dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
624
share rss forum feed

ronus

join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA

Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 Complete?

Complete. Really? I guess it depends on what you call "complete". The "complete" DOCSIS 3.0 spec. as I understand it bonds channels on UPSTREAM as well as DOWNSTREAM. If you your modem isn't boding channels on both then it's not truly "complete". While I have 4 bonded channels on DOWNSTREAM on my Blast tier, The modem only reports 1 channel on the upstream. Therefore in my area DOCSIS 3.0 is NOT "complete". Apparently, they really mean that they have only completed half of the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade.


mlcarson

join:2001-09-20
Los Alamos, NM

I'm not sure what happened in southern NM. I had downstream channel bonding for a while but then it disappeared -- the upstream channel bonding never appeared. Maximum download speed package still seems to be Performance at 15Mbs. Price was $84.46/mo for basic TV + HSI. I just cancelled for CenturyLink DSL which provides me 40/5 speeds at a cheaper price. Pretty sure Comcast considers Las Cruces one of those area they don't care about if ABQ is.



ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
reply to ronus

I have the same problems.



youarestupid

@mycingular.net
reply to ronus

How about a really? to your really? Who ever said that Comcast's DOCSIS 3.0 deployment was of full DOCSIS 3.0 specification? Or that they would ever be required to live up to that specification? Comcast is a business which exists to make a profit, not satisfy each and every customer to the same degree. You live in Dallas, GA, you should be grateful you have any service at all, let alone downstream bonding. Your $50.00 a month does not pay for them to deploy upgrades to every household in the US. Do you want faster internet and upstream bonding? Move to a densely populated area where it is economically feasible to have previous deployments of FiOS(or another ftth provider) or a deployment of DOCSIS 3.0 which includes upstream bonding. Have a good day


ronus

join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA

4 edits

To everyone reading this: If you click on the "youarestupid" in the post that this is a reply to, you will see that this person is an anonymous poster with no information. This proves that this person is a forum Troll (or they work for Comcast ). You can find the definition for Troll (internet) here:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
I have no idea of what the definition of working for Comcast is. Maybe "youarestupid" can enlighten us?



mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:8
reply to ronus

said by ronus:

The "complete" DOCSIS 3.0 spec. as I understand it bonds channels on UPSTREAM as well as DOWNSTREAM. If you your modem isn't boding channels on both then it's not truly "complete". While I have 4 bonded channels on DOWNSTREAM on my Blast tier, The modem only reports 1 channel on the upstream. Therefore in my area DOCSIS 3.0 is NOT "complete". Apparently, they really mean that they have only completed half of the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade.

As the spec doesn't limit the number of bonded channels then I guess they're not "complete" on the downstream either then as they don't have an unlimited number of channels bonded. It's not complete until I see listed as the number of channels bonded

A.k.a. your understanding is wrong. While the spec does allow for bonded channels, it does not require them.

/M

ronus

join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA

Your understanding of my point is wrong, not my understanding of the spec. It doesn't "require" them to bond channels. However I do not believe Comcast CMTs in my area are DOCSIS 3.0 compliant on the upstream. While they can bond channels on the downstream they can't on the upstream. My point is that they made the comment that their DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades were complete. It's not "complete" unless they are capable of doing it on the upstream also.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to ronus

said by ronus:

To everyone reading this: If you click on the "youarestupid" in the post that this is a reply to, you will see that this person is an anonymous poster with no information. This proves that this person is a forum Troll (or they work for Comcast ). You can find the definition for Troll (internet) here:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
I have no idea of what the definition of working for Comcast is. Maybe "youarestupid" can enlighten us?

Why is it always that when someone here disagrees with another forum posted, registered or anon, that they MUST work for the company that are posting in favor of? ... why are some people, such as yourself, so shallow in your thinking that some people just don't agree with your views and can have an opinion and NOT work for the party in which they support?

... seriously, when did you drop out of school? This kind of lunacy is what is known as trolling. Your post offers nothing to the topic at all.

ronus

join:2003-02-09
Dallas, GA

4 edits

Why is it that some people, such as yourself, can't post a disagreement without using insults such as "shallow", or "... seriously, when did you drop out of school?"? I have no problems with people who post disagreements with what I say. I do take issue when they use childish insults such as the poster whose user name "yourarestupid", which was intended in and of itself to be an insult to me, uses insults in their rebuttal such as "You live in Dallas, GA, you should be grateful you have any service at all". Disagreeing and debating are healthy things. And it's OK for "youarestupid" to disagree with me, but using ludicrous insults in the process shows a lack of respect and intelligence. I believe this person meant their post to be intentionally inflammatory which, by the definition I linked to, would make them a "Troll". By the way, your post offers nothing to the topic at all either.


fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Your response here isn't valid.. you're completely taking out one person (the guy I replied to) and laying the burden on me.

SOME of us enjoy having conversations with people that post something of substance - even when we disagree. However, the post *I* responded to is exactly what you're asking ME to answer to.

The poster that I replied to was in fact being shallow by all definition. He has nothing valid to respond with so he goes for a completely un-founded reply and accuses the poster for having some sort of financial or special interest in the point of topic. It is FAR more common for trolls around here to bash people who actually are in agreement with the viewpoint of the "big evil corporation" by accusing them (note, "accusing") them of being a sock holder, a corporate mouthpiece, etc. (those labels are plentiful around here)

That attack on posters is in-fact trolling and VERY common around this site.

Yet, I call that person shallow for having no substance to his post, accusation, and attack and it's ME you want to explain myself?

No.