Cable backbone bandwidth

I have Comcast High Definition television service here in Denver Colorado
and can say that I am very ready to switch over to one of the satellite
companies as they have so much more High Def programming.

If the backbone of cable systems is fiber based, don't they have ample
bandwidth to have hundreds of Hi-Def channels?? Why do we have so
few?? --Greg--

"Greg" wrote in message
...
I have Comcast High Definition television service here in Denver Colorado
and can say that I am very ready to switch over to one of the satellite
companies as they have so much more High Def programming.

If the backbone of cable systems is fiber based, don't they have ample
bandwidth to have hundreds of Hi-Def channels?? Why do we have so
few?? --Greg--

I don't profess to be an expert on the topic, but having been a Cablevision
customer for several years, I have noticed some patterns. There seems to be
a leapfrog effect here. The telcos thought they could do internet service to
the home on the cheap with DSL. They figured they already had a lot of
experience moving large amounts of data, and all they needed was to put a
modem in the home and connect to their existing networks. The result was
that they pushed their wires to their limit, and a DSL install often took a
full day or more and involved painful bureaucracy. They never took the cable
companies seriously, since these were just TV junkies. But the cable
companies knew they were starting from scratch in this business and they
knew support would be a major issue, so they built out their systems in such
a way that they would be largely maintenance free, customers could just plug
in a modem and start running, and most diagnostics could be done back at
their HQ. That gave them a huge advantage in the early part of the decade.
But now all that equipment is getting kind of old but they still need to
recoup their investment. Meanwhile, the telcos and satellite companies have
moved on to a new generation of equipment and now have more bandwidth and
better reliability. In a few more years, the cable companies will upgrade
and then they'll be on top again. The cycle will continue until someone has
a disastrous misstep or someone has a truly significant technological
breakthrough and the competition can't catch up.

As for me (see my post from yesterday), I now have IO service from
Cablevision, not so much because I like it, but because I was able to walk
into their store, pick up a modem, and bring it home and start using it
right away, and there's no contract, so I can terminate whenever I want.
FIOS is not available and there is no plan to bring it to my house.
Satellite is still a likely option after I've had more time to do the
research. I don't like Verizon but if they actually do bring FIOS to my
neighborhood, I'll consider it.

"Greg" wrote:
I have Comcast High Definition television service here in Denver Colorado
and can say that I am very ready to switch over to one of the satellite
companies as they have so much more High Def programming.

If the backbone of cable systems is fiber based, don't they have ample
bandwidth to have hundreds of Hi-Def channels?? Why do we have so
few?? --Greg--

Not necessarily. The analog stations take up alot of bandwidth.
Also, the system may need upgrading at the nodes to handle the
increased bandwidth.

Chip

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

wrote:
"Greg" wrote:
I have Comcast High Definition television service here in Denver Colorado
and can say that I am very ready to switch over to one of the satellite
companies as they have so much more High Def programming.

If the backbone of cable systems is fiber based, don't they have ample
bandwidth to have hundreds of Hi-Def channels?? Why do we have so
few?? --Greg--

Not necessarily. The analog stations take up alot of bandwidth.
Also, the system may need upgrading at the nodes to handle the
increased bandwidth.

Chip

The big hope last winter was that we'd digitize the lower 99 channels,
drop the analog bandwidth and get improved definition across the board.

Regrettably, in San Diego, Cox has now squished their lower 99 channels
(probably to make room for more HD channels). The result is that we now
have a poorer picture from those digitized channels that we have from
analog (either over cable or from OTA-SD.)

I'd like to see Cox use the bandwidth for better video quality, perhaps
carry NASA, and drop "paid programming."

--
pj