DOCSIS 3.0 Gets Faster Broadcom latest to unveil eight channel chips Wednesday Jan 07 2009 12:10 EDT While minimum DOCSIS 3.0 requirements involve bonding four downstream channels and four upstream channels, several new modem chipsets can bond up to eight QAM downstream channels. With each 6 MHz channel offering around 40Mbps of throughput, these new chipsets could theoretically provide 320Mbps of downstream throughput. Broadcom today announced that they've joined Motorola and others, unveiling their next-generation of eight downstream channel DOCSIS and Euro-DOCSIS 3.0 chipsets at CES. Of course many carriers haven't even deployed standard DOCSIS 3.0 yet; these chips are a long-term play for cable operators eying IPTV functionality. |
|
38 Mbps x 8= 308 Mbps per node, but with a huge tax on availability of other services due to how much space eight downstream channels would take up. To top it all off, BPON is still 2x that speed, and GPON is about 700% faster.
So even if cable operators deploy the tech, they'd have to do a ridiculous amount of node splitting in order to compete with fiber. Goshdarnit, you just can't win, can you? | |
| | imrf Premium Member join:2002-06-06 Utica, MI |
imrf
Premium Member
2009-Jan-7 11:54 am
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by iansltx:So even if cable operators deploy the tech, they'd have to do a ridiculous amount of node splitting in order to compete with fiber. No they don't. If they went pure IP, meaning they dump all legacy analog channels, they would have 107 open channels on a 860mhz system. Add up those numbers and see what kind of bandwidth you have there without needing to split or upgrade. Goshdarnit, you just can't win, can you? While FTTP is great on paper, in reality it isn't quite there yet. Cable can do some upgrades and make their current network as fast, if not faster than what Verizon has deployed and is deploying. | |
| | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8This is what I've been saying.
Cable can do a lot more with coax. It's not dead yet.
I would prefer to have fiber to the home, but if that's not possible, HFC can do a lot more than it is doing today. | |
| | | | pende_tim Premium Member join:2004-01-04 Selbyville, DE |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8And what do we need to get Service Electric to upgrade their outside plant? | |
| | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by pende_tim:And what do we need to get Service Electric to upgrade their outside plant? Their outside plant is upgraded in many areas. The Sparta system is DOCSIS3 capable. I'm running their 30/2 service at home with the DPC2505 modem. To get them beyond that what they need is competition. Embarq seems to be happy just deploying DSL and nothing else. FiOS has had the effect of forcing cable companies to explore plant and wiring upgrades where previously they didn't even bother. Maybe Embarq needs to do the same, but it seems unlikely given their business model. | |
| | | | | | pende_tim Premium Member join:2004-01-04 Selbyville, DE |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8I knew they offered the 30x2 tier on my street but I ass/u/med it was a DOCIS 2.x base. At $80/mo + tax/fees I will pass. Like you say, speed is only good for bragging rights when the cap is 50GB. I am in a Verizon ILEC area so maybe some day I will see fiber. I will see pigs fly before that however. | |
| | | | | | | 1 edit |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8I actually do have a legit use for the speed, and it's not P2P. I work from home sometimes and have to download/upload large files. I mainly got the upgrade for the upload.
Work pays for my home internet connection, up to $100/month so might as well make of use of it eh?
Maybe one day Embarq will wake up and smell the coffee, but right now they are happy overcharging for local phone service and DSL. Given that a lot of consumers in my neck of the woods are on satellite, it is likely that they are also on DSL. | |
|
| cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
to iansltx
said by iansltx:To top it all off, BPON is still 2x that speed, and GPON is about 700% faster. ...and in Verizon's FiOS case, none of that 2-7 times the speed is dedicated to providing television services except VOD. | |
| | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8Verizon's TV service is the same as an 860MHz cable system. If cable companies go to 1GHz and make the nodes smaller, they can provide an equivalent service offering. | |
| | | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2009-Jan-7 12:21 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by fifty nine:Verizon's TV service is the same as an 860MHz cable system. If cable companies go to 1GHz and make the nodes smaller, they can provide an equivalent service offering. Cable cos have to split the 860MHz of bandwidth between television, internet, and telephone service. Verizon has a dedicated lambda for television service and another for telephone/data/VOD. It's NOT the same. | |
| | | | | 1 edit |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8If they go 1GHz they will have 140MHz beyond what Verizon currently has for the TV service. That 140MHz is is 23 channels. at 38Mbps per channel, that's 874MBps. That's a lot of bandwidth.
Throw in MPEG4 or IPTV transport for the TV portion and Cable will have plenty of room to be competitive with what FiOS is offering.
With 1GHz They certainly can offer what FiOS is offering today, and with higher frequencies and smaller nodes, what Verizon is offering 10 years from now.
Fiber may be sexy and all, but coax isn't dead yet by a long shot. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by fifty nine:If they go 1GHz they will have 140MHz beyond what Verizon currently has for the TV service. So? FiOS uses a completely separate lamba, or wavelength, of TV service. It doesn't matter if Fios TV is 850Mhz or 1Ghz, it has no affect on the bandwidth available for data, like in an HFC setup. With 1GHz They certainly can offer what FiOS is offering today, and with higher frequencies and smaller nodes, what Verizon is offering 10 years from now. Currently, yes. In 10 years, no. When you add in telephone, VoD, HD and data altogether in that 1GHz of spectrum, you have at best, maybe five years of parity, but definitely not ten unless you start shrinking nodes down to less than 32 subscribers, at which point FTTH is more cost effective. Fiber may be sexy and all, but coax isn't dead yet by a long shot. I agree that HFC has a lot of mileage left, but its ability to keep up with FTTH is going to become an increasingly uphill battle over time. | |
| | | | | | | n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2009-Jan-7 1:12 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by NetAdmin1:FiOS uses a completely separate lamba, or wavelength, of TV service. Or for those on this forum who are technically challenged to various terms, they can add more colors of light to their fiber, each color running at capacity. So I could run TV on blue, Internet on red and Voice on green. If I want more TV capacity I could add orange, yellow and violet. Of course the granularity is much greater than this but the concept is the same. Fiber has much more growth potential. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by n2jtx:Or for those on this forum who are technically challenged to various terms, they can add more colors of light to their fiber, each color running at capacity. So I could run TV on blue, Internet on red and Voice on green. If I want more TV capacity I could add orange, yellow and violet. Of course the granularity is much greater than this but the concept is the same. Fiber has much more growth potential. You should know about techncially challened. Doesn't sound like they covered a lot of theory in the technician test... *snicker* Colors are simply different frequencies. RF or light, it's still the same concept. There is equipment available today to push cable to 3GHz, which is triple the bandwidth it has today. This is more than enough to offer what FiOS can offer. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8Your argument has a few flaws.
1)If cable can switch to a 1 GHZ plant, then couldn't Verizon do the same thing? Also that 1 GHZ plant would ride entirely on the 1550nm video light stream right? That means the 1310 and 1490 still dedicated to voice and data correct? So Verizon still wins. (Same applies to 3GHZ)
2)DWDM = Dense wavelength division multiplexing. Verizon can fit a lot more wavelengths of light onto the fiber but currently it is cost prohibitive to do so in a residential/consumer application, but if consumer demand requires such a route, the fiber has a lot more capacity left in it.
3)If cable were to split their nodes down to 32 subscribers like Verizon has with their FiOS, then why not just go fiber to the home, it couldn't really be that much more expensive right?
4)Doing the math on a 3GHz cable plant with 38 Mbps per channel yields a theoretical max speed of 19Gbps using the entire bandwidth for ip/data (correct me if my math is wrong) Meanwhile Verizon has posted successful trials of 100 Gbps on fiber already.
5)Cable attenuates faster than fiber especially when you get into the higher frequency ranges.
6)In the real world (not lab tests) fiber will work better than coax.
Btw, I do agree however that cable has plenty of legroom left for the needs/demands of today's consumer. But it will never have the same capacity as fiber. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC |
Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Jan-7 3:13 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by waiting4fios:Meanwhile Verizon has posted successful trials of 100 Gbps on fiber already. That was a long distance backhaul, not to the customer premise. Comcast and Time Warner have successfully trialed the same thing over fiber. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
to waiting4fios
said by waiting4fios:Your argument has a few flaws. 1)If cable can switch to a 1 GHZ plant, then couldn't Verizon do the same thing?
Theoretically they can. What's your point? quote: Also that 1 GHZ plant would ride entirely on the 1550nm video light stream right? That means the 1310 and 1490 still dedicated to voice and data correct? So Verizon still wins. (Same applies to 3GHZ)
Voice and data are a still very small portion of the cable spectrum used for the last mile. quote: 2)DWDM = Dense wavelength division multiplexing. Verizon can fit a lot more wavelengths of light onto the fiber but currently it is cost prohibitive to do so in a residential/consumer application, but if consumer demand requires such a route, the fiber has a lot more capacity left in it.
As we've seen, consumer demand drives nothing, at least in America. You aren't going to see what FTTH is fully capable of, at least not within the next 10 years. Verizon will have to get a return on its initial FiOS deployment first. quote: 3)If cable were to split their nodes down to 32 subscribers like Verizon has with their FiOS, then why not just go fiber to the home, it couldn't really be that much more expensive right?
The infrastructure for last mile coax with 32 subscribers each is pretty much there. They probably won't even need a truck roll for most subscribers. It would be transparent and not an 8 hour install for most subscribers. Less cost per subscriber to deploy. quote: 4)Doing the math on a 3GHz cable plant with 38 Mbps per channel yields a theoretical max speed of 19Gbps using the entire bandwidth for ip/data (correct me if my math is wrong) Meanwhile Verizon has posted successful trials of 100 Gbps on fiber already.
Safe to say, you're not going to see 100GBps for a residential internet connection anytime soon, at least not in America. Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware. quote: 5)Cable attenuates faster than fiber especially when you get into the higher frequency ranges.
Smaller nodes will overcome this. quote: 6)In the real world (not lab tests) fiber will work better than coax.
I never denied that. quote: Btw, I do agree however that cable has plenty of legroom left for the needs/demands of today's consumer. But it will never have the same capacity as fiber. True. But as we can plainly see, the FiOS fanboys on DSLR just LOVE to play "my provider can beat up your provider." | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
Lazlow
Member
2009-Jan-7 3:59 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8"Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 Ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware."
I do not know what you have been smoking but 100 meg Ethernet is only 12.5megabytes/s most current hard drives are capable of sustained 70megabytes/s with many of the newer(non scsi) drives breaking 100. The vast majority of new computers come with GigE(125Megabytes/s) with a lot of them coming with dual GigE connections. I run both Linux and windows(only when I have to) and have both doing 70megabyte/s transfers without doing anything special. You should also be aware that the vast majority of new machines come with Raid chipsets and that a significant portion of the population is using them( two 70MB/s drives in a Raid0 array will match GigE). Todays desktop hardware is very much capable of handling even GigE speeds. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8You are still NOT going to see gigabit to the home speed in America anytime soon. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
Lazlow
Member
2009-Jan-7 5:07 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by Lazlow:That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. The hardware and software combo is. Most people are using Windows, and with a gigE adapter on a PCIe bus, Windows barely passes 100MBps. Maybe if more people used Mac or Linux, but their numbers are still small. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC 1 edit |
Matt3
Premium Member
2009-Jan-8 10:45 am
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by fifty nine:said by Lazlow:That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. The hardware and software combo is. Most people are using Windows, and with a gigE adapter on a PCIe bus, Windows barely passes 100MBps. Maybe if more people used Mac or Linux, but their numbers are still small. Do you mean 100Mbps? I assure you, a Linux nor Mac desktop will pull over 800Mbps (100MBps) on the same hardware as Windows. Aside from that, Mac or Linux is no more capable than Windows and you will not see a significant throughput advantage. I see about 500Mbps to my little dinky Windows Home Server with a Celeron Dual Core and standard SATA 1st gen hard drives. I can pull from the server close to that as well on my Vista desktop and over 300Mbps to my laptop. My Linux (CentOS) desktop has slightly lower performance than my Windows machines. My Dell 2950 servers with 15k RAID-10 SAS arrays can push close to what you're talking about, but even then a single server can't saturate a 1Gbps link ... and I have Linux and Windows servers on the same hardware. Irregardless of all that off-topic nonsense the vast majority of people at home still run 802.11b or 802.11g and until they upgrade to something faster, will never see more than 11Mbps-15Mbps anyway. To add to the overall thread, regardless of what AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner would have you believe, there is no bandwidth apocalypse and Cable is not in trouble any time soon. FiOS serves a VERY SMALL portion of the Northeast and tiny areas scattered elsewhere. People seem to forget Time Warner and Comcast are more worried about AT&T than Verizon. And AT&T frankly brought a knife (U-Verse) to a gun-fight. DOCSIS 3.0 will eat U-Verse for lunch. So we'll continue to see what we've seen so far. Time Warner and Comcast will respond to FiOS where they have to with limited DOCSIS 3.0 deployments and no-caps. They'll make up this investment by capping, throttling, and squeeezing every bit (pun intended) of bandwidth from the current plant before upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0. As it stands right now, Cable has the advantage over U-Verse and unless a drastic shift in technology happens, with DOCSIS 3.0 they will stay competitive for many, many years to come against FiOS. Would the world be a better place if everyone had 1Gbps fiber to their house? I think so, absolutely. But unless the government steps in, private business will not deploy that type of technology for 10+ years. The financials just don't make sense. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat. Premium Member join:2002-10-17 Boonville, NY |
to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:"Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 Ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware." I do not know what you have been smoking but 100 meg Ethernet is only 12.5megabytes/s most current hard drives are capable of sustained 70megabytes/s with many of the newer(non scsi) drives breaking 100. The vast majority of new computers come with GigE(125Megabytes/s) with a lot of them coming with dual GigE connections. I run both Linux and windows(only when I have to) and have both doing 70megabyte/s transfers without doing anything special. You should also be aware that the vast majority of new machines come with Raid chipsets and that a significant portion of the population is using them( two 70MB/s drives in a Raid0 array will match GigE). Todays desktop hardware is very much capable of handling even GigE speeds. Your argument is partly true. However, do not forget to consider that most homes now have more than one appliance using the Net. My home may not be average when it comes to net usage, but I have 8 appliances connected to the home. If I hooked everything up, it would be 10. I can download movies via my DTV on demand, or get them via the xbox 360. Each member has their own laptop, one appliance basically plays music all day, and then there is my office with it's servers and a desktop. I honestly can see a use for much larger bandwidth TODAY, much less what I will probably need 10 years from now. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
Lazlow
Member
2009-Jan-7 11:07 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8Jafo
I assume you are replying to the quote of EatMe and not to me. My point was the todays desktops are more than capable of handling even GigE speeds, so we can handle (in house) much more bandwidth than the ISPs provide. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
to Jafo232
said by Jafo232:said by Lazlow:"Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 Ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware." I do not know what you have been smoking but 100 meg Ethernet is only 12.5megabytes/s most current hard drives are capable of sustained 70megabytes/s with many of the newer(non scsi) drives breaking 100. The vast majority of new computers come with GigE(125Megabytes/s) with a lot of them coming with dual GigE connections. I run both Linux and windows(only when I have to) and have both doing 70megabyte/s transfers without doing anything special. You should also be aware that the vast majority of new machines come with Raid chipsets and that a significant portion of the population is using them( two 70MB/s drives in a Raid0 array will match GigE). Todays desktop hardware is very much capable of handling even GigE speeds. Your argument is partly true. However, do not forget to consider that most homes now have more than one appliance using the Net. My home may not be average when it comes to net usage, but I have 8 appliances connected to the home. If I hooked everything up, it would be 10. I can download movies via my DTV on demand, or get them via the xbox 360. Each member has their own laptop, one appliance basically plays music all day, and then there is my office with it's servers and a desktop. I honestly can see a use for much larger bandwidth TODAY, much less what I will probably need 10 years from now. I actually have a lot of things hooked up to my internet connection too. I have a couple of TiVos (the genuine ones, not the knockoffs), game consoles (Wii and XBOX360), Vonage, BD-Live player and slingbox. Even when I was on 10MBps I was able to use everything with no problem. Online gaming? No problem. Slingbox? No problem. Netflix HD on TiVo or XBOX360? No problem either. I've used some of these simultaneously while my better half was on her computer using her work's VPN. In fact my whole house is wired with Cat6, from the basement to the attic. 30 ports total with a 48 port GigE switch in the basement. The firewall I use is my old P4 machine with pfSense. I still barely use a 30 meg connection. A GigE connection would still be hardly used. In fact, let's go even further. At work I manage a small server farm, roughly 150 servers. At the firewall, total usage up/down barely reaches 300MBps. We have 2GBps fiber from the server room to the internet. The vast majority of my servers are internet facing and serve public internet customers. Some through a caching service, but some directly. Some of the traffic is video, some html and static images. I'm even serving HD video now. Currently we're doing around 300MBps outbound, and 100 inbound. So even if commercial users don't use a full gig, why would home users? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
frustrated12 to Lazlow
Anon
2009-Jan-7 10:37 pm
to Lazlow
he said 100 MB not 100mb. So 100MB= 100 MEGABYTES. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO 1 edit |
Lazlow
Member
2009-Jan-7 11:04 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8Frustrated
If you go back and read the thread you will see that he was replying to 100Mbps and Gbps. The natural assumption would be that his use of MB and GB in his reply was a typo(confirmed by his use in the later reply of gigabit). If it is not, then his initial reply is irrelevant anyway. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to Lazlow
Most older onboard/offboard GigE solutions used the PCI bus, and topped out between 400-600mbit/s.
This hasn't been a problem for onboard chipsets for quite some time, nor is it a problem for modern PCIe network cards. PCIe 1.0 1x provides 250MB/s of aggregate bandwidth after overhead, so you'd have to saturate your NIC in both directions to consume all the bandwidth.
PCIe 2.0 (which has been shipping for some time now) of course doubles that to 500MB/s per lane (and PCIe 3.0 doubles it again), but I've not heard of anything but graphics cards that support it to date; anything that needs more than 250MB/s just uses a 4x slot (rare on desktops, more common in workstations and servers), which currently provides 1-2 GB/s of bandwidth (depending on version). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
to fifty nine
Youre the cable fanboy trying to convince yourself.. and others .. that coax is just good as FTTP.
Tell that to the thousands of people out there having internet slowdowns during peak hours.
LOL | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by ITALIAN926:Youre the cable fanboy trying to convince yourself.. and others .. that coax is just good as FTTP. Tell that to the thousands of people out there having internet slowdowns during peak hours. LOL I never said that coax is as good as FTTP. I am saying that they can offer what Verizon is offering today and well into the future with no big infrastructure outlay. To that, the FiOS fanboys like to crow "no!!! cable sux! FiOS rules!" | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:There is equipment available today to push cable to 3GHz, which is triple the bandwidth it has today. This is more than enough to offer what FiOS can offer. Here's the problem with that... There is no equipment that supports 3Ghz HFC yet. And for the foreseeable future, there won't be. If you are talking about Vyyo (or another vendor), their equipment is proprietary, which is a huge barrier to wide scale deployment. Not to mention all the plant work that needs to be done to get it 3Ghz capable. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by NetAdmin1:said by fifty nine:There is equipment available today to push cable to 3GHz, which is triple the bandwidth it has today. This is more than enough to offer what FiOS can offer. Here's the problem with that... There is no equipment that supports 3Ghz HFC yet. And for the foreseeable future, there won't be. If you are talking about Vyyo (or another vendor), their equipment is proprietary, which is a huge barrier to wide scale deployment. Not to mention all the plant work that needs to be done to get it 3Ghz capable. Cablevision has been running tests with a proprietary solution for their 50/50 tier. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
jimboe
Member
2009-Jan-8 6:37 pm
Re: 38 Mbps x 8said by fifty nine:said by NetAdmin1:said by fifty nine:There is equipment available today to push cable to 3GHz, which is triple the bandwidth it has today. This is more than enough to offer what FiOS can offer. Here's the problem with that... There is no equipment that supports 3Ghz HFC yet. And for the foreseeable future, there won't be. If you are talking about Vyyo (or another vendor), their equipment is proprietary, which is a huge barrier to wide scale deployment. Not to mention all the plant work that needs to be done to get it 3Ghz capable. Cablevision has been running tests with a proprietary solution for their 50/50 tier. That was their Ultra "branded" tier of service, which was shelved a long time ago and was never scheduled to be rolled out, IIRC. | |
|
| | | | | | |
to NetAdmin1
I don't see it as that much of challenge once they decide to get rid of their analog channels. Just doing that gives cable plants quite a bit of bandwidth. Then they can start seriously looking at switched digital video. That would free up even more bandwidth. Enough to let them keep for quite some time without shrinking node sizes or moving to 1GHz or higher spectrum usage. | |
|
| | | | |
to cdru
said by cdru:said by fifty nine:Verizon's TV service is the same as an 860MHz cable system. If cable companies go to 1GHz and make the nodes smaller, they can provide an equivalent service offering. Cable cos have to split the 860MHz of bandwidth between television, internet, and telephone service. Verizon has a dedicated lambda for television service and another for telephone/data/VOD. It's NOT the same. It actually is » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency People tend to ignore the real definition of the acronyms. Lambda or wavelength is defined by the speed of light in vacuum divided by the frequency =c/f DOCSIS1~3 have different lambdas for VOD/VOIP TV and internet. 5-42MHz or if you wish lambda 60-7 meters for upstream 88-1GHz for downstream (3 meters-30 centimeters) for internet any 6 MHz segment (DOCSIS1-2) or multiple 6 MHz segments (DOCSIS3) and for VOIP any KHz segments. In fiber optics you have 1490 or 1310 or else nM (nano meters) 's Lambda and lambada are not the same thing | |
| | | | | | •••••••••
| | djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to iansltx
said by iansltx:= 308 Mbps per node, but with a huge tax on availability of other services due to how much space eight downstream channels would take up. To top it all off, BPON is still 2x that speed, and GPON is about 700% faster. So even if cable operators deploy the tech, they'd have to do a ridiculous amount of node splitting in order to compete with fiber. Goshdarnit, you just can't win, can you? Not if they go 1ghz. That's what Time Warner is doing in SoCal. Existing cable boxes and cablemodems can't utilize that space, but DOCSIS 3 gear can. | |
|
|
What good is all that speed?This sounds great, but what good is it? I mean, you can only surf the Web so fast. It'd be great for HD video, but if you have caps, you can burn through that very quickly.
What the cable and DSL companies don't want to admit is that the Internet is changing. Sure, it's still used mainly for Web surfing and e-mail, but file downloads (legal and otherwise) are hugely popular, and so is VoIP, radio, and video streaming. The Internet is changing from a simple connection to one or more computers in a home to many different connected devices doing many different things, yet the cable companies and DSL companies are trying to make caps sound reasonable by talking about how many Web pages you can view or how many e-mails you can send. Well, that's not how many people are starting to use the Net now.
So again I ask, what good is all this speed if you have low caps? I guess it's good because you can hit the cap in a day, allowing the provider to resell your bandwidth to others much more efficiently. | |
| | |
Re: What good is all that speed?It's great for running speed tests and stroking your ego. | |
|
|
Isn't this an oxymoron?Each time the technology takes one step forward, the cable industry takes two steps back. At this rate, I think a couple of years we will have DOC, Dialup-Over-Coax. With pay per bit usage. | |
| | DarkLogixTexan and Proud Premium Member join:2008-10-23 Baytown, TX |
Re: Isn't this an oxymoron?but you'll have gig service
lol it might be funny if it weren't plausible
you'll pay by the bit and have gigabit service so you could download a thousand $ worth of files in just a sec | |
|
|
Upstream?I see all this talk about 8 downstream and everyone talking about 300mb/s+ download speeds... but what would the upload be? Are you replacing the four upstream channels with additional downstream? Separate upstream channels? Can you even upload with that modem? There are very few specifics... | |
| | •••••• | |
Missing a point.Cable will NOT allow you this bandwidth anytime soon, if ever.. because it will cannibalize their cable-tv services. The torrent is on the web(handwriting on the wall).. customers will download & stream instead of buying blocks of channels which you're forced to buy in tiers... and rent their equipment to watch it on as well. Cable ISP is still a walled garden--so watch what happens to your bandwidth *carefully* if you aren't a tv subscriber. $$$
You can expect more upgrades from telcos with less restrictions on use than a cable company due to this conflict of interest. That's just the nature of the last mile ISP market. You need look no further than Comcast as a shining example.
Also, announcing new technologies is a far cry from actually getting them in the home. DSL had similar so-called breakthroughs of higher speeds at greater distance copper runs and on poorer quality copper snr lines. What actually got to the market, is QUITE another story. | |
| | |
Re: Missing a point.said by tmc8080:Cable will NOT allow you this bandwidth anytime soon, if ever.. because it will cannibalize their cable-tv services. The torrent is on the web(handwriting on the wall).. customers will download & stream instead of buying blocks of channels which you're forced to buy in tiers... and rent their equipment to watch it on as well. Cable ISP is still a walled garden--so watch what happens to your bandwidth *carefully* if you aren't a tv subscriber. $$$ You can expect more upgrades from telcos with less restrictions on use than a cable company due to this conflict of interest. That's just the nature of the last mile ISP market. You need look no further than Comcast as a shining example. Also, announcing new technologies is a far cry from actually getting them in the home. DSL had similar so-called breakthroughs of higher speeds at greater distance copper runs and on poorer quality copper snr lines. What actually got to the market, is QUITE another story. I don't get it. The cable company already charges you a premium for "dry" cable internet service (i.e. without TV). Most people who have cable internet also have cable TV. So why would they be afraid of people watching TV over the internet now? That doesn't seem to make sense. As for the telcos, don't forget that Verizon is pushing FiOS mainly as a TV service, so they also have a conflict of interest here, yet they have no official caps or limits. How come? Something doesn't add up here. | |
|
|
Heck, I'll take 10Mbps at this point...It's all a moot point when your choices for internet are 3Mbps/385 from AT&T or 3Mbps/768 from Grande. Honestly, the local franchise system needs an overhaul to make it easier for competition to spread. Throw in some tax incentives for growth (tax exempt purchases on plant upgrades) and we might actually be getting somewhere in a few years. | |
| |
Personally..I like coax, it is self-serviceable, cheaper to run, and doesn't take FOREVER to install. Not to mention if you bend it past a certain degree it doesn't tend to break. If an end goes bad, you can re-end it relatively fast and cheaply, unlike fiber.
Also with Cable, it has never seen its true potential, unfortunately we have major companies that whine instead of upgrade equipment, and a music industry that wants to get more and more money for less and less work. See a pattern here? AMERICA IS LAZY! AND it is getting worse.
I am personally waiting for LTE from Verizon, because the top speeds people have been seeing are well over what they are offering with fiber, and it will be cheaper per month!
LTE= Death of the landline other than cable and fiber. | |
|
| |
|
|