  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Won't make a difference Unless the providers dedicate more 6MHz channels to HSI.
All this allows them to do is offer higher bandwidth to the end user (IOW offer the fat tier) but does little to solve the capacity crunch between the node and the head end.
This will be a benefit only after bandwidth is freed up (eg SDV, ditching analog, maybe MPEG4) and given to HSI. | |
|
 | |
| | | | Re: Won't make a difference NO, NO, NO IPTV! They'll be the proverbial heck to pay with shareholders like me if they adopt something like that when Comcast has a perfectly good PPV system that hasn't even come close to its full potential yet. | |
|
| | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Won't make a difference Lol.. having a good system doesn't mean they won't do it.
If they want to compete with FTTH in the long run, they will most likely do it anyways.
IPTV frees up a LOT of capacity in the last mile on any platform. It is more complex to run/manage than raw digital TV.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
 ·Comcast
 ·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by djrobx:Seems like this is targeted squarely at being the first step in an IPTV transition. TW has replaced all of our gear around here with 1ghz capable equipment. That would be the perfect place for them to find these extra 6mhz channels, because all of the older cable boxes and modems can't tune to that range anyway! i wonder how over compressed it will be
right now watching HBO is like playing a NES game
with 256 Colors
It makes DVD Quality video(Upscaled to 1080P) look like HD | |
|
| | | What capacity crunch between the node and the headend? That connection is fiber. | |
|
| | Why bother - Usage caps will stifle use Why bother - Usage caps being but in place by Comcast will stifle use. The higher speeds only let us reach the caps sooner. | |
|
|  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | Re: Why bother - Usage caps will stifle use said by Youngjm:Why bother - Usage caps being but in place by Comcast will stifle use. The higher speeds only let us reach the caps sooner. My Comcast speeds have multiplied over the past 5 years - my consumption has not.
I pay for speed, not volume.
1500kbps to now 16,000kbps(17,600 provisioned and 17,300 actual)
Instead of a large file taking hours, it now takes minutes.
Upload - 256kbps 5 years ago, now 2200kbps.
THIS may increase usage a bit now, but my combined usage on Comcast's network is still in the 30GB per month range.
With 320mbps, if the supplying servers could push it, my downloads would not be minutes but seconds.
I cannot see *MY* consumption increasing to anything remotely close to 250GB in a month - no matter what speeds I might have.
Screw the cap!
EDIT: Typo
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| yep. higher speed and usage caps are contradictory things - you don't do both, you do one or the other.
we know what the major cableco choice is in the near term (caps), which makes me wonder: how much is the "docsis 3" talk just for advertising cableco competitiveness with FIOS speeds and the cablecos have no intention of substantially increasing speeds in the near future? | |
|
| |  CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX | Re: Why bother - Usage caps will stifle use When they raise the speed limit on the highway, do you drive further to work? I don't. | |
|
| | |  N3OGHCertified GLG-20Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Why bother - Usage caps will stifle use said by Cabal:When they raise the speed limit on the highway, do you drive further to work? I don't. No, but if you drive faster you consume more fuel.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| | | | | said by Cabal:When they raise the speed limit on the highway, do you drive further to work? I don't. But... users may be more inclined to download more since it is that much quicker (or from a p2p user standpoint, they can set their upload at a higher rate, therefore using more bandwidth). For those that like to use their connection 24/7, a higher provisioned speed just lets them gobble up more.
If I could take two different routes to work, one longer than the other, and it takes the same time to traverse both, then it doesn't matter which I take (neglecting cost of fuel, etc, since we are talking about a flat-rate subscription cost).
All depends on the user. | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: Why bother - Usage caps will stifle use said by Anonymous_:any one that needs more then 250GB per month must be a thief how about: is most likely a 'thief'. There must be a few individuals out there who legitimately use over 250GB without the use of heavy, illegal torrenting. | |
|
| |  MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
1 edit | said by Anonymous_:Lol comcast caps are much better then twc's 5GB cap LOL! any one that needs more then 250GB per month must be a thief With TWC, that 5GB limit is a trial in one area for the lowest tier, with usage above that charged extra. NO OTHER systems outside that one around Beaumont, Texas has "caps". Higher limits for higher tiers of service, with usage above the limits charged extra.
With Comcast, 250GB is going to be grounds for getting your service cut off for all residential users no matter what the tier. Paying for usage above that isn't an option.
Then again this sort of DOCSIS 3 upgrade is an increase in bandwidth CAPACITY which will allow end user bandwidth and caps to be increased. | |
|
| | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: Why bother - Usage caps will stifle use said by MacLeech:With TWC, that 5GB limit is a trial in one area for the lowest tier, with usage above that charged extra. NO OTHER systems outside that one around Beaumont, Texas has "caps". Higher limits for higher tiers of service, with usage above the limits charged extra. While I am against Caps, I feel that the cap should be based on full speed usage measured in connect time.
IOW: If it would take me X Minutes at full speed to reach the lower tier cap, if the highest tier has a max speed of 5 times the lower tier, its cap should ALSO be 5 times as large so I get the same amount of full speed time. Any cap based on GB is cheating if I can reach that cap faster on the faster tier. Basing the caps on Usage Volume not Usage Time to get that Volume is smoke and mirrors not a true method of allocating the access. | |
|
| | | Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by MacLeech:said by Anonymous_:Lol comcast caps are much better then twc's 5GB cap LOL! any one that needs more then 250GB per month must be a thief With TWC, that 5GB limit is a trial in one area for the lowest tier, with usage above that charged extra. NO OTHER systems outside that one around Beaumont, Texas has "caps". Higher limits for higher tiers of service, with usage above the limits charged extra. With Comcast, 250GB is going to be grounds for getting your service cut off for all residential users no matter what the tier. Paying for usage above that isn't an option. Then again this sort of DOCSIS 3 upgrade is an increase in bandwidth CAPACITY which will allow end user bandwidth and caps to be increased. comcast lowest& highest cap is , 250GB so i was conpareing it with twc's lowest cap also | |
|
| | | Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | said by MacLeech:said by Anonymous_:Lol comcast caps are much better then twc's 5GB cap LOL! any one that needs more then 250GB per month must be a thief Then again this sort of DOCSIS 3 upgrade is an increase in bandwidth CAPACITY which will allow end user bandwidth and caps to be increased. to 10GB? lol | |
|
| | | | |
| | Pointless as stated above with caps its pointless pointless. | |
|
| | | Re: Pointless said by hayabusa3303:as stated above with caps its pointless pointless. Because I'm sure they will stay the same with more bandwidth.
--
Fighting on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Win or lose, your still Retarted! | |
|
 ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23
2 edits | As a CV customer with NO caps all I can say is *drool!*  | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| DOCSIS 2.0 isn't even used to its full potential DOCSIS 2.0 can deliver 36 Mbps on the downstream side and 10 Mbps on the upstream side.... But do we see "20/5" connections all over the place?
Barely. Only a few providers offer such a package.
--
Obama 2008 - Because McCain is more of the same! | |
|
| RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: DOCSIS 2.0 isn't even used to its full potential said by maartena:DOCSIS 2.0 can deliver 36 Mbps on the downstream side and 10 Mbps on the upstream side.... But do we see "20/5" connections all over the place? That split allows the the allocated channel to be shared by 2-4 download users and 5-10 upload users (upload max with DOCSIS is 27Mps not 10Mps - see »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docsis#Speed_Table) if you set your share ratio at 200% (you will not have all the users of a channel trying to get full speed at the same time so each can usually get their full allowed bandwidth). The normal share ratio is much higher but the same principle applies - Allocate the number of users on a channel so that those using it at the same time can usually get full rated speed but not so high that when there is a need for more than maximum capacity, it will be an unusual and short term event). | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: DOCSIS 2.0 isn't even used to its full potential What kind of results do you get when downloading from multiple sources (ie, p2p)? It is a known fact that downloading from a single server can bottleneck and you don't see the full potential of the connection. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | YEs you might be on an oversold node but not everybody is.
Here is what i am getting here on our work boost connection with about 10 patrons using the connection at the time of the speed test so its lower then what it should be.
 | |
|
| | | |
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by maartena:DOCSIS 2.0 can deliver 36 Mbps on the downstream side and 10 Mbps on the upstream side.... But do we see "20/5" connections all over the place? Barely. Only a few providers offer such a package. and those are only in fios areas on those providers.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | | Re: DOCSIS 2.0 isn't even used to its full potential WRONG Opt online boost is available in cablevisions whole footprint . | |
|
| | will this be deployed *surgically*? another lame cable tech | |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | DOCSIS 3.0 Supports IPv6 The article does not mention that DOCSIS 3.0 supports IPv6 which means that the Set-Top boxes can get their Video vis IPv6 Multicast and thus conserve the usage of Channels (you do not need to reserve a dedicated channel for each Cable Channel and if there is no-one viewing a Channel on a node, there is a lower number of channels delivering Video - Just like switched video works now). | |
|
| | | Re: DOCSIS 3.0 Supports IPv6 said by RARPSL:The article does not mention that DOCSIS 3.0 supports IPv6 which means that the Set-Top boxes can get their Video vis IPv6 Multicast and thus conserve the usage of Channels (you do not need to reserve a dedicated channel for each Cable Channel and if there is no-one viewing a Channel on a node, there is a lower number of channels delivering Video - Just like switched video works now). it also doesnt mention (in fact no story has yet) that generic Multicast is a mandated requirement to the CPE in all DS3 kit to pass its cert even basic "bronze" with its mear 4 channels download bonding.
its about time too, seeing as Multicast is as old as the Unicast used everywere today, but the worlds ISPs have seen fit to turn it off to the end users in all the industrial grade routers and related kit as they cant simply find a way to make money from it.
a very limited tunnel vision POV on the part of the ISPs seeing as it's also removed any of the incentive for Developers to retrofit multicasting into all the high bandwidth using unicast traffic today and thats a shame, bring back the old MBONE days and finally give them the ability to use non tunneled multicast to at least the other internal ISP consumers and interconected peers to swap their content and develop new bandwidth savings | |
|
| | RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: DOCSIS 3.0 Supports IPv6 There is a major difference between IPv4 and IPv6 Multicast. With IPv4 MC, there is a separate session between the user and the MC Server (even when there are more than one user on the node). Thus there is no advantage to MC. With IPv6 MC only ONE Session is flowing on to the Node and all the User's Modems/Set-Top-Boxes are monitoring that Session. | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| bandwidth... most of the extra bandwidth would be used for video.. not internet access. 720p hidef mpeg4 and 128kbit audio/music channels (cable-tv). 64-128kbit for Voip. 15-200mbit for Internet.... the 50+ megabit speeds to arrive once telco ramps up speeds and / or lowers prices (gets serious about competition). it's all eye candy given the condition of our national economy right now. yes, there has to be a transition to docsis 3.0 underway, but much like what happened to dsl, or FTTP, cable companies are not in a position to unload truck fulls of money (tens of billions) on docsis 3.0 in a rush to answer isolated BPON FTTP deployments already covered in maxed out 2.0 connections (think cablevision's maxed out 30/5 plan as an uncapped downstream, but capped upstream vs Verizon's 20/20, 50/20 internet... sure the FTTP is faster on the upload but cablevision's optimum boost is a comparably & competitively priced product at $45-65 vs $90-150 for 50/20). | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| all this gabber So all this talk of sdv, iptv...
can they not just do a few channels worth of IPTV/SDV for purely video, and then use ALL the rest of the bandwidth for internet???
Take a bunch of these 8 QAM chips, tune 'em to catch, oh, say 480MHZ worth of spectrum (80 6MHZ channels), and get 3200Mbps  | |
|
| | IPTV holds risk too.. If I were a cable customer and 3x, I changed the channel and I got a blank screen, you can say bye bye to me.
There probably has to be some IPTV integration for newer services that may require both the net and tv to work, but understand IPTV also holds grand risk.
Remember there is going to be big money here and in a head to head war between competitors, the winner will be the one who offers the best and most reliable network. Ok, let me put it this way, if its 1st and goal and I want to watch the football game and my cable company decided on an all IPTV platform. If I change the channel and I don't see what I wanted to see.. then im like.. ehhh Verizon, you have my business, like, forever.
Try to think of this from a net standpoint, even with the biggest servers (ie: www.msn.com), one would go there and there would be no response, ok maybe once in 2 years but who cares. In the TV world if one company can't deliver, its probably bye bye to all the services and off to another. The advantage of sending all channels at the same time is that they were there, that was cable's blessing in disguise.
Isn't it better for cable to invest in a capital upgrade to finish putting out its fiber to the home and match their competitors. The technology they put into IPTV, if it ever fails, could be a disaster for them.
Fact is though, IPTV is here to stay for newer types of channels that may use the net for 2 way communication but at least your all in the same boat. Its when one company can deliver and the other can't that it spells trouble. Be careful cable that you don't build yourself a network that will fall short of your competitor's, cause when you lose customers, you'll probably be losing all their service at the same time (hence: triple play package). | |
|
| | | Re: IPTV holds risk too.. Yes but doesnt verizon uses pretty much the same system for tv that cable uses just over fiber instead of coax?
Cablevisions problems relate mainly to their boxes. IF they redid the software on the boxes there service would be MUCH better. | |
|
| |  Great technology
| |
|
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Casa Systems Already have a 16 bonded downstream CMTS. | |
|
| MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3 | Re: Casa Systems said by Ignite:Already have a 16 bonded downstream CMTS. Kinda useless without a modem chipset that can match it. | |
|
| | | | Re: Casa Systems said by MacLeech:said by Ignite:Already have a 16 bonded downstream CMTS. Kinda useless without a modem chipset that can match it. yep, a very good point, its also clearly points out why today all the pre-DS3 (anything thats not gold cert is Pre to anyone with the long term prospects to save money and a little sense)vendors should be using re-programable FPGAs in all their kit.
save a little cash now in the quarter by using fixed hardware that cant use all the spec of the given chipset without a hardware mod on the PCB and so requireing a new batch revision. or
spend a little more on using FPGAs in your initial designs and have the ability to software upgrade your faulty designes and add new capabiltys to it later at a vastly lower cost, keeping in mind the whole world markets productions to get very good FPGA scale discounts and makeing these more expensive re-programable FPGA chips far more accessable and cheaper to your future CPE kit in the process.
the FPGA vendors will be happy to take a reduction in one time initial profits IF the whole world DS3 markets bring in vast economys of scale and help them expand their long term market share for FPGA uptake. | |
|
|
|
