O Canada! → Canadian → Shaw > [AB] Whats Next?

Re: [AB] Whats Next?

Why is there a brick wall on upstream? Grab analog channels 2-6 for the sub 100 MHz frequencies, as far as I know, Shaw is only using 4 3.2 MHz channels for upstream, boost that to 4 6.4 MHz, and that could give them a significant boost.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

lol exactly what kevinds said, im curious where your getting this info from about adding more downstream channels, i have heard or 12 or 16 channel modems but that is not part of the original docsis 3 standard wich maxes out at 8 channels (304mb) down, so giving more then 250 wich is over 80% of the available bandwidth makes no sense, upstream on the other hand has a long way to go as shaw is only maxing even the 250 customers out at 15mbps, not even 15% of the max available upload bandwidth on a 4 channel upstream system, wich shaw has in place, and all shaw modems are 8X4, as i stated earlier and what kevinds said in his last post, upstream has a long way to go on docsis 3 for shaw, incase you missed what i said, optimum users can get 38mbps up (and they have the same available upstream bandwidth as probably 80-90% shaw customers, wich about 54mbps, shaw could give most people the same 38 mbps up if they wanted......
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

You make it seem so simple Connor. If only in reality it was that simple. Or if we had flying carpets, or magic wands.

ive done extensive research on the issue, but ill promise you that the amount of upload channels and bandwidth shaw has available on my line and many others is 100% identical to the bandwidth and amount of channels used to give users 15 down, and im also fairly certain shaw could make new plans for the 250 users bumping them upto 30 mbps up, its definitely alot simpler then i thought it was in the beginning, shaw likes to make it sound hard lol
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

sorry but incorrect, the channels are already in place, more spectrum could be needed to take shaws standard 4 3.2MHz channels and make them bigger 6.4 channels, but like i said earlier the 4 3.2 channels shaw has in already has enough for 60mbps, if they weant upto 6.4 wich is the logical next step (and requires only about 12.8MHz of bandwidth) the fact has been proven they have much more upstream available then even there highest plan will allow use off, its not about freeing up spectrum or anything, only thing that makes sense is shaw wanting to use that upload as something to charge us more money or make our plans better incase of competition (even tho if they were waiting for competition to do it u think it would already be done)
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

if you say so, id expect them to be trying to make the 250 available to everyone first, but if you say so, personally i dont think shaw will ever use 6.4 wide channels for upstream on docsis 3, though they probably could, guess only time will tell
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

already using 4 QAM64 upstream channels on 80-90% (my guess) of customers (pretty much anyone who even has bb100 available), i know im on 4 QAM64 up channels, and i kno that everyone who has the 250 is aswell........ the main difference if im correct between bb250 and bb100 qualified areas is ONLY 2 downstream channels, nothing has to be done to upstream
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

and no one on optimum is on 4 6.4 channels anyway, which you said in on of the above posts, most optimum customers getting the 35-38 up are only on 2 6.4 channels wich is exactly the same as shaws 4 3.2 channels, it just makes more sense to have 2 6.4 channels......
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

when i said 2 downstream channels i should have said 2 additional downstream channels, 6 is very standard for shaw now +2 gives you the full 8, and like already stated ,most already have 4 upstream at QAM64 3.2
and to answer your question about how many people on a node can share 54mbps throughput, if everyone had 5-10 up (bb50/5 and 100/10) you could fit alot of people on a node before getting upstream congestion, i would guess/assume downstream congestion would come a hell of a lot sooner, hell you could probably have 10-15 users getting 30mbps of the 54 and not even have very much congestion, i would say its uncommon for the average user to use more then 5mbps up, and upload is something that isnt used very much, it just needs to work fast when it is used
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

What's next? Until the government allows foreign competition to enter the Canadian market and offer far better speeds with prices more appropriate with today's market, I see Shaw just treading in the waters, sitting back doing as little as possible to impress it's clients.

No, first the government should split everyone up into three companies.

First, the natural monopoly last mile provider. These guys provide you the lines to your house from a central office or location.

Next, a service provider. These provide services over the last mile provider. This can be TV, internet, phone, whatever.

Finally, a content provider. These guys provide the content for the service providers - what we traditionally called a TV station.

Basically split up all the companies into these three. The last mile providers will be regulated as providers because there will naturally be very little competition (you'll have phone lines, cable, fiber, satellite, etc). All they provide is a data pipe to your house. That's it. That pipe doesn't have any connectivity attached. It's just a data pipe.

The service providers are what connect you to your traditional service. To make it more interesting, these service providers must interoperate - if you really want Telus internet service over cable, you can have it. These are expected to naturally compete - Telus, Shaw, Bell, Rogers, TekSavvy, Videotron, etc. You can mix and match - Internet from Shaw, phone from Telus, TV from Bell, all over the same line(s).

The content providers provide content to the service providers.

With all the companies working independently from each other, things should work better. If a content provider doesn't want to service Shaw customers, that's their loss in ratings and ads and all that. But a Bell content provider would wnt to provide content (at a fee) to Shaw because it's more money. There's no value in being "limited" to Bell.

And all the technology should interoperate - whether the customer provides the equipment or the provider does. Thus, if you wanted a cable box, you CAN buy one from the US where they're cheaper and use it. Or a used one off Craigslist. No longer are you limited to purchasing equipment from a provider. All standardized.

If we break infrastructure from service, things should improve, because infrastructure is espensive to maintain and a natural monopoly. Service is not.

Likewise, we should do the same for cellphones - the people who own the towers give you a dumb pipe. You can choose to buy your phone service from anyone who will give you the phone number, data connectivity, texts, etc.

Don't see it working so well for cell phone companies, spectrum and access to an area - Telus with 1000 active users in a location and Mobilicity with 2, dealing with congestion for example, and because cell phones move, how would the 'pipe' company charge people (percentage of the final bill maybe)?

But for home services, yes, I am all for this, like I posted a bit above, local 'company' providing and maintaining a fiber connection to each home, run it with the electricty - if a home isn't connected to the electric grid, there is a good chance it's not going to want fiber service (yes, there are homes that are connected, but shut-off because they generate their own power)

From what I have seen, Shaw has the cheapest 'boxes' right now, in the US, generally, you can't buy them, they are all rentals that I have seen.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

Im not going to Lie.

I wish Every municipality was the last mile providers. The federal gov could give them a grant to install fiber from a central office and they would get everyone wired.

Then the providers could tie into the CO and who knows maybe that woulda sped up adoption of high speed possibly pushed the connection speeds up while pushing the cost down.

If a provider only had to run a line to the co they could use large stranded fiber line at a cheaper cost then wiring each individual neighbourhood

I think it is quite clear that cable has a better roadmap than dsl over say the next 5 years at least.

It has been like that for the last decade too.

brad, how does it not look that way to you, when you say the MSOs are rolling out FTTH
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.

lol my friend told me he had really good internet cause he had xfinity the other day (comcast cable) and it was hard to explain like, well your internet could be good, or it could be shit if all your neighboors are using it, and then i explained and he was like ya maybe for 1% of customers, lol facepalm
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U

I know, By cable he means coax.

But if DSL wasn't dead/dying, the DSL providers wouldn't be changing to deploying fiber instead.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.