OpTiC Premium Member join:2014-03-08 West Covina, CA |
to buzz_4_20
Re: Clueless Rep? MAXX upgrades for Northern Maine?More like 3 years to me |
actions · 2014-Jun-30 8:13 pm · (locked) |
|
to buzz_4_20
It's about what Time Warner Cable can dish out. Exactly! It's not what's possible to obtain with the modem. I understood that from the beginning. I'm not arguing the fact that, "On the TWC Network, the Motorola SB6141 can get speeds of 300Mbps/100Mbps+." All I'm saying is that doesn't mean it won't ever obtain those speeds on another/different network (ISP). |
actions · 2014-Jun-30 9:12 pm · (locked) |
|
hobgoblinSortof Agoblin Premium Member join:2001-11-25 Orchard Park, NY |
said by xQim:All I'm saying is that doesn't mean it won't ever obtain those speeds on another/different network (ISP). Possibly then you should post your thoughts in those ISP's forums. Hob |
actions · 2014-Jun-30 9:24 pm · (locked) |
|
to buzz_4_20
Not sure how this turned into a modem fight :/ But I don't see these changes coming to Maine anytime soon. But what would be wrong with marginal improvements, say Ultimate to 100 and Extreme to 50? |
actions · 2014-Jul-1 9:31 am · (locked) |
OpTiC Premium Member join:2014-03-08 West Covina, CA |
to buzz_4_20
That means stop asking TWC and wait until detail is rolled out. Use your common sense |
actions · 2014-Jul-1 1:19 pm · (locked) |
maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
to xQim
said by xQim:It's about what Time Warner Cable can dish out. Exactly! It's not what's possible to obtain with the modem. I understood that from the beginning. I'm not arguing the fact that, "On the TWC Network, the Motorola SB6141 can get speeds of 300Mbps/100Mbps+." All I'm saying is that doesn't mean it won't ever obtain those speeds on another/different network (ISP). In theory, you are correct. But I am willing to bet that any ISP that has at least half-assed network engineers, will also want to spread the bandwidth as much as possible, and will likely configure their networks in a similar way. There a lot of things you have to learn about the differences between "theoretical speed" and "practical application". The same is true for hard-wired network cards, wireless networks, LTE capable phones, etc, etc... If you are buying a modem based on the maximum advertised speed, but did NOT do the research about the network it is going to connect to, you didn't do your homework. I saw the same happening 20 years ago. Look, a new shiny 56k modem was released! Lets dial-up on double speed! Only to find out that when they dialed in, it was the same 26400 bps they got on their 28k8 modems, because thats all the phone cable would support. |
actions · 2014-Jul-1 3:18 pm · (locked) |
maartena |
to xQim
said by xQim:Do you have evidence to prove that the Motorola SB6141 cannot get those speeds? Of course not. All it needs is a network which has each channel configured to the maximum bandwidth per channel. I'm sure some lab test will easily show it can get over 300 Mbps. You just won't get it on a TWC (or Comcast for that matter) network, because they have each channel provisioned for 20 Mbps instead of 38 Mbps. |
actions · 2014-Jul-1 3:20 pm · (locked) |
Steven94 join:2011-08-07 Jackson Heights, NY |
said by maartena:said by xQim:Do you have evidence to prove that the Motorola SB6141 cannot get those speeds? Of course not. All it needs is a network which has each channel configured to the maximum bandwidth per channel. I'm sure some lab test will easily show it can get over 300 Mbps. You just won't get it on a TWC (or Comcast for that matter) network, because they have each channel provisioned for 20 Mbps instead of 38 Mbps. Comcast provisions their channels higher than TWC. The SB6120/SB6121 are 4x4 modems that are supported on their Extreme 105 tier. In order for that to be possible, the channels must be provisioned higher than 20 Mbps. Based on that, at least 200 Mbps should be possible on a 8x4 modem like the SB6141 on Comcast's network. Source: » mydeviceinfo.comcast.net |
actions · 2014-Jul-1 3:33 pm · (locked) |
1 edit |
to maartena
said by maartena:You just won't get it on a TWC (or Comcast for that matter) network, because they have each channel provisioned for 20 Mbps instead of 38 Mbps. I've seen this posted multiple times now (not singling out you, maartena ) and I don't mean to be petty, but if we're gonna discuss technical topics, it should be accurate. They are not provisioning any channels for 20Mbps. DOCSIS channels work at predefined bandwidth rates based on the encoding being used. There's no changing that. TWC's channels all have 38Mbps of available bandwidth. They are not "capping", "provisioning", or "limiting" the channels in anyway. What they are doing is restricting the Ultimate 100, 200, and 300 config files to certain modem models. Bandwidth limits are set in the configuration parameters. They have sensibly (maybe?) chosen to restrict the 100Mbps config to 8x4 modems and the 200/300Mbps config files to 16x4 modems to avoid future congestion problems. |
actions · 2014-Jul-1 3:43 pm · (locked) |
maartenaElmo Premium Member join:2002-05-10 Orange, CA |
maartena
Premium Member
2014-Jul-1 4:32 pm
said by Thinkdiff:said by maartena:You just won't get it on a TWC (or Comcast for that matter) network, because they have each channel provisioned for 20 Mbps instead of 38 Mbps. I've seen this posted multiple times now (not singling out you, maartena ) and I don't mean to be petty, but if we're gonna discuss technical topics, it should be accurate. They are not provisioning any channels for 20Mbps. DOCSIS channels work at predefined bandwidth rates based on the encoding being used. There's no changing that. TWC's channels all have 38Mbps of available bandwidth. They are not "capping", "provisioning", or "limiting" the channels in anyway. What they are doing is restricting the Ultimate 100, 200, and 300 config files to certain modem models. Bandwidth limits are set in the configuration parameters. They have sensibly (maybe?) chosen to restrict the 100Mbps config to 8x4 modems and the 200/300Mbps config files to 16x4 modems to avoid future congestion problems. That clears things up. I have been repeating it since several others have said so in the forum, among which someone I may have deemed as a tech. Thanks for the clarification. And indeed, it still makes sense to spread out the bandwidth as much as possible, and have a requirement for 16 channel modems if you want the 200 Mbps and above plans. |
actions · 2014-Jul-1 4:32 pm · (locked) |
|
sensikal to maartena
Anon
2014-Jul-2 12:39 am
to maartena
said by maartena:You just won't get it on a TWC (or Comcast for that matter) network, because they have each channel provisioned for 20 Mbps instead of 38 Mbps. no cable company "provisions" a 38.8 meg 256QAM channel for half of it's available bandwith. what TWC is doing is trying to wisely manage bandwith. If what they did what you say...which they certaintly do not, it would have been wiser to do eight 38.8 mbps channels than the sixteen 20 mbps channels you claim they do now...I don't know how some of you guys come up with this stuff. |
actions · 2014-Jul-2 12:39 am · (locked) |