dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6180
share rss forum feed


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state

So when is ultra 300 making the drop?

And I assume we will need new modems?

Obviously a gigabit router will be needed..

zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter
said by Metatron2008:

And I assume we will need new modems?

Obviously a gigabit router will be needed..

few things first off it will likely be as slow a rollout as 60 meg was if not slower as i doubt many if any cmts are equipped for 8 downstream channels (as for type of modom some docsis 3 modoms can handle it today but i doubt non charter offers can it need to be 8 downstream channel bonding kind)

second if thats the case i dont expect it to hit outside of st luius till mid to late 2013 and late 2014 before its in most if not all of charters footprint


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:4
said by zed260:

said by Metatron2008:

And I assume we will need new modems?

Obviously a gigabit router will be needed..

few things first off it will likely be as slow a rollout as 60 meg was if not slower as i doubt many if any cmts are equipped for 8 downstream channels (as for type of modom some docsis 3 modoms can handle it today but i doubt non charter offers can it need to be 8 downstream channel bonding kind)

second if thats the case i dont expect it to hit outside of st luius till mid to late 2013 and late 2014 before its in most if not all of charters footprint

the is no such thing as a "8 downstream channel bonding kind" of CMTS a DOCSIS 3.0 equipped Arris C4, Motorola BSR64000, or Cisco 10k can support 8 downstream bonding the only thing that needs to be changed are the linecards to the 72 downstream card for Cisco 10k's, 32CAM downstream card for the ARRIS C4.

My TWC area recently added a 5th and a 6th downstream on the ARRIS C4 and I think they removed the old 16CAM cards and put in 32CAM cards on the C4s and put in 72 Downstream cards in the Ciscos.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
And you need a docsis 3.1 modem for home..


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:4
said by Metatron2008:

And you need a docsis 3.1 modem for home..

no!

Only a current 8x4 DOCSIS 3.0 modem.

DOCSIS 3.1 is imaginary right now does not exist as a matter of fact the is a chance that DOCSIS 3.0 is the final version of DOCSIS until they start doing RFoG (Radio Frequency over Glass) mainstream.


TheTechGuru

join:2004-03-25
TEXAS
kudos:2
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
·WesTex Connect
reply to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:

And I assume we will need new modems?

Obviously a gigabit router will be needed..

I'd like to worry about getting at least 50mbps upload first.

Having 300mbps/5mbps would be just retarded. I'd be happy with 50mbps/50mbps.

If Charter would like to stand out I would go for being the first ISP to offer all symmetric plans for residential and not speeds no one needs because hardly any servers would actually support it.

--
CompTIA Network+ Certified


SHoTTa35

@optonline.net
Most servers wont let you upload at 50Mbps either. Backup places generally limit your upload to 5-10Mbps and after a while cap you at 1Mbps for longer uploads. Youtube i think is different however. Amazon S3 also might be able to handle that too.

If you are gonna say you can do multiple uploads to multiple servers at the sametime well that's how people use that fat 300Mbps pipe too, nobody expects to download at 300Mbps from CNN.com.

Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter
said by SHoTTa35 :

Most servers wont let you upload at 50Mbps either. Backup places generally limit your upload to 5-10Mbps and after a while cap you at 1Mbps for longer uploads. Youtube i think is different however. Amazon S3 also might be able to handle that too.

If you are gonna say you can do multiple uploads to multiple servers at the sametime well that's how people use that fat 300Mbps pipe too, nobody expects to download at 300Mbps from CNN.com.

unless you have proof of any of this throttling, its a fallacy. I can download from most sites easily saturating my current 100mbps download, and know that many sites used to throttle uploads, but since server hosting and hosting bandwidth has gotten so cheap(I rent a seedbox with a symmetrical 100mbps connection for $18 per month, with 3TB of data in and 3TB of data out), that it is now a fallacy that servers throttle you on the upload side. have you considered that maybe its your ISP doing that? I can upload to rapidshare at 5mbps all day long, as well as Amazon hosting, and even those "backup" places(why would they slow down their services, that just sounds dumb). Do look around before you spout things that are not true.

markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
reply to Metatron2008
It would not matter if you need a new modem anyways. Charter would provide you with one because its a upgrade so no loss to you.

markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
reply to Chubbysumo
said by Chubbysumo:

said by SHoTTa35 :

Most servers wont let you upload at 50Mbps either. Backup places generally limit your upload to 5-10Mbps and after a while cap you at 1Mbps for longer uploads. Youtube i think is different however. Amazon S3 also might be able to handle that too.

If you are gonna say you can do multiple uploads to multiple servers at the sametime well that's how people use that fat 300Mbps pipe too, nobody expects to download at 300Mbps from CNN.com.

unless you have proof of any of this throttling, its a fallacy. I can download from most sites easily saturating my current 100mbps download, and know that many sites used to throttle uploads, but since server hosting and hosting bandwidth has gotten so cheap(I rent a seedbox with a symmetrical 100mbps connection for $18 per month, with 3TB of data in and 3TB of data out), that it is now a fallacy that servers throttle you on the upload side. have you considered that maybe its your ISP doing that? I can upload to rapidshare at 5mbps all day long, as well as Amazon hosting, and even those "backup" places(why would they slow down their services, that just sounds dumb). Do look around before you spout things that are not true.

He is talking in general. A large part of the internet you won't notice a difference because servers simply don't give you the bandwidth just because you can have it. They also pay for bandwidth. They give you want you need, nothing else.

Of course exceptions to this, newsgroups comes to mind, but in general lots of places won't care if you have 5meg or 500meg HSI.

Zappa2000

join:2001-12-16
Kalamazoo, MI
reply to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:

And you need a docsis 3.1 modem for home..

As was mentioned, this isn't the case.
My modem, a 5341J top speed is 343 Mbps downstream and 143 Mbps upstream.

Though, I still think it makes little sense for charter to offer 300Mbps for the (very) few that will actually get it, and not have something under 30Mbps to compete with AT&T's DSL, which lots of people would get if given the option.


cablegeek01

join:2003-05-13
USA
kudos:1
reply to motorola870
well....I believe the UBR72xx chassis with the MC88V card only has 4 downstream channels, so those markets would not be able to get it, but for the most part you are correct. Most any modular full size CMTS should support 8x4 modems.


cablegeek01

join:2003-05-13
USA
kudos:1
reply to Metatron2008
The biggest hurdle will be actually getting 300Mb on a 300Mb package with 8DS channels. A DOCSIS 256QAM 6MHz primary channel (downstream) yields approximately 37.5mbps of available throughput. Multiply that by 8 and you get.....300Mbps.
That means the only way you'll actually get 300Mbps is if there is absolutely nobody else using those 8 channels but you.

I feel that Comcast is being disingenuous by offering a 300Mb package on an 8 channel modem.

Charter should be honest about what they can really offer. 250Mb? Sure, sign me up!


technologiq

join:2000-08-08
Reno, NV
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to markopoleo

said by markopoleo See Profile
He is talking in general. A large part of the internet you won't notice a difference because servers simply don't give you the bandwidth just because you can have it. They also pay for bandwidth. They give you want you need, nothing else.

Of course exceptions to this, newsgroups comes to mind, but in general lots of places won't care if you have 5meg or 500meg HSI.

No, just no. A large part of the Internet will (depending on what kind of connection they have) give you files as fast as it can dish it out. However, those sites that see a lot of traffic will look at throttling so they aren't denying their customers the ability to access or download something. Another thing to consider is how many connections to the source are you making to download the file? If we're talking http or ftp - you're generally only making one connection and, because of that you're limiting yourself to only what that one connection can handle.

It's just like a few years ago when web browser programmers figured out that they could start using multiple connections to a web server to speed up your browser. It's the reason NNTP downloads are faster, the clients can handle multiple connections.


markopoleo

join:2003-04-02
Bonne Terre, MO
You plan on being the first to require a 300meg connection to view a website you make? Don't think so.


SHoTTa35

@optonline.net
reply to cablegeek01
said by cablegeek01:

I feel that Comcast is being disingenuous by offering a 300Mb package on an 8 channel modem.

Comcast wont be doing 305 on a 8 channel, i think it was a 24 channel Netgear modem when i last checked. That's why they said it would require a new modem and such and has 802.11AC WIFI built in as well.


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
bump


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to TheTechGuru
said by TheTechGuru:

said by Metatron2008:

And I assume we will need new modems?

Obviously a gigabit router will be needed..

I'd like to worry about getting at least 50mbps upload first.

Having 300mbps/5mbps would be just retarded. I'd be happy with 50mbps/50mbps.

If Charter would like to stand out I would go for being the first ISP to offer all symmetric plans for residential and not speeds no one needs because hardly any servers would actually support it.

Wow! How have I missed replying to this topic?

Couldn't agree with you any more than I am, Guru

Screw the download, give me upload!! Heck, I'd be happy with 15/15
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/


TheTechGuru

join:2004-03-25
TEXAS
kudos:2
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
·WesTex Connect
said by cork1958:

Screw the download, give me upload!! Heck, I'd be happy with 15/15

I'd even be happy with 10/10 if the price is fair.
--
CompTIA Network+ Certified


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:4
reply to cablegeek01
said by cablegeek01:

The biggest hurdle will be actually getting 300Mb on a 300Mb package with 8DS channels. A DOCSIS 256QAM 6MHz primary channel (downstream) yields approximately 37.5mbps of available throughput. Multiply that by 8 and you get.....300Mbps.
That means the only way you'll actually get 300Mbps is if there is absolutely nobody else using those 8 channels but you.

I feel that Comcast is being disingenuous by offering a 300Mb package on an 8 channel modem.

Charter should be honest about what they can really offer. 250Mb? Sure, sign me up!

actually the throughput is 38.8Mbps per DOCSIS channel but the raw data rate is 42Mbps per downstream Channel at QAM256.


cablegeek01

join:2003-05-13
USA
kudos:1
You lose a little over 1Mb in the DS with the Map, sync, UCD, and station maintenance messages.
When you're doing speedtests in a lab environment (only one modem hooked up to the linecard), the most you'll see with the average configuration is about 38Mb.
When you have 200-500 modems on a DS segment, you see about 37-37.5. At least that's what I see in my lab on the UBR10K chassis with SCEx IOS running.


JeepMatt
C'mon the U
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Wilmington, DE
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Comcast
reply to SHoTTa35
said by SHoTTa35 :

said by cablegeek01:

I feel that Comcast is being disingenuous by offering a 300Mb package on an 8 channel modem.

Comcast wont be doing 305 on a 8 channel, i think it was a 24 channel Netgear modem when i last checked. That's why they said it would require a new modem and such and has 802.11AC WIFI built in as well.

Actually, Comcast's 305 isn't even going to be over coax. It will be via a direct fiber connection from the local node to a customers house. Check the Comcast forum for a thread there. So, it won't be 4, 6, or 8 channels!
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!"


Dogg
Premium
join:2003-06-11
Belleville, IL
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to Metatron2008
Tech discussion aside, does anyone want or need more than 100MB? For what purpose would you need/use it?

Pretty much everyone will agree the download speeds are fine. Upgrade the hardware and work on the upload speeds.
--
Google is your Friend


Theta

join:2003-07-24
O Fallon, MO
My clients would certainly upgrade, and we would welcome the increase in speed.

Most are already paying $400 or better for the 100/5, so that's not the issue.

Not to be rude, but it doesn't matter what they or we will use it for. Options are excellent, and create more competition in the market (which tends to drive prices down).


cablegeek01

join:2003-05-13
USA
kudos:1
reply to Dogg
said by Dogg:

Tech discussion aside, does anyone want or need more than 100MB? For what purpose would you need/use it?

Pretty much everyone will agree the download speeds are fine. Upgrade the hardware and work on the upload speeds.

Build the pipe, and the people will fill it. Think back to 2000, and a good cable modem package was 768Kbps. That's scoffed at today. 300Mb will be perfect for 3DHDTV or whatever the next big enhancement to television/internet is.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by cablegeek01:

Build the pipe, and the people will fill it. Think back to 2000, and a good cable modem package was 768Kbps. That's scoffed at today. 300Mb will be perfect for 3DHDTV or whatever the next big enhancement to television/internet is.

And even with Comcast 600 GB cap 3D HDTV( at 300 Mbps ) will blow through that in 4 1/2 hours.


Dogg
Premium
join:2003-06-11
Belleville, IL
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to cablegeek01
said by cablegeek01:

said by Dogg:

Tech discussion aside, does anyone want or need more than 100MB? For what purpose would you need/use it?

Pretty much everyone will agree the download speeds are fine. Upgrade the hardware and work on the upload speeds.

Build the pipe, and the people will fill it. Think back to 2000, and a good cable modem package was 768Kbps. That's scoffed at today. 300Mb will be perfect for 3DHDTV or whatever the next big enhancement to television/internet is.

Your talking about building for a market that doesn't yet exist, but yet everyone would benefit from more upload speed NOW. EVERYONE, not just the small number high end users that want/need ridiculous download speed.

I understand the argument. I'm just trying to apply common sense, which many companies have difficulty in understanding.

And it will mean NOTHING to competition. Most markets don't have competition.
--
Google is your Friend

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to cablegeek01
Doesn't that depend on the size of the node?


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to Dogg
said by Dogg:

said by cablegeek01:

said by Dogg:

Tech discussion aside, does anyone want or need more than 100MB? For what purpose would you need/use it?

Pretty much everyone will agree the download speeds are fine. Upgrade the hardware and work on the upload speeds.

Build the pipe, and the people will fill it. Think back to 2000, and a good cable modem package was 768Kbps. That's scoffed at today. 300Mb will be perfect for 3DHDTV or whatever the next big enhancement to television/internet is.

Your talking about building for a market that doesn't yet exist, but yet everyone would benefit from more upload speed NOW. EVERYONE, not just the small number high end users that want/need ridiculous download speed.

I understand the argument. I'm just trying to apply common sense, which many companies have difficulty in understanding.

And it will mean NOTHING to competition. Most markets don't have competition.

It's not that many companies have difficulty understanding/applying common sense, it's that most people/companies in general don't have a clue what common sense is!!

IMO,
300MB download is absolutely ridiculous and pretty much useless, as there are next to no servers that are even that fast, even if you're the only one on it!!

There is NO competition, period. If there was and it was driving the prices down, then when was the last time your cable bill, or ANY bill, for that matter, went down?

Even arguing about, shows some one with no common sense!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/


compuguybna

join:2009-06-17
Nashville, TN
reply to Metatron2008
300mbps...who'd want it? most servers probably couldn't even handle that.

I thought 30mpbs was fast. I can't imagine needing anything faster.

Higher speeds are just a cash grab....