 pflogBueller? Bueller?Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA
kudos:3 | reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Getting 305/65 said by IowaCowboy:They could technically do it over coax by using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem with 8x4 channel bonding. No plant construction required, just have the customer pick up an 8x4 channel bonding modem at the CC office, change the billing code, and provision the modem accordingly.
Technically speaking, that is true with 8 channels if they were the ONLY person on those channels. 38*8 is 304 Mbps. That's not a lot of head room at all. All it'd take is one person on a 50/10 plan on the same channels and they're down 16-17%.
--
"Women. Can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts." -Norm |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| said by pflog:said by IowaCowboy:They could technically do it over coax by using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem with 8x4 channel bonding. No plant construction required, just have the customer pick up an 8x4 channel bonding modem at the CC office, change the billing code, and provision the modem accordingly.
Technically speaking, that is true with 8 channels if they were the ONLY person on those channels. 38*8 is 304 Mbps. That's not a lot of head room at all. All it'd take is one person on a 50/10 plan on the same channels and they're down 16-17%. 8x4 goes up to 343 Mbps downstream.
Source: »www.arrisi.com/product_catalog/_···UG11.pdf
--
Romney-Ryan and Scott Brown are the Right Choice as they are Hope & Change you can count on. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | still a poor use of bandwidth for that tier, and with the ability to use fiber/metroE shows the long legs of the HFC plant. |
|
pflogBueller? Bueller?Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA
kudos:3 | reply to IowaCowboy
MiB/s vs. MB/s, but ok fine, assume 343. It would still be asinine to provision a 300/65 connection over DOCSIS.
--
"Women. Can't live with 'em, pass the beer nuts." -Norm |
|
 NetFixerFrom my cold dead handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
·Comcast Business..
 ·Vonage
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
| reply to horseathalt7
said by horseathalt7:Wow what an exorbitant service they are offering. I wonder how many of their subs will take them up on it. My guess is very few.
It does seem like the price should actually be even higher than it is, but then again the general subscriber base will probably be subsidizing these few who decide to get this service.
If I was a low or mid tier sub I would be pissed at amount of wasted effort, time and budget Comcast is putting into it, as those tiers are very expensive for what you get.
Once again executive management ego is getting in the way of prudence and logic. Must be plenty of MBAs over there.
This service is provided by Comcast's existing metro ethernet infrastructure used for commercial customers. The only added expense for a new user is the "last mile" (I put that popular phrase in quotes because the terms of this service currently dictate a much shorter distance than one mile) extension of the fiber cable. It is no more exorbitant (or a wasted effort) than Verizon's FIOS, or the fiber offerings of numerous other ISPs.
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to horseathalt7
said by horseathalt7:Wow what an exorbitant service they are offering. I wonder how many of their subs will take them up on it. My guess is very few.
Probably VERY few. not many will commit to $3850 a year, but for those few who need it and can afford it, it's a deal, cheaper than any dedicated line with plenty of download and more upload then many thought possible from cable just a few years ago. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:6
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by tshirt: Probably VERY few. not many will commit to $3850 a year, but for those few who need it and can afford it, it's a deal, cheaper than any dedicated line with plenty of download and more upload then many thought possible from cable just a few years ago.
But it's not coax, it's fiber? The telcos could do it, as well; Verizon did in a big way (FiOS). AT&T's fiber is significantly less widespread. Then there are Paxio, Surewest, and Sonic.net, LLC, among others (besides Google).
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
|
|
| reply to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:said by pflog:said by IowaCowboy:They could technically do it over coax by using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem with 8x4 channel bonding. No plant construction required, just have the customer pick up an 8x4 channel bonding modem at the CC office, change the billing code, and provision the modem accordingly.
Technically speaking, that is true with 8 channels if they were the ONLY person on those channels. 38*8 is 304 Mbps. That's not a lot of head room at all. All it'd take is one person on a 50/10 plan on the same channels and they're down 16-17%. 8x4 goes up to 343 Mbps downstream. Source: » www.arrisi.com/product_catalog/_···UG11.pdf 343 without factoring in overhead, 304 with. It mentions it right below where you looked  .
--
KI6RIT |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to whfsdude
Looking forward to the results whfsdude =P I saw you mention you were getting this on IRC and then I found your thread =) I was actually looking for someone who might be getting this not that long ago but could not find anyone.
And another one joins the 300 mbit club. Although with my dual fios connections i do get 150mbit up =) The downside; however, is that quantum fios for business (which was supposed to come out today but did not) is not out yet which means 150/75 is max for business fios and two lines is running me around $420/month. My bill should go to around $220/month once they push out the quantum speeds which I was told was Nov 1st.
--
300/150 mbit Bonded Verizon FiOS connection FTW! |
|
IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
1 edit | reply to n_w95482
said by n_w95482:343 without factoring in overhead, 304 with. It mentions it right below where you looked .
The Zoom 5341J also goes up to 343 with its 8x4 channel bonding.
Source: »www.zoomtel.com/products/cable_overview.html
I think they should make the 305 available on the coax plant as well but for a lower monthly price and the $1.99 change of service fee if we pick the modem up at the office.
I also think the modulation also affects the speed. Our area is 256 QAM downstream and 64 QAM upstream.
Edit: I did not see 304 mentioned but a properly engineered HFC plant could achieve 305 by splitting larger nodes, ditching analog TV, declaring all D2 modems end of life (since D3 manages network resources better), adopting switched digital video, eliminate as much ingress as possible.
I also heard that DOCSIS 3.1 is possibly in the cards.
--
Romney-Ryan and Scott Brown are the Right Choice as they are Hope & Change you can count on. |
|
tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to NormanS
It's still branching off the cable plant just doesn't convert from fiber to coax for the last (1/2)mile.
sure the telcos could do something like that, but they don't match the price, even where they have capacity.
cable plants reach ALMOST as many homes as telco's and should have this expandtion capability.
FioS and the other pure fiber providers are different in that they over build and then replace existing plants ($$$) where this is leveraging existing plant on an as needed basis.
most important leaving cash in the bank for whatever the next gen cable rollout is. |
|
 jarablueAlways be true to yourself
join:2001-06-11
Boxborough, MA | reply to whfsdude
I have FIOS. My tier is 150/65. I also have every channel and digital voice. I pay 179.99 a month. When I upgraded to 150/65 there was no cost to me at all.
Do whatever makes you happy. |
|
| This is probably better than Verizon's FIOS since Verizon's routing seems to be worse in my experience than Comcast's.
ATT is by far the best though. |
|
| reply to jarablue
Awesome |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:6 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:It's still branching off the cable plant just doesn't convert from fiber to coax for the last (1/2)mile.
sure the telcos could do something like that, but they don't match the price, even where they have capacity.
cable plants reach ALMOST as many homes as telco's and should have this expandtion capability.
Like Comcast's HFC plant, AT&T's "U-verse" plant is fiber to the node. I expect if Comcast was picking up enough 305 customers in the AT&T U-verse footprint, AT&T could introduce a competing service. So much for "Monopoly", eh?
Should we call it FFTN? (Fiber From The Node.)
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to JigglyWiggly
said by JigglyWiggly:This is probably better than Verizon's FIOS since Verizon's routing seems to be worse in my experience than Comcast's.
ATT is by far the best though.
LOL, no way man. Verizon (uunet) is tier1 and has peering with all the big ones. Comcast purposely saturates its connection with providers to try to force them into peering causing latency spikes and speed issues so no comparison IMHO.
Also I have seen a ton of really out of the way routes just for them to use peering in an alternate location. Like Los Angeles -> Irvine (above.net only) and it routed through texas so they could use their peering with above.net there.
At my old job we had a 10 gig connection with comcast and the routing was definitely not as good as what I see on verizon/uunet which is actually pretty good atleast in the west.
--
300/150 mbit Bonded Verizon FiOS connection FTW! |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to horseathalt7
said by horseathalt7:It does seem like the price should actually be even higher than it is, but then again the general subscriber base will probably be subsidizing these few who decide to get this service.
You get it all wrong. If the price would have been lower, then the average amount of bandwidth consumed per line would have been lower, too. I'm betting Comcast's 305/65 users consume much more bandwidth than Sonic.net's 1000/100 (70$/mo), or Google Fibre.
Right now, this line would only be purchased by very-very heavy users. The lower the price, the lower the average usage would be. Simple economics of scale. And at these installation and commitment terms, I doubt this is being subsidised as is.
said by horseathalt7:If I was a low or mid tier sub I would be pissed at amount of wasted effort, time and budget Comcast is putting into it, as those tiers are very expensive for what you get.
What a ****. Go switch to at&t U-verse; they aren't putting any money or effort into upgrading anyone, especially FTTU BPON installations that can already do much-much higher speeds without any last-mile hardware upgrades at all. With U-verse, you won't have to worry about your monthly charges going anywhere else other than straight to the shareholders. |
|
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to IowaCowboy
Yeah, and while they're at it they should kick the other 200 homes off the node so you can actually get all the bandwidth and uptime that your enterprise QoS contract provides for you... All for $99 a month, right?
But seriously, with HFC you have fiber in your backyard. It would be a terrible business decision to completely saturate a node for one customer. If you have a NEED for 305/65 then you should also have the money for the installation cost.
--
|
|
| reply to whfsdude
Nevermind...
|
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
·T-Mobile US
| said by bobjohnson:I thought they were installing Metro E on these?
They are. Nearest fiber is located at the node. So they'll run fiber to my house and I'll get an ethernet handoff from the 3931. |
|
