dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Cox Promises 1 Gbps Sometime This Year
by Karl Bode 10:34AM Wednesday Apr 30 2014
Add Cox Communications to the growing list of companies eager to insist they'll soon offer 1 Gbps service. "We’re working on our road map now to bring gigabit speeds to customers this year," Cox CEO Pat Esser told Bloomberg in an interview this week. Specific details were non-existent, making it impossible to determine if this is an empty "fiber to the press release" announcement, or if Cox will push the faster speeds broadly in a more serious expansion. All Esser tells Bloomberg really is that their expansion of 1 Gbps will piggyback on existing business infrastrutcure and will cost "at least hundreds of millions of dollars to build."

view:
topics flat nest 

SteveLV702
Premium
join:2004-04-22
Las Vegas, NV

ya right

ya just like bringing On-Demand to TiVo which you guys announced like 5 years ago but still isn't available.
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·KCH Cable

cap?

Great. Now, how about addressing the caps?

I mean, as it is right now, with what "most ordinary people" have, at 25Mbps, one can blast through the cap in just under 24hrs. Will this fabled gigabit service have a cap that even approaches that, or will it be capped at all of 1TB/mo, which one could use up in a few hrs.?

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: cap?

please don't use that argument. it makes no sense as much as we wish it did.
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party
MrBungle87

join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC

Re: cap?

Why? Explain to us again why caps make sense for the customer rather than the shareholder. Bytes are cheap. 10Gbit ports in colos and tier one ISPs cost nothing (100Gbit is coming down in price).
Rakeesh

join:2011-10-30
Mesa, AZ
Reviews:
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI

Re: cap?

Yeah they do make sense, to a point. I recall 1997 through 2001 when Cox's service was unreliable as hell because they gave everybody an uncapped service (it went as fast as you could make it go; it was generally possible to achieve 10mbit symmetrical due to cable modems only having 10mbit ethernet ports at the time.) Trouble is, the SNR was so bad because the line was flooded that you'd frequently lose sync with the CMTS.

This was mainly because Cox operated under the @home banner, who didn't give them the leeway to do this (as far as I recall, though I could be wrong about the exact politics.)

This finally ended with their first cap of 3mbit down 256kbit up, after which the service was extremely reliable. It wasn't tiered either, rather when you subscribed, that's just what you got. They eventually expanded that though.

Now as far as aggregate data caps (the kind you're referring to) Cox never started capping that until it became necessary in certain areas. Some nodes became over saturated, and the above mentioned problem occurred in those nodes. It was mainly the result of just a few users eating up TONS of bandwidth.

I'm personally one of those users, and I've hit somewhere north of 1TB in a month. I've gotten the emails from Cox, but I've ignored them for well over the last 3 years now. The reason they don't take action against me is because my node remains unsaturated. The only reason they'd take action against me is if what I was doing was affecting the service of other users, but at present, it is not.

I am a big critic of Cox, by the way, but as a network engineer I understand that home broadband isn't possible without oversubscription, and oversubscription isn't possible without certain limits. It just isn't. Having an OC3072 link evenly divided amongst the customers would cost each customer much more than they pay today. Not only that, but the last mile, support services, and everything else that goes with them also have to be maintained, and those aren't free either.

Queen Bee

@68.190.153.x

Re: cap?

What your talking about and what he is talking about is totally different, your talking basically "unlimited speed boost" he is talking about bandwidth, with a proper management it is easily to offer the speeds without the system crumbling.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
cox is a private company, there are no shareholders.
--
Despises any post with strings.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
said by ArrayList:

please don't use that argument. it makes no sense as much as we wish it did.

Care to explain this???

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: cap?

residential connections are not sold to be used 24/7 at full speed.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: cap?

said by ArrayList:

residential connections are not sold to be used 24/7 at full speed.

You realize that you can hit some of these caps in less than a day?

Not even close to 24/7

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: cap?

and people that do so should be on a business class connection.
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: cap?

said by ArrayList:

and people that do so should be on a business class connection.

Why??

People using ~2% of the capacity of their lines are abusers!!??

Sorry, that argument won't get you very far.
MrBungle87

join:2013-01-18
Durham, NC
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Time Warner Cable
said by ArrayList:

and people that do so should be on a business class connection.

Then how *are* residential connections meant to be used? Tell me what percentage of advertised bandwidth should be expected for what percentage of the day and why.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath for a valid reply from a troll.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA
Reviews:
·RCN CABLE
·Comcast

Re: cap?

most of the time you can expect bandwidth up to your subscribed rate. It can be lower.

and really, you think I'm a troll? Trolls don't have active 9 year old accounts.
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
Caps are all about protecting LEGACY VIDEO, has nothing to do with speed.
--
Despises any post with strings.
bookertdub

join:2012-10-08
San Diego, CA

Omaha

I have a feeling that if Cox does go through with this, their first launch city I would imagine would probably be Omaha, since that's where Century Link has their gigabit service.

ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Brighton, MA

Re: Omaha

keep it as far away from any technological corridor as possible.
--
A sane approach to our federal budget: Ignore the tea party
SatManager

join:2011-03-17
North Las Vegas, NV
Century Link also offers gigabit service in Las Vegas which is a Cox service area also.

Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

all this isp brinksmanship is amusing

why do these isp's bother. they rarely compete with each other in the same last mile marker, so what do i care if other isp's may deliver 100 or 500 or 1000 mbps, when I can't ever get them anyway. do they expect people to pickup and migrate to this faster isp coverage area? it's completely laughable of course we all know the moment isp's get comfortable delivering higher speeds is the exact same time they'll start data capping us - how stupid do they really think we all are?

sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile

DOCSIS 3.1

Considering that DOCSIS 3.1 is necessary and it's not really off the drawing board yet ... there are no certified modems for it ... I think 1 Gps is still a couple years off! Sounds to me he's saying that they'll be looking at it later this year ... but I would doubt anyone will actually get it!
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: DOCSIS 3.1

Not arguing against your point, just pointing out that often hardware is released as they met the anticipated specs that whatever the new technology is going to require to be "certified".

sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile

1 edit

Re: DOCSIS 3.1

said by »www.lightreading.com/cable-video···/708425"

As far as the timeline is concerned, DOCSIS 3.1 silicon is being developed now, and initial 3.1 cable modems should be ready for trials at the end of this year and the beginning of next year. Headend equipment trials and early deployments will likely follow in 2016.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: DOCSIS 3.1

said by sbrook:

and early deployments will likely follow in 2016.

A lot sooner then fiber could possible reach large numbers of people.
Say it takes until 2020 to widely deploy... How many customers will Google fiber reach by then? A million, maybe two? (if you're really lucky and nothing shiny distracts them) where cable touches hundreds of millions of peoples already.
The dreamers here hope for a widespread fiber rollout, but a near ubiquitous HFC network that is almost complete may be more practical, more affordable and actually possible within 5 years, some thing google-like fiber could never accomplish in that timescale.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: DOCSIS 3.1

At this rate it will be 2030 before a widespread fiber network is installed. However, if it started about 15 years ago as it should have when industries committed to 45 symmetrical connections then we wouldn't be talking about what could of been with fiber and would be talking about 10GB to every home as we should be.

No matter how you spin it, copper is very limited compared to fiber and every single time copper makes a big "break through" it is based on fiber already shortening the loop to the consumer to begin with. Even deploying FTTN is much more expensive long term then just deploying FTTP.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: DOCSIS 3.1

said by Skippy25:

However, if it started about 15 years ago as it should have when industries committed to 45 symmetrical connections then

Well let's get out the time machine and see if we can fix that for ya!
The equipment and ecomnomics didn't exist back then for widespread FTTP (in fact we were near the end of the DOT com bubble when people/companies promised all sorts of miricales were near at hand)
Time to forget all those woulda, coulda, shoulda's and work with the realitiy we see today. IF they were starting today the HFC plant probably would look more like FTTC or even FTTP and would be forty years from completion...however it's already in place has moved fiber to the node, and coax unlike teleco low twist pairs (ie the pots plant) has lots of last mile bandwidth.
I know you want to push a PON type solution but it isn't going to happen for most places for a longtime. Cable is that interim step which MAY or MAYNOT later transform to FTTP.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: DOCSIS 3.1

I believe it will happen sooner than we think as I believe eventually the government will step in and force it through a government build out of some sort.

Coax and 2 pair copper are inadequate.
Expand your moderator at work

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by sbrook:

Considering that DOCSIS 3.1 is necessary and it's not really off the drawing board yet ...

The spec is out and first gen test hardware is in process (it can take a couple revs. to hit the target ) Part of the goals this was to make the spec/test/and ramp to deployment more timely as that was a big negative in the 3.0 development.

RyanThaDude
Indiana's No. 1 Zero

join:2004-01-24
Walkerton, IN

So what about the upload?

All this talk of Gigabit downloads, but what about upload? If it's anything typical of cable companies, the speed package will be something like 1000/20.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: So what about the upload?

said by RyanThaDude:

All this talk of Gigabit downloads, but what about upload? If it's anything typical of cable companies, the speed package will be something like 1000/20.

A bit of an exaggeration?
Under D3 and 3.1 such extremely unbalanced speeds aren't necessary even if it was possible.
MOST Cable providers do actual try to/ succeed at offering desirable product lines, contrary to some of the silly things some people say here.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: So what about the upload?

This is very silly if you guys think 3.1 will offer Gig speeds to end users. This would require no TV on the lines and what 10 customers per node??

Gig service will be on fiber just like Comcast uses for its highest tiers.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: So what about the upload?

said by DataRiker:

Gig service will be on fiber just like Comcast uses for its highest tiers.

Probably will for those people willing to pay for Gbit service, most will be fine with lower speeds and bills, but each step moves fiber deeper into the last mile all across the country, not just a few neighborhoods in a few cherry picked cities.

RyanThaDude
Indiana's No. 1 Zero

join:2004-01-24
Walkerton, IN
If you think that's an exaggeration, my provider, Mediacom, is testing a 305/10 package in certain markets. Yup, 305 down, 10 up. All because they don't want to currently offer multiple upload channels.

tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

Re: So what about the upload?

said by RyanThaDude:

Mediacom, is testing a 305/10 package in certain markets. Yup, 305 down, 10 up

so not exactly 1000/10 but still too unbalanced (are they on D3 or D2+ ?) maybe you''ll get lucky and charter or spinco will absorb Mediacom soon.
You need a company more interested in the longer term investment.
On the other hand Walkerton is hardly metropolis so you are fortunate they decided to build a cable system there.