switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... Last
[#] Fri Jan 13 2017 09:32:20 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Verizon isn't going to run fiber to non-Verizon territory, that's for sure.
And we also know that Verizon has clearly stated that they're going to focus, for the short term, on increasing their network's penetration in the areas they already serve. So if you're in a FiOS market but your neighborhood isn't wired, you've got a chance; if you're not in a FiOS market, you're going to be waiting a while; if you're not in Verizon territory you are permanently SoL.

Again, the message I got from reading the Altice and AT&T announcement on the same day is that the days of video over copper are numbered. The only remaining question is what technology will be used over the fiber. Various forms of PON are used by Verizon FiOS and Google Fiber, and those seem to be the most efficient way to go for now; I'd rather just see a pure Ethernet infrastructure extended out to each subscriber.

The people who lose bigly are those in AT&T territory, who are now stuck with DSL+satellite for a generation.

[#] Fri Jan 13 2017 16:36:09 EST from Ladyhawke

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Thu Jan 12 2017 10:13:41 PM EST from wizard of aahz @ Uncensored
I hate Charter.. But I hated Frontier worse. Which was what I got when ATT UVerse gave the area to Frontier. It was horrible. Comcast Xfinity is the only other option up here. Verizon is NEVER running fiber to the boonies where I live.

Sadly, Verizon is selling a bunch of their territories to Frontier, as well.  Thankfully, not Boston yet!

[#] Fri Jan 13 2017 23:11:56 EST from wizard of aahz

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I get calls on my work number from Verizon. They're asking we switch over the office bandwidth to Verizon. I tell them ABSOLUTELY! Sure. Love to do it. As soon as you get me Fios at my house. They're all over it. Guarantee me they can do it. I give them my address and get a call a couple of days later. Nope. Can't do it. I tell them I know.

Fiber up in the mountains up here.. Not likely anytime soon. BUt it's fun to toy with them some.

[#] Sun Jan 15 2017 18:00:58 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It's pretty clear that AT&T and Verizon don't really want to be in the landline business anymore. U-Verse and FiOS are projects that wouldn't launch in today's environment. The real money is in wireless.

100% of subscribers want a dumb pipe and a la carte TV channels. 0% of providers want to deliver that service.

[#] Tue Jan 17 2017 07:50:49 EST from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


We tried to deliver a la carte TV channels at my previous job, and had worked out the way to pull it off for cell phones, but the cable companies are such fucking bastards, they have the networks over a barrel somehow.

The blame for this state of things lie primarily on Comcast and their ilk.

The only other way to work around that is to start generating quality programming completely outside the networks that people would want to receive.

[#] Tue Jan 24 2017 11:48:07 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Over-the-top is still in its early days, but the "cord cutting" movement seems to have enough momentum that perhaps the networks will have to play ball at some point. Carriage negotiations usually involve multiple networks from the same company (for example, if a carrier wants Disney Schmeep at $0.50/subscriber/month they also have to take ESPN at $8.00/subscriber/month). It's a simple revenue calculation and the cable companies are probably already doing it: when the cord cutting movement gets beyond a certain size, the revenue they're losing by *not* offering a-la-carte packages will exceed the revenue they're losing from subscribers declining the big packages, and they'll make the change.

In the interim they'll probably try to steer subscribers away from third party over-the-top services by pulling douchebag moves like imposing data caps on subscribers who don't take a TV package, and/or bullying the OTT services into paid peering, etc. Unfortunately our new FCC chairman is an opponent of net neutrality so they will probably get away with it for a while.

[#] Tue Jan 24 2017 14:00:13 EST from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


[#] Tue Jan 24 2017 14:01:04 EST from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

(although, why should I sigh? I don't even watch television anymore. I refuse to participate in that broken business model anymore, and prefer on-demand viewing).

[#] Wed Mar 01 2017 10:07:16 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And just like that, obviously in response to this thread, Google is introducing "YouTube TV."

They don't seem to have carriage agreements with enough networks yet to make it a true competitor to cable/satellite, but I have a feeling they'll get there. $35/month, bring your own bandwidth, and it includes the broadcast networks (they seem to be doing it the same way satellite providers do, carrying the local stations where possible, or the nationwide network feed otherwise).

Unfortunately, they *do* have ESPN. For this service to be useful, it has to include a bigger selection of networks, and we have to be able to pick them a-la-carte instead of taking a package that includes ESPN at $7/month which I will never watch.

Obviously this isn't the most efficient way to use Internet bandwidth. Aside from the poor choice to implement on DSL, the U-Verse video service was the right idea. When a carrier owns the IP network end-to-end, they can make sure multicast is implemented properly so you don't have to send a separate data stream to every subscriber who tunes in to a channel. When a subscriber's TV service comes from a third party, the Internet carrier has no choice but to carry the data separately for everyone.

[#] Wed Mar 01 2017 11:14:12 EST from kc5tja

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ironically, the thing that enables efficient multicast (most likely DTM networks and circuit-switching) are largely the things responsible for making DSL inefficient at the endpoints (DSL uses ATM, which is OK as far as it goes, but the whole network *depends* on traffic shaping to work right).

[#] Fri Mar 03 2017 11:36:11 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well yes, *telco* DSL uses ATM, but that's their own fault :)

Most DSLAMs can run native IP, and many of the independent DSL providers did, before they all went out of business.

Anyway, since AT&T (sorry ... at&t) controlled the entire U-Verse plant end to end, I think they did have the multicast thing set up correctly. IPTV used multicast in a way that only required one stream to be sent to the DSLAM (or "VRAD" as they called it) and the set top boxen picked up the multicast with no trouble. The problem wasn't multicast, it was that there simply wasn't enough bandwidth to effectively deliver triple-play services on DSL, even though they pissed off a lot of people by putting DSLAMs in gigantic huts in every neighborhood.

(I know U-Verse still exists, but I'm using past tense because they've basically given up on it and are trying to transition everyone to DirecTV.)

[#] Fri Mar 03 2017 13:44:04 EST from kc5tja

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oh? Wasn't aware of the DirecTV thing. I guess at&t here hasn't gotten the
memo. They're still pushing U-verse
with some amount of conviction.

[#] Mon Mar 06 2017 09:00:15 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

hmm ] ]

Although the U-Verse TV service is not being discontinued, they are rebranding U-Verse as "AT&T Internet" and "AT&T Phone" and steering new customers towards DirecTV.  There seems to be some indication that they want to eventually have a box at the subscriber prem that can combine the DSL and Satellite services, and then distribute the combined services through the subscriber's inside wiring.  As Professor Hinkle would say, "messy, messy, messy!"

As television networks begin to broadcast in 2160p (4K UHD) things are going to start getting difficult for any provider not deploying fiber all the way to the subscriber.  Even venerable old DOCSIS is going to be a squeeze, as each 6 MHz slot can carry one analog channel, about seven digital SD channels, two HD channels, about 38 Mbps of Internet, or ... half a UHD channel.  Of course, there are still a lot of networks that haven't even moved from 720p to 1080i yet, so that could be a while off yet.  But it's clear that bandwidth requirements are only going to keep going up, so the non-fiber technologies' days are numbered.  Verizon is of course sitting pretty, having completed its fiber rollout years ago and is now the fifth largest MSO in the United States.  Altice (who operate Optimum and Suddenlink) seem to see the writing on the wall and are reportedly getting ready to build a fiber network capable of delivering 10 Gbps to the subscriber.

(Disclaimer: I am fascinated by the technology and love keeping up with it ... but none of this matters to me because I've already got fiber to my home, plenty of bandwidth, and I despise commercial television.)

[#] Mon Mar 06 2017 10:58:47 EST from zooer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

AT&T purchased and then sold Comcast about 15 years ago.

[#] Wed Mar 08 2017 12:00:42 EST from Freakdog <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

So, Metronet is working their way into my area...they've just had conduit (and maybe fibre) run into my neighborhood.

Has anyone had any experience with these guys, yet? 

[#] Thu Mar 09 2017 12:47:29 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Never heard of them but it looks interersting. It's nice to see someone take an "everything is data" approach, and I hope all providers go that way. Telephone and television services work just fine over IP now. IPTV is easy when you are able to multicast, and with more and more consumers either watching on-demand video or using cloud-hosted DVR, more of it is going to be IP unicast anyway.

[#] Mon Mar 20 2017 07:54:02 EDT from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Telephone over IP became a problem for closed captioning, which remained in the stone age of using modems (who don't like voip very well).

But, really, they should have been using straight tcp/ip anyway.

[#] Tue Mar 28 2017 16:10:34 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Data-over-voice-over-data is never a winning proposition.

[#] Fri Mar 31 2017 08:22:55 EDT from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It certainly didn't win for closed captioning.

[#] Sat Apr 01 2017 17:47:52 EDT from wizard of aahz

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I expect my broadband to run at dialup speeds soon enough.

Go to page: First ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... Last