Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon To Use New Tech With Old Cables

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the not-just-for-making-lassos-anymore dept.

188

Ant wrote to mention a ZDNet article about a new initive to get modern high-speed net access into homes utilizing old coaxial cable lines. Right now Verizon digs up streets and lays out expensive fiber to get homes online, but new tech may let them accomplish that task for much less hassle and expense. From the article: "Later this year, it plans to use new technology from the Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) , an industry group that promotes using coaxial cable installed for cable TV to transmit broadband around the home. The organization says that its technology supports speeds up to 270 megabits per second. Because most homes already have coaxial cable installed in several rooms, Verizon can significantly reduce its Fios installation costs by using existing cabling to connect home computers to its broadband service."

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Verizon? (5, Funny)

Morky (577776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903721)

I'll start holding my breath now.

Re:Verizon? (1, Informative)

LordNightwalker (256873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903797)

Whoah, hang on... Verizon is offering broadband over plain old coaxial TV cable? Whoopty-frickin-doo! With tech like that, the rumors must be right... Man DID land on the moon last month!

RT..., oh, never mind (5, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903817)

Verizon is offering broadband over plain old coaxial TV cable? Whoopty-frickin-doo!
It's a typical Slashdot sloppy headline, but that's no excuse for not reading the submission. It's not just "broadband", it's at speeds competitive with those of fibre.

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (4, Insightful)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903893)

So I'm guessing this is why Comcast is upgrading some areas to 16M/1M connections? I thought cable already used shared fibre lines. Guess I was wrong...

Competition is good; too bad they aren't competing with ISPs from Japan or Korea, else we'd get getting 100M/100M connections for $10-15 a month.

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (5, Informative)

giverson (532542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903909)

This isn't even about fiber vs coax, it's about coax vs ethernet. The theory is that the existing coax within the home can be used instead of rolling out new CAT5 like they do now. With this, they still roll out the fiber to the home.

Now: FIOS->New CAT5
With this: FIOS->Existing coax

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (1, Informative)

mejesster (813444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903999)

Wrongish in a nitpicky way. FIOS is FIber Optic Services or something along those lines. Thus any service not based on fiber wouldn't be FIOS. See the wiki page [wikipedia.org] or Verizon's about FiOS page [verizon.com] .

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14904111)

They'll just rename it to Faster Internet Online Service or some BS like that.

What I want to know is, now that SBC's gone and bought out most of the other phone companies, when the hell are they going to bother to catch up to verizon? SBC has been working on their fiber product since at least 2001, and every time it looks like SBC's going to give a real schedule, suddenly the timeline has "slipped".

If they're not at least announcing a rollout schedule for their fiber network for my city by the time I'm done with my current batch of contracts, I'm sending them a nastygram, cc: our city council, my state and federal reps and my governor, telling them that I'm moving to a verizon region, and taking my business with me. If the government wants to prop up incompetent monopolies, then that's their problem.

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (5, Informative)

giverson (532542) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904144)

This service is still based on fiber optics. The fiber optics go to your house. Inside your house it is distributed over coax. This article is about wiring INSIDE THE HOUSE. Therefore it is still FIOS.

Did no one read the article?

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (0, Flamebait)

thc69 (98798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903930)

that's no excuse for not reading the submission. It's not just "broadband", it's at speeds competitive with those of fibre.
So, what's your excuse for not reading TFA? It's about using cable-tv-coax that's already inside peoples' walls instead of fishing new Cat5 inside houses when they get fiber service installed. The broadband is brought to the house with fiber.

Sounds like a awful idea to me.

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904188)

It still begs the question - why is this superior for most people than WiFi? If they need that much internal bandwidth then it makes more sense to put in CAT5 or CAT6 and push speeds up to gigabit. High speed 802.11g is plenty fast enough for most uses.

Re:RT..., oh, never mind (4, Funny)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904286)

It really is a pain in the ass when people offer more bandwidth, isn't it? Just yesterday, I was looking at my 1200 baud modem, thinking to myself, "I have no idea why people are pulling ethernet cable in their homes, when 1200 baud is enough for anyone."

Uh Oh... (1)

IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904322)

Cue the "Beg the question" police.

270 Mbps is hardly "competitive with fiber..." (2, Informative)

msauve (701917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904119)

which can easily go to 640 Gbps (OC-192 [10 Gbps] x 64 DWDM channels). Not even close. Heck, you can do 100 meters of 1 Gbps on twisted pair.

270 Mbps on coax - the OP was correct, Whoopty-frickin-doo!

First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903727)

This second post is sponsorized by Verizon, thx for the free daypass!

is this another Verizon ad? (0, Troll)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903731)

Is this another one like all the other Verizon ads I'm getting because I am using the Slashdot free day pass? Or is this an article?

Re:is this another Verizon ad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903819)

Roland's behind this, I know he is...

Slashdot has sold out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903872)

I think it's a little shady when the ad above the story says:

The next Slashdot story is visible early to free day pass visitors; sponsored by Verizon Business.

And then the story itself is basically a plug for Verizon business.

New technology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903732)

In many European countries (Nederlands, Austria, ...) broadband connections over coaxial TV cables have been offered for years already.

Re:New technology (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903913)

The same is true of the U.S.

This is distinguished by being faster.

Am I missing something? (1, Insightful)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903733)

Uh, isn't this.. cable?

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

snilloc (470200) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903907)

... and, if this isn't just cable as we know it, wouldn't cable companies be in better position to capitalize on the existing infrastructure?

Misleading summary (surprise) (4, Informative)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903737)

The summary says Right now Verizon digs up streets and lays out expensive fiber to get homes online, but new tech may let them accomplish that task for much less hassle and expense, but the article is talking about using pre-installed coax to connect computers within the home to broadband, it has nothing about getting the broadband to the home.

Re:Misleading summary (surprise) (2, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903778)

Here's the Wikipedia entry for MoCA [wikipedia.org] , for more info.

Re:Misleading summary (surprise) (3, Interesting)

general_re (8883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903787)

Which is not a bad idea, except that I suspect that most houses are wired with cheap-ass RG-59, which is extremely susceptible to interference. I have no idea about this MoCA scheme or the modulation of it, but my guess is that 270 megabits is going to be absolutely unattainable for most people.

Re:Misleading summary (surprise) (2, Informative)

grumling (94709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904000)

except that I suspect that most houses are wired with cheap-ass RG-59, which is extremely susceptible to interference.

Well, it should work. 270Mbps is not that much on coax. Television production studios have been runing smpte 259M (component 4:2:2 standard def. video @270Mbps), over '59 coax for years. Granted, it is much better stuff than in your average house, but it is often over much longer distances.

I would guess that the 270Mbps is the raw wire speed and will have a lot of error correction. That and active equalization should keep things in good shape, as long as there aren't any major cable problems, like crappy connectors or kinks that might change the impedence of the coax.

A real article, not the standard ZDnet fluff/press release stuff would be helpful.

Re:Misleading summary (surprise) (4, Interesting)

general_re (8883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904274)

The few installations I've seen have used RG-6. Anyway, my guess is even with RG-59 they're using double- or quad-shielded cable in the studio. Cablecos and installers in general, on the other hand, can and do cut corners wherever possible, including using unshielded cable. Some years ago, I used to live about a block from a firehouse, and every time those guys hopped on the radio - which was quite regularly, obviously - channels 19-21 on the cable TV turned to complete shit. Guess what frequencies the fire department was using. ;)

Re:Misleading summary (surprise) (1)

jdhutchins (559010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904096)

Also most houses don't have the coax hardware to do this either. The distribution systems, if they are recent, have bi-directional splitters so that you can do things like buy pay-per-view movies, etc. But as far as I know they don't let the signal go down one cable and back up the other, which is what you need for this. At the least they'd have to install some new hardware where the splitters are currently- and sometimes the splitters aren't in easy-to-reach locations.

Re:Misleading summary (surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14904179)

Fibre ain't expensive... at least the fibre itself isn't. Putting the ends on is.

Good (3, Funny)

GAATTC (870216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903738)

Verizon came and fixed my voice line last week - we had a lot of noise and other people's phone calls on our line. Unfortunately this also 'fixed' my DSL connection, which hasn't worked since then. Perhaps by using a separate set of wires for voice and data this kind of problem will go away. Of course once everyone starts using VoIP for thier phone calls....

Re:Good thing it's not Rogers (2, Interesting)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904211)

A friend in Ottawa told me how his Bell phone service went out one day and they didn't send someone for at least two days to fix it. He finally went out to the demarc to take a look, and a service guy from Rogers new phone service had CUT HIS PHONE LINE. How's that for a little unwarranted competition between the cable and phone providers?

Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (0)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903741)

Will this anger the cable companies? Aren't these lines property of cable companies, who are obviously competing in this market?

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (1)

not-admin (943926) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903849)

Re-read TFA (Or read it once.) This will be used to link computers WITHIN a home, not to the actual service.

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903865)

Then why not just use cat5? If they are going to use in home coaxial isnt it most likely property of the cable co?

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (5, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903873)

Um no? Coax in my house is my coax, the cable co doesn't own it. They may own it up to my house, but once it enters the house, it's all mine.

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903974)

Coax in my house is my coax, the cable co doesn't own it.

But if you are a current or former cable TV subscriber, they can do their damnedest to interfere with anybody else who provides service over the same wires, right?

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14904044)

I think the idea is that you unplug your coax from the cable tv company and plug your coax into verizon's system. Of course, verizon will be more than happy to sell you some cable tv to go with your broadband.

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904264)

Verizon's not a cable TV company. If memory serves, though, the mobile phone companies, DSL providers and satellite TV broadcasters have been selling bundles together lately. So perhaps instead a satellite contract with one of their affiliates?

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (1)

tony1343 (910042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904227)

I'd have to research this, but you might not actually own the coaxial cable in your house. First off the cable would probably be a fixture and become part of the house. This is if the contract is quiet on the matter. You would have to look at the contract. Under your contract, Comcast (or whatever) might say it continues to own the coaxial cable. In that case the cable company could remove the wire if they wanted to most likely (couldn't damage house in doing so of course).

Your cables are your own (2, Informative)

ePhil_One (634771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903896)

If they are going to use in home coaxial isnt it most likely property of the cable co?

This was actually decided by a court case years ago, you own the cables in your house (Hence, Verizon now charges you when there are problem in your home). One question I would have is whether the cable TV and FIOS and live on the same cable, or if this is a way to force adoption of FIOS TV [verizon.com]

Verizon has been surprisingly willing to cable up homes accepting FIOS for almost no money, I've been wondering how long that can go on. Then again, they take a durprisingly long view of this stuff.

Man I want FIOS :(

Re:Will this anger Time Warner, Comcast, Adelphia? (2, Informative)

willpall (632050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904363)

No their lines end at the demarc, which is outside the home. All the coax inside the home is the property of the homeowners.

In related news (4, Funny)

nnnneedles (216864) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903743)

..several Telecom firms are planning to introduce amazing new technology that allows the Internet to go through telephone lines. Also, in the distant horizon, talks are beginning to emerge about telephony itself going over telephone lines, and even an exciting new breakthrough called the telegraph has been mentioned.

back to the 19th century (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903744)


Ppl still want to use cable?

What is wrong with wireless solutions, just like GSM?

Re:back to the 19th century (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903826)

Lack of security, not as reliable, and slower. I'll take wired any day, thanks.

If they just get fiber to the MPOE (2)

l79327 (174203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903746)

I'll do the rest.

New Bits in Old Wires (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903751)

And men do not put new bits in old wires, else the wires rot and the bits leak out; but they put new bits in new wires so that reliability is preserved.

new? (1)

Idolatre (197068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903752)

Here in Montreal, Canada, this has been available for at least 10 years (since 1996 or even earlier).

Re:new? (1)

mynickwastaken (690966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903874)

So, for Verizon's initiative we should blame canadians.

Aargh - I was just getting used to twisted pair! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903768)

I used to run my school computer lab on co-ax. What a pain. The connectors were always breaking. They didn't have to completely break either, they just had to go slightly bad and they'd take down the whole network. Anyway I suppose they will come up with a solution that has 'more conventional' connectors because most NICs don't have co-ax connectors.

Re:Aargh - I was just getting used to twisted pair (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904145)

You talking about Ether2 or Ether5? I think this is more like using the existing coax cable to go from the fiber to the wall. There's probably some kind of transceiver/cable modem on the other end to hook it into the RJ-45 jack.

What makes this so different from cable internet? (1, Insightful)

John Hansen (652843) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903772)

The question on my mind is, what makes this so "new" and different from existing cable internet? The only thing he mentions is that download speed is 270Mbps.

I suppose they're probably using a higher frequency to transmit the data as opposed to existing cable internet.

The other concern is, won't the cable companies charge Verizon an arm and a leg to use *their* cable networks? I would imagine this would drive the price of this new solution up through the roof, to the point where its cost makes it prohibitive for the end-user (that is, you and me).

Re:What makes this so different from cable interne (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903848)

The idea is that you have subscribed to Verizon's FiOS TV, so you won't have a cable company hooked up to the coax. It's basically reusing your existing house wiring for data. It's what will allow one DVR to stream video to other DVRs, signal for PPV/VOD, etc.

ZDNet just sensationalized it some.

Re:What makes this so different from cable interne (1)

willpall (632050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904373)

RTFA

"old" cables? (3, Insightful)

keilinw (663210) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903774)

I think its a great idea to use "existing" infrastructure to reduce costs and speed up implementation. IMHO a "new" technology using copper is suitable as long as it meets certain criteria (which I'm sure it does). My only beef with the article is in the title -- existing copper cables are not "OLD" technology -- copper has many advantages over fiber in terms of practicality, cost, etc. I'm going to consider that they were referring to "copper" as old... but I don't foresee and sudden disappearance of wires in the near future.

Matt Wong
http://www.themindofmatthew.com [themindofmatthew.com]

But 75-ohm coax cable is old technology (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904225)

The standard is ancient. I don't know where it came form orignlly, but some time back in the eairly days of video, someone worked out that coax cable made a good waveguild for RF signals and they decided on 75 ohm coax to do it with.

It works great for many things, no question. Provided the tolerances are tight, you can use it for uncompressed HD video (and the broadcast industry does) at distances around a kilometre. However that doesn't change the fact that it's a very old standard. Still extrememly useful, but old.

Re:"old" cables? (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904375)

I think by "old" they simply meant "existing" - they're planning to use cables that are already installed, instead of running new ones (regardless of whether the cables are fiber or copper).

pushing cable asside... (1)

uncreativ (793402) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903775)

Guess people will have to choose only one of either the cable or phone company.

Re:pushing cable asside... (5, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904056)

Bingo.

I think this is the real headline here -- basically what Verizon wants to do is run fiber to your house, to the outside service entrance or basement or whatever, and then unplug the Cable Company's wires from where they attach to the wires inside your house, and plug themselves in there. Then their signal -- instead of the Cable Co.'s -- goes to everyplace you have a cable jack. Which is quite a few places, in many modern homes.

For you, the customer, they can say "hey, you don't need to run Cat 5 all over your house this way" ... while at the same time, cutting the cable company totally out of the picture.

I think it's their way of responding to the Cable Companies who are bundling TV+Highspeed Internet+VOIP packages, where they install a VOIP box and plug your analog phone into it, effectively cutting out the phone company.

Frankly I think it would be better if both companies agreed on a common wiring standard (hey, how about Cat 6 UTP?) and then plugged THAT into whatever network line the customer wanted to use -- whether it was the Cable Co.'s or the Telco's.

Re:pushing cable asside... (1)

frizop (831236) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904289)

I worked for a company deploying FIOS, except we called it FTTH. Installing CAT5 into people's homes was a HUGE problem for some homes, I received call after call of people bitching about the installers (contracted out, who dosen't contract these guys out now-a-days?) said something to the effect of, "we can't get a line upstairs, so buy a wireless router." Now, I disagree that this is the right way of handling it, but people are bitchy, and installing a new service into a house is expensive. If cutting costs means you get more FIOS customers activated, then go for it! The customer can always opt-out later and get the CAT5 run themselves.

Re:pushing cable asside... (1)

TallMatthew (919136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904364)

think this is the real headline here -- basically what Verizon wants to do is run fiber to your house, to the outside service entrance or basement or whatever, and then unplug the Cable Company's wires from where they attach to the wires inside your house, and plug themselves in there. Then their signal -- instead of the Cable Co.'s -- goes to everyplace you have a cable jack. Which is quite a few places, in many modern homes.

But how does that save them so much money? The majority of expense isn't the cabling in the house, it's the cabling to the house.

The article is fishy. It implies something grand is going on, which in this case would be that they can use the coax running to the house. That's not going to happen. From TFA:

In 2005, Verizon spent about $1,200 per home to connect customers to its fiber network, Verizon President Lawrence Babbio told investors at a conference in New York in January. This was in addition to the $1,400 per home the company spent digging up neighborhood streets and stringing fiber on telephone poles.

$1200? To fish Cat5 through a wall? Not so much. I suspect that figure includes the router. So what exactly is the big deal here?

Is this really a good idea? (2, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903777)

...Verizon digs up streets and lays out expensive fiber to get homes online, but new tech may let them accomplish that task for much less hassle and expense...

What are the chances they will actually pass the savings on to the consumer? Exactly nill. Anyway, since everything and the kitchen sink will soon be relient on an IP address and broadband connection, is this really a good idea? Just lay the fiber and get it over with.

Re:Is this really a good idea? (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903805)

I think that the longer you put it off, the more expensive it will be. Do they take into account inflation? On the oter hand fibre isnt that robust. Somethign happens to one cable and a whole lot of people go out.

I thought they had learned.... (2, Insightful)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903780)

I thought they learned the last time not to band-aid these issues. We have fiber that would be upgradeable to ??????? speeds, or we can bottleneck ourselves yet again at 270mbit (and that's probably theoretical only) so in reality maybe 200mbit? So that in another 5-10 years they'll have to do the fiber thing anyways. Why not just do it right the first time so there's a nice long-term upgrade path?

Re:I thought they had learned.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903939)

Because they can wait ten years for fiber to become less expensive and install that, instead of some new, better technology needed to handle the kind of bandwidth we'll actually need ten years from now.

Re:I thought they had learned.... (2, Funny)

arrrrg (902404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904031)

thought they learned the last time not to band-aid these issues.

Well, a band-aid costs about $0.10, whereas surgery could easily run more than $10,000. Both have their place, and I'm sure Verizon has done the math to see which will be most profitable in the long run.

Re:I thought they had learned.... (1)

mattkinabrewmindspri (538862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904192)

Yeah. They use the cable company's investment right now to save themselves some money, and by the time that capacity has been saturated, they'll be able to finish the upgrade correctly for a fraction of what it would cost right now, and will have already have gotten the money from gouging the customers.

Re:I thought they had learned.... (2, Informative)

grumling (94709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904036)

http://www.fiber-optics.info/articles/dtv-hdtv.htm [fiber-optics.info]

This shows what is possible today with coax. Production studios are shipping uncompressed digital HD over coax all the time (smpte 292m runs at 1.4Gbps), although they are often having to replace connectors and take more care in bending radius. 270Mbps shouldn't be a big deal if the cable is properly terminated and not kinked.

Broadband on Cable? (0, Redundant)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903785)

Umm havent we been doing this for 20+ years now? ( though admittedly 'home service' is farily new in the grand scheme of things )

What did i miss here?

Re:Broadband on Cable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903815)

Umm yeah.. my cable internet has been working like this for a long time.. new technology... yeah, maybe 10 years ago it was still new...

More then 10 years (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904182)

15 years ago i was working on a plant network run on broadband/cable TV. All internal network, with a T1 heading to the outside. Each pc directly connected to the cable. Ran IBM"s PC-NET.

  It was really old tech even then.. I kept wondering why cable companies didnt do someting like that themselves since it was proven technology.

Is this an april 1st joke leak? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903799)

I'm from Québec, Canada... Montreal _suburbs_ have had this for a decade now!

Verizon FiOS Fiber to the home (I have it) (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903811)

I had Cat6 run from the Fiber terminal up to the computer room when I got FiOS installed. The Fiber will still go to the home but the connection will not be Cat6 according to this article. All it states is that instead of running Ethernet they will use the pre-existing Coax lines to make the connection. I plan on getting the Verizon Television (FiOS TV) and have already read that they will use my pre-existing Coax for that connection.

So this article summary is misleading. The fiber is *still* going to the home, it's just that they will not run Ethernet into the home if they don't need to. Instead using the pre-existing Coaxial runs which are already in place.

Only delaying the inevetible.... (2, Interesting)

RunFatBoy.net (960072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903812)

Eventually we're going to bump into limits yet again with the coax cabling, so why not still go forth with the fiberoptic plans? -- Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net]

Re:Only delaying the inevetible.... (1, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903901)

Eventually we're going to bump into limits yet again with the coax cabling, so why not still go forth with the fiberoptic plans?

Because by then the current board members will have retired and the current CEO/CFO will not have to find a way to keep the stockholders happy while all the company's revenues go into network upgrades. The next boss can deal with that.

Re:Only delaying the inevetible.... (2, Funny)

Incadenza (560402) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904121)

Eventually it will be Christmas again, so why not put up a Christmas tree?

Eventually the sun will burn out, so why not buy these flashlights from me?

Eventually we're all going to die, so why not have your funeral today?

Huh? (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903833)

So, what's the difference between this and the cable modem I'm using right now, other than the fact that it has a higher bandwidth cap?

This may be new to verizon... (5, Interesting)

OffbeatAdam (960706) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903856)

However, in cities like Montreal where houses are very old and almost impossible to run any new cabling, this has been an alternative for years. Without this technology, there would have been almost no broadband outside of cable modem in Montreal, much less the majority of the rest of Canada's old cities. However, as its said in the article, this is not primarily for an internet based usage. This is more related to the features of the new IP-based television services. Even in new houses today to find networking cable near a TV is a shot in the dark, and this technology, even though by no means new, will allow Verizon (and the other Telcos that are providing the same service) to install the services without having to ask the customer to change their entire room configurations around. Since the tech provides enough throughput to stream video, its a perfect solution for something that would otherwise cost a lot of money. The post is misleading though as this really has nothing to do with the wiring outside of the home. MoCA is not made for outside use, its an internal usage, with a host adapter acting as the router for the coaxial lines. Coaxial to ethernet bridge, thats all they are.

Oh, you mean THAT Verizon? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903878)


That phone company which is installing FiOS in my neighborhood, whose:

(a) prices are no cheaper than my current cable hookup;

(b) promised download and upload speeds are virtually no better;

(c) riddles their advertisements with information about MICROSOFT and WINDOWS, when I use only LINUX for all of my computer needs and my Internet access; and

(d) Tries to sell this FiOS on the basis of its accompaniment with some type of IPTV service associated with Microsoft which is riddled with Digital Restrictions Management crap?

That Verizon?

This PHONE COMPANY needs to get a clue about COMPUTER users before they will have any success in a computer user market.

Yawn! Nothing to see here. (5, Interesting)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903886)

It's just another ISP corporate "make money without spending it" hoax. You see these once every few years. A major telco/cable conglomerate/backbone operator/ect talks about using some old'n'busted tech to deliver a faster than pie in the sky internet connection. Almost all the initial information is from the marketting dept of the company that is selling the idea (not from engineers or anyone who could really explain how these fabulous data speeds will be accomplished).

Stock Market laps it up like candy. Thinks Company X is going to become the new King of Content Delivery (because, you KNOW all the company's competitors and going to sit on their hands and have their kiesters handed to them by Company X).

Then there will be delays of getting the project actually going. Maybe even some slight downplaying of actual speeds of conetnt delivery.

At some point someone with a PhD in physics or a heavy EE background gets ahold of the actual method of content delivery and point out it simply isn't possible in the real world because of interfereance, older lines than they used in the lab, ect.

Marketting dept for technology company downplays statement made by PhD/EE. Slashdot crowd made up of people who know WAY too much about the national power grid and enough about radio spectrum to work at the FCC pop up to defend the scientist's statements.

More backpedaling of speeds for new service. Marketting direction of new tech starts to veer slightly into the "will allow service in areas not currently reachable by standard broadband providers" direction.

Companies who have not yet publically committed to using tech start to back out. In the others unfortunately, corporate inertia takes over. Whoever greenlighted the project doesn't want to try and back out and look stupid for having wasted plenty of company money at this point.

New tech has limited rollout, shows to be the flop we knew it was the whole time. You never hear about the new tech in the media again and it becomes one of those fringe technologes only seen in rural regions. Perhaps eventually phased out as traditional broadband service (Cable/DSL) are pushed into the region.

A few years pass and major Telcos/Cablecos grouse about the cost of last mile hookups and getting ot that last few % of homes in the middle of nowhere. Stock is tanking on high network infastructure costs gobbling revenue.

But then a company no one's ever heard of pops up with the idea of...

Re:Yawn! Nothing to see here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14904092)

Hmm. I remember one of those "pie-in-the-sky" new tech things that was going to make fibre to the curb unnecessary. It was called "DSL", wonder what happened to it.

Re:Yawn! Nothing to see here. (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904190)

That's great, you should make a standard form response out of that...

Not just communications, but any over-hyped product. Reading it, I was immediately reminded of the unbelivable hype about the Itanium, which caused companies like Compaq, HP, SGI, etc., to hitch their company to a sinking ship (pardon the "Itanic" pun).

Who owns the existing coaxial cable? (1)

krunk4ever (856261) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903890)

I always thought the cable company owned those lines, and also one of the many reasons why one location is usually never serviced by 2 cable companies. If the cable companies do own those lines, why would they ever let a phone company borrow their lines to give highspeed to consumers when they can do it themselves. If they don't own the lines, is it the city that does? If that's the case, why are we so often locked down to only 1 cable provider.

Re:Who owns the existing coaxial cable? (2, Informative)

grumling (94709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903903)

I always thought the cable company owned those lines, and also one of the many reasons why one location is usually never serviced by 2 cable companies.
The cable company owns the cable 1 foot away from the house entrance point. After that, it belongs to the homeowner/landlord. This was decided when the DBS guys started business and some cable companies wanted to block them from using the inside wiring.

Of course! (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903905)

This way, they can pocket more of the billions that Congress gave them in the 90's for that fiber project that was to go live in '06.

Wireless is the future (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14903912)

I bet you anything within 10 years, all our data access will be wireless whether its wifi, wimax, or whatever the new standard is that they come out with. You will get your cell phone service, high speed internet, and maybe even tv all from the same tower network. Who cares about what wires are already run or will need to be run, when wireless access is the future of data.

Good business sense (2, Interesting)

SeeMyNuts! (955740) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903919)


Phone companies managed to get usable broadband over ancient phone lines, and all I have to do is plug in a little adapter to my telephone. This is a good re-use of existing infrastructure, and stock holders should look favorably on this. Of course, a smart company would take some of the resulting savings and keep a fund ready for eventual replacement of their lines.

There's a difference (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903994)

Phone companies managed to get usable broadband over ancient phone lines, and all I have to do is plug in a little adapter to my telephone. This is a good re-use of existing infrastructure

DSL was the phone company using inside wires that were installed by the phone company. This is the phone company using inside wires that were installed by its major competitor, the cable company.

How are they making money? (3, Insightful)

Jamori (725303) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903956)

Verizon hopes to reduce these costs significantly in 2006. Specifically, it plans to cut the cost of laying new fiber in neighborhoods to $890 per home and reduce the cost of home installation to $715 per home

TFA cites those costs for 2005 as $1,200 and $1,400 respectively.
How exactly is this a profitable business venture when their optimisitc goal is to spend over $1,600 per household for installation of a service that they sell for $40/month, with relatively little commitment to stay with the service?

Old Coax Cable? (2, Insightful)

TBone (5692) | more than 8 years ago | (#14903958)

a new initive to get modern high-speed net access into homes utilizing old coaxial cable lines.
Isn't this really just a rebirth of 10-Base-5 [wikipedia.org] Ethernet? What's old is new again....

10BASE-5 vs. cable TV? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904010)

Isn't this really just a rebirth of 10-Base-5 Ethernet?

Can 10BASE-5 and cable TV be reliably carried over the same wire?

4m0d up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14904003)

elected, we ttok bureaucratic and percent of the *BSD

I'm so confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14904020)

Let me get this straight. I now have telephone service through my cable company and I can get cable internet through my phone company? Uh...

Using UWB, Firewire over Coax is doing 400Mbps (4, Informative)

pH7.0 (3799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904050)

"1394 Trade Association and Pulse~LINK To Demonstrate Bi-Directional HDTV Streaming of IEEE 1394 S400 over Coax at the 2006 International CES, Jan. 5-8"

"The HANA exhibit will showcase how Pulse~LINK's CWave -On-Coax and the 1394TA's S400 interface provide a powerful, whole-home distribution capability that can run over pre-existing in-home coax cable AND co-exist with legacy cable and satellite programming. The demonstration will consist of two 1394-enabled CWave(TM) UWB transceivers, one in the Trade Association's booth and another in the Pulse~LINK booth, with splitters and several hundred feet of coax cable between them. 1394 HDTV audio and video will be streamed bi-directionally between the two booths in the HANA suite, showing how coax cable in the home works as a broadband backbone with 400Mbps application layer throughput for seamlessly transporting multiple simultaneous streams of digital content to 1394-equipped devices throughout the home."

http://www.pulselink.net/pr-jan02-2006.html [pulselink.net]

Just when you thought Verizon was an innovator... (4, Interesting)

djblair (464047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904174)

Smooth. Getting the damn fiber in the ground once and for all sounded like too good of a plan did it? Verizon needed a way to move back in time instead of forward? I wonder how many more years carriers will spend trying to squeeze whatever they can out of old, decaying infrastructure. We all know how great cable modems and DSL work compared to 'true' digital circuits (T1, Frame, etc) and fiber-based infrastructure. There are so many fundamental flaws with reusing old wiring for new services that I don't even know where to begin (Cable Modems = shared medium & collision city, DSL = distance limitations and interference, etc.). Because most homes already have coaxial cable installed in several rooms... GIVE ME A BREAK! I'm sure that was a real deal-breaker.

mod this guy up (-1)

Heembo (916647) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904201)

The only really intelligent comment on this thread so far.

As long as possible... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904433)

I wonder how many more years carriers will spend trying to squeeze whatever they can out of old, decaying infrastructure.

I'd say as long as possible... "infrastructure" == "assets", aka, "sunk costs".

Do you replace your car before you need to?

Do you replace your carpet if it can just be steam-cleaned back to "presentable"?

Sheesh - no grand conspiracy here... if they can make a buck on what they have, they will.

Utilize? (1)

atrocious cowpat (850512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904230)


From the New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Edition):
"Utilize, borrowed in the 19th century from the French: utiliser, means 'make practical or effective use of.' Because it is a more formal word than use and is often used in contexts (as in business writing) where the ordinary verb use would be simpler and more direct, utilize may strike readers as pretentious jargon and should therefore be used sparingly."
Well, there goes my karma. But I really, really hate that word.

Code Named "DSL" (1)

m0nstr42 (914269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904246)

Verizon To Use New Tech With Old Cables

Verizon has announced a new method to supply faster internet connections (a concept they have dubbed "broadband") using existing telephone lines. The information will be modulated to a higher frequency and transmitted from existing local switching stations along with voice data. The user will be able to utilize their existing landline by placing a "filter" inline before their telephones to remove the high frequency data transmission. The illusive internal project name at Verizon R&D is simple the acronym "DSL."

the word is 'initiative' - pls use spell check! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14904325)

fer gawd's sake, please use your spelling checker....

thank you!

My Problem is SBC DSL (0, Offtopic)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904343)

Some months back I finally decided to upgrade my 1.5Mbps service to the 3Mbps. They had no problem letting me do that and charging me $20 less per month than I had been paying.

Then I noticed I wasn't getting 3Mbps - I was only getting about 10% more speed than I had been getting before. I didn't mind too much since it was still costing me $20 less than it had. But finally I decided to find out why.

After SBC tech support referred me to ASI, their provisioner, it turns out I'm 12,000 feet away from the CO DSLAM. The tech said 3Mbps service was only for people at 10,000 feet or less. Not only that, if they raised me nearer to 3, my line would start experiencing drops more and more frequently until the line went down and stayed down. They set me back to 1.5Mbps. I had to renegotiate my cost with the Sales department which decided I should pay $26.95 a month for six months, after which it would go up to $30-something.

I see a class action lawsuit coming up here, as SBC sells 3Mbps upgrades to people who THEY KNOW can't handle the speed and THEY KNOW will damage their service and make it unreliable.

Not only that, but they're promising TWENTY Mbps service this year. How is any subscriber going to get that speed - by being twenty feet from the CO - when they can't even deliver 3Mbps?

They're already using this.. (3, Informative)

dennism (13667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14904456)

I have FiOS service currently -- phone, internet, and TV -- and they are already putting IP over coax. They use it for the video on demand. They have a simple ethernet to coax bridge (made by Motorola) and the cable box then is able to get it's guide data and VOD streams over the internet connection. What I haven't been able to figure out is if the bandwidth used for VOD is taken out of my 15mbit internet bandwidth allocation or if they have some traffic shaping going on for the VOD separately.

I'm not really sure how it's going to be cheaper -- coax isn't that expensive, and they were more than happy to replace the sub-par cabling that MediaOne/AT&T/Comcast had left behind. They even ran more wire inside the house to accommodate the way I wanted to setup things.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>