IowaStudent
Premium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA
 ·Mediacom
 ·Iowa Telecom
2 edits | Poll Should Mediacom oversync new connection's in September?
Poll
When DOCSIS 3 launches as well as new speeds would you like the new tiers over provisioned? |
|
view results · flash pie chart
Since Mediacom actually listens to feedback, I thought I'd get your opinion on weather they should "over sync". As apparently MAX customers will get speedboot as per the suggestions on this board
»Re: September to see faster speeds
Make you voices heard
|
|
OldCableGuy2
@ncs.com | Re: Poll Should Mediacom overcap new connection's in September?
Huh? Perhpas you could explain what "over cap" means. I just randomly selected an option and voted for that. |
|
IowaStudent
Premium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA
·Mediacom
·Iowa Telecom
| It means raising the modem cap just a little to account for overhead (ARP, DNS ACK's etc) right now my cap is 3000 if they raise it to 3500 it means I can hit my full speed all of the time instead of under like it is now (I average around 2888 Down and 250 Up) If they raise it I can hit 3000 or slightly higher all of the time. |
|
beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium
join:2008-01-06
The Beach,US
clubs:
·Mediacom
| reply to IowaStudent
If they "overcap" (made up term?) then they will just advertise those speeds. When you get a plan, you have to account for protocol overhead. That's just how it works. ARP, DNS, etc. take up little to no traffic, infact, DNS is part of how the internet works  .
--
Tech at the Beach. |
|
IowaStudent
Premium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA
·Mediacom
·Iowa Telecom
2 edits | Re: Poll Should Mediacom oversync new connection's in September?
I should have said oversync. Other cable companies like Comcast, Cox as well as Verizon "over sync" why not Mediacom?
I know, I'm very happy with the service however, I paid for 3 Mb I'd like to get that result in speed tests and downloads as I'm sure everybody else would as well. |
|
TJFriday
join:2009-06-29
Clive, IA
| reply to IowaStudent
Of course it would be nice if they did this, but I can certainly understand why they do not. To draw a comparison, if I ship something somewhere, I get charged shipping fees based on the weight of the entire package—that’s what I’m shipping plus whatever protective container/preservative measures are required to get it there safely (including the waybill paperwork *routing information*—albeit a waybill is very negligible weight/mass). Moving data around is the same concept. As consumers, we see our throughput only from the perspective of the payload that gets from end-to-end—we don’t see all of the packaging, routing, security measures and monitoring, although we notice the resultant effects in the form of reduced payload capacity. We’re still consuming the packaging, admin and overhead necessary simply to get the data payload there. Few (if any) bandwidth providers measure their service from the perspective of what the actual “payload throughput” will be—it would be a range. Just like shipping packages, data payloads vary greatly in terms of size and shape (unless we’re talking about ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) networking).  As a bandwidth provider, they look at it from the perspective of everything they have to deliver. When I “ship” data around, I expect the same thing. After all, I expect it to reach the correct destination quickly, safely and in usable condition. You’re asking Mediacom to accommodate an extra 5% -15% capacity—are you proposing they charge %5-15% more? That might draw the ire of folks around here that are already upset about the recent rate increase despite the increase in bandwidth/features in most internet packages.
Imagine trying to ship 4000 lbs. of fresh blueberries without a container or means of preservation. Yuck. Now imagine doing that with only 5 trillion 1s and 0s across some copper wires. That’s even more of a challenge without some sort of packaging, organization and carrier.
That being said, I’m all for greater capacity! We’re in the “40 MB Hard Disk Days” of the internet. Remember back in 1990 when many people wondered how they would ever be able to use the capacity of a 40 MB hard drive on their home computer? Today, that hard drive wouldn’t even be able to store the latest driver package for an nVidia GPU. Today, many people wonder how they’ll ever be able to use 20 Mb of download capacity at home. In another 20 years many of us will be moaning that we’ve only got a 10 Gb connection.
For now, bring on DOCSIS 3.0 w/ 4 bonded channels—I’ve got a SB6120 and am ready when you are, Mediacom! I’ll bring you the money if you bring me the bandwidth. |
|
Ringthane
join:2004-05-13
Streator, IL | reply to IowaStudent
They can't even get my connection to run stable as it is. They'd probably split the Earth in two if they tried to get fancy. |
|
IowaStudent
Premium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA
·Mediacom
·Iowa Telecom
| reply to TJFriday
Wow, when you look at the situation from that perspective it makes sense. however, D3 has a lot more bandwidth available to use. So while it didn't make sense to do from their perspective before due to the additional(cost) There will be more room on the network now so that they can over sync. |
|
TJFriday
join:2009-06-29
Clive, IA
| DOCSIS 3.0 is just an extension of the DOCSIS specification that allows usage of IPv6 and a couple of other neat things... The DOCSIS 3.0 specification in and of itself does not increase bandwidth.
A single DOCSIS 1.X/2.0 channel (what we have now) is the same capacity as a DOCSIS 3.0 channel except DOCSIS 3.0 permits channel bonding and multiplexing of multiple channels for greater bandwidth. This can be done with up to 4 or 8 channels. (Most current DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems can only handle up to 4 downstream channels at once).
1 DOCSIS 1.X/2.0 channel = 42.88 Mb
4 DOCSIS 1.X/2.0 channel = 171.52 Mb (this would be DOCSIS 3.0)
In DOCSIS 3.0, your cable modem is receiving all 4 downstream channels de-multiplexing (demux) them to give you your configured bandwidth allocation. Remaining DOCSIS 1.X and DOCSIS 2.0 cable modems would have to be assigned to individual channels (this will make things interesting when Medicom rolls out DOCSIS 3.0...). DOCSIS 3.0 will actually have slightly *higher* overhead due to multiplexing and channel bonding--but the overall bandwidth increase justifies the bandwidth cost.
From a downstream-only perspective, DOCSIS 3.0 will require Mediacom to utilize 2-7 *more* 6 MHz channels on the same cable you use today (depending on how many channels they decide to bond--as few as 2 or up to 8 total). That's 2-7 times more RF spectrum than they dedicate today. This is why Medicom would love to see all of those analog TV channels go away and move everything to digital TV (a digital cable channel requires a fraction of the spectrum of that of an analog channel). For each 6 MHz channel they can free up, they could potentially provide an additional 42.88 Mb of DOCSIS digital network capacity to the same cable--and this is just *downstream* capacity (download).
Don't even get me started on what awesome stuff they could do if they move to Switched Digital Video distribution network for the TV channels.
Anyone want to borrow this soap box I've been standing on? |
|
suresh33
join:2009-07-12 | reply to IowaStudent
Hi everybody
Hi everybody,
I am new to this site.I hope this site will help me to understand quickly.
I would like to say "hi" to all members,Welcome to the forum. |
|
SeaFoam
join:2009-05-20 | reply to IowaStudent
Re: Poll Should Mediacom oversync new connection's in September?
If I only get 'speedboost' when D3 launches for MAX service i'll get rid of it. |
|
crucify
join:2006-03-21
Wolcottville, IN | Ditto, if they don't at least open the u/l on Max I'm done with it as well.
They have to do more then just the silly speed boost for Max customers or it won't be worth having a Max account. |
|
CappinHoff
join:2007-01-05
Des Moines, IA | reply to IowaStudent
Honestly you should wait till they even release info about D3 release. There isn't any info about it or even a time. |
|
IowaStudent
Premium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA
·Mediacom
·Iowa Telecom
| Rocco mentioned in the call that speeds where going up in September as well as "BAINCH" mentioning that they would "speedboost" MAX customers which means additional speed tiers probably will come around that time as well. I did this to see what the rest of the community though about "over syncing" now because they can't roll out the speeds then change to include overhead. It all as to be tested before launch. |
|
OldCableGuy2
@mchsi.com
| reply to IowaStudent
Why would mediacom do that? They're selling you X bandwidth. It's not their fault some of that is eaten up in overhead by TCP/IP.
The fact that you include DNS in that overhead shows how little you know about the technology in the first place. DNS is a protocol, just like HTTP is or Bittorrent. It's certainly not part of the overhead.
All things considered this has got to be the most inane use of a poll I've ever seen. |
|
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-01
IA
·Mediacom
| said by OldCableGuy2 :
Why would mediacom do that? They're selling you X bandwidth. It's not their fault some of that is eaten up in overhead by TCP/IP.
The fact that you include DNS in that overhead shows how little you know about the technology in the first place. DNS is a protocol, just like HTTP is or Bittorrent. It's certainly not part of the overhead.
All things considered this has got to be the most inane use of a poll I've ever seen.
As you probably know some cable cos are already provisioning modems slightly over the advertised speed to compensate for the overhead so when their customers do a speed test they may see the full advertised speed. After all very few customers know or care about the network setup and the limitations. They just want it to work.
With the powerboost this is pretty much useless but I'm sure people would not mind getting even a minor speed increase. |
|
thedragonmas
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
| said by Anonymous  :said by OldCableGuy2 :
Why would mediacom do that? They're selling you X bandwidth. It's not their fault some of that is eaten up in overhead by TCP/IP.
The fact that you include DNS in that overhead shows how little you know about the technology in the first place. DNS is a protocol, just like HTTP is or Bittorrent. It's certainly not part of the overhead.
All things considered this has got to be the most inane use of a poll I've ever seen.
As you probably know some cable cos are already provisioning modems slightly over the advertised speed to compensate for the overhead so when their customers do a speed test they may see the full advertised speed. After all very few customers know or care about the network setup and the limitations. They just want it to work. With the powerboost this is pretty much useless but I'm sure people would not mind getting even a minor speed increase. exactly, if the customer pays for 10 but only every see's 8 they assume there not getting the full speed and eventually call in about it. if you provision to cover the overhead and they pay for 10 and see 10 you elimate that un need'd call. |
|
