brooks7 12/5/2016 | 6:19:22 PM
Re: my two-cents The problem is then getting fiber through walls...


jbtombes 12/5/2016 | 6:11:04 PM
Re: HFC vs. FTTH Altice in metro NYC (Cablevision) is indeed compact. The rest of what Altice has acquired in the US (Suddenlink) is scattered across Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, W. Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio. (Am I missing anyone?) Deployments there would likely be less effiient and more costly.
Duh! 12/5/2016 | 3:51:19 PM
Interesting... What am I missing? I understand that 1.2 GHz Remote (MAC/)PHY node would certainly require higher power/higher gain/higher bandwidth power amplifiers than a current generation 4X4 node. It would also need DAC, ADC (for the upstream), RF front-end, baseband and possibly MAC logic. Some of that would be made up in  the upstream lasers.  Still, more power for sure - but as much as four or five amplifiers? Really? Can you share your source?

Also, shedding amplifiers and replacing linear optics with baseband will boost SNR, perhaps enough to enable higher order modulation and thus better spectral efficiency. Wouln't that delay any need to go to 1.2GHz?
msilbey 12/5/2016 | 2:24:56 PM
Re: HFC vs. FTTH This is the first place I've seen it discussed that cable nodes will have a tough time handling N+0, 1.2GHz and Remote Phy all at once. I find that particularly interesting because it seems to me that once a cableco has moved forward with one of those strategies, it's more likely to want to move forward with the rest. For example, once an operator is down to N+0, there's a better case for moving to Remote Phy. And at the same time, if the use case that cable operator has sold is around high-capacity bandwidth, there's equally a desire to increase total spectrum availability, i.e. upgrading to 1.2GHz.

Comcast, for example, is already N+0 in a number of markets. Comcast is also interested in Remote Phy. Will it try to move forward with both and forego an upgrade to 1.2 GHz? Interesting dilemma. 
comtech3 12/5/2016 | 1:36:15 PM
Re: my two-cents Inside wiring is not a probem with Comcast FTTH becaue ONU used is a bit similar to that used by Verizon,  except that it does not function as a MODEM as does Fios where a MoCa router is used.The Comcast ONU output is to a wireess gateway MODEM, which can be customer's owned, or rented. That flexibiltiy is not given to Fiios customers, although they can  have CAT5, of CAT6 UTP cables ran from their own switch, or router. However, for troubleshooting purposes, I guess, Verizon customers are forbidden to use their own equipment.

Comcast has embarked on FTTH in some markets already where they have deployed DOCSIS 3.1 gigabit Internet speeds.

The problem that Comcast may have some problems that has also beset Google, is the run fiber underground in pre-existing development where they already provide service.Residents are highly recluctant to having their yard dug up to have it done.However, there is a technigue that can be use to circument this by using a heat process to remove the center conductor from the hardline feeder cable that separates it from dielectric to insert the fiber through and use it as a conduit.

Bottom line though, I don't see any of the major MSOs going the route of full FTTH in my lifetime as the that old copper l clad hardline still has some resilience and adapatabiltiy left in it.

inkstainedwretch 12/5/2016 | 11:54:29 AM
HFC vs. FTTH Yes, an MSO retires these issues when it deploys fiber to the home, and this is one of the reasons why most MSOs install FTTH in greenfield deployments.

But ripping up coax is hard, especially for a large MSO whose network is actually a conglomeration of systems sprawling across a lot of geography.

The task of ripping up coax and going all-fiber is less onerous for a  company operating in a relatively small, relatively circumscribed area. We saw Videotron in Canada (essentially Montreal) do it a few year back, and Altice/Cablevision (New York City and adjacent suburbs) just announced it will do likewise. A lot of smaller MSOs have already done so too.

So we might see some companies wait it out as long as they can to see if  technology/economics progresses to the point where skipping ahead to FTTH becomes a practical option. 

--Brian Santo
brooks7 12/5/2016 | 10:57:17 AM
Re: my two-cents The PON specs actually are a lot more than 20Km, you are thinking about the maximum distance between ONTs on a PON.  I think the big issue for cable is where it does the O/E conversion in a FTTH scenario.  I am sure they would like it to be inside the home.  Problem is how to do this and not deal with all the possibilities in home wiring.  If they go outdoor ONTs (like the bulk of FiOS), then actually the number of OSP active electronic elements increases.


comtech3 12/5/2016 | 6:51:21 AM
my two-cents It is my understanding that a single mode fiber can carry a signal without regeneration for over 20km. Now,the distance between a node and a subsriber at an end of line tap is on average 500 feet. If the notion is to eliminate the coaxial output from the node, and replace with fiber, which would give rise to taps where subscribers drop would be connected.The issue now is whether the drops would still coax, or fiber. If the drops used are still coax, then some kind of powering would required to convert the light in the fiber to RF.That could be achieved by using a separate output from the node to power the taps.

But here lies the problem. The idea behind the HFC was to eliminate the issues of power comsumption,outages, and a host of RF problems that were presented with the old tree and branch system. The node+4, +5 didn't work out that way when suddenly "as built" cable map add to be modified to accomodate a new development, which meant that was once end of line tap may have to be opened up for another line extender, or a mini bridger amp that is either powered by removing the power block to the tap, or keeping block and add a power supply to the newly extended plant.

What is giving a lot of maintenance techs some sleepless nights at one particular MSO that all I alluded above is meaningless because the is great emphasis on FTTH, which would require less maintenance techs. Already the company has stopped hiring maintenance techs in one of it's subscriber areas.
Sign In