VM's Technical Advantage ...

[Eeeps]

... over VDSL FTTC.

The way I see it the only significant advantage VM have now is the fact that they have a fat pipe into every subscribers home. They also have existing street side cabinets where that pipe terminates.

If only they (any cable operator) could move the CMTS equipment to that cabinet and have the fibre interface there.
Have any cable operators considered this? Does VLSI 'micro' CMTS equipment even exist yet that could replace the broadband amplifier in the cab?

I guess a 32 channel CMTS in each cab would provide a good degree of 'future proof' bandwidth for the customers on that cab.

What's more there would be no need to change the subscriber equipment; the existing SH would be capable of 400Mb/s down and 70Mb/s up.

Would probably even give FTTP a run - just on commercial grounds.

Ian

[qasdfdsaq]

Only problem is the existing cabinets can be either too small or do not have reliable power if they are powered at all. Most aren't.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Eeeps

The way I see it the only significant advantage VM have now is the fact that they have a fat pipe into every subscribers home.

Well it's a potentially fat pipe but in practice it isn't. It will be 8 channel eventually giving 400Mbps down but many areas are only 4 channels or 200Mbps. That pipe gets shared between several hundred modems. Upstream its 18Mpbs now with 36Mbps planned.

With xDSL each customer has whatever his line can manage back to fibre. With cable it's currently a max of 400Mbps back to fibre shared by hundreds. That difference is indeed the difference between cable and xDSL but I can't see why you think it makes cable superior as imo the reverse is the case. Cable can provide high headline speeds but can't provide the bandwidth for concurrent use of those speeds.

As VM are hugely in debt I really can't see them putting in the sort of investment upgrading every street cab and running fibre to it would involve.

[qasdfdsaq]

I think he means the physical pipe itself - i.e. the coax cable - is capable of "fat pipe" speeds, and is (in some areas) dedicated from end user to the cabinet as well.

[kwikbreaks]

I'm sure he does and with about 1GHz of bandwidth on the cable which could probably be pushed to double that with better grade coax and/or shorter runs he isn't wrong. VM are in no position to be able to exploit that though and will doubtless want at least some of it for TV.

[babis3g]

also remember the disadvantage of fibre FTTC twisted pair cable is that the longer the line less power coming to home, while this with cable is not big problem

[kwikbreaks]

It's a big problem for VM.

A FTTC line can easily be a kilometer or more and still deliver usable BB although certainly not in the 60Mbps class but the cab to home run on coax is limited to ~ 200m and probably less. That means VM need a lot more cabinets to cover any given area than BT do. Putting expensive kit in each of those cabinets and providing them with power wouldn't come cheap. I really can't see any major development like that happening given VMs debt mountain and without it xDSL technologies are going to put them out of business in the longer term. All IMO naturally.

[qasdfdsaq]

Phantom DSL (as Ignition previously mentioned) can deliver >750mbps at 500m over copper pair. For each and every individual customer.

[Perfect Choice]

With the likes of Infinity, VM have lost their BB advantage now IMHO. With Sky gaining access to FTTC and their TV package, they now have a way of getting ahead of VM on all fronts. Not good for competition have to say and in no way is Tivo (as it stands right now) VMs differentiator right now.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Phantom DSL (as Ignition previously mentioned) can deliver >750mbps at 500m over copper pair. For each and every individual customer.

Even with what we have now VM are losing business to FTTC. As was said with Sky now reselling things will only get harder for VM. This is doubtless why they are offering the speed doubling.

[Eeeps]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

It's a big problem for VM.

A FTTC line can easily be a kilometer or more and still deliver usable BB although certainly not in the 60Mbps class but the cab to home run on coax is limited to ~ 200m and probably less. That means VM need a lot more cabinets to cover any given area than BT do. Putting expensive kit in each of those cabinets and providing them with power wouldn't come cheap. I really can't see any major development like that happening given VMs debt mountain and without it xDSL technologies are going to put them out of business in the longer term. All IMO naturally.

But VM already have the street furniture in place with the cables in place.
Expectations for BB speeds will continue to rise so eventually the 'phone line just won't hack it (except for the very few). That's when VMs existing coax to the home can become competitive.

On the technology:-
AFAIK the VM cab that the subscriber coax terminates at contains a broadband amplifier that provides the link to a daisy chain coax and on to the optical node. This amp must be powered and my guess it is via the coax from the optical node.
So power would be available for CMTS like equipment.

I woudn't expect the kit to be that expensive either. CMs can already handle multiple channels so creating a VLSI CMTS device to provide 32 channels must be relatively easy. Unlike the VDSL approach where each line has to have individual interface circuits, the multi-channel CMTS would interface directly to the existing attenuation panel in the cab.

The concept is very similar to that of BT Infinity. But in VMs case the cabs already exist, the customers line does not need to be re-routed and the customers modem does not require replacement.

And the potential is so much greater. The dedicated coax from cab to home would is capable of 5Gb/s (~100 DS channels), less the channels required for TV.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Eeeps

But VM already have the street furniture in place

Yes they do but there are a lot of them and to do what you are suggesting almost certainly every one of them would need replacing or at the very least all their innards would need replacing. As you are saying each needs some sort of mini CMTS or at the very least an optical node then you have to blow fibre to every one too.

Technical feasibility 10/10

Financial feasibility 0/10

Add to that VM only pass 50% (guess) of homes. There are phones lines going to or at least easily available to close on 100%.

[The Installer]

Originally Posted by Eeeps

But VM already have the street furniture in place with the cables in place.
Expectations for BB speeds will continue to rise so eventually the 'phone line just won't hack it (except for the very few). That's when VMs existing coax to the home can become competitive.

On the technology:-
AFAIK the VM cab that the subscriber coax terminates at contains a broadband amplifier that provides the link to a daisy chain coax and on to the optical node. This amp must be powered and my guess it is via the coax from the optical node.
So power would be available for CMTS like equipment.

Correct all amps require power, however the architecture varies from cable area to area depending on the build. Some areas will have an amp in each cab, others with slots within the footpath clearly won't.

Basically all VM need to do is simply re-segment their nodes, so they pass less houses (reduce the size of the daisy chain). At present some node areas pass hundreds of houses, reduce the number of houses passed and you reduce the potential for the current over utilization problems. There is no need to move CMTS equipment to street cabs. The bottle neck in the VM system is the daisy chain/node size, not the fibre back to the headend.

[Eeeps]

Originally Posted by The Installer

Correct all amps require power, however the architecture varies from cable area to area depending on the build. Some areas will have an amp in each cab, others with slots within the footpath clearly won't.

Thanks for that insight. Does that mean the cabs without amp are effectively satellites for cab with (i.e. fed from those) or just passive splitters off the main coax chain?

Originally Posted by The Installer

Basically all VM need to do is simply re-segment their nodes, so they pass less houses (reduce the size of the daisy chain). At present some node areas pass hundreds of houses, reduce the number of houses passed and you reduce the potential for the current over utilization problems. There is no need to move CMTS equipment to street cabs. The bottle neck in the VM system is the daisy chain/node size, not the fibre back to the headend.

Effectively placing the CMTS in the cab gives the end game in segmentation.

The question does arise as to whether or not DOCSIS makes best utilisation of the fibre.

[qasdfdsaq]

It doesn't.