Clint Ricker wrote:

It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle a simultaneous
sustained 1Mb/s to all of their subscribers; last mile is the most
talked about limitation; however, transport to the node is a major
limitation although less so as many service providers are upgrading to
fiber backhaul infrastructure.

---> The bottleneck is the Node for all networks.


Regardless, cable companies (and Verizon) don't need to be able to
push a sustained 1Mb/s to all subscribers because they are simply
pushing the video on the wire as analog or digital signal; it is not
framed in IP and doesn't "count" in terms of bandwidth.  They can do
this because their medium (coax/fiber) can handle this sort of
approach and has lots of capacity in terms of available frequencies.

---> VZ actually uses 85% of the bandwidth that they promise you for TV.
--> When they push 30MB to your house that includes the TV bw.
-> Don't know this for sure since I have a disdain for VZ, but my neighbors have claimed this.
-> The MSO's HFC uses a multiplexing formula, but it has limits due to heat.

In other words, if you can't figure out how to make your
network support regular TV, then VOD will never happen in any
meaningful way.  Even among cable companies that have been doing video
quite well for 50+ years, VOD is the exception, not the rule.

---> You are so right.
--> Many of the 1000+ smaller MSO's and PCO's are selling out now, because DBS is taking market share and the cost to upgrade their antiquated analog head-end system would be millions -- money they do not think that they can recover.

--> Cablecos owe about $100B on the upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0
--> The upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 will be aboout the same.
--> The $400 per set-top box is the hard part to get over because at $5 per month, the numbers don't work and it is a huge capital expense upfront.

Regardless, I don't think, however, that ignoring video is a smart
strategy.  Yes, there are consumers who don't like integration.
However, bundling services gives major players the means to
aggressively undercut competition while still maintaining
profitability, and, potential for new services based on the
integration of voice/video/data allows for a better value even if they
never engage in an all-out price war.

--> The cablecos have an advantage because they are moving from the flattened, not-so-profitable market of TV to the much-more-profitable world of internet and voice. Whereas the telcos are going the other way. And while sustaining a debt burden for each home passed (exceeding $2000) there is also the considerable cost of acquisition at a reduced rate (means less revenue and less profit). I don't know how this will work out in the long run. The penetration rate for VZ right now is less than 15% according to some studies and 15-18% according to VZ's latest press. That ain't a lot.

VOD -- without a Network DVR it won't go far. Even the DBS guys don't really have it.

IPTV - will be a nifty trick if M$ can ever get it to work.

PPV - where the money is right now for all TV providers and hospitality units.

There are far more crative things to offer your client base than video.
If you are going to try video - why not stuff like CinemaNow (PPV), Video Email (Vmail), SightSpeed (video blogs), or Video Conferencing, where the bandwidth costs are less.

That's my 2 cents.

Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc.

--


Regards,

Peter Radizeski
RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist
We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate
813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to