dslreports logo
 story category
Cable Eyes DOCSIS 3.1 For Faster Upstream Speeds
Comcast Calls Technology a 'Godsend in the Upstream'

Fortunately for the cable industry, the "competition" they face in the vast majority of their markets are cash-strapped telcos who won't be seriously upgrading user connections for years to come -- if ever. Still, cable's upstream speeds look a little pathetic in places they do see real competition from Verizon FiOS, Google Fiber or municipal fiber options. To that end, cable executives think that DOCSIS 3.1 and its use of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) will soon not only save their bacon on the upstream side, but do so in a highly spectrum-efficient manner.

Speaking at their recent trade show, Comcast CTO Tony Werner went so far as to call the technology a "godsend in the upstream":
quote:
DOCSIS 3.1 and its use of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) "is a godsend in the upstream," Comcast executive vice president and chief technology officer Tony Werner said...OFDM, a technology that’s already popular in the wireless world and tagged for the new DOCSIS 3.1 specs, will give cable access to a modulation scheme that’s expected to make existing spectrum about 50% more efficient. That could help cable operators avoid an operationally tricky “mid-split” that would widen the current upstream spectrum range from today’s 5 Megahertz to 42 MHz.
Comcast has been testing faster upstream speeds for some time, stating as early as 2010 that they were seeing speeds of 75-100 Mbps upstream speeds in the lab. DOCSIS 3.1 is still some time away: CableLabs is expected to complete the specs this year, though Werner doesn't see trials starting until 2014, with commercial products arriving in late 2014 or early 2015.
view:
topics flat nest 

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Glad not ready til 2015

I am glad Docsis 3.1 won't be ready until 2015. That gives me a couple more years on my current owned Docsis 3 cable modem until I have to buy a new CM to handle Docsis 3.1.
Wilsdom
join:2009-08-06

Wilsdom

Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

Stupid logic, you're "glad" to have mediocre service? Not to mention 3.1 is backwards compatible, so you could stick with the old speeds while those who invest in new equipment get better service

Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21

Cabal

Premium Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

No one said anything about mediocre service.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

1 recommendation

tiger72

Premium Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

you're right. Just terrible logic.

palmer73
@comcast.net

palmer73

Anon

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

No terrible logic if you are trying to get your money's worth out of a modem you possibly just bought.. think about it.. then the cable company announces the next day that they are upgrading and for whatever reason your current modem doesn't work or won't give you the speeds, then you have to go out and spend another 60-100.. so his logic seems right on point to me if you look at it from a spending point of view.

lkviewguy
join:2004-02-13
Chicago, IL

lkviewguy

Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

maybe you should pay more attention to this site and other so that you aren't suddenly surprised when new speeds come come out. Why should everyone have to suffer cause someone else is too cheap to buy a new modem for 100 bucks. Besides they are backwards compatible, enjoy your modem as long as you want, imma enjoy mine with the new speeds

DAOWAce
join:2006-10-25
Flanders, NJ

DAOWAce to palmer73

Member

to palmer73
Who buys cable modems? Looks like someone needs to question their choice of ISP instead of blame technology for improving.

2015 is way too far away; I don't see how Cable is going to keep up with Fiber if they're going to be that slow with improving specifications.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

said by DAOWAce:

Who buys cable modems? Looks like someone needs to question their choice of ISP instead of blame technology for improving.

People buy cable modems when the monthly rental can be offset in 12 months or so. And as far as choosing an ISP, most have a choice of cable(at 50/10 mbps) or Dsl(at 3/1 mbps). An easy choice, especially when the price differential is small.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

tiger72 to palmer73

Premium Member

to palmer73
said by palmer73 :

No terrible logic if you are trying to get your money's worth out of a modem you possibly just bought.. think about it.. then the cable company announces the next day that they are upgrading and for whatever reason your current modem doesn't work or won't give you the speeds, then you have to go out and spend another 60-100.. so his logic seems right on point to me if you look at it from a spending point of view.

His logic is terrible - this isn't rocket-science.

It's unlikely he's maxing out his cable modem as it is. Upgrading their end of the network doesn't mean the old consumer-end technology is obsolete. If anything the old modem will finally be more likely to max out thanks to updated infrastructure it'll connect to.

It's like comparing a Ferrari (docsis 3.1) and a Honda (Docsis 3.0). In the United States neither car can perform at their maximum since our infrastructure (roads) has speed limits and congestion. The Ferrari can go 190mph, and the Honda can go 120mph, but on our infrastructure they're only gonna go 70-80mph.

If you upgrade the infrastructure to allow for higher speed limits, BOTH cars benefit since NEITHER car was hitting their limits before anyways.

The same goes for Docsis 3.0->3.1. If you upgrade the infrastructure to support higher capacity, then all users benefit - even those without the latest-and-greatest.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Cabal

Premium Member

to Cabal
said by Cabal:

No one said anything about mediocre service.

however the competition against cable is just that
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I am glad Docsis 3.1 won't be ready until 2015. That gives me a couple more years on my current owned Docsis 3 cable modem until I have to buy a new CM to handle Docsis 3.1.

Wait, you actually have to BUY the modem? what kind of service is that?
That's really bad. All i have to do is go change mine at a whim with my ISP, no questions asked, no stupid fees for rental either.

To make matters worst, you actually have to buy a modem just to end up with yet another obsolete copper connection. that's really bad, i feel for you. =(
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

Obsolete?
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

said by openbox9:

Obsolete?

Yes. Fiber has made it obsolete and it's not a recent event either.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

Oh, ok. So since a medium isn't a thin string of plastic encased in a heavier plastic cladding, it's obsolete? What about the millions of miles of viable coax strung across the US that has a very real bandwidth capacity capable of serving real customers for the foreseeable future? It isn't obsolete. Will it be someday? Likely. Is it now? No.
tanzam75
join:2012-07-19

1 edit

tanzam75

Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

said by openbox9:

Oh, ok. So since a medium isn't a thin string of plastic encased in a heavier plastic cladding, it's obsolete? What about the millions of miles of viable coax strung across the US that has a very real bandwidth capacity capable of serving real customers for the foreseeable future? It isn't obsolete. Will it be someday? Likely. Is it now? No.

The fiber that ISPs are installing is glass-cored.

There is such a thing as plastic optical fiber (POF), but it is currently stuck in niche applications. The problem is that POF has attenuation of 20-40 dB/km, vs. under 1 dB/km for glass. This makes POF usable only for short-distance usage, as an Ethernet replacement.

Coax still has several years of headroom left. Until they hit the bandwidth wall, the cablecos will have a capex advantage over any FTTP competitor. After that point, everyone is on an equal footing.
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Bengie25

Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

said by tanzam75:

said by openbox9:

Oh, ok. So since a medium isn't a thin string of plastic encased in a heavier plastic cladding, it's obsolete? What about the millions of miles of viable coax strung across the US that has a very real bandwidth capacity capable of serving real customers for the foreseeable future? It isn't obsolete. Will it be someday? Likely. Is it now? No.

The fiber that ISPs are installing is glass-cored.

There is such a thing as plastic optical fiber (POF), but it is currently stuck in niche applications. The problem is that POF has attenuation of 20-40 dB/km, vs. under 1 dB/km for glass. This makes POF usable only for short-distance usage, as an Ethernet replacement.

Coax still has several years of headroom left. Until they hit the bandwidth wall, the cablecos will have a capex advantage over any FTTP competitor. After that point, everyone is on an equal footing.

In the lab, they can get COAX up to 10Gb over a few miles. In the lab, they can get fiber at almost 1Tb over 800 miles and well over 1Tb in the sub 2mile range(for cheap to). By cheap, I mean upwards of 12Tb/s fiber that is cheap enough to integrate into your cell-phone and has upwards of 2Km range. IBM is working with many companies to start using this new tech.

The difference between me getting 10Gb fiber and you getting 10Gb cable is I get all 10Gb to myself between me and my ISP, you have to share.
tanzam75
join:2012-07-19

tanzam75

Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

said by Bengie25:

In the lab, they can get COAX up to 10Gb over a few miles. In the lab, they can get fiber at almost 1Tb over 800 miles and well over 1Tb in the sub 2mile range(for cheap to). By cheap, I mean upwards of 12Tb/s fiber that is cheap enough to integrate into your cell-phone and has upwards of 2Km range. IBM is working with many companies to start using this new tech.

The difference between me getting 10Gb fiber and you getting 10Gb cable is I get all 10Gb to myself between me and my ISP, you have to share.

If money were no object, then of course, you go for the best technology available.

The problem with FTTP is that the bonds start accruing interest immediately, whereas you start out with a take rate of 0% and have to work for years to get it up to the targeted value. That's why Verizon stopped their FiOS deployments and concentrated on improving take rate. If they already spent the money, it's a sunk cost. But if they haven't deployed fiber, it's just not worth it to spend the money.

Whereas the cablecos have the ability to upgrade incrementally until they hit that 10 Gbps barrier. The cablecos haven't even hit the 10 Gbps limit for a 250-household node -- much less 10 Gbps per household. So, the cablecos have many years of runway left.

Eventually, of course, they run out of bandwidth and will have no choice but to deploy fiber. But the key is that they do not incur the capital costs of a fiber deployment until they actually need it.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

1 edit

Kamus to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Oh, ok. So since a medium isn't a thin string of plastic encased in a heavier plastic cladding, it's obsolete? What about the millions of miles of viable coax strung across the US that has a very real bandwidth capacity capable of serving real customers for the foreseeable future? It isn't obsolete. Will it be someday? Likely. Is it now? No.

I think you are confused... You are making arguments that don't change the fact that it's obsolete technology. You can make arguments all day in favor of copper. It still won't change the fact that those copper infrastructures were deployed with very different purposes in mind than internet access, many decades ago.

When it comes to data, copper has been obsolete for a lot more than just a decade. When was the last time you saw any long haul deployed with copper?

So yes, you can make valid arguments why cable companies and DSL providers will never, ever deploy fiber. But it still doesn't change the fact that copper is an obsolete technology.

Just in case you are still confused on what obsolete actually means. This is right out from wikipedia:

"Technical obsolescence usually occurs when a new product or technology supersedes the old, and it becomes preferred to use the new technology in place of the old, even if the old product is still functional."

So there you have it... just because DSL and cable still sell their old product. It doesn't change the fact that fiber can offer performance that is orders of magnitude higher for about the same price (if you were to start a new build from scratch)
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Glad not ready til 2015

I think you don't understand the definition and meaning of obsolete.
said by Kamus:

So yes, you can make valid arguments why cable companies and DSL providers will never, ever deploy fiber.

I've never made that argument, nor will I.
said by Kamus:

Just in case you are still confused on what obsolete actually means.

And just so you have a real definition, here's one from Merriam-Webster:
said by Merriam-Webster :

1 a: no longer in use or no longer useful (an obsolete word)
b: of a kind or style no longer current: old-fashioned (an obsolete technology)

I'll argue all day long that coax is still useful and very much a medium useful with current technology. You could've used several other words and I wouldn't have challenged your assessment, but I'll argue obsolescence.
said by Kamus:

just because DSL and cable still sell their old product. It doesn't change the fact that fiber can offer performance that is orders of magnitude higher

I've never argued otherwise, but that definitely doesn't make coax obsolete.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Puny upstream.

OK, other than in the PR blurbs... where is this actually significant? Will it give them more capacity for HD channels to use less compression and raise PQ? (Now that would be significant.)
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Puny upstream.

To improve the situation with low upstream speeds for cable Internet. DOCSIS 3.1 is long overdue.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Re: Puny upstream.

Yes, I know (as well as it being restated in the the news blurb). My point is though, what percentage of customers have any use at all for more upstream than they already have? 1%? 2? (Outside of these few, nobody's even pushing the existing "paltry" upstream speed limit.) It may currently be "anemic" by comparison, but by and large it doesn't matter anywhere outside of the comparison with those other mentioned providers. Hence, nothing more than a PR "war". And just another reason to keep raising prices.

On the other hand, every [TV] customer would like better PQ.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

1 recommendation

mackey

Premium Member

Re: Puny upstream.

said by GlennLouEarl:

My point is though, what percentage of customers have any use at all for more upstream than they already have? 1%? 2?

It depends on who's upstream speeds you're talking about. If you're talking Comcast then yes I would agree with you. However, those of us stuck with Time Warner are in dire need of faster upstream speeds. Wanna try some new 'cloud' service? Not gonna happen. Offsite backups? Prepare to mail a thumb drive or external HDD.

/M
dfxmatt
join:2007-08-21
Crystal Lake, IL

dfxmatt to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
It doesn't matter what the percentage is, because nobody has that choice at the moment. People can't even explore what they can possibly do with it because upstream is significantly restricted.

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON

pnjunction to GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

to GlennLouEarl
I know many people that upload things to sites like dropbox. It's a couple of taps on new smartphones to upload all camera pics to dropbox, and it's a smart thing to do since phones can get lost or die resulting in data loss. It's also very slow to do right now with 1 MBps upload.

And I know we're cynical here but if you just look at fixed speeds prices have been dropping in my experience (25mbps for $40 here these days). Nobody is putting a gun to people's heads and making them upgrade to higher speeds instead of staying slower and paying less. The lowest tier is unlikely to drop below $25, but now that tier is 6-7 Mbps instead of 0.5 Mbps around here.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Re: Puny upstream.

As a rule, we don't have slower/cheaper tiers available. I can get either FiOS or Comcast. The slowest tiers available are around 15/5, and the cheapest prices are around $70-75/mo.

Yes, I know there are many who do presently use their upstream for stuff and could use something faster. Still, they are--by far--the exception, not the rule. Now, if I had my way, every ISP would do what Google does with Fiber--one tier at one price and you simply go as fast as the [real, actual] network allows, and one tier that's rather speed-restricted but it's practically free so who cares. In other words, I'd like the price to reflect the cost. I'll likely "retire" from the Internet before I ever see that happen around here.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Puny upstream.

said by GlennLouEarl:

As a rule, we don't have slower/cheaper tiers available. I can get either FiOS or Comcast. The slowest tiers available are around 15/5, and the cheapest prices are around $70-75/mo.

15/5 is the slow speed, although 5 is quite a bit higher than the avg connection speed but that is FiOS. There shouldn't be anything less than that. $70 - $75 for an Internet connection?! of what speed? that is nuts.
said by GlennLouEarl:

Yes, I know there are many who do presently use their upstream for stuff and could use something faster. Still, they are--by far--the exception, not the rule.

When so many North American broadband connections are still at pathetically low levels of 2Mbps or less for upstream then I'd disagree. As connection speeds on the avg go up then I'd tend to agree but the avg connection speeds are still too slow.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Re: Puny upstream.

I just told you what speed. Check their websites (of course, there are some regional differences--what I referenced was for around here).

I'm talking about "typical", not "average". The typical person almost never uses more than 5/1. If you've got a house with 5 people where no more than 3 of them are expected to be "online" simultaneously, then you typically need only 15/3 (fluff it up to 15/5 if you like). That's life in the typical information superhighway lane.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Puny upstream.

said by GlennLouEarl:

I just told you what speed. Check their websites (of course, there are some regional differences--what I referenced was for around here).

So $70 - $75 for 15/5? Crazy. But looking at their site that includes TV service.

Where I am I am paying $45 CDN ($43 USD) for 25/2 cable Internet (no TV).
said by GlennLouEarl:

I'm talking about "typical", not "average". The typical person almost never uses more than 5/1. If you've got a house with 5 people where no more than 3 of them are expected to be "online" simultaneously, then you typically need only 15/3 (fluff it up to 15/5 if you like). That's life in the typical information superhighway lane.

What is typical or average is not the same as it was a few years ago. If people didn't use this stuff the providers wouldn't be upgrading their speed tiers across the board. 1Mbps up nowadays for the typical/average joe is too slow.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Re: Puny upstream.

Where you are isn't where I am, and both Verizon and Comcast do it pretty much the same everywhere else to the south of you. I'm so happy for you that your location is delightfully fast and cheap--congrats!

But since I am where I am ("the states"), and I don't plan to drop service in 6 months, nor want to get 1 or 2 other services in order to make the one I want to have cost a little less (meaning I don't want to pay Verizon and Comcast $150/mo in order to save $10 or $15 a month on Internet service), I guess I'm stuck with what's available here (along with some hundreds of millions of others). Oh, well... too bad, so sad.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Feel free, though, to continue ignoring reality.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Puny upstream.

said by GlennLouEarl:

Oh, well... too bad, so sad.

Ya, sucks to be you.
said by GlennLouEarl:

You really don't know what you're talking about. Feel free, though, to continue ignoring reality.

I could say the same to you.
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

As a rule, we don't have slower/cheaper tiers available. I can get either FiOS or Comcast. The slowest tiers available are around 15/5, and the cheapest prices are around $70-75/mo.

Apparently you don't know how to haggle. They only advertise that tier because of the 10,000%+ markup on it. All ISPs can and will give you a slower and cheaper connection if you call them up.

But you are moronically wrong about upload speed not mattering, even things that only millions of people use like play online games or video chat depend so much more on your upload then your download that it isn't even funny.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Re: Puny upstream.

One of my favorite quotes (paraphrased):
J: "Is being a moron like being high all the time?"

K: "No, it's like constantly being right."

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
Maybe this is a chicken and the egg scenario, maybe once more people have more symmetrical speeds, applications that utilize more upload will become more prevalent.

I always want more upload, I'm lucky enough to have FiOS though.
It's far from a useless upgrade.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Puny upstream.

said by MovieLover76:

Maybe this is a chicken and the egg scenario, maybe once more people have more symmetrical speeds, applications that utilize more upload will become more prevalent.

I always want more upload, I'm lucky enough to have FiOS though.
It's far from a useless upgrade.

Well most consumer Internet connections will not be symmetrical or close to it, but it is very useful to remove the ridiculously asymmetrical speeds all too common to cable as one such common scenario. As an example I just got off of a cable 18 / 512Kb tier and upgraded to 25 / 2. The problem with 18 / 512kb is it is enough upstream to download at full speed and nothing else. Now I can actually web browse and other things and not have an impact on downloading. Now I can actually use Skype and other similar video related services.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Puny upstream.

What client are you using? Windows XP? If the line quality is good (minimal or no packet loss), I believe other clients (Linux, Mac OSX and Vista+) will automatically increase the RWIN so that there are fewer ACKs. Fewer ACKs require less upstream bandwidth to keep the stream flowing.

Of course I do agree that 512Kbps upstream is very slow. I'm trying to think back over the years and I don't believe I ever had 512Kbps up. My first HSI plan circa Y2K was 512Kbps down and 128Kbps up. Over the years it went to 1.5/256Kbps, 3/768, 8/1, 12/2 and currently 15/3 with power boost. The boost will push data at me sometimes up to 100Mbps but it quickly settles somewhere between 20-30. Upstream is always around 3.xx.

CosmicDebri
Still looking for intelligent life
join:2001-09-01
Lake City, FL

CosmicDebri to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

Yes, I know (as well as it being restated in the the news blurb). My point is though, what percentage of customers have any use at all for more upstream than they already have? 1%? 2? (Outside of these few, nobody's even pushing the existing "paltry" upstream speed limit.) It may currently be "anemic" by comparison, but by and large it doesn't matter anywhere outside of the comparison with those other mentioned providers. Hence, nothing more than a PR "war". And just another reason to keep raising prices.

On the other hand, every [TV] customer would like better PQ.

I am on Comcast in Florida and we have horrendous, nay pathetic upload speed. Yes they doubled our download to 50 mb/s but the upload is still 2.56???? wtf is wrong with this picture??


•••••
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to GlennLouEarl

Member

to GlennLouEarl
No, it will however help with the anemic internet upload speeds.

To have more channel space they need to move to FTTH, then they can push 10Gbit over it easily giving you enough space for 4K/QFHD channels and ridicules internet speed.

K3SGM
- -... ...- -
Premium Member
join:2006-01-17
Columbia, PA

K3SGM to GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:

Will it give them more capacity for HD channels to use less compression and raise PQ? (Now that would be significant.)

No, they are talking specifically about the upstream path for cable modems, and trying to squeeze more capacity into the 5-42MHz existing space they are already using for it.

It won't give you more TV channels, DOCISS 3.1 will only prevent you from losing some of the TV channels you already have, or forcing them to be further compressed.

If they are forced to use anything above 54MHz they are eating up regular In-Band channels which are in the 54-870MHz range(1000MHz on some systems), and used for Video, VoIP Telephone and Downstream Internet.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

copper bandwagon

AT&T isn't exactly a piss poor Telco.. they have the coin to drop on select markets for FTTP, they just CHOOSE not to..

In part it's AT&T that lost in the big long distance wars with Verizon.. AT&T wanted to provide landlines in the northeast, but were pushed out by former Bell Atlantic & their lobbyists. Without landline in the northeast AT&T they promised the moon & stars for the Bell South merger and delivered squat to the southern states! They are probably worse off now than if they never merged in the first place. Bell South WAS eyeing fiber for it's most dense populations, but wanted a total strategy & pathway for FTTP/FTTC (possibly with coax where it made sense too).

••••••
adampsyreal
join:2012-10-13

1 recommendation

adampsyreal

Member

Fix Upstream Signal -to- Noise Ratio's!

Former cable guy / comcast NOC tech here
If the company would allow more time for quality work; then the upstream signal would be "clean" enough for most users anyway. (how often does Video on demand, or voice phone calls, or web page loading seem to lag? well, if the signal were consistently clean enough to actually make it out of the home; then we would all be better off)
[& don't jump in here & blame bad neighbor wiring; I have personally ensured that the houses around me are clean. the only thing left is the mainline. give those mainline techs the time they need already!]

Cthen
Premium Member
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI

Cthen

Premium Member

Really?

How can any cable company call this a godsend for upstream when they don't bother taking advantage of it on any DOCSIS version?

•••••

RyanThaDude
Indiana's No. 1 Zero
join:2004-01-24
Walkerton, IN

1 recommendation

RyanThaDude

Member

Better upload would be nice...

...but you and I know that cable companies are already stingy with the upload. C'mon, I can download at 20Mbps but only upload at 1? The capability of a faster upload is already there and they're not using it. What makes you think that DOCSIS 3.1 will help any?

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

1 recommendation

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

I just bought a new modem

I just bought a new Motorola SB 6141 to replace my SB 6120 that was acting up.

•••••••

antdude
Matrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US

antdude

Premium Member

I am still using DOCSIS 2

I have 10/1.5 for my TWC standard package. I could pay more for faster speeds, but uploads still not fast enough. I will wait for DOCSIS 3, but I doubt upload will be that much faster.

kittyburgers
join:2012-01-31

kittyburgers

Member

Modem Upgrades

I'm rather surprised that the 3.0 modems can't simply be firmware flashed to the newer standard. Are there any known modems that might have the capability to be flashed to any newer standard?
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

Re: Modem Upgrades

said by kittyburgers:

I'm rather surprised that the 3.0 modems can't simply be firmware flashed to the newer standard. Are there any known modems that might have the capability to be flashed to any newer standard?

3.1 is a big change. It is not just a speed increase.
Bill_F
join:2010-02-09
Huntsville, AL

Bill_F to kittyburgers

Member

to kittyburgers
Even if this was possible, we wouldn't know for sure until 3.1 is actually officially standardized.

Yucca Servic
join:2012-11-27
Rio Rancho, NM

Yucca Servic

Member

Interference

Broadcast, 2 way radio, Ham radio, outdoor lighting and more can and will cause degradation of usage of those frequencies. There is no hope of ever fixing these issues
no matter how much money or technology is thrown at the up stream needs. I will see Cable TV companies that can move to FiOS to save the up coming needs of customers.
Cable TV has limits on what the technology is possible of doing.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Interference

said by Yucca Servic:

I will see Cable TV companies that can move to FiOS to save the up coming needs of customers.
Cable TV has limits on what the technology is possible of doing.

MSOs are already looking at that for their fastest speed tiers and for brand new installs in areas with no pre-existing coax. Its the only option for the fastest speeds and only makes sense for a completely new install. For real? coax and the associated technology is not able to work magic?
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029 to Yucca Servic

Member

to Yucca Servic
Cablelabs is working on a docsis over fiber spec. So that cablecompanies can use existing docsis headend equipment to manage houses connected via fiber.

Also cablelabs is looking into wether docsis 4 should be fttp or not.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

Fah....

AT&T either sold out it's smaller midmarkets or was never in it just as Cox did. Second tier telco like Century Telephone and General Telephone controlled rural areas just as they do today. TV was by antenna if you lucky enough to get OTA signals at all in rural areas. Then came cable and 24-hour cycled news that was not terribly expensive. Out of this came Sprint, Verizon, Cox, TW, Comcast. When Cox and Verizon dropped small markets and smaller mid markets SuddenLink and Frontier emerged.

Nothing much has changed. If you are in the right market area you can get AT&T and Comcast/TW, or AT&T and SuddenLink. If not you get high priced second tier Century Link and a local cable in rural areas. The top 4 telco are killing POTS.

I so live rural. My POTS has been replaced with ADSL signal converted to analog and delivered over copper to the house. It is NOT POTS. They can deny all they want, but I never had a POTS phone stop working in rain, when the power failed or when the Internet was down. Regardless of the name or who provides it VoIP is NOT POTS. It never will be.

As far as speed? If you are rural America you download speed can vary from less than 1Mbps to 10Mbsp. Uplink can vary from .25 to .75. One barely supports VoIP, the other does not. The price for phone and internet can vary widely from $40 to $90.

Cable offers as much as 15/5 in some areas or much less. Where I live 15/5 is $150 bundled with phone. Naked is 4/1 plus top tier cable service. The end cost is close to $100 without phone. I pay $73 for uncapped 10/1 and unlimited VoIP over copper plus $50 for Dish TV, including all taxes. I think I am very lucky. Cable 10/2 is $60 plus cable service without VoIP phone. My TracFone works better than VoIP. There is no other competition. The nearest city with AT&T and Comcast are 50-55 miles from where I live. It is also 50 miles from Frontier.

Rural America has what it has until competition or a better service blows our way. I am not particularly hopeful.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

docsis 4

docsis 4 is also in later stage development and should see vast improvement approaching 1 gigabit upstream-- at least.
however, it will be 2015 at the earliest when we have affordable consumer grade 10-gigabit routers & network cards available in mass production. these things take time to ramp up..

much depends on telcos / competitors and what they can offer. the cable industry rarely does good things for the consumer out of the kindness of their hearts.. all industry decisions are focused on making MORE MONEY and almost nothing to do with the public /consumer interest.

•••