mikedz4
join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
 ·Comcast
| reply to jasqid
Re: 9 mbit might be in out future?!
you can go 240mph but i wouldn't unless you're jeff burton,kyle petty, dale jr or another race car driver cause we'll be hearing about you being buried soon afterwards. As for the 3mbps I hope it comes true soon. The question is how much more per month will we pay for it? I know 20mbps to the home is possible cause I talked to several people with companies in the process of planning my cable company and they said with fiber to the home with the best setup i could pump 20mbps down and 5mbs up to each home i pass (wouldn't that be awesome). But of course the charge for this would be like $75-$80/month. |
|
McGrupp2000
join:2001-11-30
Norristown, PA |  reply to mbernste
Brian is just PWI. |
|
racer9876
Defender Of The Universe
Premium
join:2000-07-03
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to mbernste
It would be nice to see those caps increased to 3Mbps but it will be awhile before we see anything like that. Even if they said they would implement it right now. It would take months to for them to the roll out because some areas are almost to the breaking point and the nodes would need to be split or the QAM setting raised which then raises the standards for the signal to reach the modem which in turns means they will have to do a lot of line work to make the SNR high enough to work with the raised QAM setting.
--
So many pretty buttons. |
|
TechnoScott
Premium
join:2003-03-25
00000
| reply to mbernste
WOW!! Nice to see they are thinking about giving us the speeds I USED TO GET ON THE @HOME NETWORK. Wow, what an innovation. I could care less about 3 mbit downstream. GIMME THE DA#N UPLOAD!! All I want to do is host a 20 person game server. Is that so much to ask??? |
|
racer9876
Defender Of The Universe
Premium
join:2000-07-03
Lancaster, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by TechnoScott  :
All I want to do is host a 20 person game server. Is that so much to ask???
Yes that is asking a lot because that requires upstream which the CMTS usually doesn't have. Read my post above for further explanation.
--
So many pretty buttons. |
|
TechnoScott
Premium
join:2003-03-25
00000
| reply to mbernste
I am fully aware of the current limitations of the CISCO CMTS and the QPSK encoding method in use. I am wondering why engineers refuse to implement 16 QAM when the throughput look so attractive in the upstream. I am fully aware of the amount of bandwidth available in the upstream when using QPSK with 3.2 MHz channel width and, its NOT MUCH to write home to mom about. I wonder if it is coincidental that for every downstream spigot on a blade, there are 6 upstream spigots. That seems the be the ratio from downstream to upstream bandwidth on a card. 1 64 QAM downstream is about equal to 6 QPSK upstreams. The only way my dream will come true is if we get MASSIVE network segmentation. If we did that, the FCC would rule us a monopoly since the service would stomp everyone elses service and then I'd be out of a job.  |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| said by TechnoScott :
I am fully aware of the current limitations of the CISCO CMTS and the QPSK encoding method in use. I am wondering why engineers refuse to implement 16 QAM when the throughput look so attractive in the upstream. I am fully aware of the amount of bandwidth available in the upstream when using QPSK with 3.2 MHz channel width and, its NOT MUCH to write home to mom about. I wonder if it is coincidental that for every downstream spigot on a blade, there are 6 upstream spigots. That seems the be the ratio from downstream to upstream bandwidth on a card. 1 64 QAM downstream is about equal to 6 QPSK upstreams. The only way my dream will come true is if we get MASSIVE network segmentation. If we did that, the FCC would rule us a monopoly since the service would stomp everyone elses service and then I'd be out of a job.
QAM upstream is not used because there are far too many problems with maintaining the quality of the signal needed for it to work efficiently. It's just like saying all providers should switch to GI's 256 QAM system just because the benefits are attractive
--
Forum Posts:2800 |
|
Agent 86
| reply to TechnoScott
"The only way my dream will come true is if we get MASSIVE network segmentation."
What's needed, IMHO, is a much more advanced cable modem standard. DOCSIS 2.0 does not approach the theoretical limit of an upstream channel. And the downstream channel could be made *really* wide - even 1000mb/s is not unthinkable. |
|
mbernste
Boosted
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ
·Comcast
·Optimum Online
| reply to Qumahlin
said by Qumahlin :
QAM upstream is not used because there are far too many problems with maintaining the quality of the signal needed for it to work efficiently. It's just like saying all providers should switch to GI's 256 QAM system just because the benefits are attractive
Actually, from what I understand Comcast is using Motorola's 256 QAM system on the TV side. Used for VOD and HD. Considering how many people have upstream issues (myself included), I don't think 256 QAM is feasible for such "fragile" data streams such as computer data unless Comcast is willing to spend a heap of money fixing and upgrading their classic systems. Right now Comcast has its hands full getting their AT&T areas up to the same infrastructure as Comcast "classic."
Why do all of my posts that involve ATTBI sound like ads for Coca-Cola?
--
Cable survey results: »mywebpages.comcast.net/mbernste/···rvey.htm
Uncensored Comcast Group »groups.yahoo.com/group/comcast_cable
Watch Comcast execs get grilled »mywebpages.comcast.net/mbernste/···ing.html |
|
airwingjim
Euclid314
Premium
join:2001-08-05
Denver, CO
| reply to TechnoScott
said by TechnoScott :
WOW!! Nice to see they are thinking about giving us the speeds I USED TO GET ON THE @HOME NETWORK. Wow, what an innovation. I could care less about 3 mbit downstream. GIMME THE DA#N UPLOAD!! All I want to do is host a 20 person game server. Is that so much to ask???
******************************************************
AMEN
--
Dell 8200, 1.9GHz, P-4, PC-800, 640 RDRam, WinXP home, 128MB GF-4 Ti4200, THX 5.1, TB SantaCruz.* Logitech QuickCam, Lexmark Z43 printer, HP ScanJet 3300C, 19" Mitsu***USMC~Vietnam 69-70~100%disabled~Quang Tri Pr. Chu-Lai, DaNang, BenWa. DAV,VFW,VVA. |
|
mikedz4
join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
·DIRECTV
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast Digital Vo..
·Comcast
| from what i heard comcast wants to upgrade to docsis 1.1 by the end of the year,hopefully by the end of the summer. That means faster download speeds. They are wanting to get docsis 2.0 out by the end of the first half of next year. Does this mean comcast will be swapping out my rca 235 modem? |
|
mbernste
Boosted
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-30
Piscataway, NJ
·Comcast
·Optimum Online
| Well, by now all non-AT&T areas have been converted to DOCSIS cable modems. If you have the TJ615 or 715 then the cable modem is capable of supporting DOCSIS 2.0. Considering that 2.0 is downward compatible with 1.1, anyone with a DOCSIS modem should be able to take advantage of any DOCSIS changes (at least in the 1.1 spec) that Comcast implements.
--
Cable survey results: »mywebpages.comcast.net/mbernste/···rvey.htm
Uncensored Comcast Group »groups.yahoo.com/group/comcast_cable
Watch Comcast execs get grilled »mywebpages.comcast.net/mbernste/···ing.html |
|
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| In addition, DOCSIS 2.0 CMTS units are also compatible with DOCSIS 1.0 cable modems.
said by mikedz4 :
from what i heard comcast wants to upgrade to docsis 1.1 by the end of the year,hopefully by the end of the summer. That means faster download speeds.
While the evolution of DOCSIS increases the bandwidth capacity between the CMTS and the customers, the limiting factor for most users is the cap assigned to the cable modem. An update to DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0 will not automatically result in higher user speeds. |
|
draven
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-20
my bunker
Host:
General Questions
No, I Will Not Fix..
| reply to Kommie
said by Kommie :
P2P should not be banned. You gaming folks take just us much bandwidth as we P2P folks do.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZT! I'm neither a P2P guy or a hardcore gamer, but where did you come up with the reasoning behind that statement? Most games require a variable 5-10KB max upstream, whereas P2P will theoretically consume the most upstream it can unless you throttle it.
However, that being said, I still feel allotted bandwidth is just that and you should be allowed to do with it as you please. My 256k upstream is the same as yours!
--
"It's ironic that a computer manufacturer is teaching the record industry the next step, and so far, that's what's happening." -- Singer-songwriter Janis Ian, on Apple's iTunes service.
Take notes, RIAA. Take lots of notes. |
|
TechnoScott
Premium
join:2003-03-25
00000
| reply to mbernste
Us gaming folks do NOT USE as much bandwidth as you P2P users. I run a 10 person game server. It is not a full server all the time. KaZaa users typically have uploads enabled and supernode on and are sharing something 24/7. I know this because I see it every day on the job. As for the 16 QAM and plant quality issue. They should do it so the flaky maintenance people who don't know crap will either jump in the fire and be heroes or they will crash and burn. Either way, IMO, the cable industry needs to be turned upside down. Give the young guys the chance to run a 16 QAM upstream system instead of letting the old cable farts run around not knowing what the hell is happening in the system. It is pretty sad when an HSI technician has to diagnose a plant problem for a maintenance person just to get things fixed. However, I happen to work in a system where MOST of the maintenance people are very qualified to manage the return path. But, there are too many idiots still in the maintanence departments nationwide that need to either learn their poop or get the hell out. I know of so many smart and talented people that are just waiting to get a chance to maintain plant 10X better than the folks that are doing it now. I have heard the arguement about maintenance people and 16 QAM before and think its bogus. Force it on them and they will either crash and burn or be heroes. How is that any different than any other product roll-out that we do in cable. Fly or die I say and let the technology weed out the idiots. I get riled up because I see ENDLESS potential in cable broadband that is going UNTOUCHED by and large. VOD and HDTV?? Who cares??? Enhance the data services and optimize them and Comcast owns the nation. From where I sit the whole issue is a matter of money.... Everyone is too afraid to spend some capital to make money in the long run. |
|
AthlGrond
Premium,MVM
join:2002-04-25
Aurora, CO
·Comcast
| reply to djdanska
said by djdanska :
said by Kommie :
You gaming folks take just us much bandwidth as we P2P folks do.
Let the flaming begin.
AHAHAHA, no doubt all you email users use just as much bandwidth too!
LOL |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to TechnoScott
said by TechnoScott :
Us gaming folks do NOT USE as much bandwidth as you P2P users. I run a 10 person game server. It is not a full server all the time. KaZaa users typically have uploads enabled and supernode on and are sharing something 24/7. I know this because I see it every day on the job. As for the 16 QAM and plant quality issue. They should do it so the flaky maintenance people who don't know crap will either jump in the fire and be heroes or they will crash and burn. Either way, IMO, the cable industry needs to be turned upside down. Give the young guys the chance to run a 16 QAM upstream system instead of letting the old cable farts run around not knowing what the hell is happening in the system. It is pretty sad when an HSI technician has to diagnose a plant problem for a maintenance person just to get things fixed. However, I happen to work in a system where MOST of the maintenance people are very qualified to manage the return path. But, there are too many idiots still in the maintanence departments nationwide that need to either learn their poop or get the hell out. I know of so many smart and talented people that are just waiting to get a chance to maintain plant 10X better than the folks that are doing it now. I have heard the arguement about maintenance people and 16 QAM before and think its bogus. Force it on them and they will either crash and burn or be heroes. How is that any different than any other product roll-out that we do in cable. Fly or die I say and let the technology weed out the idiots. I get riled up because I see ENDLESS potential in cable broadband that is going UNTOUCHED by and large. VOD and HDTV?? Who cares??? Enhance the data services and optimize them and Comcast owns the nation. From where I sit the whole issue is a matter of money.... Everyone is too afraid to spend some capital to make money in the long run.
Comcast already has Docsis 2.0 systems in testing. There is no reason for them to set up ANOTHER test to test 16 QAM upstream. OR are you proposing your willing to piss off alot of customers bu just switching thier area to 16 QAM up and hoping it works. Have you ever stopped to think why NO cable isp currently (except for a small one I know of in brazil who just opened plant and all and only has a cpl hundred customers) uses QAM upstream?
--
Forum Posts:2800 |
|
mikedz4
join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
·DIRECTV
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast Digital Vo..
·Comcast
| is the rca dcm235 docsis 1.1 capable or will I need a new modem when they start using docsis 1.1 sometime this year? Also anyone that knows their stuff knows they can disable file sharing in kazaa or any other program for that matter as I have done that way the only bandwidth i use up is the download part. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state
| reply to mbernste
You won't see a 1.1 conversion, and if you did it wouldn't matter as 1.0 modems are backwards compatible. plans as of now are to jump to 2.0 and slowly replace those users who have 1.0 and 1.1 modems.
--
Forum Posts:2800 |
|
Thrawn2
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Premium
join:2001-04-09
Davenport, IA
·Qwest.net
| reply to mbernste
as for people who game using close to the same as P2P. Thats so false. When you game you are usally get less then 2k each way. But when we p2p im getting 200k down and 30k up. So even if i p2p for a short while. IT still over shoots my gaming if i played all week.
--
If i had the money i would do COKE. |
|
