[opendtv] Re: Spectrum is too valuable

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 01:34:39 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

In short, you did not know what DOCSIS 3.1 was all about, and you
found it impossible to inform yourself before arguing aggressively.
Something new? Heh.

Pure bullshit!

I provided real estimates from the same document from which you
pulled the long term theoretical limits. Get over it.

That's the BS. This is your habitual modus operandi, Craig, hardly the first
time. What I explained is exactly what DOSCIS 3.1 does, and I even gave you the
link to check it out for yourself, right at the start. The only math you did,
which was great that you did it all, was to compute capacity on a hypothetical
900 MHz cable system, from a spectral efficiency value you found. But you DID
NOT inform yourself how DOCSIS 3.1 works, how it does what it claims, to
improve drastically over what DOCSIS 3.0 does. And yet, this was the second
time I explained all of this.

And Google tells us that about half of their subscribers - with
broadband speeds measured in HUNDREDS of Mbps

Or this. Look again at the title of this thread. We are supposed to be
discussing how cable companies have to spend a whole lot more money with
expensive manual labor, if they continue to waste spectrum on well over a
hundred MPEG-2 TS broadcast channels. Do you not get that offering hundreds of
Mb/s per broadband customer only makes matters worse? Do you not get that the
size of the PON gets even smaller, compared to what is the norm today, if your
HFC network has to remain 900 MHz, *and* offer 100s of Mb/s per household? What
are you arguing about, Craig?

Are you connected to multiple MVPDs, Craig?

No. That's absurd.

No. It is one of three facilities based services I can choose
from; and I could subscribe to Sling, ...

Think, Craig. The legacy MVPD model creates monopolistic gatekeepers. This is
not difficult to grasp, so quit the senseless arguing. The only reason you have
more than that one choice of source now, Craig, is that you are lucky enough to
have a **mandated-to-be-neutral** broadband link on that cable. That's it. If
that broadband pipe were not neutral, you would still be stuck with the single
monopolistic gatekeeper.

[Streaming from the congloms] was no earlier than 2008,

Prove it. I don't believe you.

Already did that.

No, Craig, you did nothing of the sort. I was watching this stuff BEFORE any
HDMI/HDCP, and it was pre-H.264. It was not HD material. I was watching over
analog RGB, using Flash or Windows Media Player, depending on the TV network,
most likely H.263 compression (very constrained MPEG-2 compression). That's how
I noticed problems when H.264 came on the scene, Craig. At a certain point, the
PC had to skip frames, and the video became jerky. This had not been the case
previously.

So, prove to me that the networks didn't begin streaming until 2008. And in any
event, even 2008 is many years ago now, Craig. The congloms have been doing
this for a very long time. It didn't take Apple, or some other limited use box,
to graciously allow us to watch TV online, on demand or otherwise.

Bert

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Follow-Ups:
- [opendtv] Re: Spectrum is too valuable
  - From: Craig Birkmaier

[opendtv] Re: Spectrum is too valuable

Other related posts: