 | | I've been saying this I've been saying this, that coax is not done yet and that gigabit speeds are possible over cable. But for that they'd need to go true wideband and basically replace a lot of customer premises equipment.
Well not really. If the FCC's gateway proposal becomes reality, going true wideband may fit into the picture quite easily with just the addition of the gateway device and they'd be able to reuse existing customer equipment like settops and CableCARDs quite easily. The gateway will be doing all of the work. | |
|
 |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: I've been saying this Well, so much for the "fiber is the only way forward" crowd. Looks like coax has a lot of life left in it for many, many years yet.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
|
| | | | Re: I've been saying this said by Romney2012:Well, so much for the "fiber is the only way forward" crowd. Looks like coax has a lot of life left in it for many, many years yet. I dont see any info on upstream, for one. So having 5gb/s (it will probably still be SHARED, so businesses needing critical connections need not apply) and 2mb/s is not going to settle well.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | |  thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
united state
kudos:1 | Re: I've been saying this Even though downstream will be 5Gb/s, upstream will remain at a paltry 10Mb/s. Oh and you'll have to pay at least 2 grand a month.
/sarcasm | |
|
| | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by jimbo2150:I dont see any info on upstream, for one. So having 5gb/s (it will probably still be SHARED, so businesses needing critical connections need not apply) and 2mb/s is not going to settle well. The DOCSIS 3 specs have provision for bonding 4 upstream channels for an aggregate 108 Mb/s speed limit. At the current time, no-one is doing any Upstream bonding (leaving the user with 27Mb/s single channel support). The current D3 modem chips support 4(8?) download channels and the 4 upload channels but the hangup on the upload seems to be the lack of certified headend equipment support. Once that hurdle is met, the ISPs (once they have the correct equipment) will be able to provision faster upload speeds. Right now they can but the problem is the shared nature of the links so 2-5Mb/s is the best that can be offered due to the total 27Mb/s that must be shared (ie: 13 full speed 2Mb/s users or 5 full speed 5Mb/s users at a time on a node). Going over to bonding not only increases the total available bandwidth to be shared but allows a user to be using more than one channel at a time to get their needed bandwidth. | |
|
| | | |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Re: I've been saying this I suppose that does make sense. I was looking into what Bright House provides here, and their fastest tier or service is 40M down, but only 5M up... comparing to the 25/25 I get from FiOS now.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
|
| | | | | RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
1 edit | Re: I've been saying this said by C0deZer0:I suppose that does make sense. I was looking into what Bright House provides here, and their fastest tier or service is 40M down, but only 5M up... comparing to the 25/25 I get from FiOS now. DOCSIS 1 and 2 support a SINGLE 38MBs max download channel per user (which is shared and different users can be assigned different channels). DOCSIS 3 supports up-to 8 Bonded Channels (thus 152 Mbs if 4 bonded channels and 304 Mbs if 8 Bonded Channels). Bonding not only increases the pool of shared bandwidth but allows the user's bandwidth usage to be split across channels (if there is only 10Mbs currently available on one channel, and you need 25Mbs, you get the other 15Mbs from the other bonded channels). Think of 25 people traveling as a group on a tour with multiple buses. If there are only 10 seats left on Bus1, the other 15 can find seats on Buses 2 and/or 3 (needing to be split over both buses if there are not 15 seats left on either bus 2 or 3 but more than 15 total spread over the two buses).
As to FIOS 25/25, you get DEDICATED bandwidth back to the headend and only there is your bandwidth merged with others. With cable there is dedicated bandwidth from the node to the headend but the users share the bandwidth between their modems and the node. | |
|
| | | | | | bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | Re: I've been saying this said by RARPSL:andwidth back to the headend and only there is your bandwidth merged with others. With cable there is dedicated bandwidth from the node to the headend but the users share the bandwidth between their modems and the node. Only sort-of true. FiOS uses Passive Optical Network (PON) technology, so you share your connection with 32 subscribers using time-division multiplexing.
If the GPON technology used by FiOS allocates time slots statically, then you do have "dedicated" bandwidth (although it's a fraction of the total system throughput). If, however, time slots are allocated dynamically, then it's a shared system like cable - just with way more bandwidth.
There's also contention in the upstream, which may be handled differently.
If you know more about how bandwidth is allocated in FiOS, I'd love to hear it. But FiOS is a shared medium system, just like cable and unlike DSL. | |
|
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| said by Romney2012:Well, so much for the "fiber is the only way forward" crowd. Looks like coax has a lot of life left in it for many, many years yet. It still is. Whatever coding and compression techniques are applied to coax can be applied to fiber to provide even more capacity on that medium. Coax will never catch fiber but it will give it a run.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: I've been saying this said by n2jtx:said by Romney2012:Well, so much for the "fiber is the only way forward" crowd. Looks like coax has a lot of life left in it for many, many years yet. It still is. Whatever coding and compression techniques are applied to coax can be applied to fiber to provide even more capacity on that medium. Coax will never catch fiber but it will give it a run. But this isn't a coding or compression technique. Compression implies that you are squeezing more information into limited bandwidth. This is not the case here. Coax already has the 5Gbit capacity.
Quite honestly I would rather have the cable companies deploy faster speeds quicker over coax and not raise my rates for plant upgrades than do a full fiber rebuild and jack up my rates. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: I've been saying this said by fifty nine:said by n2jtx:said by Romney2012:Well, so much for the "fiber is the only way forward" crowd. Looks like coax has a lot of life left in it for many, many years yet. It still is. Whatever coding and compression techniques are applied to coax can be applied to fiber to provide even more capacity on that medium. Coax will never catch fiber but it will give it a run. But this isn't a coding or compression technique. Compression implies that you are squeezing more information into limited bandwidth. This is not the case here. Coax already has the 5Gbit capacity. Quite honestly I would rather have the cable companies deploy faster speeds quicker over coax and not raise my rates for plant upgrades than do a full fiber rebuild and jack up my rates. Well actually since most broadband markets are uncompetitive cable companies simply charge at what the market will bear. They would not be able to raise rates anymore even if they did spend the money to plant FTTH. | |
|
| DrDrew
join:2009-01-28
Apple Valley, CA
kudos:6 | The FCC gateway and settops are based off existing standards... ATSC/QAM tuners, CableCARDs, and DOCSIS would all get tossed aside if "traditional 6-Mhz channel divisions" are out, so the current concepts for the FCC gateways would be useless to as would the settops currently on the market.
At the very least you'd need a new gateway. | |
|
| | | | Re: I've been saying this said by DrDrew:The FCC gateway and settops are based off existing standards... ATSC/QAM tuners, CableCARDs, and DOCSIS would all get tossed aside if "traditional 6-Mhz channel divisions" are out, so the current concepts for the FCC gateways would be useless to as would the settops currently on the market. At the very least you'd need a new gateway. Actually the FCC gateway isn't set in stone yet. Remember that the network facing side of the gateway has to accomodate different types of MVPDs - IPTV and satellite aren't going to get away this time. | |
|
|  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by fifty nine:I've been saying this, that coax is not done yet and that gigabit speeds are possible over cable. But for that they'd need to go true wideband and basically replace a lot of customer premises equipment. and i've been saying this as well. there are a few technical issues which provide quite a bit of headache for this to occur though.
(*) first and foremost, there is an expectation of plugging a cable into the wall and your tv to just "work". much like the phone companies and dial tone, cable has to accommodate a large and diverse userbase -- on one end you have people who want bleeding edge hdtv and high speed internet access and on the other, you have people who just want to plug in their old crt set and watch matlock or judge judy. making sure that all have what they want takes spectrum. as has been seen by posts on these forums, many people are up in arms over the removal of the analog stations from the cable carriers bandwidth allotment.
(*) cable cos and tv manufacturers don't always include the same features between them. sure, there is a lot of hooplah over mpeg4 compression, but if you happen to be using clear qam channels for your hd (locals and such) and your tv doesn't support mpeg4, you're going to be a bit miffed that you need to now rent a box from the mso. sure, there are open standards and platforms that may alleviate some of this, but those could be years in the making, and even then you're going to have legacy gear that you (as an mso) need to support. you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
(*) upstream speeds are limited due to noise on the return path. because low frequencies (~30mhz) are used for upstream communication, there are a lot of issues pushing 64qam+ modulation techniques on the upstream, let alone bonding the channels. due to the amount of "transients" that occur in normal operating conditions, these upstream frequencies become *very* sensitive to noise, poor termination, aging or poor dielectric materials, etc. while i'm not sure if this is something that can be worked out, upstream bonding could be very difficult to pull off if the signal levels must be within n-dbmv of each other.
however, despite all of this, coaxial cable has *a lot* of life left. it may not be as robust as fiber (due to the infancy of the r&d behind it), but as a last mile solution for customers who want to be able to watch movies, play games, and surf the web, it will be quite sufficient. additionally, as the costs of ftth deployments drop and msos push fiber deeper and deeper into the plant, eventually the upgrade path will be cheaper than having to pull an entirely new pon network for ftth (like verizon is doing). incremental buildouts and advancing technologies could keep msos up to snuff until capex for ftth becomes reasonable and in demand.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| said by fifty nine:I've been saying this, that coax is not done yet and that gigabit speeds are possible over cable. But for that they'd need to go true wideband and basically replace a lot of customer premises equipment. Well not really. If the FCC's gateway proposal becomes reality, going true wideband may fit into the picture quite easily with just the addition of the gateway device and they'd be able to reuse existing customer equipment like settops and CableCARDs quite easily. The gateway will be doing all of the work. my fios 20mbps is up and down
not 10/1 or 20/2
cable is inferior also i don't have usage limit
like comcast and roadrunner
i do 3 to 5TB thats terabytes 3000GB to 5000GB
so for all the hypes it doesn't deliver!
if we can get 50mbps and 100mbps for fios that's more then fast enough for all of us
even 20mbps is blazing fast
unlimited bandwidth and super fast speed should be reserved for new technology
not something that uses copper and is just an avance version of DSL
fiber is the way to go
cable is obsolete its just living on borrowed time
you guy need to demand FIOS and stop feeding this ancient dinosaur cable technology its history...with all these limitation of bytes it just doesn't cut it. | |
|
| | There's already over 5 Gbps downstream coming into your home There's already over 5 Gbps downstream coming into your home over cable. It's just that most of it is used for video. I don't see why that can't change. | |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | Hit your limit faster! Now you can reach your limit of 250 G , in a few minutes rather then days! | |
|
|  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Hit your limit faster! i am suprised it only took the 3rd post for someone to bitch about caps.
having a faster car doesnt increase the amount you drive. | |
|
| | HoboJ
join:2008-03-27
Carrying Place, ON
kudos:1 | Re: Hit your limit faster! Sure it does. I get a faster car and you bet your ass I'll be driving it all over the place. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Hit your limit faster! said by HoboJ:Sure it does. I get a faster car and you bet your ass I'll be driving it all over the place. So with your faster car do you have an unlimited supply of gas, oil and tires? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Hit your limit faster! said by fifty nine:said by HoboJ:Sure it does. I get a faster car and you bet your ass I'll be driving it all over the place. So with your faster car do you have an unlimited supply of gas, oil and tires? If only bits were a limited, disposable resource that had to be mined and aggregated. Unfortunately your analogy fails miserably when you realize this is simply not the case. | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Hit your limit faster! said by sonicmerlin:said by fifty nine:said by HoboJ:Sure it does. I get a faster car and you bet your ass I'll be driving it all over the place. So with your faster car do you have an unlimited supply of gas, oil and tires? If only bits were a limited, disposable resource that had to be mined and aggregated. Unfortunately your analogy fails miserably when you realize this is simply not the case. So maybe gas, oil and tires wasn't a good analogy.
But the road is. And there can only be so many people on the road at once. As you approach the limit things start to slow down. And we can all agree that traffic jams are no fun.
So either you expand the road or limit its use. Expanding the road costs money. I don't want my rates raised for "professional" downloads who torrent 24/7, or cheapskates who decide that internet video is a substitute for cable TV. Most people don't want their rates raised in fact.
So we are left with limiting its use. And that's precisely what the caps are for.
Even if you expand the road, there will be people who abuse it, drive up and down it for no reason other than the fact that they can. What limits this in real roads is that you need fuel to travel on the roads, along with time. You don't need fuel on the internet and you can leave stuff downloading/uploading in the background. So the road hogs still take up all of the space on the road for no good reason.
I say let's give these people their own road. An uncapped internet connection for what it really costs. | |
|
| | | | | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | Re: Hit your limit faster! I thought that Comcast implemented some sort of traffic shaping plan that automatically prioritized bandwidth usage and limited any connection that was creating a bottleneck for others? Why would they still need caps if this issue is already being addressed? Oh that's right, to stop people from getting their video elsewhere.  | |
|
| | | | | | | | Cheapskates? Oddly I pay alot more for my VUDU service but I can get 1080P streaming movies. Internet is for data transmission period. Who are you are anyone else to say what data we transmit over it? The Internet moves forward faster then cable TV programming so why not use it for watching TV especially when it is of higher quality? | |
|
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Hit your limit faster! said by uradouche :
Cheapskates? Oddly I pay alot more for my VUDU service but I can get 1080P streaming movies. Internet is for data transmission period. Who are you are anyone else to say what data we transmit over it? Who is anyone else to say?? The fact is, you need to remember what the internet IS... you're only buying ACCESS to the internet on someone's private network. You don't like their rules, go to another provider.. maybe if you run out of options with cable and telephone, you always have the choice of satellite, cellular, or dial up. But, the owners of the "access" being sold, I believe, has the right to say what data is transmitted over it.
And I strongly disagree with you about data is data. There certainly is a battle coming that MANY people, including law makers, have not considered when it comes to trying to FORCE access providers to "open up wide" and let the "data" flow. If "data" is "data" then I think law makers are going to open Pandora's box in the process. Access providers are most certain to use the 1st against them for several reasons.
Right now, as it stands, they have the right to distinguish the difference in "data" when it comes to certain activities. You can't use their lines to harass people, transmit illegal content, do anything to "harm their network" etc. To say "you have to allow all data" is going to strip that right away from internet access providers. While some of the data they don't desire on their networks isn't illegal, they do have the right to block it. If they force carriers to strip that from their AUP agreements, you're bound to open the loop-hole to the 1st since government can't tread on that territory. They'll surely tie that restriction to other "data" since as you say.. "data is data".. right?
Leave it to attorneys to go after this.. some have already been walking the 1st amendment line on NN. | |
|
| | | | | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Hit your limit faster! Goodness. Data IS data. How in the world are folks connecting NN with the 1st amendment?
When the government hand outs and incentives stop, then the ISPs can do what they want with their network. Until that ends, it's more than fair that they are regulated. Perhaps if regulation included limiting CEO pay they would all quickly give up the subsidies.
If anything, Wall Street proves we cannot let man guard the chicken house. He'll create a loop hole to let the fox buy his way in and at the same time bet the fox dies choking on a bone.
I wish there didn't need to be regulation but capitalism doesn't work without a good set of rules. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Hit your limit faster! said by rradina:Goodness. Data IS data. How in the world are folks connecting NN with the 1st amendment? Easy! The same way that people think showing boobs in public is somehow "speech" when it's not. Last I checked, they can't talk.
When the government hand outs and incentives stop, then the ISPs can do what they want with their network. How much direct funding came from the government to cable? Please avoid "tax breaks" as ALL companies, regardless of what they sell, can get about the same access to the same breaks. Further, int he example you give of government handing out specific money to a company, the strings are spelled out in advance. If a company takes the money, they take the strings. However, if the strings come later - that's wrong.
Obama tried this with many banks.. in fact, they FORCED money on to banks that didn't need it under "threat of audit".. In legal terms, they forced people to do something under duress as many of the smaller banks, who were doing fine, faced a MUCH costlier audit if they didn't take it. By taking the money, the government TOOK the right to be in their business. Um... that's un-american, and illegal by all definition. Sure, I'll sign a contract with you to give you all my money if you have a gun to my head, becuase in that case, your contract and my signature mean nothing in the eyes of the law. 
Until that ends, it's more than fair that they are regulated. Perhaps if regulation included limiting CEO pay they would all quickly give up the subsidies. Which is what I don't agree with in ANY case. We have many rights in this country including the "right to fail".. the government doesn't seem to think so. However, if I had to put my money on the side of government or business being able to get us out of any mess, my money is still with business, not government. Look at who makes up government in the first place. Many of them are lawyers with agendas, former business people, and have been in their jobs for way too long. Often, many of these people have ZERO experience in running a business. As bad as SOME businesses can be, I still believe that they can pull through better than the government can. Sorry.. it's how I feel.
If anything, Wall Street proves we cannot let man guard the chicken house. He'll create a loop hole to let the fox buy his way in and at the same time bet the fox dies choking on a bone. Yup.. I agree. This is "WALL ST" and not all business. Wall Street, really in my opinion, could go away and this country would still function. And, it wasn't "Wall St" that did it.. there were specific people involved in the whole mess - and lets not forget certain government players that also MADE BAD RULES to play by as well. They both have their hands in this. Either way, I don't blame "Wall St" more than I blame some people that took advantage of laws, loop holes, and un-guarded areas. There were people that bet and lost their bets and almost took this country with it. We're still not out of the fire either.
I wish there didn't need to be regulation but capitalism doesn't work without a good set of rules. You are correct.. so long as they set neutral rules that EVERYONE plays by. They can't micro-manage each sector as that's not capitalism more than it is government really pulling the strings. The problem is that government isn't doing their job correctly.. they're trying to place TOO MANY of the WRONG RULES too many times.
Take phone for example. Phone companies had perfectly fine regulation for years. Had they simply extended those same rules to cable operators, we'd be fine. Nope! They couldn't do just that.. they simply removed them and look at us today.
I believe in regulation.. very very light regulation. And, I also believe that regulation needs to expire and be renewed often. (Ie: all laws need to have an expiration date. This ensures that we're keeping up with the times, as well) | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Hit your limit faster! Can you explain again how massive tax breaks are not considered "funding"? To a business its all the same, but I'm sure you will have some not so clever philosophical explanation... | |
|
| | | | said by baineschile:i am suprised it only took the 3rd post for someone to bitch about caps. having a faster car doesnt increase the amount you drive. Caps are the bane of consumers. Why shouldn't we talk about it? Caps should increase commensurate with the speed of the pipe - anything else is idiocy - see - that's probably why you're struggling to grasp this.
I'm not surprised that a pro industry shill is shooting their agenda off already, though... :P | |
|
| | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: Hit your limit faster! I am not saying caps arent a relevant broadband issue, but I dont think they need to be discussed in EVERY single thread.
This article pertains to the possibility of 1000 x the regular speeds we see now, over an infastructer that everyone thought was outdated. Yet people feel the need to always find the negative in everything, and its really getting a bit old.
If you are unhappy with caps, get the business class or an uncapped tier, switch providers to one that has an uncapped, or stop downloading so damn much. That is the easiest fix for it. And be excitied about the potential of gig-internet speeds. | |
|
| | | |  DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Re: Hit your limit faster! Ya It is getting abit old having people ***** and **** abouta soft cap that is actually a legal safegaurd for the consumer as opposed to the hard cap+overage ATT and others have
1. All Caps should go away
2. people need to stop talking about it EVERY single time theres a thread | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | quote:
If you are unhappy with caps, get the business class or an uncapped tier
Are you willing to front the extra money for all of us? And don't give me the cost argument. Cable companies already make 80% margins on their product. The bandwidth itself costs them $1/month/person.
quote:
switch providers to one that has an uncapped
And if there is no one else available that provides useful speeds?
quote:
or stop downloading so damn much. That is the easiest fix for it.
When did the internet gods appoint you the dictator of the internet, tasked to bestow us with knowledge of "so much" and "just right"? | |
|
| | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by baineschile:I am not saying caps arent a relevant broadband issue, Caps are relevant for the cord cutter issue!
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $50? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
|
| | | said by DaveDude:Now you can reach your limit of 250 G , in a few minutes rather then days! I see what you did there. LMFAO.
Because Comcast already......... and now with this speed..... It would mean that you would.....
EPIC.
 | |
|
| | | said by DaveDude:Now you can reach your limit of 250 G , in a few minutes rather then days! Maybe for people using Comcap but for those of us fortunate not to have a shitty cable provider this isn't a concern. | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| |
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
·Comcast
| Talk about beating a dead horse The fact of the matter is they are still trying to squeeze more and more down a garden hose (copper) when a fire hose(fiber) is the future,that small pipe is never going to get bigger they will just keep coming up with ways to make the info flow better. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | How about better HD PQ other then this an more compressed hd How about better HD PQ other then this and more compressed hd. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: How about better HD PQ other then this an more compressed hd said by Joe12345678:How about better HD PQ other then this and more compressed hd. What does what you're complaining about have to do with the story at hand?
(I swear these BBR posts, with these follow-ups, are starting to remind me of EVERY single fan/group post on Facebook.
American Idol posted a backstage tour one day of how the show runs, and out of 1,000 posts, 950 of them were about anything BUT the tour..
These changes take 1 step at a time. CableLabs isn't Comcast. CableLabs isn't TimeWarner Cable. Cable labs isn't Cox Cable.. CableLabs ISN'T your cable company. They make equipment FOR the cable companies to implement should they chose.
MPEG4, SDV, higher frequency use, and analog reclaim are all things that can be done in order to bring better HD PQ, however, with each option I listed above, there is going to be no doubt be an uproar of anger from people as it gets implemented.
MPEG4 requires an all new STB.
SDV is already pissing off the tiny amount of Tivo users.
Analog reclaim pisses off those left in 1980 using cable ready sets.
Higher frequency use is going to cause service issues for a while as they work out the bugs in the entire system from the node to the customer's set due to the complexity of operating in such high frequencies.
So.. now what?
Bottom line, as they complete the current stage (comcast that is) you'll see more frequency opened up for the use of "current" technology. | |
|
| dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Joe12345678:How about better HD PQ other then this and more compressed hd. How about LESS compressed hd!
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $50? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Feed them a line Bovine Scatology From the Cable industry...Hey Cablelabs tell the great unwashed out there the 5Gbps is possible. Back at the Cable-Co Har-de-har-har that should keep them happy for awhile, mean while who do we sue next.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
|
 CT3
@comcast.net | Sigh, at again again ladies? After all the bickering here, the sad part is people at the actual link have a lot more accurate criticisms of the announcement and the technology than the fiber, arm flailing team here. try clicking it and reading their post comments about asymmetrical upstream being the big draw back for coax. Instead of telling everyone they shoudl all drive semi's and until they do they don't know what automotive is. Oh and bitching about gas [caps] and maintenance [cost] not being free. | |
|
| | | Re: Sigh, at again again ladies? said by CT3 :
After all the bickering here, the sad part is people at the actual link have a lot more accurate criticisms of the announcement and the technology than the fiber, arm flailing team here. try clicking it and reading their post comments about asymmetrical upstream being the big draw back for coax. Instead of telling everyone they shoudl all drive semi's and until they do they don't know what automotive is. Oh and bitching about gas [caps] and maintenance [cost] not being free.
Perhaps you could ditch the anonymity and explain how gas is analogous to caps in even the slightest of forms? | |
|
| | Hurry up and obsfucate! This is great news! Right up to the point that CableLabs management/marketing group gets hold of this and ensures that no one ever hears about it, somehow makes getting this tech impossible for the customer, and then never shares the specification with any 3rd party CE manufacturers, and fails just like cablecard.
I think we all forget where the problem is at CableLabs... it's not in the "LAB" part of their name, its in the management/marketing part. | |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Hit your 250 GB cap in 7 minutes Yippee!!!!!! | |
|
| | | Re: Hit your 250 GB cap in 7 minutes said by BF69:Yippee!!!!!! Right... you would do all of your regular monthly web browsing, downloading, hulu, youtube, and Neflix watching all in 7 minutes?
Why do people post this nonsense?
Just because your connection iss faster doesn't mean you're actually going to do everything you already do faster.
You can't watch a Netflix movie any faster just because your connection is faster.
And if you're the type of person that is just going to queue up hundreds of more ripped DVD's from torrents just because you have the new bandwidth, I doubt the cable companies care if you are their customer or not. | |
|
| | | | Re: Hit your 250 GB cap in 7 minutes THANK you.
you said what needed to be said.
that is clearly it.
all these so called people who think queueing up hundreds of these "ISO"s and complaining its their god given right, need a reality check.
i am by no means a bell or att supporter in fact i hate them for over abusing customers. but the idea of cap in of itself is not a bad one. if done in a reasonable manner. theres a reason why bandwidth is NOT free. the reason is equipment and limitations. in some ways it IS like oil. heres the analogy:
those big oil companies manage supply. they dont always produce at maximum capacity. for good reason. if they produce at max capacity, you'll first of all have no room for a spike in demand. or if something goes wrong. your supply will drop and you'll be losing business. in addition, if you always go at max, you'll eventually run out of oil. (again bad thing subjectively)
Now the internet side, imagine isp always running at 100% bandwidth. how do you add customers, you cant. if a piece of equipment goes down. you screwed EVERYONE will complain, so you have to keep some backup capacity or equipment. ok so thats just uber expensive. but that aside.
second of all, the capacity of an isp is LIMITED to the amount of pipes they have to the rest of the world AND the exorbitant cost of equipment that can try to handle those huge bandwidth loads. its not like bits are FREE. ok so under your assumption that bits are free, fine, so then content grows on internet , and such, and you dont charge cap. ok. so when everyone reaches a point where the bandwidth they use is hitting the isp max then what.. meh just let everyone bottleneck? cuz YOU"RE NOT going to magically buy multi million dollar equipment out of nowhere, according to your logic, the bits are free, so it should scale indefinately.. again. fail.
this just shows that bits are NOT free. as much as we'd like to think they are.. as long as demand grows, then the supply is limited because there isnt unlimited bandwidth out there it costs money to build. if we reach a point, where content and users and the amount they use no longer grows, then yes, once isps get to that point, bits would be theoretically "free" minus the maintenance costs and what not.
feel free to debunk my arguments. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Hit your 250 GB cap in 7 minutes said by alphaz18 
feel free to debunk my arguments.
[/BQUOTE :You don't have a clue how investment into a network occurs or just how profitable these ISPs are. Consider your argument debunked. | |
|
| |  heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL | said by skuv :said by BF69:Yippee!!!!!! Right... you would do all of your regular monthly web browsing, downloading, hulu, youtube, and Neflix watching all in 7 minutes? Why do people post this nonsense? Just because your connection iss faster doesn't mean you're actually going to do everything you already do faster. You can't watch a Netflix movie any faster just because your connection is faster. And if you're the type of person that is just going to queue up hundreds of more ripped DVD's from torrents just because you have the new bandwidth, I doubt the cable companies care if you are their customer or not. If you use Bit Torrent and don't throttle it, it would be easy to do the 250GB in minutes thing. | |
|
| | That's 5 gbits total, TV + Phone + Internet. Right now the downstream consists of a number of 6 mhz channels.
All that they are proposing is to combine them into one data stream.
5 gbits for Internet is NOT what this is about. | |
|
| | | Re: That's 5 gbits total, TV + Phone + Internet. ISnt that what the article say though?
"The concept, if it comes to fruition, could let cable operators deliver extremely high speeds downstream, of up to 5 Gigabits per second -- or even more." | |
|
| |  Vchat20Landing is the REAL challengePremium
join:2003-09-16
Columbus, OH | Re: That's 5 gbits total, TV + Phone + Internet. Not really. When you think of digital cable and VoIP services, they both use 'data'.
The 5gbps term here is being used to refer to raw bitrate on the line. What they do with it from there is another story. Could go all IP with tv services being done ala IPTV (my favorite option). Or they could stick what the way it is now and part Docsis video with the rest being IP based. Again, there's many ways they can do it, but the 5gbps is the raw rate they have available to them that can be used for video, internet, VoIP, anything at all.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz | |
|
 fcislerPremium
join:2004-06-14
Riverhead, NY | cable is trying At least CableLabs is trying.
What did ITU come up with recently? ADSL2+? 6 years ago?
Trying to get any life out of old copper pairs is a waste. Coax has plenty of future.
I've heard every argument. How about the argument that DSL means 0, zilch, zip, nada to me - considering that I can name 5 locations I've personally lived that DSL was not available. I had cell phone reception in each and every spot and had cable - just no DSL available.
When they can figure out how to get extended distance out of DSL then I could see it having ANY future. | |
|
| TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | This whole issue is crap Just how many decades do you suppose it will be before a connection like this is available, "In the year 2525 if man is still alive, if woman can survive........" | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: cable is trying Id have to agree with you on this one, DSL even much slower than cable would be a high commodity if it could reach every house thats serviced by a 2 wire telephone line. even though its not the 10,20,50 mbps that cable is soon to offer. It beets the he!! out of 56k dial up that rural areas mostly have. lets see Cable only in large or semi large cities in the US and unless your in a new development dont expect to see cable being run to your door ether. 2 wire copper... is in every House in the US. there's a huge market there that is untapped. Satellite too unpredictable in connections and costly, wi-max and other wireless technologies suffer similar disadvantages, ( PS never fully trust wireless any knowledgeable tech will agree) However even the US government has seen High speed internet to every house urban/ or rural as a need. | |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| What does CableLabs get out of it? How do they make money to employ the smarties who will develop this?
Now would be a good time to define a standard on both sides of the cable box... come up with a coaxial transmission standard on one end, and a TCP/IP protocol on the other for viewing and controlling the cable TV signal. | |
|
|  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | Re: What does CableLabs get out of it? CableLabs is controlled and funded by cable companies, whose CEOs make up its board of directors. It is very much all about the cable industry and very much not about cable customers. | |
|
 jaaPremium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
kudos:2
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
| Transition Transition will be difficult - it is not like DOCSIS where they just keep switching channels from video to data. Wouldn't they have to carve out a big chunk of the spectrum during transition, leaving some for DOCSIS and the rest for wideband?
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. | |
|
heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL
2 edits | We would all have to get new NIC's! Everybody is forgetting that we all have 1GBPS NIC's in our PC's. Is there even such a thing yet as non-fiber NIC that can do faster than 1GBPS? | |
|
| Bill_F
join:2010-02-09
Huntsville, AL | Re: We would all have to get new NIC's! Yes there are 10 gbps NICs with Fiber and/or 10G-BASE-T. (over cat6a, cat7)
Right now a "cheap" PCI-E desktop card is a few hundred dollars.
In a few years PCI-E to 10G-BASE-T chipsets and cards will be much cheaper once high integration and large scale manufacturing ramps up. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| Re: We would all have to get new NIC's! said by Bill_F:Yes there are 10 gbps NICs with Fiber and/or 10G-BASE-T. (over cat6a, cat7) Right now a "cheap" PCI-E desktop card is a few hundred dollars. In a few years PCI-E to 10G-BASE-T chipsets and cards will be much cheaper once high integration and large scale manufacturing ramps up. even 100mbit is more then enough for at least another decade
its all marketing hype | |
|
| | vaperware. how about that. | |
|
|
|
its like a one lane road everyone must take their turn. lmao...
