dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
24

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy to pflog

Premium Member

to pflog

Re: Getting 305/65

said by pflog:

said by IowaCowboy:

They could technically do it over coax by using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem with 8x4 channel bonding. No plant construction required, just have the customer pick up an 8x4 channel bonding modem at the CC office, change the billing code, and provision the modem accordingly.

Technically speaking, that is true with 8 channels if they were the ONLY person on those channels. 38*8 is 304 Mbps. That's not a lot of head room at all. All it'd take is one person on a 50/10 plan on the same channels and they're down 16-17%.

8x4 goes up to 343 Mbps downstream.

Source: »www.arrisi.com/product_c ··· UG11.pdf

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

still a poor use of bandwidth for that tier, and with the ability to use fiber/metroE shows the long legs of the HFC plant.

pflog
Bueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA

pflog to IowaCowboy

MVM

to IowaCowboy
MiB/s vs. MB/s, but ok fine, assume 343. It would still be asinine to provision a 300/65 connection over DOCSIS.
Thordrune
Premium Member
join:2005-08-03
Lakeport, CA

Thordrune to IowaCowboy

Premium Member

to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

said by pflog:

said by IowaCowboy:

They could technically do it over coax by using a DOCSIS 3.0 modem with 8x4 channel bonding. No plant construction required, just have the customer pick up an 8x4 channel bonding modem at the CC office, change the billing code, and provision the modem accordingly.

Technically speaking, that is true with 8 channels if they were the ONLY person on those channels. 38*8 is 304 Mbps. That's not a lot of head room at all. All it'd take is one person on a 50/10 plan on the same channels and they're down 16-17%.

8x4 goes up to 343 Mbps downstream.

Source: »www.arrisi.com/product_c ··· UG11.pdf

343 without factoring in overhead, 304 with. It mentions it right below where you looked .

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

1 edit

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

said by Thordrune:

343 without factoring in overhead, 304 with. It mentions it right below where you looked .

The Zoom 5341J also goes up to 343 with its 8x4 channel bonding.

Source: »www.zoomtel.com/products ··· iew.html

I think they should make the 305 available on the coax plant as well but for a lower monthly price and the $1.99 change of service fee if we pick the modem up at the office.

I also think the modulation also affects the speed. Our area is 256 QAM downstream and 64 QAM upstream.

Edit: I did not see 304 mentioned but a properly engineered HFC plant could achieve 305 by splitting larger nodes, ditching analog TV, declaring all D2 modems end of life (since D3 manages network resources better), adopting switched digital video, eliminate as much ingress as possible.

I also heard that DOCSIS 3.1 is possibly in the cards.

bobjohnson
Premium Member
join:2007-02-03
Spartanburg, SC

bobjohnson

Premium Member

Yeah, and while they're at it they should kick the other 200 homes off the node so you can actually get all the bandwidth and uptime that your enterprise QoS contract provides for you... All for $99 a month, right?

But seriously, with HFC you have fiber in your backyard. It would be a terrible business decision to completely saturate a node for one customer. If you have a NEED for 305/65 then you should also have the money for the installation cost.
Thordrune
Premium Member
join:2005-08-03
Lakeport, CA

1 recommendation

Thordrune to IowaCowboy

Premium Member

to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:

said by Thordrune:

343 without factoring in overhead, 304 with. It mentions it right below where you looked .

The Zoom 5341J also goes up to 343 with its 8x4 channel bonding.

Source: »www.zoomtel.com/products ··· iew.html

I think they should make the 305 available on the coax plant as well but for a lower monthly price and the $1.99 change of service fee if we pick the modem up at the office.

I also think the modulation also affects the speed. Our area is 256 QAM downstream and 64 QAM upstream.

Edit: I did not see 304 mentioned but a properly engineered HFC plant could achieve 305 by splitting larger nodes, ditching analog TV, declaring all D2 modems end of life (since D3 manages network resources better), adopting switched digital video, eliminate as much ingress as possible.

I also heard that DOCSIS 3.1 is possibly in the cards.

Overhead is overhead, there's no getting around it. It's like saying that you get 54 Mbps on 802.11g wireless, or 480 Mbps with USB 2.0. It just isn't going to happen. They quote the theoretical max because it is easy to calculate. Real-world numbers will always vary, and will always be below the theoretical max. 305 Mbps downstream on 8 channels isn't going to happen. I don't expect Comcast to attempt it via DOCSIS until 16 or 24-channel bonding is around.