Fiber Optics vs. Coaxial Cord

M

mcbrett

2,500+ Posts
I'm moving this from a discussion on On the Field- about tomorrow's game channel on ESPN.

My question is: Given the rise of ATT's UVerse and Verizon FiOS, isn't coaxial based media (Time Warner Cable) a dead man walking?

How can coaxial cords compete longer term with the superior band width, HDTV picture, and long term cost structure of fiber optics? Isn't FO simply a superior, technological advance such that a coaxial base cable systems will eventually phase out?

And yes I understand FO brings it to the house, and the last 50 feet might be on a coaxial cord, and full disclosure- I hate TWarner with a passion, but would like to ask some of the more talented techies on the board their opinion.
 
Once Fiber is ubiquitous enough that it can be an honest challenger (and we aren't there yet), then TWC will be delivering their content over fiber, as well. In the meantime, if the last 50 feet is copper, then you aren't going to be able to tell the difference except on the price tag.

As a technology, the important thing to remember about fiber is that it is essentially just glass. When you are talking about thick pipes, this fact isn't very relevant... but when you start to break off for the last mile that means what is actually reaching your house is pretty fragile. This means cost to install and maintain is just going to be higher over the life of the connection.

In any event, I agree that TWC is the devil... but AT&T is ALSO the devil, and right now they are the devil with the inferior technology. I wish we would stop pretending that one cable company and one phone company means that there isn't a monopoly.
 
Thanks Mia. I am not in Texas sadly but that does mean I have Verizon FiOS as an option- and they intend to install it where I live soon. It's more competition than we had 10 years ago- which was cable or satellite- so that is a small improvement.

I would think based on what you said, even with the last 50 feet issue, that fiber eliminates the issue of crowding of the bandwidth that cable customers have during peak usage times. Also, ATT/Verizon both claim a better HDTV picture- but I am skeptical if this is true or not given the coaxial component. Do you know?
 
Cable will technically compete just fine for a long time. Cable currently carries a lot of channels simultaneously (broadcasts) which takes a lot of capacity. However, the trend is to only carry the programming that customers are currently watching. The channels are switched at the source which frees up cable capacity for more services like higher speed internet service. It's already happening and will continue to move in that direction.
 
CableCO's use Fiber to the node as well. Google hybrid-fiber-over-coax.

AT&T uses fiber to the node and the remainder goes over their old POTS copper.

Verizon FIOS uses Fiber to the home...but is only available in very limited areas.
 
Is it still true with uverse that you can only have 1-2 TV's watching HD programming at a time? Thats why I couldnt do it.
 
I think Uverse recently upgraded (or is in the process of it) to 3 simultaneous HD streams, but that's still less than infinity.
 
Your best bet is always OTA. I watch anything "live" that is on an OTA channel with our antenna in the attic. Picture quality is perfect.
 
In our experience the picture quality on Uverse was slightly worse than on Time Warner, but it was not a hugely noticeable difference.
-------------------------------------------
My U-verse picture is definitely worse than TWC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top