dslreports logo
 story category
DOCSIS 3.0's 'Sweet' Economics
European carrier pays $20 per home passed to upgrade
As we've recently noted, the cable industry's own data indicates that cable service passes roughly 125 million U.S. homes. Upgrading the majority of those users can be done relatively inexpensively with DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades, which a Comcast executive once stated could be completed with "couch change." Cablevision was able to upgrade their entire service area with DOCSIS 3.0 for $300 million, with enough money left over to offer free Wi-Fi to users as well. Executives for European operator Liberty Global seem to agree with the idea that DOCSIS 3.0 provides a lot of bang for the buck:
quote:
Liberty Global is spending on average about $20 per home passed for its rapid network buildout of Docsis 3.0, the platform the operator is using to deliver downstream speeds of 100 Mbit/s or more in portions of Europe. "The economics are quite sweet for Docsis 3.0," says Timothy Burke, Liberty Global's VP of strategic technology, who highlighted those costs at the recent Cable Next-Gen Broadband Strategies 2010 event in Denver.
Liberty is using the EuroDOCSIS standard, which uses 8MHz-wide channels as opposed to the 6MHz-wide channels used in North America.That total doesn't include the cost of DOCSIS 3.0 modems, though DOC 3 modem costs dropped 30% last year alone, and a number of models can now be had for $50 in the UK (The Motorola SB6120 can be had for $85 here in the States). Next up for many cable operators: improving cable upstream speeds.
view:
topics flat nest 
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Where are the $50 modems?

Links?

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Where are the $50 modems?

Sorry, Liberty was talking UK prices for EuroDOCSIS hardware. Though we're getting closer here:

»www.amazon.com/Motorola- ··· 2&sr=8-2
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Where are the $50 modems?

£50? That's roughly $75. Also, the price of that modem on Amazon has stayed static for nine months or so now. You can get 'em on eBay for $79, but still nowhere near $50. If the price was $50 then I'd be owning my own D3 modem rather than renting the Ambit/Ubee Comcast gave me.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Where are the $50 modems?

Yeah not sure what figures Liberty's exec is citing. Perhaps EuroDOCSIS gear is cheaper? Looked on Amazon UK quickly and didn't see any gear....
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Where are the $50 modems?

Possibly they're talking about buying in bulk. I'm sure Comcast et al are getting Ubee modems for around the $50 mark. FWIW all the DOCSIS modems that I've seen support both North America and Euro standards; the SB6120 and Amb...er...Ubee's D3 modem are both Euro-compatible.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Where are the $50 modems?

Bulk would make sense.

Shack
join:2002-01-17
Bloomington, IN

Shack to iansltx

Member

to iansltx
I am sure you are right
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Simple solution on CPE...

... If customers want the 3.0 service, then either have the customer purchase their own, or simply "sell" them to the customer and stop the modem leasing.... since they're already consumer products, the cable companies should get out of the modem rental business.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Simple solution on CPE...

You can buy the CPEs up front if you want...it's just a little spendy.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Simple solution on CPE...

said by iansltx:

You can buy the CPEs up front if you want...it's just a little spendy.
Um, I said that already.. my point was that the cable co's should simply move to an "all customer" equipment situation like phone mostly has done.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Simple solution on CPE...

This way the installation costs are lower...and people like that. The option still remains, but would you rather spend $75 to get cable internet set up or $150?

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:
said by iansltx:

You can buy the CPEs up front if you want...it's just a little spendy.
Um, I said that already.. my point was that the cable co's should simply move to an "all customer" equipment situation like phone mostly has done.
Only that settops are a VERY LUCRATIVE part that american cable will NEVER let the consumer buy[canadians can buy their own box!]
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Simple solution on CPE...

We're talking about modems here.. not STBs...
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
very few cable companies require a lease on the modems. Comcast is the largest that does that.

TWC the 2nd largest MSO does not require a lease on the modem- instead provides the modem for free (of course built into the price) which makes more sense then charging an extra $3+ for the modems. If the modems starts to go out...call them and have them bring a new one or go to the local office and pick one up. You don't have to wait and go to Best Buy or WM and buy one or anything. Also the problem with buying one is you'd have to make sure your MSO supports that modem. Many MSOs have a very strict list on modems they'll use and which ones they won't. So you'd have to check before you even purchased it.

DadeMurphy
Premium Member
join:2002-07-25
Danvers, MA

DadeMurphy

Premium Member

Re: Simple solution on CPE...

Comcast doesn't require you to lease a modem, you can buy your own if you so choose.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Simple solution on CPE...

yes but again, they charge a lease if you don't purchase and they also most likely have a list of modems you have to choose from.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A

Premium Member

Funny

There never seems to be any money left over to lower rates.

tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium Member
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA

tim_k

Premium Member

what for?

What good is DOCSIS 3.0 if they don't increase their backbone bandwidth? That's where the real costs lie.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: what for?

Actually...no.

The backbone has plenty of speed. I'm guessing that your typical fiber haul from a big city cableco is a gigabit if not more. Backbone routes aren't really congested, compared with the last mile.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

Re: what for?

A gigabit connected to what?

On DOCSIS 1.1, each 256QAM is capable of 38mbps downstream. 1000mbps certainly may not be "plenty" to handle a city with hundreds of nodes.

I can't count the number of times LA area customers have struggled with Road Runner, to have everyone on the forum figure out that the line is being pinched at some router well upstream of the CMTS. The complaints are rarely neighborhood level, more typically are headend specific, and sometimes even more broad than that.

This sort of thing is more manageable and more likely to be fixed than last-mile congestion, but backbone connectivity/peering quality definitely varies a lot between providers, and can definitely be a major sticking point when it comes to getting the bandwidth your'e paying for.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: what for?

Let me rephrase: the biggest bottleneck tends to be on the last mile. Upstream of that there can still be issues (ask DSL folks what I'm talking about) however those are a bit easier to fix. It's a lot easier to swap out a line card in a core router than it is to upgrade stuff in the field.

Also, for cities like LA, I'm sure 10GE network topology is used over 1Gbps when we're talking about core routing. In smaller towns though a gigabit is plenty. Just depends on how many customers you have.

Peering and transit is definitely an issue, particularly as it relates to upstream carrier choice. However upgrading a link to, say, Level3 isn't a big deal compared with deploying DOCSIS 3.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet

MVM

Re: what for?

said by iansltx:

In smaller towns though a gigabit is plenty. Just depends on how many customers you have.
more often than not, you just user the providers transit network - unless its a completely rural operator. in areas that cox communications serves (like tucson and surrounding areas), an oc12 exists between phoenix and tucson. from there, it leaves phoenix and hops onto level(3), either in georgia or socal.

peering only occurs when the provider can get cheap upstream bandwidth. if you're a small, rural provider (such as our good friend SuperWISP See Profile), then you're stuck with whatever your local lec can provide you at the cost you're willing to pay. if you're a larger carrier, then you move along your transit network until you can get the best price.

additionally, i'm sure that sonet/sdh/pos are used more often than ethernet for backbone routing at this point. that may change in the future when 100gbe is standardized, however.

q.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: what for?

I'd beg to differ. To my knowledge Comcast is running an all-Ethernet network, and if you're a provider of any size you're probably willing to haul your bandwidth a little ways to dump it on the Internet for cheaper.

On Comcast, they have an Nx40Gbit national backbone, with peering in Ashburn, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas. There's probably some transit in there as well; I imagine Comcast is paying TATA (AS6453) and Global Crossing (AS3549) for network access. I'm guessing TW Telecom, AT&T and Cogent are peering. Comcast has Level3 transit in several markets where they don't do peering, namely Denver, Seattle and I think Houston. They probably have some L3 in Florida but I didn't check the last time I was down there. Over time Comcast's peering/transit portfolio has grown to the point that I no longer complain about being on a network that routes me to LA before doing anything with my outbound traffic, though this sometimes still does happen.

As for small providers just taking whatever they can get, let me give you a few examples to the contrary

1. Hill Country Telephone Cooperative (third largest cooperative in Texas, but still well under 100,000 customers) rides on other cooperatives' networks to get its bandwidth, but the cost of doing this isn't bad at all. A year ago they had a T3 or two from Qwest, routing from Dallas. Now they use TLSN (the cooperative of cooperatives network) and get 200 Mbit of Level3 that way, though traffic takes a rather circuitous route to their POP versus straight down from Dallas. Going from the opposite direction, they've grabbed a gigabit of Cogent in San Antonio, riding on a nearby cooperative's network to get that access. All of the network is Ethernet at this point, including a 10 Gbit backbone.

2. GVTC (Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative) is the largest Texas telephone cooperative, and it kinda shows; they have 40/10 FTTH in many areas. They get 100% of their bandwidth from AT&T, but they used to have multiple bandwidth providers (Sprint, AT&T and Verizon I think) so they could switch things up if they wanted to. I'm going to guess that they have a gigabit or three from AT&T for internet access. Their home-area backbone network is 10GE.

Granted, the 10GE networks might be OC192, but the connections to the backbone provider are all Ethernet.

3. The company that I'm working with has 100M Ethernet from HCTC, however we'll be bringing online a gigabit transport link to San Antonio once everyone gives a final quote and builds out. This will also be Ethernet. That gig will be filled at first by Cogent, then eventually with other providers, likely from both San Antonio and Dallas.

Sure, for your low-bandwidth guys who don't have big dreams on that side things will be more expensive, but if you want big bandwidth the way to get that is by going right into a carrier hotel. On gigabit circuits, the cost isn't too bad for that...

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet

MVM

Re: what for?

said by iansltx:

and if you're a provider of any size you're probably willing to haul your bandwidth a little ways to dump it on the Internet for cheaper.
supposing you *have* that ability. rural is defined in many different ways to many people. if you're serving texas, you have several different options for peering locations that are spread throughout the state (houston, dallas/ft worth/san antonio). in wyoming - you're much more rural and as such, you have no options. if you're a geographically diverse provider, you have options. if you are a *local* rural provider, you are at the mercy of your locale. i can't take my packets somewhere cheaper because i'd have to pay to take them anywhere.
Now they use TLSN (the cooperative of cooperatives network) and get 200 Mbit of Level3 that way, though traffic takes a rather circuitous route to their POP versus straight down from Dallas.
buildout and cooperation has provided transit path. they have that option - other rural providers may not. obviously, if you have the option, you'll do what is cheap. the options must exist, however. this verifies my previous point - you transit to cheaper places if you have the option. if you own the transit paths, use them. you've pointed out a cooperative that provides the transit to cheaper places - at a cost (more than likely) that is cheaper than paying for direct peering.
On Comcast, they have an Nx40Gbit national backbone
fwiw - oc768 ~ 40gbps. not saying its the case with comcast as i have no knowledge of their network. however, a quick google pass of 40gbe linecards usually results in n*10gbe densities - even with standard platforms such as the c7600, cisco asr9k, force-10 e600 and e1200 lines, and so on. i found a presentation from cisco expo 2009 talking about a 40gbps ip-o-dwdm linecard phy for the crs1 platform, though it sounds as if its just 10gbe over 4 lambdas.

»www.cisco.com/web/ME/exp ··· yond.pdf
Granted, the 10GE networks might be OC192, but the connections to the backbone provider are all Ethernet
peering links != transit paths.
3. The company that I'm working with has 100M Ethernet from HCTC, however we'll be bringing online a gigabit transport link to San Antonio once everyone gives a final quote and builds out. This will also be Ethernet. That gig will be filled at first by Cogent, then eventually with other providers, likely from both San Antonio and Dallas.
right. you don't handoff pos/sdh to customer premise. the gear is expensive and at times doesn't mix providers well (mostly been worked out). microwave links run it. anything with an "oc" designation is sonet, which is not ethernet (if the terminology is used correctly). peerings and interconnections are done with ethernet, as are customer handoffs. however, the *transit* within a provider network is still sonet/sdh, or possibly pos (packet over sonet) in nature - especially for *large* backbone networks (sprint, level(3), att, verizon, et al).

rereading my previous post - i see that i was very unclear and there were typos that could have misrepresented my thoughts. i apologize. i usually try to very clear in what i type. i think you and i agree on the "move for cheap transit". the comparisons between comcast and cox are also valid - though one should look at the footprint, company size, and number of customers served before one draws conclusions - the two are *drastically* different.

q.

tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium Member
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA

tim_k to iansltx

Premium Member

to iansltx
said by iansltx:

Actually...no.

The backbone has plenty of speed. I'm guessing that your typical fiber haul from a big city cableco is a gigabit if not more. Backbone routes aren't really congested, compared with the last mile.
Tell that to all the people who run into congestion problems during prime time.

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet to tim_k

MVM

to tim_k
said by tim_k:

What good is DOCSIS 3.0 if they don't increase their backbone bandwidth? That's where the real costs lie.
depends what you consider your "costs". docsis3 doesn't change anything radically different at the isp edge. most cmts units have d2 and d3 compliant cards supported in a single chassis (though possibly requiring a software/code update to support the new card hardware). from there, the linecards in the cmts can be upgraded to support n*10gbe into the core routing of the isp. from there depending on the provider, you move over the transit network to pass off your packets to the upstream. in my case, cox in phoenix transits their local oc-768 to level(3) in southern california (los angeles metro area).
depending on the architecture of the provider, the core upgrades may or may not be cheap. as was pointed out yesterday by belushi See Profile and SpaethCo See Profile (and is known to *every* cisco person out there), the expenditures from a device does not come in the chassis - but in the line cards/supervisor/route processor/routing engine of the box. you can pick up a carrier class chassis on ebay for a few grand (6509-e chassis for ~$5000), however, until you put power supplies and cards, its just a big paper weight.

the costs in d3 upgrades *do* come from capex at the edge in purchasing new d3 linecards, 10gbe cards for the cmts and the core (if capacity is already full), or even replacement of old hardware. however, much more cost is incurred by plant verification (making sure 1ghz plant is ready to the customer premise), node splits, making sure adequate capacity exists from premise to the core (i.e. is running several additional channels for d3 bonding on top of already deployed carriers maxing out any ingress port).

q.

Boredness
So bored...
Premium Member
join:2005-07-07
Fresno, CA

1 edit

Boredness

Premium Member

EuroDOCSIS is better!

Of course EuroDOCSIS is better than AmeroDOCSIS. Why does everything in America have to be half-assed. We should have 8MHz-wide channels too but noooooo, we have to be different!
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: EuroDOCSIS is better!

Think of it this way: NTSC video is 30/60 fps rather than the 25/50 fps PAL standard. Make you feel a bit better?

joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null

joako

Premium Member

Re: EuroDOCSIS is better!

At least PAL is able to correctly reproduce colors.
Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01

Necronomikro to iansltx

Member

to iansltx
PAL is widescreen, though...
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: EuroDOCSIS is better!

Uhh, no.

Well, not compared with NTSC.

720x576 vs. 720x480...

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt to iansltx

Premium Member

to iansltx
said by iansltx:

Think of it this way: NTSC video is 30/60 fps rather than the 25/50 fps PAL standard. Make you feel a bit better?
But for their OTA HD, they are using MPEG4 while we are stiuck with MPEG2 here in the US which uses almost twice the bandwidth of MPEG4.

joako
Premium Member
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null

joako

Premium Member

Re: EuroDOCSIS is better!

NTSC v. PAL is one thing.

Is there any technical reason why NTSC video can not be transmitted via DVB-T?
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: EuroDOCSIS is better!

I think we're actually on ATSC now...

OldschoolDSL
Premium Member
join:2006-02-23
Indian Orchard, MA

OldschoolDSL to Boredness

Premium Member

to Boredness
said by Boredness:

Of course EuroDOCSIS is better than AmeroDOCSIS. Why does everything in America have to be half-assed. We should have 8MHz-wide channels too but noooooo, we have to be different!
I've been "upgrading" to Europe standards for a while now. Ordering a EuroDOCSIS Modem and been using Cat7a cable. Not sure how much of an edge I have over everyone here, but I like to think I'm a step ahead (and set to go if I move).
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

hmm

From what I understand from talking to a cablevision engineer is that cablevision got away easy with the docsis upgrades because of the equipment they are using. Cablevision went docsis 2 when the other cable companies stayed at 1.1. This allowed cablevision an easy upgrade.

••••

Sparrow
Crystal Sky
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
Sachakhand

Sparrow

Premium Member

E. European Cable Internet

Certainly don't know much about DOCSIS, but here in Bulgaria, for 18 leva ($12.55) a month, NO contract, pay as you go cable internet, it is faster and 100x more reliable than Verizon ever was in NY.

And installation time? You pay your 18 leva and within hours 2 techs are at your place hooking you up. Still amazes me.

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

jadebangle

Premium Member

Still inferior to FIOS, T1, T3, OC1 ETC

Cable with it limited bandwidth and higher speed = same old stuff
docsis 3.0 = paper enhancement
that's like faking connection speed when their isn't much pipeline or backbone to support it
fail
FIOS can be upgraded to 1GBPS which can really be utilized 24hrs a day
Cable, we'll give you higher connection but you must not use it all the time because our backbone are limited