I'm not sure that gigabit is as crucial for some cable ops, if an upgrade to 2-way 100 Mb/s (which 'is' feasible) marks a significant enough improvement for them. BTW, I'm not pushing for the coax to remain in place. I'm just exploring architectural alternatives that might make the next step easier for the cable ops to swallow.
Another question that raises its head is the need for digital signaling, versus the use of analog modems. Actually, this all gets very semantic at some point. The point is, all wireless data and current cable modems provide a digital service, as well as dsl lines, even though they "all" are using analog modulation schemes in order to achieve it.
So, too, can coax for the delivery of super-100 Mb/s, even GbE up to certain, albeit more restricted, distances, if QAM is used [do I hear any votes for DMT or CAP here?.. perhaps some form of CDMA as well?] instead of bipolar- or manchester-encoded- schemes, which are commonly thought of in terms of being "purely digital" formats, as oposed to the former group I just mentioned, which are associated with "analog" thinking.
Before the advent of commercial fiber applications by carriers, coax was the only game in town for terrestrial wireline. As early as 1977 T4 systems were riding over coaxial cable at 274 Mb/s, using repeaters spaced every several thousand (maybe 6,000, to be consistent with T1 repeater pod spacings) feet. This was before DSPs and the kind of noise rejection techniques that are possible using today's technology. Those T4 systems, btw, used Farinon <sp> QAM modems, if I'm not mistaken, and were identical in design to the Digital Data Service links that were being used in line of sight microwave systems at that time.
The important aspect of the release that you posted isn't so much what medium they use for the last 1000 feet. What's important is the change in mindset that it suggests. |
