Can cable keep up without big infrastructure expenditures?

The unsettling tension between cable, satellite, and now FTTH providers is growing ever tighter, and the delivery of HD channels, on-demand content, and internet services through aging coax pipelines is leaving little room for expansion. While some analysts are suggesting that cable companies should be prepared to spend big bucks in order to maintain their current service levels -- especially considering the seemingly imminent additions of HD content and higher-high-speed internet services -- they may not have to bust out that checkbook so soon. It's no secret that Verizon alone has spent $20 billion in fiber optic deployment in order to get FiOS services to various parts of the country, and cable providers can't exactly afford to sit around and get leapfrogged. Reportedly among the various suggestions (that don't involve just throwing down for a larger infrastructure) is one that focuses on changing the way channels are delivered entirely, requiring no expansion whatsoever. The (relatively) antiquated analog stations aren't doing cable companies any favors, and as they begin to (presumably) phase out in favor of the leaner, meaner digital flavor, the lines can start to breathe a bit easier. But probably more important than the switch to digital is, well, switched digital -- in a switched system, only the channel that's currently being viewed is sent out (much like current IPTV installments), thus freeing up loads of bandwidth. Apparently this efficient design allows for "hundreds of stations" to be available at any given time, while giving providers one less reason to crack open the piggy bank for fear of clogged pipes. It's fairly obvious that cable companies still have a firm, albeit loosening, grip on the television market, and until this newfangled FTTH thing can reach a few more folks (or Google breaks out a dark-fiber solution of its own), it's cable or bust for most of us.

[Via Ars Technica]

[par @ Aug 19th 2006 11:41AM]

At least in UK cable TV (NTL) sucks compared to Sat TV (SKY). I had cable for a year because I couldn't install a dish at the appartment I lived in. For a second every 5 mins the screen would become like a 56k video stream, the decoder kept freezing (it was replaced with the same results), no HD signal was available and the the SKY sports channels, that I paid extra for, were handicaped with only one live Champions League match avaible to watch.

[MikeSD34 @ Aug 19th 2006 11:56AM]

Um... didn't we already give them billions so that they could overhaul their infrastructure?

[mattie @ Aug 19th 2006 12:45PM]

i work for time warner as a technician. we had a meeting a while ago where the bosses basically told us that we can't keep up with FIOS and we have to keep our customers with good customer service. in other words we're screwed. he said they had no plans to upgrade our infrastructure. Glad i never bought stock in this company

[CJ @ Aug 19th 2006 2:30PM]

After trying both Comcast Internet and FIOS internet FIOS wins for the same price you get 6 times the upload speed and 3 times the download speed of comcast with Verizon FIOS its really not a hard choice to make.

When their cable TV service comes out in my area I will be switching that too.

[Edward @ Aug 19th 2006 2:58PM]

i, for one, welcome our google dark fiber internet overlords

[Pedro Pinheiro @ Aug 19th 2006 3:20PM]

Apart from the radical change that is happening through time-shifting DVRs (which I think will evolve to full on-demand TV watching, both live and recorded), the future is going to be wireless. I think the only cable going into our homes in 15 years time will be the one for electricity. Think about the increases in wireless bandwidth in the past 15 years.

[The cable guy @ Aug 19th 2006 5:09PM]

I disagree with this article because there is a lot the cable companies can do without a big investemnt and without treaing out and replacing most of the existing cable plant.

Like was mentioned in the article, I also expect that some point they'll start reducing the number analog channels, forcing folks to switch to digital for those stations. That will save them a ton of bandwidth.

In the longer run they'll start switching some of the digital channels to h.264 compression instead of MPEG-2. Unfortunately, at the same time this will force folks who have DIGITAL cable-ready sets to get STB's until a a plug-and-play cable-ready standard is devised which contains h.264. However, though this is bad for the consumer, it's great for the cable companies since they force you to have an STB, which they love, and the switchover to h.264 will further free up more bandwidth for them.

So, I think it is not all gloom and doom for the cable companies and to answer the question the title poses... yes, it is possible for cable to keep up without big infrastructure investment.

[Mel @ Aug 19th 2006 10:48PM]

For those of us that live in small town America, it is going to be a very long time till FTTH comes to my home. The cable company has me hooked for a very long time.

Don't forget Voip. Right now, its the cable companies that have the Voip customers. Verizon is loosing 1000 customers a day to cable companies offering Voip.

[Eddy @ Aug 20th 2006 1:56AM]

..the whole "switch on/off" channels thing is scary. Knowing these companies, they'll probably charge us per tv/outlet we have in our houses. i dont like that. i like those little things we call splitters.

[Matt @ Aug 20th 2006 5:43AM]

Cablers are spending big on infrastructure. I'm shocked that the post makes no mention of the fact that the cablers are involved in an FCC spectrum auction. While most believe it is an attempt to enter wireless phone service to compete with Verizon and AT&T FTTH/wireless package options. I personally think they are interested in the DBS option. Imagine sending IPTV wirelessly freeing the old co-ax to send back data?

Oh, and Par, don't worry, all of Europe's cablers are being acquired by buyout firms. Once the companies pay off all that junk debt, they'll get around to spending on improved infrastructure... or go bankrupt, whichever comes first.

[ishtar @ Aug 20th 2006 11:00AM]

"...a firm, albeit loosening, grip..."

That is like having the cake and eating it too! :)