  Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS | Faster Why don't we skip DOCSIS 3.0 and wait for 1 Gbps cable modem design? | |
|
 |  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Faster Why bother when they can just cap? | |
|
| | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster said by Dogfather:Why bother when they can just cap? Wait and see that they provide their own official cap statement on cable provider web site so we can see it.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | Because DOCSIS 2.0 was skipped (by Comcast anyways). Those of us on DOCSIS 1.1 are going to be left way behind, I think 3.0 is a good solution at this point. | |
|
| | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster said by swhitney2003:Because DOCSIS 2.0 was skipped (by Comcast anyways). Those of us on DOCSIS 1.1 are going to be left way behind, I think 3.0 is a good solution at this point. What if cable provider decides to skip DOCSIS 3.0 and go ahead for 1 Gbits speed design that is good move of decision and that 1 Gbits speeds allows http loading very much faster and that solution design is very good way to go.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Faster said by Ikyuao:said by swhitney2003:Because DOCSIS 2.0 was skipped (by Comcast anyways). Those of us on DOCSIS 1.1 are going to be left way behind, I think 3.0 is a good solution at this point. What if cable provider decides to skip DOCSIS 3.0 and go ahead for 1 Gbits speed design that is good move of decision and that 1 Gbits speeds allows http loading very much faster and that solution design is very good way to go. DOCSIS 3.0 is the next generation that needs to be implemented to keep up with competitors. How far away is 1gbps? I'm sure it is a long ways away, 5+ years for the cable industry ATLEAST. DOCSIS 3.0 is where it's at now, and it will be a viable option for years to come. Implementing is beneficial to ISPs. Waiting for 1gbps is nowhere near close, so why let competition beat back on those with DOCSIS 1.1? | |
|
| | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster said by swhitney2003:said by Ikyuao:said by swhitney2003:Because DOCSIS 2.0 was skipped (by Comcast anyways). Those of us on DOCSIS 1.1 are going to be left way behind, I think 3.0 is a good solution at this point. What if cable provider decides to skip DOCSIS 3.0 and go ahead for 1 Gbits speed design that is good move of decision and that 1 Gbits speeds allows http loading very much faster and that solution design is very good way to go. DOCSIS 3.0 is the next generation that needs to be implemented to keep up with competitors. How far away is 1gbps? I'm sure it is a long ways away, 5+ years for the cable industry ATLEAST. DOCSIS 3.0 is where it's at now, and it will be a viable option for years to come. Implementing is beneficial to ISPs. Waiting for 1gbps is nowhere near close, so why let competition beat back on those with DOCSIS 1.1? No matter if private cable operator decided not to implement it due cost of upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 version and wait for new DOCSIS specification version of 1 Gbps is better chance to implement it new speeds and very less of experience of slow speeds so http could loads in no time quickly 
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Faster First, break up your run on sentence into multiple sentences so it is easier to understand. Second, the DOCSIS 3 is still in development. Cable operators cannot wait 10 years for DOCSIS 4.0 or whatever it may be. The money is in DOCSIS 3.0, and it has plenty of potential. If they don't jump on this train, they will lose money and be less capable of upgrading to your so called 1 Gbps option, that hasn't even begun to show signs of adoption.
Edit: And I don't know what you are talking about http slow speeds. Seems my 8mbps is quite quick... for any web page. | |
|
| | | | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster I'd go with 1 Gbits speeds definitely of new DOCSIS specification design later after DOCSIS 3.0 specification version rather than 300 Mbits downstream and 120 Mbits upstream. With new 1 Gbits downstream and limited channels of upstream probably 120 Mbits specification are definitely way to go.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Faster Okay. You wait for this new specification to come out, how ever long it may take. If you want to, you can wait for a decade. I'll take faster speeds as they come out. I don't see why you would want cable operators to skip a major DOCSIS rollout and wait many years for a new roll out to happen... (let alone be developed first) and what, be stuck under DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0? ENJOY THAT!!! I'll move on with the rest of today's technology and take the measly 300mbps speeds you talk of. Oh wait, it doesn't really matter since even if there was a 1gbps spec that existed, we would still be capped at 50mbps or whatever. DOCSIS 3.0 is still under development, and you want to skip and wait. Sheesh. You make no sense at all... you are willing to be stuck slow speeds yet want 1gbps speeds. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster It's up to cable operators if they can't roll out due economic reasons then they CAN choose to skip it and wait for new DOCSIS specification after DOCSIS 3.0 that's all.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Faster Did you miss the part where a new specification isn't even being developed yet and that DOCSIS 3.0 has quite the potential and longevity behind it. It is the only next option, whether today, tomorrow, 5 years from now. Waiting for a new spec isn't possible, they will fall behind other competitors in terms of speed. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS | Re: Faster I believe that new spec after spec 3.0 are possible. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Faster There is always that possibility. It's just a matter of WHEN. Not soon, that is for sure. This economic situation isn't going to last 5-10 years. So the cable companies are still in the green for releasing 3.0. Waiting for a non existent spec is suicide. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | From the Docsis wiki:
"NTSC 6 MHz channel spacing will allow 10 bonded 6 MHz channels as MAX spectrum allocation for DOCSIS3.0 data, 60 MHz spectrum allocation could increase with consumer needs and re-allocation of analog TV channels into compressed digital space, leveraging the capability of DOCSIS 3.0 infrastructure to allow for 1 Gbit/s speeds in the future."
So it would appear that they think D3 will be Gigabit capable. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster said by Lazlow:From the Docsis wiki: "NTSC 6 MHz channel spacing will allow 10 bonded 6 MHz channels as MAX spectrum allocation for DOCSIS3.0 data, 60 MHz spectrum allocation could increase with consumer needs and re-allocation of analog TV channels into compressed digital space, leveraging the capability of DOCSIS 3.0 infrastructure to allow for 1 Gbit/s speeds in the future." So it would appear that they think D3 will be Gigabit capable. I think that DOCSIS 3.0 is good implement to allow add channels be bounded but I hope new coming up with DOCSIS 4.0 as enhance improvement over DOCSIS 3.0 version.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Faster Ikyuao
You really are making little sense. You start by asking about gigabit cable modems. Then after I provide a link that says D3 has it planned in, you want D4 anyway. What are you after? Just trolling? | |
|
|  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by Ikyuao:Why don't we skip DOCSIS 3.0 and wait for 1 Gbps cable modem design? The DOCSIS 3.0 standard was released in the summer of 2006, and has only resulted in actual hardware within the last few months.
Given that 1gbps DOCSIS doesn't even have a technical definition yet, we're at least a few years away before anything will be available there. | |
|
| | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster said by espaeth:said by Ikyuao:Why don't we skip DOCSIS 3.0 and wait for 1 Gbps cable modem design? The DOCSIS 3.0 standard was released in the summer of 2006, and has only resulted in actual hardware within the last few months. Given that 1gbps DOCSIS doesn't even have a technical definition yet, we're at least a few years away before anything will be available there. I'm sure that DOCSIS 3.1 with expending technical extensions or later versions of DOCSIS possibly likely be 4.0 version of technical sets so that can offers up to 50 bounded channels or even up to 70 bounded channels for downstream that we can get 1 Gbits or 2.1 Gbits downstream in future. That I want and I hope you will understand about future of ultra wideband.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Faster Your sentences make no sense. I cannot understand what you are trying to convey. | |
|
| | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster You'll understand what how much data of x Mbps per channel is? it is 30 Mbps per channel over coaxial cable and let's math that 70 channels are bounded that take total is 2100 Mbps of data downstream.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Faster What you fail to understand is that cable ISPs will not give up 70 channels worth of bandwidth for internet. They do not even want to give up 8 channels worth to get to the currently defined upper level D3 spec(4 channel D3 is all that is currently being used rather than 8 channel). Every channel they add to internet is a channel they take away from TV. So it is HIGHLY unlikely that we will ever see 70 channel(at least as channels are defined today).
The other point is that there are no "killer" applications that will not currently work at 20 meg (much less 300 meg), so there is not much residential call for 1 gigabit. You will not be able to tell the difference (using email or web surfing) between 20 meg and 1 gig. They are already putting caps on systems, so it will not be all that useful in downloading large files either (20 secs to get to your cap). | |
|
| | | | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Re: Faster No, You fail to understand that cable internet does not interfere with TV shows that is very simple and cable operators can give more channels as new speeds hit on market so you will never know when cable will hit new speeds marketing. Ultra wideband is future of next generation and that D3 is too slow to me. You need to understand that both TV cable and cable modem uses video encoding so again there is no interfere video channels.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Faster Digital TV (qam) uses bandwidth just like cable internet. Just look at the link I provided earilier to the docsis wiki. What is being transmitted on those channels is irrelevant. A used/full channel is a used/full channel regardless if it is being used for TV or internet. A channel can be used for internet or it can be used for TV but it cannot simultaneously be used for both. When I speak of channels I am speaking of mhz not like channel 13 (which is just a label for a certain defined mhz). | |
|
| | | | | | | | Ikyuao
join:2007-02-26
Wichita, KS Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Faster You should research on how we can use same one each channel of 6 Mhz so we can watch TV on same channel and using internet on same channel as we can use both in this a way that we see there is no interfere of channel that really uses same video encoding if even we watching on analog TV and cable modem on same channel that shouldn't be issue so again there is no interfere, You should considering with cable operator so they will tell you and explain to you how cable channel works.
--
64K TCP WIN is officially dead for long high latency fat network connection across internet. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Faster That is incorrect, Lazlow is correct. Break up your sentence into multiple sentences. It looks like you are using some kind of cheap online translator. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Ikyuao
I have provided a link to my proof. Please provide a link to yours. | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| Duh. This economy has its effect on everything. People aren't spending any money, and are even downgrading their services in order to save some money.... a little less internet speed, and a few less channels can easily shave off $10-$20 of the monthly budget, and for some of us it is just the reality of current life.
Implementing new technology usually comes with a nice pretty powerpoint presentation telling upper management what the return of investment is when they sign up an x number of new clients or sell an x number of ultra-high-speed internet subscriptions, and if that number drops, the willingness to invest drops along with it.
This is not rocket science.
--
"We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope" - Barack Obama, 2008. | |
|
| DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Duh. Of course it doesn't help that cable continues to raise video prices at 3X inflation. | |
|
| | | | Re: Duh. said by Dogfather:Of course it doesn't help that cable continues to raise video prices at 3X inflation. And that will unfortunately continue to be the case until the major content distributors quit extorting the cable providers. Seriously, when the cable companies have some measure of control over their expenses, prices stabilize. When was the last time your cable company raised broadband rates? | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Duh. said by JasonOD :said by Dogfather:Of course it doesn't help that cable continues to raise video prices at 3X inflation. When was the last time your cable company raised broadband rates? August 2008. | |
|
| | maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·DIRECTV
| said by Dogfather:Of course it doesn't help that cable continues to raise video prices at 3X inflation. That is also (partially) because of increased operation costs. Fuel prices are nice and low now, but for a while they had to run their service vans on $3.50 - $4.00 a gallon. The devaluation of the Dollar also meant that importing electronics from Asia (like some of their set-top boxes, cable modems, etc) was getting more expensive for a while.
Electricity costs in several states have increased with more then 25% in the last 5 years, including California, which is also a huge burden for companies that rely on electricity to provide their services. There are states that have seen almost a 50% price increase in electricity over the last 5 years. The cost of doing business has gone up quite a bit in the last few years.
Last but not least, it is very true that a portion of price increases have to do with corporate greed, but the price increases I have seen over the last 5 years have been pretty reasonable, I think I pay maybe $10 more a month then I did 5 years ago, going from +/- $120 to +/- $135, (I added one service costing $5 earlier this year).
I'd say that is reasonable, considering inflation is about 4%. | |
|
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Duh. They were taking 3x inflation price increases when oil was $20 /bbl. Energy is just their latest excuse and of course they could tell the content extortionists no or put these overpriced crap sports channels on their own tiers. | |
|
| | Time Warner Cable Wasn't Time Warner suppose to have a certain percentage of their markets upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0 by the end of this year? | |
|
| | eh Why just wait and get everybody on DSL or Cable instead and then do upgrades. | |
|
| maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | Re: eh Upgrading say the Los Angeles or New York areas is cheaper then wiring up say.... all of rural kentucky. | |
|
| | Bell/Rogers response for economic worries Insted of upgrading we will use the economic excuse to implement lower caps so we can keep our hundreds of millions in profit for our bonuses. | |
|
| | bar humbug, 1gig docsis3 can happen today. "economic worries" OC also translates to a good excuse to wait for some real Docsis3 silver/gold certified chipsets to be made, you do know that the current bronze certified docsis3 chips cant do uplink bonding dont you and there doesnt seem to be any viable silver certifications atthe very least going to happen before next year now.
and your not going to see any mass produced silver or gold certified cable modems before that certification happens ...
what are you lot talking about 1gig download cable modems for, you could have them right now if you put enough chips to get 24 bonded channels on the PCBs today, and slap them on the docsis3 network at both ends of the link.
you would OC have to also clear off the analogue, put some far better tuners and related chips on there to so you could shift the existing digital datstreams up a lot higher to allow for the lower bandwidths for the increased upstreams too..... | |
|
| | Docsis3.0 Comcast is slowing their deployments because arris can't get their shit together and build a stable cmts. | |
|
|
|
