 | | Way Fast for Cable quote:
throughput of 974,723,228 bits per second
Just imagine how fast you could hit your ISP data cap with that much speed?
You sure could download from a whole of sources at once  | |
|
 |  ztmikeMark for moderationPremium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | Re: Way Fast for Cable Cable systems would need to be ALL fiber optic FTTH anyone? Something they are NOT at the moment. And for a LONG time coming.
With that kind of speed you could hit Comcasts hidden cap within a minute lol.
--
"I am the worst president in U.S history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush | |
|
| |  MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: Way Fast for Cable said by ztmike:Cable systems would need to be ALL fiber optic FTTH anyone? Something they are NOT at the moment. And for a LONG time coming. With that kind of speed you could hit Comcasts hidden cap within a minute lol. That's what the article says. Basically, it's FTTP, but still allows the Cable operator to manage it at the cable plant using existing DOCSIS management systems.
It looks to me like they're sending the DOCSIS signal over the in-house coax, then using a fiber ONT attached to the house to convert it into light, which sends it over a PON (like FiOS) network distribution system to the headend.
Basically, it's a DOCSIS to PON transceiver. Slick, but not earth shattering. The real key is that they can have a mix of PON fiber customers along side regular old HFC coax cable modems with a common unified management system. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| said by ztmike:Cable systems would need to be ALL fiber optic FTTH anyone? Something they are NOT at the moment. And for a LONG time coming. With that kind of speed you could hit Comcasts hidden cap within a minute lol. Technically they can do even faster over cable then that. Just need to push the cable to its limits more and get rid of those channels.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | |  The BeerI Love It When A Plan Comes TogetherPremium
join:2001-07-24
Omaha, NE | Re: Way Fast for Cable Or just remove all that worthless TV chatter on the lines. | |
|
|  mromeroPremium
join:2000-12-07
Los Angeles, CA | PoRn at the speed of light. | |
|
| |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Re: Way Fast for Cable said by mromero:PoRn at the speed of light. What could be better?  | |
|
| | |  FlsRendPremium
join:2004-01-31
Philadelphia, PA | Re: Way Fast for Cable said by C0deZer0:said by mromero:PoRn at the speed of light. What could be better? Porn in person?? | |
|
| | | | Light waves only move at the speed of light in the absent of a medium. Remember, the stars radiate all of these electrical magnetic radiations through space which there is no medium. It propagates via magnetism one it hits a planet. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | What an original post. Every time talk of expanding speeds and capacity, someone always has to spout up and say something like "only to hit that cap faster"...
Honestly, it's the most idiotic statement to be heard of all. Faster speeds will ultimately expand capacity which will relieve the need for as tight controls on transfer in the long run. After all, isn't this what everyone wants? | |
|
| | | | Re: Way Fast for Cable Someone can't figure out it's a joke... | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Way Fast for Cable It was funny the first 500 times. | |
|
 crippyPremium
join:2005-05-17
some place | show off these people really need to stop showing off these speeds and put that time in actually working out a way to provide it to us.. | |
|
2 edits | hmm I read an article on CES about something like this. They stated that the main thing that is stopping cable companies from switching is that there is no equipment that would let them switch over in steps. I think they said it would require hardware that would allow both docsis via coax and the ftth fiber on the same hardware.
If cisco can come out with something like that thats not really expensive they would make tons of money.
Does this mean that as long as they switched the coax to fiber but still used docsis 3 that they can do a 1Gbps cablemodem?
Nevermind, the article states further down this is basically PON using the accounting software that cablecompanies use currently. this is stupid.
Why cant cisco just work on what I said at the begining of my post. Just create a device that allows the node to be both PON and Coaxial Docsis so that the cablecompanies can slowly switch over away from their docsis network. | |
|
| | Richie Rich At $2.50/GB overage charge (as being proposed by my cable provider, Rogers), you'd be charged almost $20/minute at full speed, once you hit the cap.
I wonder who can afford $1200/hour for Internet access? | |
|
|
 Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS | Yay! Finally time will come that wide bandwidth have comes here so cable coaxial can take up 1Gbps to beyond 10Gbps so my Linux computer box can eats bandwidth as you can eat all a food after paid a fee one at time. | |
|
|  odogCable Centric Vendor BiasedPremium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: Yay! I am actually attending the conference and it was a good discussion....
even more strange, a guy three rows in front of me is reading the article right now! | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: Yay! the miracle of wireless | |
|
| | so? yawn. 1Gbps service already available in Singapore.
DOCSIS will always be playing catchup to fiber. | |
|
| Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: so? said by nasadude:yawn. 1Gbps service already available in Singapore. DOCSIS will always be playing catchup to fiber. Yeah... Japan already have 100Mbps and 1Gbps services so that USA have to catch up with other foreign internet countries powers that I assume that USA really sucks at bandwidth speeds I bet that USA will be always at slow lane line and other foreign internet is in fast lane line over USA. | |
|
| | | | Re: so? Depends, TimeWarner in Texas has 7Mbps down/512Kbps up, so that when I download, I get around 834KB/s downloading max and something like 61KB/s up. | |
|
| | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: so? said by danball1976:Depends, TimeWarner in Texas has 7Mbps down/512Kbps up, so that when I download, I get around 834KB/s downloading max and something like 61KB/s up. Cox cable is way too fast than TimeWarner cable... Sometimes I get 20Mbps to 30Mbps stained in a early morning only. | |
|
| | | |  brianPremium
join:2002-05-02
Lake Forest, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: so? said by Ikyuao:Cox cable is way too fast than TimeWarner cable... Sometimes I get 20Mbps to 30Mbps stained in a early morning only. Stained? You might want to see a doctor about that. | |
|
| | | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: so? said by brian:said by Ikyuao:Cox cable is way too fast than TimeWarner cable... Sometimes I get 20Mbps to 30Mbps stained in a early morning only. Stained? You might want to see a doctor about that. Nah... So u re funny, dude...
here's my speed tests of bing program in console...
--- 68.103.136.1 statistics ---
bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max
44 54 54 0% 7.351 11.111 23.236
1000 54 6 88% 8.980 16.887 29.416
--- 68.1.0.223 statistics ---
bytes out in dup loss rtt (ms): min avg max
44 53 47 11% 32.737 37.369 65.175
1000 53 53 0% 34.468 38.785 76.331
--- estimated link characteristics ---
estimated throughput 149960784bps
minimum delay per packet 25.381ms (3806200 bits)
average statistics (experimental) :
packet loss: small 11%, big -800%, total 5%
warning: delta big rtts 21.898ms delta small rtts 26.258ms
average throughput -3509062bps
average delay per packet 26.253ms (3936902 bits)
weighted average throughput -3310436bps | |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
1 edit | At Least There Are No UPLOAD Jokes in This Post said by fiberguy:someone always has to spout up and say something like "only to hit that cap faster"... Honestly, it's the most idiotic statement to be heard of all. Faster speeds will ultimately expand capacity which will relieve the need for as tight controls on transfer in the long run. After all, isn't this what everyone wants? 10 years ago, I was looking foward to ADSL showing up so I could improve on my years of painful 128k ISDN upload speeds.
Below are the current upload options by provider.
Lets see what 10 years of technology improvements have done for upload offerings.
Provider........Plan..............2008 Upload Speed
AOL.............High Speed Essentials.......56 kbps
AT&T............Basic DSL..................128 kbps
Verizon.........Starter Plan...............128 kbps
BellSouth.......FastAccess DSL Lite........128 kbps
AT&T............Express DSL................128 kbps
Verizon.........Power Plan.................768 kbps
AT&T............Pro DSL....................128 kbps
Road Runner.....High Speed.................128 kbps
AOL.............High Speed.................128 kbps
Time Warner.....Cable High Speed...........128 kbps
BellSouth.......FastAccess DSL Ultra.......256 kbps
Comcast.........for Non-Comcast Custs......128 kbps
Comcast.........for Current ComcastCust....128 kbps
AT&T............Elite DSL..................128 kbps
BellSouth.......FastAccess DSL XTREME......384 kbps
Verizon.........Month to Month Plan........768 kbps
BellSouth.......FastAccess DSL XTREME......512 kbps
HughesNet.......Home Satellite Broadband...128 kbps
VerizonWireless.BroadbandAccess............800 kbps
HughesNet...... Pro Satellite Broadband....200 kbps
HughesNet.......ProPlusSatellite Broadband.200 kbps
source: »www.whatisthis.com/broadband/compare/
I guess it's finally time to retire all those tired upload clichés.
What a different Broadband World than 1997.
Why I could hardly recognize it for all the upload change.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd.
Edit:Hey! That didn't belong in there. | |
|
|  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: At Least There Are No UPLOAD Jokes in This Post Add these entries.
Cablevision (OOL) Basic 2Mbs
Cablevision (OOL) Boost 5Mbs
The list seems to be the lowest tier for each vendor so the OOL Basic is the correct tier for the list (the BOOST is the optional higher tier). | |
|
| | Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 | Re: At Least There Are No UPLOAD Jokes in This Post I forgot. What percentage of the 300 million of us have access to 2MB+ upload at $25-$65/mo?
HOW many zeros after the decimal?
Big changes indeed.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
|
| | crappy COAX Jezus.. Dump the freaking coax already.. pushing data through coax is BS.. Does anybody remember ThinNET? 10-base-2?? Why did we go away from that??? hmmmm
Fiber to the prem and be done with it.. All Coax cable TV companies need to go under.. | |
|
|
|
speed
