 MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
Actiontec MI424WR Rev. I
|
to frdrizzt
Re: Verizon 1UPs, 500/100Mbps Plan now availablesaid by frdrizzt:It's good to see more high-speed plans. While I have no need at this point, having the option available for those with the need or those who get a need for it is good. at $300/month it's hardly consumer-friendly plans. I'm more interested in seeing current plans becoming cheaper. |
|
|
 bohratomMy Jersey Giants finally winning again..
join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ |
said by MxxCon:at $300/month it's hardly consumer-friendly plans.
I'm more interested in seeing current plans becoming cheaper.
Thats the stand alone price, if you bundle it then it can be as low as $199. |
|
18286719 (banned)
join:2013-02-02
Whistler, BC |
18286719 (banned)
Member
2013-Jul-24 10:29 pm
RARPSL, i think splitting nodes making less users per node makes more sense then having 16 channels per node and only giving 8 to one customer, my node has 4 QAM 64 3.2 channels for upstream, yet my modem usually just uses 2 cause it doesnt need more, so in away what u were talking about is already happening with my upstream, tho my cable provider has over 50mb of uncongested upload they wont give me more then 5mbps up, i only get 100/5, however once they put me on 2 more downstream channels i will have the 250/15 available |
|
 jaa
Premium Member
join:2000-06-13 |
jaa
Premium Member
2013-Aug-1 5:48 am
said by 18286719:RARPSL, i think splitting nodes making less users per node makes more sense then having 16 channels per node and only giving 8 to one customer, my node has 4 QAM 64 3.2 channels for upstream, yet my modem usually just uses 2 cause it doesnt need more, so in away what u were talking about is already happening with my upstream, tho my cable provider has over 50mb of uncongested upload they wont give me more then 5mbps up, i only get 100/5, however once they put me on 2 more downstream channels i will have the 250/15 available
I think they will do what they have always done: all of the above. They have upgraded equipment to new docsis standards They have reconfigured their spectrum to make more internet channels available They have bonded channels / increased number of bonded channels They have split crowded nodes I'm sure they have done other things as well - but it is not an "either/or" question. |
|
| |
the doc is old but if you do a search for fiber and cablevision you can see the doc from 2012 of the nodes that are being split. . Cablevision is actively splitting nodes that have 300+ homes on them. |
|
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |
to 18286719
said by 18286719:RARPSL, i think splitting nodes making less users per node makes more sense then having 16 channels per node and only giving 8 to one customer, my node has 4 QAM 64 3.2 channels for upstream, yet my modem usually just uses 2 cause it doesnt need more, so in away what u were talking about is already happening with my upstream, tho my cable provider has over 50mb of uncongested upload they wont give me more then 5mbps up, i only get 100/5, however once they put me on 2 more downstream channels i will have the 250/15 available
Is that is "only assigned 2 channels" or "is assigned 4 channels or only uses 2"? I agree that splitting nodes is one solution. OTOH, assigning a mix of channels is easier to do. Whenever you boot your modem, it is told what channels to use. Thus so long as there are more channels on the node than the number being assigned to one user, they can be reassigned by just forcing a modem reboot. Doing a split is more effort than just uploading the user's settings and downloading them to the modem. |
|
| |
Being able to dynamically pick any 4 channels has more overhead than being assigned one or two groups of 4. Such a large percent of people with Docsis 3 modems have 8 channel modems, so it makes sense to say "if someone with 4 channels has DL issues, give them an 8 channel modem" rather than making changes to possibly give a slight boost in performance. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2013-Aug-2 12:22 am
said by frdrizzt:Being able to dynamically pick any 4 channels has more overhead than being assigned one or two groups of 4. Such a large percent of people with Docsis 3 modems have 8 channel modems, so it makes sense to say "if someone with 4 channels has DL issues, give them an 8 channel modem" rather than making changes to possibly give a slight boost in performance.
The modem is not dynamically picking 4 channels. When it does its initial handshake with the head end, it is sent a set of settings. If it is a 4x4 modem the settings say to bond to download channels 1-4. If it is an 8x4 modem, then the setting says bond to download channels 1-8 - IOW: Everyone bonds to channels 1-4 with the 8x4 modems also bonding to channels 5-8. Thus there is congestion on channels 1-4 (since everyone uses them) and channels 5-8 are used to relieve some of the load for 8x4 modems. If half of the 4x4 modems on the node were assigned channels 5-8 in lieu of 1-4 they would get better performance since they are only competing with 8x4 modems and other channel 5-8 4x4 modems not all modems on the node. |
|
| |
That is still dynamically picking if it is being load-balanced like that, though not as much as I thought you were suggesting (only 2 groups instead of 70, if my math is correct), unless you statically assign some devices to 5-8 regardless of bandwidth utilized. Like I said though, in practice it really is a non-issue as most areas with bandwidth issues have problems pretty evenly spread across all the channels, and there are such a small number of 4 channel modems that it isn't worth it. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2013-Aug-2 6:57 pm
said by frdrizzt:That is still dynamically picking if it is being load-balanced like that, though not as much as I thought you were suggesting (only 2 groups instead of 70, if my math is correct), unless you statically assign some devices to 5-8 regardless of bandwidth utilized. Like I said though, in practice it really is a non-issue as most areas with bandwidth issues have problems pretty evenly spread across all the channels, and there are such a small number of 4 channel modems that it isn't worth it.
I will need to research how the load balancing is being done. IOW: Does the modem send 25% (or 12.5%) of its traffic through each channel or is it a case that it sees how much available bandwidth there is on each of its channels and then uses the lightest loaded channel for a transmission? This can affect if everyone on the node gets the same channels or if a better system is to have multiple groups of channels that are assigned to different users. The latter spreads the load across the channels since different users have different channels to load level over (however the load leveling is done). As to my comment about 4x4 vs 8x4 modems and splitting up the 4 channels assigned to the 4x4 modems, by doing this there is less of a load for the modem to contend with since there are less users the modem is sharing its channels with. Note that until there are more than 8 available download channels, the issue of not sharing all the channels with all the modems is moot (unlike the 4x4 case) since there is no way to spread the load across the modems on the node. Thus the different set of channels scenario is a quick way to get some of the same effect as a node split - there is less contention between users on the node. |
|
| |
to majortom1029
This is really good... it puts them in a great position to offer the 24/8 channels in the future. It also will probably catch Verizon behind the curve on upgrades when new tiers come around. Between that and automatic ultra 101 retention upgrades at $45 a month, they've got Verizon beat.
I've got FIOS 50/25, they never offered me a twice the download speed upgrade for free. |
|
| |
to RARPSL
said by RARPSL:said by frdrizzt:That is still dynamically picking if it is being load-balanced like that, though not as much as I thought you were suggesting (only 2 groups instead of 70, if my math is correct), unless you statically assign some devices to 5-8 regardless of bandwidth utilized. Like I said though, in practice it really is a non-issue as most areas with bandwidth issues have problems pretty evenly spread across all the channels, and there are such a small number of 4 channel modems that it isn't worth it.
I will need to research how the load balancing is being done. IOW: Does the modem send 25% (or 12.5%) of its traffic through each channel or is it a case that it sees how much available bandwidth there is on each of its channels and then uses the lightest loaded channel for a transmission? This can affect if everyone on the node gets the same channels or if a better system is to have multiple groups of channels that are assigned to different users. The latter spreads the load across the channels since different users have different channels to load level over (however the load leveling is done). As to my comment about 4x4 vs 8x4 modems and splitting up the 4 channels assigned to the 4x4 modems, by doing this there is less of a load for the modem to contend with since there are less users the modem is sharing its channels with. Note that until there are more than 8 available download channels, the issue of not sharing all the channels with all the modems is moot (unlike the 4x4 case) since there is no way to spread the load across the modems on the node. Thus the different set of channels scenario is a quick way to get some of the same effect as a node split - there is less contention between users on the node. In theory, it might help, but in actuality maybe 10% of docsis 3 modems are 4-channel. It won't have a significant overall impact, and I'd rather the people with 4x modems deal with them if they have a speed issue, rather than try to better accommodate them. Based on my modem octet counters on each frequency, it doesn't go equally. In the first 5 mins I had more data sent on first 4 frequencies. In the next 5 minutes I had about twice as much data on 3 of the 4 last frequencies. Small sample size, but I think it illustrates. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2013-Aug-2 11:37 pm
said by frdrizzt:Based on my modem octet counters on each frequency, it doesn't go equally. In the first 5 mins I had more data sent on first 4 frequencies. In the next 5 minutes I had about twice as much data on 3 of the 4 last frequencies. Small sample size, but I think it illustrates.
FYI: The octet counters are the sum usage by all the modems on the node. Thus they should have much that channel/frequency was used. The only way of telling how much it is being used is to snapshot the counts, wait for your measurement period, and do another snapshot. Subtracting the first counts from the second will tell you the usage for that period. Tracking the usage count changes would allow a decision on which channel to use (if you want to restrict a session to one channel as opposed to spreading the packets over multiple channels). |
|
| RARPSL |
to tmc8080
said by tmc8080:This is really good... it puts them in a great position to offer the 24/8 channels in the future. It also will probably catch Verizon behind the curve on upgrades when new tiers come around. Between that and automatic ultra 101 retention upgrades at $45 a month, they've got Verizon beat.
If you are talking about having 24 download and 8 upload channels on a node, then that can in theory be done with the correct equipment at the head end. I am not sure if such equipment is currently generally available yet. OTOH, even if the Headend is able to support this number of channels, the maximum number of simultaneous channels that an individual user can currently use with a generally available modem is 8 down and 4 up since that is the maximum that is supported by the modem. This does NOT say that different users can not be assigned different channels but that is not the same as allowing a user to use mode then 8D or 4U channels at a time. This restriction will ease once there are modems that can support more than 8 Download and 4 Upload Channels (like has occurred with the switch from 4x4 to 8x4 modems on the network. These is also the DOCSIS 3.1 standard which is being worked on which will also increase the number of channels (although part of that is the D3.1 modems will be more than 8x4 supporting). |
|
| |
Maybe a channel sharing scheme will be worked into the firmware.. as you don't need 24 channels for speeds under 100 megabits. These are for speeds from 300 to about 1 gigabit down and a few hundred megabits up. The standard is done (still some hardware debugging and firmware design/tweaking to develop) and will probably see production units coming off the factory lines by Q2 2014 for head-end testing & configuration. No cable company wants to be seen deploying this equipment and then destroying consumer confidence in it. Docsis has a good reputation. That's not to say various cableco's deployment schemes & node provisioning have all been great for the consumer (in the early days prior to the FCC becoming watchdog). You don't hear about thousands of these modems up and dying.
In the next 12-18 months this will force Verizon to begin installing new equipment for gigabit & GPON or risk losing broadband customers in the footprint. Verizon continues to sell a 15/5 plan to consumers.. the same speed download speed they were offering when FIOS began deployment (2003, if you don't remember). Wouldn't it be fair to say 150/50 would be a nice jump 10 years later at the same price? -- $49.95 |
|
