PDA

View Full Version : What is the maximum bandwidth on the wire?


KingDaveRa
12-06-2010, 14:25
This could go in the Internet or TV forum.

Now I'm taking TV and Broadband, it got me thinking about the maximum capability of that bit of coax coming into my house.

I've read bits and bobs about DOCSIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS) and how much is possible through it. As I understand it, the cable must have a maximum bandwidth in terms of signal (i.e. the highest and lowest possible signal rate). This would then limit the number of DOCSIS channels available to then use for TV, VoD or Broadband. But what IS the limit?

Watching TV I can tell VM are squeezing the bandwidth as there's definitely more macroblocking and artefacting on SD and HD channels than there is on Sky, but nowhere near as much as on Freeview (for most channels).

Freeview MUXes are around 25Mb/s iirc. A quick 'back of the fag packet' calculation I reckon on Freeview's bandwidth the TV channels are using about 500Mb/s, and that doesn't take into account the HD channels - I'd reckon they'd take it up to 800Mb/s or more. Add in all the other stuff (VOD and the general rubbish the Box wants to do in the background) plus the broadband, and you must be into a Gigabit of bandwidth over that bit of coax - which is quite astounding if that's right.

With that in mind, they must be reaching the limits of the cable, in terms of the frequency limits of the wire. Which if true, raises the question of what next? Or does that bit of wire work similar to a LNB arrangement on a satellite dish, in that some device further up the wire, probably on the end of the fibre portion, is switching frequencies dynamically onto the wire from higher frequencies elsewhere, or on a different backhaul system? However, I don't think that is the case.

The point I'm making is that the growth in HD channels must be putting a massive strain on the capabilities of the network, and squeezing the image quality seems to be the tradeoff.

Ignitionnet
12-06-2010, 15:40
Not really, once analogue was gone there was plenty of room freed up.

Even the lousiest areas of the network, the ex-Eurobell areas that weren't upgraded and top out at 550MHz, have a shade under 3Gbps worth of bandwidth downstream. The best areas on 860MHz have a little under 5Gbps, the in-between areas on 750MHz are still well over 4Gbps.

KingDaveRa
12-06-2010, 15:57
Ah, so sounds like there's quite a bit of space overall.

Makes me wonder why the channel bitrates are so lousy in places though.

Ignitionnet
12-06-2010, 17:08
Guess it depends what's in each multiplex and how busy other channels in the multiplex are dude, along with the quality of the transcoding and the feed VM receive.

KingDaveRa
12-06-2010, 17:17
That's true. The worst place I see it is on The Simpsons on Sky One during scene transitions. I know animation can be hard to compress, as you've got a lot of highly contrasting areas, and harsh lines (although the flatter colours compress easier).

It wasn't a rant about the encoding quality mind, just came out that way!

Ignitionnet
12-06-2010, 21:43
That could actually be exactly the issue though even though it wasn't what you had in mind.

KingDaveRa
12-06-2010, 21:55
Yeah quite possibly. It's most pronounced during The Simpsons. Other HD channels definitely look a little softer than they do on Sky. NatGeo HD is probably the lowest quality of the lot - at times I've been watching it wondering if I actually had NatGeo SD on by mistake...

I suppose it got me thinking that if Sky are going to let VM show more of their HD output, then that's a lot more bandwidth to use up, and if VM are already squeezing it, then it's a worrying precedent. I've seen discussions over Freeview HD in that one HD channel consumes the space of a whole mux of channels. I suppose a switch to a newer, better codec would be the answer, but that's a rather long, drawn out process to complete.