Well, they're transitioning to a similar model, and now that they don't need to deal with Analog TV they'll probably accelerate the transition. The difference basically boils down to the fact that their architecture is based off QAM tuners in the boxes instead of flat out IP. While most of the boxes do have a cablemodem built in for side-band communication and security, their video architecture is based off tuners (because, again, they needed to support hybrid digital-analog).
The thing is, eventually we're going to reach gigabit/terabit speeds (15-30 years from now?), and coax can't deal with that. That's why for companies like Verizon who needed to build a last mile infrastructure of their own, FTH was the investment that makes more sense longer term.
I love the internet from Uverse, but IPTV has so many compression errors... DirectTV does a much better job.
The bottom line is signal to noise ratio. A great deal of bandwidth can be put on copper, and if the run isn't too long, it works great for a few gigabits.
^^^ Correct
About the difference in compression errors, tuner-based systems like Cable using QAM or Satellite use Reed-Solomon error correction to actually fix the incoming stream in case of packet loss or minor interference. IPTV instead just uses the regular IP network, thus it's much more prone to transient packet loss. That's why you'll see more compression artifacts in UVerse. That said, they can add Reed-Solomon on a side band connection and probably will if interference becomes much of an issue long term.
The only problem I have had with UVerse is
with the equipment itself. I was one of the
first users in my neighborhood. I have had to
have the gateway replaced twice and one
set top box. But the Tech's have all been great
people and take care of business. I cant say the
same for their Tech Support people, in India
and other overseas locations. They want to go
by the script even though you have already
gone through all the steps before contacting them. I have learned one thing though. Use
chat on the internet and don't call.
Now you spoke of compression. I have a hearing
problem and use hearing aids. Boy does the
compression they put on the cable show itself
in the sound. I solved the problem by buy myself
some TV ears. I was also a radio operator for
many years and all the guys I work with have
some hearing problems. Monitoring four or five
frequencies and listening to all the chatter and
junk will take its toll. Not ing. I loved
communications and still do. I love to read your
post on the different "improvements". I can
remember when 50-60 WPM was the norm,
100 WPM on Teletype was superman speeds
and when the old IBM 512's came along and
12 cards per minute was the cats meow and
the the IBM (nomenclature escapes me) but
it transmitted 100 Cards Per Minute. And
then computers came into use, replacing
teletype, 1200 bauds, we were living high. Now,
who knows what these things transmit/receive
at. A message from half way cross the earth
in mere seconds.
Yeah, guys, when you get close to eighty things
do get a might different physically and technically.
You all have a lot to come, if government doesn't
screw it up too bad.
Merry Christmas to all of you and a Very Happy
New Year. I hope you all get what you want
for Christmas and remember who's birthday
we are celebrating.
Now you're just trolling.
Bashing WC is a time-honored custom here, but it often fails to impress.
I would definitely put your post in that category.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0KO0WH20140114A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday struck down the latest effort by the Federal Communications Commission to require internet providers to treat all traffic the same, a policy known as net neutrality.
The FCC did not have the legal authority to enact the 2011 regulations, which were challenged in a lawsuit brought by Verizon Communications Inc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling.
AT&T Sponsored Data Plan: Aiming to Kill Net Neutrality
The FCC has, in effect, stood behind the concept of net neutrality, where transmission of data does not depend on either its source or destination. Data is neutral, and every bit is no more or less equal than any other.
The rules, however, apply only to fixed-line ISPs, not wireless carriers. The effect of a sponsored data plan will be to favor those companies that can and are willing to pay to the disadvantage of those who cannot or will not pay.
Expect the cable and satellite providers to raise a stink about AT&T’s plan. Consumer advocacy groups, too, have already joined the fray. As one consumer advocate told Wired, “Letting the carriers charge more or less money to reach certain sites is discriminatory, and it’s not how the Internet is supposed to work.” Maybe not, but if AT&T gets its way, that is how the Internet will work in the future.
AT&T Sponsored Data Plan: Aiming to Kill Net Neutrality - AT&T (NYSE:T) - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/telecom-wireles...#ixzz2qObZRxgB
Repug corporate s against net neutrality, pushing to screw up Internet, create a rigged, tilted field enriching the biggies and stifling compe ion
GOP Wants FCC to Ditch Net Neutrality Rules
House Republicans on Wednesday penned a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, which urged him to back off any sort of net neutrality regulation.
"We are writing to respectfully urge you to halt your consideration of any plan to impose antiquated regulation on the Internet, and to warn that implementation of such a plan will needlessly inhibit the creation of American private sector jobs, limit economic freedom and innovation, and threaten to derail one of our economy's most vibrant sectors," reads the letter, which was signed by House
Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers.
The lawmakers said net neutrality rules would be "counterproductive," as they "would only serve to deter investment and stifle one of the brightest spots in our economy."
An unregulated approach to broadband deployment, they argued, has resulted in the private sector deploying broadband to 95 percent of U.S. households.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817...1FC8FF8BB85E48
and the "private sector" Internet is a wealth-extracting, un-free-market of uncompe ive local monopolies. goddam, the Repugs LIE as much as they are ignorant dum s
F.C.C. Votes to Move Ahead on Net Neutrality Plan
The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet, prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes.
While the plan is meant to prevent data from being knowingly slowed by Internet providers, it would allow content providers to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service.
Some opponents of the plan argue that allowing some content to be sent along a fast lane would essentially discriminate against content not sent along that lane.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/te...=business&_r=0
As always, money gets what it wants, unstoppable influence and favorable govt policies, which is nearly never what the voters want.
Rigging The Game, it's 100% Corporate-Americana.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...-fcc-chairman/In a one-on-one discussion with Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) President Gary Shapiro, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler implied that le II of the Communications Act will be the basis for new net neutrality rules governing the broadband industry. le II lets the FCC regulate telecommunications providers as common carriers, and President Obama urged the commission to use le II to impose net neutrality rules that ban blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions