| [LA] Two Blue Lights 6120 modem, I now have two blue lights instead of the one, no speed differences, still 4 channels, etc. Why the two now? |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
2 edits | said by OldDad:6120 modem, I now have two blue lights instead of the one, no speed differences, still 4 channels, etc. Why the two now?
Well if its both your receive, and send lights, it means your now channel bonding both ways. So if your Send light is blue that means bonding on upstream. |
|
| reply to OldDad
you should post your modems signal page so we can take a look at these new glorious upstream channels that have been bonded  |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to OldDad
said by OldDad:6120 modem, I now have two blue lights instead of the one, no speed differences, still 4 channels, etc. Why the two now?
Upstream bonding will ease congestion if it exists on the upstream channel. bonding upstream doesn't mean upload speeds will be raised but it allows for it if provider wants to give more. |
|
| reply to OldDad
How does this look?
Channel ID 229 230 231 232
Frequency 849000000 Hz 855000000 Hz 861000000 867000000 Hz
Signal to Noise Ratio 36 dB 36 dB 36 dB 36 dB
Downstream Modulation QAM256 QAM256 QAM256 QAM256
Power Level
The Downstream Power Level reading is a snapshot taken at the time this page was requested. Please Reload/Refresh this Page for a new reading
0 dBmV 0 dBmV -1 dBmV 0 dBmV
Upstream Bonding Channel Value
Channel ID 4 1 2 3
Frequency 34450000 Hz 24850000 Hz 28050000 Hz 31250000 Hz
Ranging Service ID 6143 6143 6143 6143
Symbol Rate 2.560 Msym/sec 2.560 Msym/sec 2.560 Msym/sec 2.560 Msym/sec
Power Level 39 dBmV 39 dBmV 40 dBmV 39 dBmV
Upstream Modulation [3] QPSK
[2] 16QAM
[3] QPSK
[2] 16QAM
[3] QPSK
[2] 16QAM
[3] QPSK
[2] 16QAM |
|
XIII
join:2010-06-16
Scottsdale, AZ | Nice. Lets hope they role it out soon to everyone |
|
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| said by XIII:Nice. Lets hope they role it out soon to everyone
Well there is some upstream bonding happening in AZ, in the Glendale area. As one of the users on here mention he was locked onto two upstream channels in Glendale. |
|
| I guess I'm not fully bonded on the upstream. Only 2-channel bonding here.
Upload speed has increased from 2.8 to 6.23 .. nice improvement. |
|
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| said by OldDad:I guess I'm not fully bonded on the upstream. Only 2-channel bonding here.
Upload speed has increased from 2.8 to 6.23 .. nice improvement.
Anything more then one is consider bonding, just because your not locked onto 4 channels doesn't mean much. The people in the LA market were just lucky the cox guys working in there area lit up all 4 channels at the launch of upstream bonding. |
|
| could also be noise on the two channels not bonded. |
|
 kv2009
join:2009-09-14
Kenner, LA
·Cox HSI
| reply to OldDad
Speeds are still capped at 3Mbps on the upstream unfortunately. I don't know when we'll see any true upload speed increase due to the channel bonding but the burst speeds are insane...I've seen it hit 21Mbps regularly, but it always drops back down to capped speeds within seconds. Hopefully Cox will increase the upstream speed caps. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by kv2009:Speeds are still capped at 3Mbps on the upstream unfortunately. I don't know when we'll see any true upload speed increase due to the channel bonding but the burst speeds are insane...I've seen it hit 21Mbps regularly, but it always drops back down to capped speeds within seconds. Hopefully Cox will increase the upstream speed caps.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that[specially if you're in a non competitive area. |
|
kv2009
join:2009-09-14
Kenner, LA Reviews:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | said by dvd536:said by kv2009:Speeds are still capped at 3Mbps on the upstream unfortunately. I don't know when we'll see any true upload speed increase due to the channel bonding but the burst speeds are insane...I've seen it hit 21Mbps regularly, but it always drops back down to capped speeds within seconds. Hopefully Cox will increase the upstream speed caps.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that[specially if you're in a non competitive area. Yeah lol, unfortunately I know this all too well...but if the bandwidth is there to utilize, I don't see why it wouldn't be something to do. It seems like a waste of equipment upgrades to channel bond the upstream if you don't plan on increasing speed caps. There was more than enough upstream bandwidth available before, without channel bonding.
I should mention that I'm on the premier plan. |
|
 Optimus2357Premium
join:2010-11-21
West Warwick, RI
kudos:1 | I wonder how many upstream channels they had before upstream bonding vs after? I mean channels available. For instance, when ever I am on Channel ID 2, which locally is 28.8Mhz, my upload is 2-3Mbps. When it locks on Channel ID 3, which is 32.2Mhz, I get 7-8Mbps. Same symbol rate, and just about same signal levels (seems I get Channel ID 3 when above 41 Tx) but drastically different performances. And I don't mean here and there, I mean without fail. So I assume the signal requirements for the higher frequency are more strict, so less lock on to it, and thus more bandwidth is available? So I would be happy with more channels overall opened up, even if they didn't bond on them yet. However that's probably a less effective use of bandwidth, load balancing vs channel bonding I mean.
I guess my question is; Is DOCSIS 3.0 done the same way across the network? I know it's a standard so it must be similar, but is the way DOCSIS 3.0 executed different in different areas? |
|
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| said by Optimus2357:I wonder how many upstream channels they had before upstream bonding vs after? I mean channels available. For instance, when ever I am on Channel ID 2, which locally is 28.8Mhz, my upload is 2-3Mbps. When it locks on Channel ID 3, which is 32.2Mhz, I get 7-8Mbps. Same symbol rate, and just about same signal levels (seems I get Channel ID 3 when above 41 Tx) but drastically different performances. And I don't mean here and there, I mean without fail. So I assume the signal requirements for the higher frequency are more strict, so less lock on to it, and thus more bandwidth is available? So I would be happy with more channels overall opened up, even if they didn't bond on them yet. However that's probably a less effective use of bandwidth, load balancing vs channel bonding I mean.
I guess my question is; Is DOCSIS 3.0 done the same way across the network? I know it's a standard so it must be similar, but is the way DOCSIS 3.0 executed different in different areas?
Well there is probably at least a good 4 maybe more upstream channels available for use for internet in your area. I know my area has around 5 upstream channels, which I know about because of a while back having problems with load balancing. Which was causing my modem to bounce around threw all the upstream channels. So channels are there to bond, it just a matter of how many they want to setup for bonding on upstream. Because I am pretty sure when D3 first launched, more upstream channels were added, because of more downstream channels being able to bond, there is a need for more upstream channels being available. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to kv2009
said by kv2009:said by dvd536:said by kv2009:Speeds are still capped at 3Mbps on the upstream unfortunately. I don't know when we'll see any true upload speed increase due to the channel bonding but the burst speeds are insane...I've seen it hit 21Mbps regularly, but it always drops back down to capped speeds within seconds. Hopefully Cox will increase the upstream speed caps.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that[specially if you're in a non competitive area. Yeah lol, unfortunately I know this all too well...but if the bandwidth is there to utilize, I don't see why it wouldn't be something to do. It seems like a waste of equipment upgrades to channel bond the upstream if you don't plan on increasing speed caps. There was more than enough upstream bandwidth available before, without channel bonding. But if you don't raise upload speeds that allows you to load nodes even heavier before upstream congestion becomes an issue!
if upstream becomes congested, downstream speeds suffer. |
|
kv2009
join:2009-09-14
Kenner, LA Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| reply to Optimus2357
said by Optimus2357:I wonder how many upstream channels they had before upstream bonding vs after? I mean channels available. For instance, when ever I am on Channel ID 2, which locally is 28.8Mhz, my upload is 2-3Mbps. When it locks on Channel ID 3, which is 32.2Mhz, I get 7-8Mbps. Same symbol rate, and just about same signal levels (seems I get Channel ID 3 when above 41 Tx) but drastically different performances. And I don't mean here and there, I mean without fail. So I assume the signal requirements for the higher frequency are more strict, so less lock on to it, and thus more bandwidth is available? So I would be happy with more channels overall opened up, even if they didn't bond on them yet. However that's probably a less effective use of bandwidth, load balancing vs channel bonding I mean.
I guess my question is; Is DOCSIS 3.0 done the same way across the network? I know it's a standard so it must be similar, but is the way DOCSIS 3.0 executed different in different areas?
AFAIK, on my node, there are 4 upstream frequencies now and I am bonded to each of them. These same 4 frequencies were being pumped through the plant before upstream bonding went active, for quite some time, maybe over a year. |
|
| Sorry to bring back an older thread. But I too had bonding on both up stream and down stream. It was about 2 weeks ago that I noticed it, and just 3 days ago, I'm back to only bonding my downstream. I don't know if it was a test run or I'm having problems, yet again with my service.
I'm in Metairie if that's any help as to where the bonding is going on. |
|
| reply to OldDad
Nice! you got both blue lights on. I'm still waiting for blue upstream light in kansas. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to jjohnston123
said by jjohnston123:Sorry to bring back an older thread. But I too had bonding on both up stream and down stream. It was about 2 weeks ago that I noticed it, and just 3 days ago, I'm back to only bonding my downstream. I don't know if it was a test run or I'm having problems, yet again with my service. Maybe issues were discovered and upstream bond was shut off. |
|
