Cable High-Speed Internet vs. DSL: Dispelling the Myths, PART 3
“Bandwidth” is one of those words that went from “techie talk” to mainstream in a hurry. Today consumers want more of it, and you can’t open a publication without reading about it. And some companies are trying to convince consumers that their competitors do not have enough of it. Which brings us to our next myth to dispel about cable:
Myth:
If I use more than one service from my cable provider (television, Internet or phone) I might suffer from clogged bandwidth.
Fact:
Cable’s delivery networks have dedicated frequencies for transmitting video, voice and Internet services without congestion. On the other hand, telephone lines are limited to approximately 1 MHz of bandwidth, which must be shared between voice and data services. Since cable services all use distinctly different channels, you can watch TV, talk on the phone and surf the Internet simultaneously without impacting any individual service. Most cable operators even have additional bandwidth reserved for the next generation of services yet to be developed, due to the capacity of cable’s broadband networks. So cable customers can easily bundle their services without strangling their bandwidth.
Posted on January 27, 2006 09:14 AM | Comments (2)



I use all of Cox's Services except for my HDTV needs.I am a former VOOM subsciber, and in 2004, HDTV via cable lagged significantly behind in the choice of channels. Today, Cable offers more HD channels, but satellite competition in the near future may leave HD cable in the dust. Echostar absorbed VOOM and offers the most HD channels. Direct TV just launched two new satellites that are HD capable. Both promise more National and Local HD channels, thanks in part to a conversion to MPEG 4.
Cable acts as if it has a bandwidth problem. I think Cox San Diego is currently at about 806 mhz. I know COX has been shifting channel assignments around. This is thought to be a strategy to expand HD channels at a lower frequency because of the limitations of bandwidth of cable, until FTTH becomes available. There is also a problem with legacy equipment in the field. Many homes and apartments have splitters, distribution amps, and obsolete RG-59 that was designed for lower frequencies. So in reality, cable does have bandwidth limitations. You can have cable internet, cable telephone, music channels, analog channels, and more. But the allocation is critical. Many feel that HD is the part being "squeezed". There may be a limit to what RG-6 will handle, and many feel COX is at that point, and why significantly more HD channels are not in the near future without FTTH.
How will COX respond to the new satellite expansion? More compression, lower bit rates and loss of PQ? Expansion of HD channels in a reallocation of frequencies? FTTH?
Satellite will soon have locals, high bit rates, and lots of HD selection. Will cable fall behind?
Inquiring HD minds want to know. Thanks.
Posted by: Stan Sexton | February 2, 2006 09:52 PM