Cable's bandwidth quagmire
by Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Oct 3rd 2007 at 10:26AM
Most people think going digital means going HD, but we know all too well that this couldn't be further from the truth. One thing that going digital does mean is more efficient use of the limited resource, bandwidth. Big cable looks forward to digital for many reasons, but most of all so they can drop all those bandwidth sucking analog channels and shift the throughput to additional revenue streams. We learned last month that this wasn't going to happen untill at least 2012, but cable has a few options -- none of them are good. They have the option to deploy STBs, but thanks to another FCC mandates these boxes are no longer cheap and can cost about $150 because they have to support CableCARDs and the hardware for OCAP. The most interesting option is from a company called Broadlogic that produces a chip that can decode 80 MPEG-2 streams at the same time, which would convert the signal from digital to analog at the house and eliminate the need for STBs while saving the bandwidth of the analog channels. It could be worse however, if the FCC had forced them to provide an analog and multiple digital versions of a channel.[Via ConnectedHome2Go]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Batard @ Oct 3rd 2007 11:36AM
Nielsen says consumers can't get enough of HD -yet:
http://www.cable360.net/competition/dbs/25933.html
CR @ Oct 3rd 2007 12:10PM
Or, they could use Switched Digital Video to save bandwidth on the digital tiers, which is what they're doing.
The article says "they have to support CableCARDs and the hardware for OCAP". You're somewhat right, CableCARD is an FCC requirement but OCAP is not required by law.
Casey Vincent @ Oct 3rd 2007 12:03PM
Unencrypted QAM could be a very good solution for cable companies. It has kind of shocked me that they don't unencrypt all their HD channels. It would sure be a big selling point for me over DirectTV. "Get all the HD included with your cable package, and you don't even need a box". If cable companies start supporting this, the TV companies will start to offer more graceful QAM solutions.
bigglare @ Oct 3rd 2007 1:28PM
The law only requires carriage of the local broadcast channels. There's no reason cable companies need to carry any more than the 12 to 20 local broadcast channels in analog. Everything else could go to one form or another of digital carriage.
Its not like cable companies really have to follow the letter of the law for cable boxes. Comcast here in albuquerque doesn't provide active firewire ports on STBs. The law as they say only has to be there not functional. A STB has to support a cablecard doesnt say it has to have a cablecard or a cablecard slot as I'm sure they would claim.
HDjanitor @ Oct 3rd 2007 8:54PM
Cablecos sure can cut out about half of their 70 to 80 analog channels and have a basic 40-channel analog lineup. That alone would give them room for another 80 HD channels or whatever other digital stuff they want to put on their systems. The flipside is they would have to reduce prices for analog service a lot, so you can be sure they won't make that cut for awhile.
joe1234 @ Oct 3rd 2007 5:27PM
This dual must- carry, and the possible triple must-carry rule shows how out touch with technology the FCC really is. Cable companies should only have to carry the HD local channels after 2009. and the downconverter to analog requirement is worse. An HD cable box can already downconvert, this happens when someone hooks up the box using the wrong output. If someone hooks up an HD Cable box using the coax cable, or the Composite(3 Wires) they will see the HD channels in Letterbox. What they should have done is require all cable companies to have Only HD Boxes, after Over the Air analog Shuts off and after that date they must only carry the HD locals and possibly some multi cast channels. That way if someone has an Analog TV, they hook up the Box using the SD outputs, and if Someone has an HDTV they hook it up using the the HD outputs, HDMI and Component(5 wires). Also all HD cable boxes would come with a basic hookup manual with lots of pictures in it.
Ben @ Oct 3rd 2007 5:30PM
The FCC allows them to convert to analog with a STB, but they can't charge any extra for it.
tobin92 @ Oct 3rd 2007 8:56PM
Why doesn't the FCC just expand the digital-analog converter boxs to cable companies?
This would allow Cable to be up to par with OTA only broadcasting digital?
What cable should do is eliminate higer "cable" channel that are analog and make them digital only and provide SD STB.
Why do STB need to support CABLECARD anyways?
Doesn' that defy the point of it ?
I though TVs have CABLECARD so you don't need a STB, but the trade off was you could only get select channels.
Casey, Unencrypted QAM defeats the point, That would just use a LOT more bandwidth.
Matt @ Oct 4th 2007 6:30PM
If I'm understanding this article correctly, it sounds like the cable companies could apply a very similar system as Verizon's FIOS. With Fios, Verizon installs a box called an ONT on the side of the house. It converts the optical signal into an electric one for the copper wires in the house. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the network affiliates may be available without an STB through FIOS.
Basically using Broadlogic's chips, cablers could simply install a box on the side of the house that converts the MPEG-2 streams into standard co-axial signals sans a cable box. Actually, it could be very cost effective because they could eventually do away with STBs altogether.