dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2088
share rss forum feed


MJB

join:2012-01-29

24 by 8 channel bonding modem for atpia

when will this be available for aggregated third party internet access
rogers released one...



elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

said by MJB:

when will this be available for aggregated third party internet access
rogers released one...

IMHO you'd need a gigabit connection to make use of this thing. 8x4 will easily deliver any current speeds for a looong time to come. The upcoming 2015 Docsis 3.1 protocol will only enhance the 8x4 modem's ability to deliver higher/future speeds on less bandwidth.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

I don't believe DOCSIS 3.0 will ever support more than four bonded return channels the same way it will never support more than 24 forward.



Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

1 edit
reply to elitefx

said by elitefx:

IMHO you'd need a gigabit connection to make use of this thing.

3 x 8 = 24
3 x 150 = 450

Therefor, fastest speed expected to be allowed on 24 channel bonding would be 450mbit (although I suppose Rogers will choose marketing, and call it 500mbit).

said by elitefx:

The upcoming 2015 Docsis 3.1 protocol will only enhance the 8x4 modem's ability to deliver higher/future speeds on less bandwidth.

I don't know.. Docsis 3.1 doesn't really appear to be close, and 2015 looks like a very speculative date.
»www.lightreading.com/docsis/docs···40135193
--
electronicsguru.ca


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

said by Teddy Boom :

3 x 8 = 24
3 x 150 = 450

Therefore, fastest speed expected to be allowed on 24 channel bonding would be 450mbit (although I suppose Rogers will choose marketing, and call it 500mbit).


Agreed. I was just offering off the top of my head. Rogers 150/10 is $122.99 till the Aug 24/2013 new price gouge. We'd have to win the lottery to afford Rogers 450/50 or whatever (what do you think? $500 a month sound about right?). I'll leave the speed/bandwidth numbers to you guys that know your stuff..............


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

CBB Capacity Based Billing will Balloon those "price" numbers up quite a bit more


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elitefx

said by elitefx:

The upcoming 2015 Docsis 3.1 protocol will only enhance the 8x4 modem's ability to deliver higher/future speeds on less bandwidth.

But actually having DOCSIS 3.1 on real networks is still a number of years away. Some CPE will be in the field but running in DOCSIS 3.0 mode by 2015. IMO you won't see it in 2015 on actual cable networks.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Gone

Why? Just because the chipsets do not exist now? 32x8 chipsets are in the works by both Intel and Broadcom. That is true about the upstream path, but having a 24 channel capable chipset at least allows for greater than 8 channels to be utilized.



BTC Kevin

join:2011-10-01
Nepean, ON
kudos:1

Real question is how many actually channels does Rogers have delegate for Docsis Internet on each local cable loop.

If they only have 8-256x3-64 on local loop of cable, then who cares about a 24x8 yet. Wouldn't see any benefit.
Now if they had 24-256x8-64 running then of course I'd be buying one.

But until Rogers drops the Analog TV stations to open up some digital channel space, ain't going to happen.



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

They'd also have to install D3.1 line cards on all their HFC equipment. Basically replacing all the D3.0 ones. Not a very cheap thing to do right off.

Anyways all told it'll be a while before we see anything of this nature around our neck of the woods. Lets just wait for the new tech to get ratified first eh?
--

!- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -!
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = @TwiztedZero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

Why? Just because the chipsets do not exist now? 32x8 chipsets are in the works by both Intel and Broadcom. That is true about the upstream path, but having a 24 channel capable chipset at least allows for greater than 8 channels to be utilized.

24x4 is the most that DOCSIS 3 in its current form. You can run more channels on a node, but it is the most that can be bonded simultaneously. Anything more than that and you're getting into 3.1 transitional stuff.

8 upstream channels is possible if they start to climb into low-band VHF and FM for return channels. As it stands right now, DOCSIS 3.0 doesn't support that beyond a very small extension. 3.1 very well could, I don't know for certain.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

They'd also have to install D3.1 line cards on all their HFC equipment. Basically replacing all the D3.0 ones. Not a very cheap thing to do right off.

3.1 and 3.0 can't co-exist on the same channels either the same way 1, 2 and 3 can, meaning you'll need an entirely different chunk of spectrum for 3.1 all the while maintaining the existing 1/2/3 spectrum until all your users are migrated over. 3.1 will be more complicated and expensive than the jumps between 1, 2 and 3 were.


TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

It was my understanding that 3.1 was backwards compatible with 3.0, was I wrong? I'm talking about the hardware technology not the actual "spectrums".



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by TwiztedZero:

It was my understanding that 3.1 was backwards compatible with 3.0, was I wrong?

Kinda. All 3.1 modems will support 1/2/3 and can be used on existing stuff out there now, but a DOCSIS 3.0 modem can't talk 3.1. This contrasts with a DOCSIS 1.0 or 2.0 modem, which can *still* talk to a DOCSIS 3.0 forward channel and nearly all or (in the case of 2.0) all of the return channel modulations.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

2 edits
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

They'd also have to install D3.1 line cards on all their HFC equipment. Basically replacing all the D3.0 ones. Not a very cheap thing to do right off.

That was implied by what I said. This requires new hardware at both ends.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to BTC Kevin

said by BTC Kevin:

Real question is how many actually channels does Rogers have delegate for Docsis Internet on each local cable loop.

If they only have 8-256x3-64 on local loop of cable, then who cares about a 24x8 yet. Wouldn't see any benefit.
Now if they had 24-256x8-64 running then of course I'd be buying one.

But until Rogers drops the Analog TV stations to open up some digital channel space, ain't going to happen.

It's not about what they have in the field now but what they can do if the appropriate CPE is rolled out.

Rogers has already dropped analog cable channels in the areas that matter the most for DOCSIS.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

It was my understanding that 3.1 was backwards compatible with 3.0, was I wrong? I'm talking about the hardware technology not the actual "spectrums".

Yes, as in the CPE can run in both DOCSIS 3.1 and 3.0 modes. It would be like plugging a VDSL2/ADSL2+ modem into an ADSL2+ DSLAM and expecting it to work in VDSL2 mode. DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1 utilize different spectrum and co-exist on the same cable plant.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

24x4 is the most that DOCSIS 3 in its current form. You can run more channels on a node, but it is the most that can be bonded simultaneously. Anything more than that and you're getting into 3.1 transitional stuff.

I find that questionable when I can see references to ISPs testing 32 bonded channel setups and CMTS vendors testing CMTS supporting 32 bonded channels. IMO Broadcom and Intel wouldn't bother creating 32x8 chipsets if it wasn't possible to utilize all of the channels. Broadcom has released their new 32x8 chipset and Intel will very soon. I'm not necessarily claiming it'll be possible in the "real world" as all too often test scenario setups are a more ideal environment over the real world setup, but I think it is possible using DOCSIS 3.0 tech.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

said by 34764170:

said by Gone:

24x4 is the most that DOCSIS 3 in its current form. You can run more channels on a node, but it is the most that can be bonded simultaneously. Anything more than that and you're getting into 3.1 transitional stuff.

I find that questionable

Indeed. I can't see why there is any limit on the downstream channel bonding at all. Upstream, if you stick with the 42MHz top end, you can argue that there isn't room for a full 8 channels. There is room for 4 wide and 4 narrow though..
--
electronicsguru.ca


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

said by Teddy Boom:

Indeed. I can't see why there is any limit on the downstream channel bonding at all. Upstream, if you stick with the 42MHz top end, you can argue that there isn't room for a full 8 channels. There is room for 4 wide and 4 narrow though..

This is what I had read with specific reference to the 24 channel limit.

»btreport.net/2013/04/docsis-3-1-···nd-back/

I suppose you could go 32 or more, whatever. Either way, all anyone is doing is tying together at the MAC level what is ultimately the exact same technology we've been using since the 1990s. Something's gotta give, no matter how many channels you bond. That's why 3.1 is 3.1.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to MJB

Personally I don't care about GigE speed Internet connections... yet; as in I probably won't care for at least a few years minimum. Last mile providers would be doing users a bigger favor rolling out 100+ to 200 Mb seed tiers en masse and for cheaper pricing as well as increasing the pathetically low upload speeds; any improvement there is a huge step forward. That is more beneficial over having small pockets of up to GigE speeds and most people on relatively slow speeds.



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

2 edits
reply to MJB

Oh and now I see where you're comming from... regarding the recent Newswire article from August 9th where rCable is announcing their yet another new D3.0 modem from Hitron Technologies, so they can fleece even more of their customers for the same 150/10 speeds by "marketing" them as "up to 450Mbit or 500Mbit" with a second modem model vs their slightly cheaper recent new8x4 one. Yikes.

I wish the Op mentioned this at the start of the thread, would've saved me some brain cells, there are only so many hours in the day to collect new information.

But anyways. . .

said by NewsWire.ca :

Rogers is the first carrier globally to launch the fastest 24 x 8 DOCSIS Wi-Fi modem powered by the latest Intel® Puma™ 6MG. Manufactured by Hitron Technologies Americas, the new modem communicates on both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz Wi-Fi frequency bands, utilizing high-powered radios to produce a better range and higher speeds. Third-party research conducted by Allion USA, a premiere international engineering validation and consulting company, determined that the new Wi-Fi modem is capable of delivering peak Wi-Fi speeds of up to 420 Mbps.

So we're looking at 24x8 bonded Docsis 3.0 eh? Interesting, well thats more than enough for me to wonder what ATPIA Vendors have in mind down the road sure enough.

Though my gut tells me we won't see any 24x8 units of our own until sometime after the next round of tariff talk with the CRTC and no doubt there are some cards still under the incumbents skirts that we'll have to navigate through and we're still not done with the last ones yet either.

I'm not even going to quibble about the frequencies and QAM's at this point until we start to actually see 24x8 capable units avail. to ATPIA vendors.
--

!- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -!
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = @TwiztedZero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4

Even though Rogers offers a 24x8 modem to their customers they aren't currently exploiting the potential. At the moment Rogers is simply marketing it's improved WiFi capabilities and charging a premium for that one reason.



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5

Yuh its called FLEECING.



BTC Kevin

join:2011-10-01
Nepean, ON
kudos:1
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

said by BTC Kevin:

Real question is how many actually channels does Rogers have delegate for Docsis Internet on each local cable loop.

If they only have 8-256x3-64 on local loop of cable, then who cares about a 24x8 yet. Wouldn't see any benefit.
Now if they had 24-256x8-64 running then of course I'd be buying one.

But until Rogers drops the Analog TV stations to open up some digital channel space, ain't going to happen.

It's not about what they have in the field now but what they can do if the appropriate CPE is rolled out.

Rogers has already dropped analog cable channels in the areas that matter the most for DOCSIS.

Rogers still has analog here.

They moved to requiring those cheep little Cisco digital-2-analog box's. And will not sell analog plans. But analog is still live on the line if ya remove the low pass filters they put on it.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to TwiztedZero

said by TwiztedZero:

They'd also have to install D3.1 line cards on all their HFC equipment. Basically replacing all the D3.0 ones. Not a very cheap thing to do right off.

It would also require replacing the routing engine, WAN backhaul uplinks and other components in the CMTS too further driving up the cost. That is also assuming the CMTS can be upgraded without any capacity constraints in the underlying platform. There are probably CMTS in the field from some vendors that will have to be replaced all together. Just thinking about that makes me see big $$$ in my eyes.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

This is what I had read with specific reference to the 24 channel limit.

"The next step past 24 channels would have involved new ASICs."

Which exist now. Anyway, 3.1 is the ultimate end goal but it is still a long way away. There is still quite a bit of room for growth with 3.0 in the years to go before 3.1 is rolled out. But they'll have to roll out more channels.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to BTC Kevin

said by BTC Kevin:

Rogers still has analog here.

They moved to requiring those cheep little Cisco digital-2-analog box's. And will not sell analog plans. But analog is still live on the line if ya remove the low pass filters they put on it.

They don't have to get rid of all analog to have some improvement. I'm not expecting the most ideal DOCSIS setup which would be to get rid of even digital and go all IPTV which is what Rogers already has on their roadmap and they'll be very aggressive about implementing. They got rid of some of the lower analog channels to improve the upstream situation and AFAIK they can still increase the number of downstream channels.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to 34764170

You're already using a quarter of an 860MHz plant's capacity at 32 channels. At that point, the cost/benefit ratio between sticking with DOCSIS 3 and extending the plant's capacity to 1GHz or 1.2GHz for additional channels or going full-bore into 3.1 starts to blur.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elitefx

said by elitefx:

IMHO you'd need a gigabit connection to make use of this thing. 8x4 will easily deliver any current speeds for a looong time to come. The upcoming 2015 Docsis 3.1 protocol will only enhance the 8x4 modem's ability to deliver higher/future speeds on less bandwidth.

You do know there are speeds in between what is currently offered and the maximum theoretical capability of the equipment? GigE networks are not expected to have sustained throughput all the time but the user very much benefits from that range of speed between 100Mbps and a full 1,000Mbps. If they're rolling out a modem like this it means they have plans for a faster speed tier in the future. Probably something like a 250Mbps tier. Something that will be rolled out 3 years from now does not do any good now.