"Right now the typical cable operator uses one analog channel (6 MHz – usually channel 80) for Internet service. That’s ONE PERCENT of the total bandwidth on an analog cable network. Give up a shopping channel and Internet bandwidth could be instantly doubled."
Is that true? Is any of this true?
I'll come back with more ...
Rounding up, one analog channel is about 40 Mbps. That assigned frequency gets used over and over again because a typical cable system has a lot of forking/branching. See Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC).
And yes, analog is teh suck. That same bandwidth can carry 8 channels of HD encoded in h.264.
They're trying to get rid of analog, but the bane of the all digital network is the "cable ready TV". Also, too, the cable guys are slow.
Cable in 5 years will be very, very different.
I like my cable ready TV (and cable modem for the Net). I'm not ready to let them control the box that controls my experience (especially with stuff like the sleazy "Domain Helper" as an example of what They could do with it).
However, if all this space frees up, I guess what you and Cringely are saying is it won't be so necessary to control it. But it will take five years also to instill trust in customers.
Cringely makes it sound inevitable that cable companies will start to see themselves as bandwidth sellers rather than as intermediaries in the content delivery business.
However, old business models die hard. Telcos, cable operators, etc. are (for better or worse) measured on revenue per user (RPU, commonly pronounced "are-poo"). Dropping content delivery is a huge drop in RPU. Another aspect of this is account control. Both telephone and cable operators are trying to get people hooked with triple play services (tv, data, voice) to help reduce some the churn (turn over of customer base) that drives up cost. Telcos can also raise the ante with quadruple play (mobile). Discarding a major element of the service package is a hard thing.
Also, currently no ones making any money off of Hulu, etc. The content owners are dabbling. The cut over from their current business model (broadcast over cable) to the emerging business model (unicast over IP) seems like something that ought to happen. But dropping a decades old model is scary.
I'm in the middle of thinking about how to re-invent content delivery with a modern IP based infrastructure. I should think more about Cingely's thoughts on how the business models may or may not shift.
|
Is that true? Is any of this true?
- tom moody 10-31-2009 12:05 pm
I'll come back with more ...
Rounding up, one analog channel is about 40 Mbps. That assigned frequency gets used over and over again because a typical cable system has a lot of forking/branching. See Hybrid Fiber Coax (HFC).
And yes, analog is teh suck. That same bandwidth can carry 8 channels of HD encoded in h.264.
They're trying to get rid of analog, but the bane of the all digital network is the "cable ready TV". Also, too, the cable guys are slow.
Cable in 5 years will be very, very different.
- mark 11-01-2009 1:14 am
I like my cable ready TV (and cable modem for the Net). I'm not ready to let them control the box that controls my experience (especially with stuff like the sleazy "Domain Helper" as an example of what They could do with it).
However, if all this space frees up, I guess what you and Cringely are saying is it won't be so necessary to control it. But it will take five years also to instill trust in customers.
- tom moody 11-01-2009 2:15 am
Cringely makes it sound inevitable that cable companies will start to see themselves as bandwidth sellers rather than as intermediaries in the content delivery business.
However, old business models die hard. Telcos, cable operators, etc. are (for better or worse) measured on revenue per user (RPU, commonly pronounced "are-poo"). Dropping content delivery is a huge drop in RPU. Another aspect of this is account control. Both telephone and cable operators are trying to get people hooked with triple play services (tv, data, voice) to help reduce some the churn (turn over of customer base) that drives up cost. Telcos can also raise the ante with quadruple play (mobile). Discarding a major element of the service package is a hard thing.
Also, currently no ones making any money off of Hulu, etc. The content owners are dabbling. The cut over from their current business model (broadcast over cable) to the emerging business model (unicast over IP) seems like something that ought to happen. But dropping a decades old model is scary.
I'm in the middle of thinking about how to re-invent content delivery with a modern IP based infrastructure. I should think more about Cingely's thoughts on how the business models may or may not shift.
- mark 11-01-2009 5:47 am