| ??? how is 5 Mbps up lame? I have somewhere in the 15Mbps down with only 768kbps up - sure I would like more - but most folks I know are on DSL with speeds around 384kbps up/down. |
|
| DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up.
In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. |
|
| reply to what
I got 10mbit down and 10mbit up with roadrunner. So to me, 60mbit down and only 5mbit up is really lame. |
|
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up. In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. ADSL2+ Annex M is good for 2.5Mbit, ADSL2 1.3Mbit.
DOCSIS isn't going to offer near 107Mbps per customer upstream for quite some time. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up. In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. I have "last mile" fiber-to-the-premises. My modem, wait, I don't have a modem. Should I use my GPON ONT and router to call out my upload capabilities? I'm already at the gigabit speeds with the current technology and work towards next generation and hybrid PON's capable of reaching 10 gigabit speeds are already being tested. |
|
| reply to what
Because everyone knows that you can't upload pictures to the grandparents on 5Mbps. |
|
1 edit | reply to jmn1207
If it's anything you won't see anytime soon is gigabit to the home in the US.
You see it in Europe and Asia but as we know we are pretty much way behind them in broadband.
FiOS is only in a "one upmanship" game with Cable. They're not going to go gigabit unless the cablecos get near that, and they won't.
Besides, I have a few hundred servers that I manage and the total bandwidth they use (upload) barely crosses 250MBps. Most times the firewall is loafing around 130MBps. We do have 2GBps connectivity.
So it is quite unlikely that there's even a real need for gigabit connectivity to the home right now. |
|
|
|
| reply to Ignite
said by Ignite:said by fifty nine:DOCSIS3 cable is capable of up to 107MBps up. ADSL2 can only offer 896kb up. In the future DOCSIS can be expanded for gigabit speeds as well. ADSL2+ Annex M is good for 2.5Mbit, ADSL2 1.3Mbit. DOCSIS isn't going to offer near 107Mbps per customer upstream for quite some time. 4 channel DOCSIS3 already can.
The cable companies probably won't deploy it yet because there's no real need for it for home users right now. In fact most home users would get by just fine with less than 512k. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to battleop
The biggest problem is trying find a site that will upload your photos and videos for you to share that can even take advantage of a 2 Mbit upload.
Who can blame these sites? Our ISP's have generally been keeping our upload transfer rates at such a pathetically low level, there was no need to provide higher upload speeds from a practical standpoint. Hopefully, with the continual increase in upload speeds, we will start to see more sites offering much better performance when uploading files. |
|
| reply to what
i agree. i also fail to see what is 'lame' about 5 Mbps up. most residential users don't upload lots of crap often enought to warrant the need for 5 Mbps. if you run a game server, backup to somewhere online, p2p, or do a lot of remote connection stuff from elsewhere back to home, i just don't see the need. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Most residential users don't upload a lot of crap because their upload performance is terrible. There are only a few affordable applications that can take advantage of faster upload speeds, and since most users can't upload very fast anyway, it was never profitable to allow for users to upload lots of data at high speeds. It was generally a waste of resources that very few could take advantage of before.
Hopefully as we start seeing better upload performance, more and more practical uses will be created. |
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:The biggest problem is trying find a site that will upload your photos and videos for you to share that can even take advantage of a 2 Mbit upload. The vast majority of sites on the internet cant handle more than 10Mbps upload OR download. Heck, a good portion of sites are still served by T1's these days.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:4 channel DOCSIS3 already can. The cable companies probably won't deploy it yet because there's no real need for it for home users right now. In fact most home users would get by just fine with less than 512k. Every customer gets their own node, 4 ports of a CMTS card, and 25.6MHz of upstream spectrum @ 64QAM?
Note that I said 'per customer' not 'per MAC domain'. What the technology can do across what's probably 1000+ modems sharing the bandwidth is irrelevant as, unlike DSL, it's not a dedicated link between CPE and provider.
DOCSIS 3 upstreams won't exceed those levels until analogue is gone from cable networks and plant has loads of work done on it due to NTSC restricting subsplit sizes, upstream spectrum is 5 - 40MHz at best in North America, and not all of that usable due to noise.
Theory wise, sure, practically, not going to happen.
Also worth bearing in mind that the oft quoted '160Mbit downstream 120Mbit upstream' capabilities of 4 channel in both direction are not actually the case either. Real maximum downstream throughput with wind in sails and down hill will be around 152Mbit and upstream around 106Mbit. |
|
IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:The vast majority of sites on the internet cant handle more than 10Mbps upload OR download. Heck, a good portion of sites are still served by T1's these days. So why do we have datacentres with 100Mbit+ ports connecting to multi-gigabit switches when the vast majority of sites are still on 10Mbps?
Seriously are the majority of internet sites hosted on regular ethernet or lower bandwidth? How many sites sit off T1s?
We're talking actual websites, etc, right? Even my cheapy hosted site for a few bucks a month achieves over 10Mbit in both directions... |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to fifty nine
Can or Will.
Just because 4 channel DOCSIS can offer 107Mbps upstream doesn't mean that they will be selling it anytime soon.
Similarly - VDSL2 offers connections +50Mbps - I don't see AT&T pushing for it either.
With the economy with its tail between its legs - don't expect much - many will be dropping to a lower tier (or cancelling services). Companies will still make money - as lower tiered services are typically priced higher/kbps in order to make them appear less attractive for use. |
|
| reply to what
Wel lconsidering here at cablevision i get 38/5 (advertised as 30/5) service with free web hosting, ports 80 and 25 open all for $60 a month with expandinjg free wifi for customers this deal just plain stinks.
I just dont udnerstand why the other cable companies like charter and comcast have such high prices. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to Ignite
said by Ignite:said by wifi4milez:The vast majority of sites on the internet cant handle more than 10Mbps upload OR download. Heck, a good portion of sites are still served by T1's these days. So why do we have datacentres with 100Mbit+ ports connecting to multi-gigabit switches when the vast majority of sites are still on 10Mbps? Seriously are the majority of internet sites hosted on regular ethernet or lower bandwidth? How many sites sit off T1s? We're talking actual websites, etc, right? Even my cheapy hosted site for a few bucks a month achieves over 10Mbit in both directions... Many data centers serve end user customers (banks, media companies, etc.) who host their applications there. These customers do have a need for high bandwidth, however most of it is for internal use. Also keep in mind that data centers have multiple gigabit switches simply because of the number of customers they serve.
You are correct that the standard bandwidth for websites is now slowly migrating towards 10Mbps (due to the ease in provisioning a 10/100 port), however even when using ethernet often times sub 10Mbps bandwidths are chosen by the website provider. Dont take my word for it however, if you search around you will find that many sites still do not even support connections at 10Mbps simply due to the fact that they dont need to. Many people in this country can not get 10Mbps, so why would content providers (or websites) pay to support the few end users who can?
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to fifty nine
Is there a single provider that has upstream bonding working yet?
Last time I looked only the Arris CMTS even claimed to support upstream bonding right now. |
|
IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:Many people in this country can not get 10Mbps, so why would content providers (or websites) pay to support the few end users who can? Because they have to operate on the assumption that more than one person at a time will be using their website / content perhaps. A content provider on a 10Mbps port serving 5 customers concurrently wouldn't really be providing at much pace. |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by Ignite:said by wifi4milez:Many people in this country can not get 10Mbps, so why would content providers (or websites) pay to support the few end users who can? Because they have to operate on the assumption that more than one person at a time will be using their website / content perhaps. A content provider on a 10Mbps port serving 5 customers concurrently wouldn't really be providing at much pace. While that is true to some extent, 10Mbps is still not the standard for many sites. Even those that do have higher bandwidth connections limit how much resources a given client can take up. They do this for the very reason you just mentioned; if a single user with a high capacity connection accesses the site they want to make sure others still can.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
|
|
