21. Mark:

All due respect here but you got this one wrong.

1. As pointed out above by aharden the cablco's hands are tied on some channels. Verizon, a company with no video bandwidth limitations, is already doing this in order to force people to use the converter box. Having the set top box in place is an advantage because it opens up a portal to value added services. In short, the cable guys are already moving on this. It's no secret.

2. None of this solves the fundamental problem cable has with DOCSIS and upstream speeds. OPening up more bandwidth by moving analog channels adds more shared download spectrum, but only the lowest frequencies can be used for uploading. DOCSIS 3.0 does nothing to solve this, it is just a bonding/multi-link scheme. Right now no killer app exists for high speed uploading but if this were to change it would leave cable in a big lurch. Their infrastructure just couldn't allow them to respond.

3. Cable is looking very closely at Fttx, PON specifically, and a derivative called C-PON that preserves much of their DOCSIS infrastructure in the back end. It is a good solution but will require capex. The cable guys have the fear of death of wall st and won't make these plans known.





From MC> You are absolutely right. Docsis isnt perfect and has big limits upstream. But the real issue is analog delivery of TV being retained vs enhanced upstream and significantly improved downstream. Asymetric isnt perfect, but it creates a lot more opportunities for USA competitiveness and new apps than giving that bandwidth to analog versions of USA Network, VH1 and other basic cable nets.
The cable nets are going to fight this as much as they can. FOr MSOs this is one more step on the path they are taking anyway.

Which is better for this country, analog cable delivery, or faster bandwidth ?

Posted at 8:41AM on Apr 11th 2008 by Andrew Schmitt

22. Mark, et al:
As an actual cable/broadband operator and a FTTH operator, I can tell you that none of this is simple. While it is true that each analog channel consumes 6 mhz of bandwidth, simply bumping them off to a digital tier does nothing to improve internet bandwidth. The bandwidth usable by cable modem customers depends entirely on the cable modem termination equipment employed at the cable headend. Thus, to make use of the 6 mhz which might be vacated by bumping USA Network, the cable operator would need to invest in additional equipment to allow modems to use that 6 mhz channel AND they would need to find corresponding bandwidth in the return frequencies. There is very little cable modem termination equipment which allows full selectivity of the upstream and downstream bandwidth that any particular cable operator might want to assign to his cable modem network. Rather, they all make it with the asssumption that only a few channels upstream and downstream are available. Obviously, this could be changed but the manufacturers would need to get on the ball.

Another huge issue is that the world is full of extra television sets scattered about people's homes and they fully expect those sets to tune analog stations without a converter. YES, those sets will still work if connected to cable, after February 09! If we told our customers that analog delivery was going to die on February 09 and that they would need digital converters for every television, even the little one in the bathroom, after that date, we would have rioting in the streets.

Anyway, as some other respondents have noted, the real bottlenecks are in the cable operators connection to the cloud anyway. In a rural community like Glasgow, our largest monthly cost in providing high speed internet service is what we pay to AT&T to transport our DS3's from Glasgow to the cloud. Want faster total throughput? Find a way to force the IAP's to sell access at some price that is in the same ballpark as their actual cost. Then we would be getting somewhere.




From MC> absolutely agree with everything you say. But compared to the cost of running fiber and digging up yards, upgrading equipment and modems is nothing and Docsis 3.0 gives you the chance to do it according to standards.

As far as the loss of use of TVs, that can be resolved at the STB or as people turn over their TVs to digital since you cant really buy straight analog tvs any more. Not a perfect solution, but again, this is a matter of choice. Old tv vs new broadband

I realize that connectivity to the cloud is a real expense, but the unfortunate reality is that it impacts just a small pct of users and relative to US broadband competitiveness its one that can be dealt with by each community and their needs.

thanks for the post !

Posted at 8:53AM on Apr 11th 2008 by William Ray

23. Comcast and other cable providers are trying to nudge the customers still using analog standard service into digital by pricing digital service at the same level as analog.

In one market, Hallmark Channel and Game Show Network were moved to the digital only tier, forcing thousands of elderly subscribers to switch to digital in order to get their daily dose of Little House on the Prairie and Tic Tac Dough.

Without those shows, they would surely die.

Posted at 11:52AM on Apr 11th 2008 by Sarcastro

24. Interesting, as that fits in exactly with a point that Karl Polanyi made in his very excellent book The Great Transformation, that liberals (meaning liberals in the classical sense) would from time to time have to chose between laissez-faire and the self-regulating market. In such cases, they would chose to support the self-regulating market, seeking to establish it be force of legislation if necessary.:

“Strictly economic liberalism is the organizing principle of a society in which industry is based on the institution of the self-regulating market…For as long as such a system is not established economic liberals will call for the intervention of the state in order to establish it, and once established, in order to maintain it.” (page 149)

It is only with such state support that a self-regulating market can be maintained. Democratic political structures, as China and Microsoft realize, mitigate directly against the formation of the type of a self-regulating market that they desire to inflict upon society. This is the great conflict of this century, stripped to its essentials.

Posted at 4:27PM on Apr 12th 2008 by e_f

25. This post I am actually sending(somebody posted my name and phone and goofy stuff and hacked into my mail and thought it was funny and now its still on this blog).

What I think is happening is that the cable companies are using the squatters rights approach. They haven't figured out a way to make money so this way they can stop competition.

The internet is free to all and "homesteading" the webs' freeways is being allowed by the FCC.

I think Sir Tim Berners Lee should file suit and maybe that will get some attention!

The problem really started when all the anti trust laws where loosened to the point of being wet socks.

Not so long ago it wasn't allowed to own say a newspaper and tv station together or where in too close of markets.

No monopolies.

As far as I am concerned Wimax can accomplish what is needed for HD IPTV and after all the smoke and promise very little has happened.

You know why? It seems that in some of the markets that where it was scheduled, what do you know or who do you know, big new juicy deals where made by cable companies with the city...Check out the time line in Chicago.

You hear that it is 4million dollars a mile for Wimax, bull not even close. If the deal gets put together that I am working on, I will not only proves that it can be done for less but offer it for free to a city(not Chicago) of mostly poor residents that really needs help not a crappy low skilled, low paying manufacturing job or working at Walmart and trying to support a family.

Pete from the Windy City

Posted at 12:09AM on Apr 13th 2008 by Peter

26. People make the mistake thinking the world is about two platforms -- TV and the Internet. The world is about change. In our lifetime there will be at least one to two or three additional communications platform -- the next one will be the platform that 'lives' between the television platform and the Internet platform. In addition it will not all be about technology but also about business process and consumer demands -- the wheel was invented in caveman days and the technology has been improved but still has the same work process. Technology is approaching a barrier where it will be about managing consumer demands with business process and the TV platform is virgin territory free from spam, junk email, phishing, and click fraud (in addition to never being able to go offline and update itself which is in effect a killer design flaw). I believe the world is on the edge of a new platform and it will come in the form of the TV platform and HDTV. Learn to read the symptoms of communication and one can clearly see the world is about to change again.

Posted at 10:31AM on Apr 13th 2008 by M

27. Mark: Get AT&T Uverse. It's digital and gives you more HD channels than any other delivery vendor in the US at the moment. Give up on cable going digital anytime in our lifetimes as the rebuild of that infrastructure would be too expensive.

Posted at 12:07PM on Apr 13th 2008 by Mike Drips

28. You are assuming the cable providers would not try and use the extra content to add other tiers of programing they could charge you for or use it for more video on demand content.

Posted at 2:49PM on Apr 13th 2008 by Mark M

29. Mr. Cuban,

I completely agree with your sentiments on making our country more competitive with our broadband capacity. This Washington Post article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990.html ) says the median internet speed in Japan is 61 mb/s and has the US as the slowest industrialized nation. It also says a 100mb/s connection is only around $30, that’s about what we pay for 6 mb/s. More importantly, the super fast internet in Japan is promoting all sorts of innovation.

I think this is a very important issue for our country, not to just increase internet speeds, but also because of all the long term benefits it provides to creativity, innovation, and Entrepreneurship.

But I do wonder about one thing which you had started to talk about during this post: scarcity. Or rather just supply and demand. Obviously the last mile is important, but what about the main infrastructure?- All that dark fiber sitting under our roads already? Wouldn't that make a different too, to reduce some of the congestion on the backbone?
Also, in regards to the last mile issues- the cable companies are beneficiaries this change, but what about telcos? In Michigan our DSL (AT&T) speeds keep increasing and the price keeps going down at the same time. About a year ago our cost went down a few dollars but our speed went from 1.4 mb/s to 6 mb/s. But what factors are driving these changes? Years ago we probably could have ordered the same speed for a much higher price. If cable made this change tomorrow, how far behind would telcos be in catching up? Are they technologically capable of making changes in a similar manner to remain competitive?

-Bill

Posted at 7:33PM on Apr 13th 2008 by Bill

30. Dear Mark,


The U.S. would still only match (or come close) to the the Asians and the UK, where our whole Cable Network is ALL digital end-to-end.

Despite some broadband services being available from the last century, and so meaning some switches/modems needing to be upgraded, the physical fibre infrastructure is already their, with docsis 3.0 being tested to give as a standard (i.e. available everywhere) service of 50mb.

That's without the really leading-edge developments.

Our TV is also able to be virtually infinite, with peering arrangements and network-pvr/vod, cable can overcome much of the limitations of legacy broadband.



Yours kindly,



Shakir Razak

Posted at 3:18AM on Apr 14th 2008 by Shakir Razak

31. Mark,

I apologize because this is a little off topic, but I just saw an interview you did with a local Seattle TV station today. I just want to say thank you for your support of the Sonics and their situation. I've been a fan for as long as
I can remember and it brought tears to my eyes tonight thinking that this might be the last chance I ever had to see them. I'm sure the outcome of tonights game wasn't what you were hoping for, but I sincerely appreciate your efforts to keep this team where it belongs. It was incredibly classy of you to come out and support a team from a city you don't even live in and I will fight tooth and nail to prevent this team from leaving. Thanks from all the fans here in Seattle.

Save Our Sonics!

- Paul M. Campbell

Posted at 4:04AM on Apr 14th 2008 by Paul Campbell

32. Hey,

Can you put the words to the anthem on the jumbo screen and invite the fans to sing along? I think it would get us all pumped up!


An I love how the mavs are the only team I've seen put their hands over their hearts!
Go mavs!

Posted at 11:57AM on Apr 14th 2008 by m crider

33. Hey,

How about putting the words to the anthem on the big screen and having all the fans sing at the New Orleans game?

Go Mavs!

Posted at 11:58AM on Apr 14th 2008 by m crider

34. I think the cable companies are in trouble. They have an infrastructure that is limited by the size of the pipe, and future compression technologies are the only things they can do to fit more down that pipe. The cable companies remind me of the old saying, Jack of all trades, master of none.

Sure, you can get phone, internet and TV from the cable company, but is it worth it? My Directv is fantastic, and they have more HD programming than Cox. I use Cox for internet, but that is only because Fios isn't available here.

A lot of people don't even have home phone numbers, but those of us that do, why get it through the cable company? When was the last time your cable went out? Or your cable modem went down? I bet it was more recent than the last time you phone service (through the phone company) went down.

The cable companies need to realize that they can't be all things to all people.

Posted at 4:37PM on Apr 14th 2008 by Grant

35. Are you ever going to post a blog about your decision to vote against the sonics leaving?

Posted at 4:47PM on Apr 14th 2008 by Jacob

36. Mark,

Would you rather free up bandwidth by killing the analog signal within cable lines or in unecessary analog signals over the air? I have seen you as a strong proponent of both and I totally agree.

Which would be cheaper and easier to implement? to maintain?


Also, does the 700Mhz spectrum auction going largely to VZW change things?

Zach

Posted at 8:04PM on Apr 14th 2008 by Zach Weisman

37. Thanks. You learn something new every day.

Posted at 12:35PM on Apr 15th 2008 by Dexter

38. Hmm, this is an interesting idea to say the least. Doubt it will happen though.

Posted at 12:36AM on Apr 16th 2008 by Trevor Lee

39. I agree, but would add one additional element: allow ala carte programming choices. With forced "must carry" requirements and content providers tying other channels to consumer preferred channels, this is a waste of bandwidth equal to or greater than simply converting from analog to digital. Do both, and then you can have your HD video streaming...

Posted at 4:17PM on Apr 16th 2008 by Dan

40. Mark,

You contradict yourself. In this post you are calling for the end of cable tv delivered the way it currently is. Then in another post from earlier you say that if you had to pick a medium to deliver programming you would choose the way that it is currently done, over these same cable lines. Instead of using digital which hasn't been around and is not as proven as the old method.

Posted at 7:18PM on Apr 18th 2008 by Masood