FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ
1 recommendation |
FFH5
Premium Member
2013-Jun-27 12:18 am
Glad not ready til 2015I 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. | |
|
| |
Re: Glad not ready til 2015Stupid 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
2013-Jun-27 11:55 am
Re: Glad not ready til 2015No one said anything about mediocre service. | |
|
| | | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO
1 recommendation |
tiger72
Premium Member
2013-Jun-27 1:39 pm
Re: Glad not ready til 2015you're right. Just terrible logic. | |
|
| | | | |
palmer73
Anon
2013-Jun-27 4:20 pm
Re: Glad not ready til 2015No 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Glad not ready til 2015maybe 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 | |
|
| | | | | |
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
2013-Jun-28 11:33 am
Re: Glad not ready til 2015said 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. | |
|
| | | | | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
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. | |
|
| | | dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
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 |
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
2013-Jun-27 8:33 pm
Re: Glad not ready til 2015Obsolete? | |
|
| | | Kamus join:2011-01-27 El Paso, TX |
Kamus
Member
2013-Jun-28 12:21 pm
Re: Glad not ready til 2015Yes. 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
2013-Jun-28 5:21 pm
Re: Glad not ready til 2015Oh, 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. | |
|
| | | | | 1 edit |
Re: Glad not ready til 2015said 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 |
Re: Glad not ready til 2015said 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Re: Glad not ready til 2015said 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 |
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
2013-Jun-29 7:24 pm
Re: Glad not ready til 2015I 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. | |
|
GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
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
2013-Jun-27 1:15 am
Re: Puny upstream.To improve the situation with low upstream speeds for cable Internet. DOCSIS 3.1 is long overdue. | |
|
| | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
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
2013-Jun-27 9:47 am
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 |
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. | |
|
| | | pnjunctionTeksavvy Extreme Premium Member join:2008-01-24 Toronto, ON |
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. | |
|
| | | | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
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
2013-Jun-27 5:42 pm
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. | |
|
| | | | | | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
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
2013-Jun-27 6:43 pm
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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
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
2013-Jun-28 7:01 pm
Re: Puny upstream.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 |
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. | |
|
| | | | | | GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
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."
| |
|
| | | (Software) pfSense Asus RT-AC68 Asus RT-AC66
|
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
2013-Jun-27 8:18 pm
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
2013-Jun-27 10:17 pm
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. | |
|
| | | CosmicDebriStill looking for intelligent life join:2001-09-01 Lake City, FL |
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 |
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 |
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. | |
|
|
copper bandwagonAT&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). | |
|
| •••••• |
1 recommendation |
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
2013-Jun-27 5:06 am
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? | |
|
| ••••• |
RyanThaDudeIndiana's No. 1 Zero join:2004-01-24 Walkerton, IN
1 recommendation |
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? | |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA
1 recommendation |
I just bought a new modemI just bought a new Motorola SB 6141 to replace my SB 6120 that was acting up. | |
|
| ••••••• |
antdudeMatrix Ant Premium Member join:2001-03-25 US |
antdude
Premium Member
2013-Jun-27 9:49 am
I am still using DOCSIS 2I 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. | |
|
|
Modem UpgradesI'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? | |
|
| |
Re: Modem Upgradessaid 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 |
to kittyburgers
Even if this was possible, we wouldn't know for sure until 3.1 is actually officially standardized. | |
|
|
InterferenceBroadcast, 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
2013-Jun-27 7:02 pm
Re: Interferencesaid 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? | |
|
| |
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. | |
|
linicxCaveat Emptor Premium Member join:2002-12-03 United State |
linicx
Premium Member
2013-Jun-28 3:19 pm
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. | |
|
|
docsis 4docsis 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. | |
|
| •••
|
|
|