Re: Getting 305/65

Author	All Replies
horseathalt7 join:2012-06-11 Reviews: ·DIRECTV	reply to IowaCowboy Re: Getting 305/65 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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:33:17 ·
IowaCowboy Want to go back to Iowa Premium join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA Reviews: ·Comcast ·Verizon Broadban..	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. 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. -- Romney-Ryan and Scott Brown are the Right Choice as they are Hope & Change you can count on.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:40:14 ·
pflog Bueller? Bueller? Premium,MVM join:2001-09-01 El Dorado Hills, CA kudos:3	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
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:44:07 ·
IowaCowboy Want to go back to Iowa Premium join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA Reviews: ·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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:49:29 ·
tshirt Premium,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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:52:43 ·
pflog Bueller? 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
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:53:33 ·

NetFixer From my cold dead hands Premium join:2004-06-24 The Boro Reviews: ·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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:58:21 ·
tshirt Premium,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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-01 23:58:27 ·
NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA kudos:9 Reviews: ·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
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-02 02:05:39 ·
n_w95482 Premium join:2005-08-03 Ukiah, CA	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
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-02 02:10:17 ·
IowaCowboy Want to go back to Iowa Premium join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA Reviews: ·Comcast ·Verizon Broadban.. 1 edit	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-02 07:53:03 ·
tshirt Premium,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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-02 08:19:49 ·
NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA kudos:9 Reviews: ·SONIC.NET ·Pacific Bell - SBC	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
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-02 12:52:48 ·
ConstantineM join:2011-09-02 San Jose, CA 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.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-02 13:02:15 ·
bobjohnson Premium join:2007-02-03 Orlando, FL 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. --
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-02 14:22:29 ·
n_w95482 Premium join:2005-08-03 Ukiah, CA	reply to IowaCowboy said by IowaCowboy: 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. Overhead is overhead, there's no getting around it. It's like saying that you get 54 Mbps on 802.11g wireless, or 480 Mbps with USB 2.0. It just isn't going to happen. They quote the theoretical max because it is easy to calculate. Real-world numbers will always vary, and will always be below the theoretical max. 305 Mbps downstream on 8 channels isn't going to happen. I don't expect Comcast to attempt it via DOCSIS until 16 or 24-channel bonding is around. -- KI6RIT
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-03 01:48:05 ·
Donkee87 @rcn.com	reply to NormanS Sorry NormanS, comcast HFC is nothing like uverse. Uverse is FTTN and uses VDSL technology over 100 year old twisted pair with something like 24mbps maximum for convinced data and tv to the home. HFC can deliver much more with virtually no limit on amount of boxes in the home. said by NormanS: 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 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.)
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-05 20:33:22 ·
NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA kudos:9 Reviews: ·SONIC.NET ·Pacific Bell - SBC 2 edits	said by Donkee87 : Sorry NormanS, comcast HFC is nothing like uverse. Uverse is FTTN and uses VDSL technology over 100 year old twisted pair ... Hyperbole! I love it. Some points to ponder though: • Copper wireline signaling is well over 100 years old (Samuel F. B. Morse patent, 1847). • Coax is at least 100 years old (Oliver Heaviside patent, 1880). • More than half the telco copper plant is less than seventy-five years old. (U.S. population has more than doubled since the end of World War II). Furthermore, DOCSIS (1997) is not a whole lot newer than ADSL (1988). Nine whole years newer! ... with something like 24mbps maximum for convinced data and tv to the home. HFC can deliver much more with virtually no limit on amount of boxes in the home. Which does not detract from the fact that both use a hybrid of a century-plus-year-old wireline medium and optical fiber (FTTN) in their respective plants. For television I find that satellite beats wireline (coax, or copper) hands down. For Internet I would much rather pay <$30 a month for DSL speeds than >$50 a month for DOCSIS speeds. P.S. I don't think YouTube much cares whether they are streaming over copper, or coax in the "Last Mile". -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-05 21:05:17 ·
Donkee87 @rcn.com	said by NormanS: said by Donkee87 : Sorry NormanS, comcast HFC is nothing like uverse. Uverse is FTTN and uses VDSL technology over 100 year old twisted pair ... Hyperbole! I love it. Some points to ponder though: • Copper wireline signaling is well over 100 years old (Samuel F. B. Morse patent, 1847). • Coax is at least 100 years old (Oliver Heaviside patent, 1880). • More than half the telco copper plant is less than seventy-five years old. (U.S. population has more than doubled since the end of World War II). Furthermore, DOCSIS (1997) is not a whole lot newer than ADSL (1988). Nine whole years newer! ... with something like 24mbps maximum for convinced data and tv to the home. HFC can deliver much more with virtually no limit on amount of boxes in the home. Which does not detract from the fact that both use a hybrid of a century-plus-year-old wireline medium and optical fiber (FTTN) in their respective plants. For television I find that satellite beats wireline (coax, or copper) hands down. For Internet I would much rather pay <$30 a month for DSL speeds than >$50 a month for DOCSIS speeds. P.S. I don't think YouTube much cares whether they are streaming over copper, or coax in the "Last Mile". My reference to age is the actual installed infrastructure, not the year it was invented smarty pants. Last mile of virtually all uverse plant is 40 years old or more but regardless HfC limits way surpass the capabilities of ADSL or VDSL. You may be the dying few that prefer dsl over DOCSIS, peoplemare voting with the wallets and go DOCSIS on call or FTTP like fios. Sure YouTube doesn't care if you're streaming over twisted pair or coax but the one sitting bhind the computer screen on coax most likely can watch tha video in a higher resolution without buffering.
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-06 17:49:14 ·
pisto @qwest.net	reply to IowaCowboy eSATA HDD? I don't understand. Why didn't the OP just get a few really big hard drives and take them to his jobsite and make a hotswap rig or something? This is instead of paying out 3 to 4 to 5 grand a year for ultra high speed connectivity? That would buy quite a few big harddrives and then just keep track of which files were on which right?
	to forum · permalink · 2012-11-06 19:15:59 ·

US Cable Support > Comcast HSI > Getting 305/65

eSATA HDD?