 
MoeDumb
"America Si, Obama No."
Premium
join:2002-09-23 | The Mighty Moto? Where is Motorola in all this? | |
|
 | Cjaiceman
join:2004-10-12
Aurora, CO
 ·Comcast
| Re: The Mighty Moto? said by MoeDumb  :Where is Motorola in all this? I was just thinking the same thing. Maybe they are not planning on getting into DOCSIS 3.0 yet, or they are going to wait till everyone else is done getting their certs, learn from their mistakes and build a superior product? (This is all of course is opinion).
--
HOT JAMZ 94FM
Listen Live at »sc7.shoutcaststreaming.us:8206/listen.pls | |
|
| 
jchambers28
join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR | why does it matter we will never see those kind of speeds | |
|
| | 
FicmanS
Premium
join:2005-01-11
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | Re: The Mighty Moto? I am hoping we see at least a portion of it though... | |
|
| | |
| | | firstohit
join:2003-10-29
Falmouth, KY
| Re: The Mighty Moto? "Thank you for your interest in Cablevision, but there is no Cablevision service in your area. Cablevision service is available only in areas where Cablevision Systems Corp. is your cable provider.
Please contact your local cable operator."
Anybody tried this service? any speeds? | |
|
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: The Mighty Moto? said by firstohit :"Thank you for your interest in Cablevision, but there is no Cablevision service in your area. Cablevision service is available only in areas where Cablevision Systems Corp. is your cable provider. Please contact your local cable operator." Anybody tried this service? any speeds? I have CV Boost and am provisioned at 30Mbs/5Mbs (with DOCSIS 2.0 support). Actual speed is about 27Mbs/4.5Mbs. | |
|
| | | |
MoeDumb
"America Si, Obama No."
Premium
join:2002-09-23
edit:
December 20th, @02:27PM
| I can usually reach 35Mbps/4.6Mbps with OOL Boost. | |
|
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by jchambers28 :why does it matter we will never see those kind of speeds true. will allow providers to load nodes even heavier though.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| 
AZwldcats
Ummm That's Right
join:2001-02-20
Tucson, AZ
clubs: | Moto already has cable modems that are DOc 3.0 Compliant... Note I did not say certified..
The Motorola 6101 | |
|
| 
rsmith7
Premium
join:2003-03-11
San Diego, CA | Probably still working on a Razr replacement.  | |
|
N3OGH
It's Biden Vs. the Biscuit. Sarah's hot
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| No good on an overloaded node But, what good is DOCSIS 3 if the node it's on is all ready overloaded?
This was the experience I had with Comcast in my area. The node I was on was VASTLY oversold, and speeds suffered.
That last mile can be blazing fast, but without infrastructure, it's a moot point....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| |
| |
N3OGH
It's Biden Vs. the Biscuit. Sarah's hot
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No good on an overloaded node But that's from the end user to the node. The node is usually fed by a fiber connection.
If that fiber connection is all ready saturated, making the link between the end user and the node is NOT going to yield a performance increase....
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| | | 
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
edit:
December 19th, @04:16PM
| Re: No good on an overloaded node The fiber connection between the node and the headend (CMTS) isn't hitting capacity... those links have several gigabits of capacity. The DOCSIS RF data channels have much less capacity then the fiber it's using.
You have to realize that the DOCSIS modem channels are just a couple of the 117+ channels that the average cable system is broadcasting to each and every customer. The fiber from the headend to the node carries all of it without a problem.
Maybe your thinking of the connection the headend has upstream to the nearest peer or transit point... it has to handle the capacity of everybody being serviced by that headend.... that's where GigE or 10G links come in handy... | |
|
| | | |
N3OGH
It's Biden Vs. the Biscuit. Sarah's hot
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: No good on an overloaded node So, what you're telling me is that the problem is on the coax side, correct?
IE, the implementation of DOCSIS 3.0 will resolve a lot of the problems folks like me experienced with cable modem service by opening up more capacity between the node and the end user???
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
|
| | | | | majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
| Re: No good on an overloaded node Its not the medium either, coaxial can handle speeds of 270mbps atleast. Its how docsis is done on coaxial that is the problem. Other companies not using docsis tech (like the long gone narad tech) were able to get high speeds over coaxial using switching and other technologies.
The thing is that docsis is a standard thats why the cablecompanies sue it. | |
|
| | | | | | floyd007
join:2004-06-07
Manassas, VA
| Re: No good on an overloaded node said by majortom1029 :Its not the medium either, coaxial can handle speeds of 270mbps atleast. Its how docsis is done on coaxial that is the problem. Other companies not using docsis tech (like the long gone narad tech) were able to get high speeds over coaxial using switching and other technologies. The thing is that docsis is a standard thats why the cablecompanies sue it. Every body here are forgetting the physics of metals. Metals do not conduct well to electricity or electrical magnetic radiation naturally and very poorly to boot. You will have to force a huge amount of EM radiation just to get it to propagate through the wires. (line extenders, amplifiers, etc.,) Metal / Coaxial is NOT the new way to go. Cheaper but ultimately will have same issues with any other HFC protocol | |
|
| | | | | | |
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| Re: No good on an overloaded node said by floyd007 :Every body here are forgetting the physics of metals. Metals do not conduct well to electricity or electrical magnetic radiation naturally and very poorly to boot. You will have to force a huge amount of EM radiation just to get it to propagate through the wires. (line extenders, amplifiers, etc.,) Metal / Coaxial is NOT the new way to go. Cheaper but ultimately will have same issues with any other HFC protocol Wow... don't let just about every communications medium in existence in on THAT secret, they may just stop working when wiring stops conducting electricty... it's amazing they call most metals conductors to begin with... | |
|
| | | | | | | | MOTO6809
join:2007-11-05
Springfield, MA
| Re: No good on an overloaded node The big question is how many nodes share the same downstream QAM? In some cases it could be 4 nodes to 1 downstream QAM. In other cases it could be 1 QAM down and 1 QAM up per node(approx 250modems per node) using DOCSIS1.x and 2.0.
When they start using DOCSIS3 I would imagine nodes would be much smaller in respect to how they are combined/split within a headend. | |
|
| | | | |
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| No the problem isn't on the coax side either.... it also has gigabits of capacity.
The issue has been how many customers (and how they were configured) were connected to the CMTS ports and how much capacity those ports had or how much backhaul capacity that CMTS has.
The CMTS is the cable equivalent of a DSLAM. | |
|
| | | | | | majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY
| Re: No good on an overloaded node A cable node has only a certain amount of bandiwth, and cable companies connect something like 250 - 500 houses to that one node. Docsis technology even with docsis 3 only gives a small amount of bandwidth. Tech like narad used switches at everybodies houses and at the node.
So how is it that the bandwidth problems arent at the coaxial side of the node? Its due to docsis tech that give the node such small bandwidth.
Other techs can be used to give better bandwitdh. | |
|
| | | | | | |
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
| Re: No good on an overloaded node said by majortom1029 :So how is it that the bandwidth problems arent at the coaxial side of the node? Its due to docsis tech that give the node such small bandwidth. Its how the DOCSIS tech is implemented... a node and the coax connected to it handles multiple channels, usually 115 or more. The DOCSIS channels are usually just a couple of those, more channels could be run for more bandwidth.
Imagine if cable went to a IPTV type distribution system where your video signal just used a couple channels and the rest of the 115+ were dedicated to data.... it'd be a few gigabits per second of capacity per node and attached coax. | |
|
| | | | | | | | bunklung
join:2002-07-13
Northampton, MA
| Re: No good on an overloaded node said by MacLeech :said by majortom1029 :So how is it that the bandwidth problems arent at the coaxial side of the node? Its due to docsis tech that give the node such small bandwidth. Its how the DOCSIS tech is implemented... a node and the coax connected to it handles multiple channels, usually 115 or more. The DOCSIS channels are usually just a couple of those, more channels could be run for more bandwidth. Imagine if cable went to a IPTV type distribution system where your video signal just used a couple channels and the rest of the 115+ were dedicated to data.... it'd be a few gigabits per second of capacity per node and attached coax. I have a hard time imagining if cable went IPTV and suddenly the entire node of 250-500 customers only needed a "couple" of channels for their video and the rest of the 115+ channels being used for data.
I hope the entire node doesn't decide to watch all different channels.
Does not compute IPTV and SDV has it's place, but it's certainly not going to be a "couple" of channels OR the utopia of not having anymore broadcasting/multicasting of channels. It'll be a mix. There's no sense in broadcasting MTV2 in the node when 1% of the node statistically is watching it. While prime time TV (major networks) would still be broadcasted in the node.
The cable companies need more bandwidth and they know it. DOCSIS 3.0 is still a band-aid to their bandwidth crunch. They can bond channels, but it's still QAM256! DOCSIS 3.0 doesn't give the cable company more bandwidth in the node. When they bond a channel, that's one less channel for video.
DOCSIS 3.0 just gives cable another way to ADVERTISE higher speeds. Advertising and delivering are two different things.
The cable company needs to split the node, and that costs money. How does 32 customers sound? How much would that cost them? It's costing Verizon BILLIONS to do it. | |
|
| 
coxengr
Premium,VIP
join:2002-03-09
Atlanta, GA | DOCSIS 3.0 works by bonding multiple channels. So merely by adding bonded channels, you're going to increase the overall capacity. | |
|
esc0
@rr.com
| When Will It Hit The USA??? I don't count on seeing these speeds being offered anytime soon to residential consumers.
Europe and Asia is ahead of the USA in broadband speeds for years now. If they don't offer the new DOCSIS 3.0? What you think about cable providers and big telcos like ATT that's offering some slow speeds for the same rate they pay in France and other countries over there? | |
|
| 
Tzale
Ron Paul - No Bailout Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| Re: When Will It Hit The USA??? said by esc0 :
I don't count on seeing these speeds being offered anytime soon to residential consumers.
Europe and Asia is ahead of the USA in broadband speeds for years now. If they don't offer the new DOCSIS 3.0? What you think about cable providers and big telcos like ATT that's offering some slow speeds for the same rate they pay in France and other countries over there?
Here we go again. 
Europe isn't ahead, Asia isn't ahead... I remember seeing a great "deal" that someone was blabbering about here a few months back. I looked it up, it was $120/month US for a 3mbps / 256kbps satellite connection with bandwidth usage caps.
Simply put, European broadband sucks... And Japan is a small country that can't be compared to even some states in the U.S.
-Tzale | |
|
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Slow to implement The US has always been slow to implement. We won't see Docsis 3.0 speeds around here anytime soon. People are afraid of change or something. Instead of being cutting edge we are second rate to the other countries that are cutting edge.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
|
| 
Adam20
Premium
join:2007-07-19
Sarnia, ON | Re: Slow to implement Must move to usa, need FIOS!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| |
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Re: Slow to implement I agree. FIOS kicks major butt! I want it to. But it is only in certain areas.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
|
| | 
travisc
join:2001-11-09
Port Perry, ON | Your Ma Bell isn't cutting it for you, adam? | |
|
| | |
Adam20
Premium
join:2007-07-19
Sarnia, ON
edit:
December 21st, @03:45PM
| Re: Slow to implement Ma Bell works fine, not fast enough for my liking!
5 meg only goes so far...
Hence why I have Cogeco 16 meg as well:P | |
|
| majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Lindenhurst, NY | Dont say that. Here in cablevisionland they are maxing out docsis 2 by giving boost users 38/2 connections (we almost got 50/50 and 100/100 connections but thats a different story). So not every cablecompany is slow at upgrading. | |
|
| |
See 12 replies to this post |
|
| |
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
SkiBumJ79
join:2007-02-02
Arlington, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| NARAD I know Narad was bought out by Ciena, but are there any cable companies still using their tech and is Ciena marketing their tech.
I have no idea how expensive their tech was, but from what I have seen, it certainly was the highest capacity solution for cable providers. I know Opt Online was testing 50/50 or 100/100, but they were saying the tech could scale much higher than that. Seems like a pity. | |
|
|
|
|
Inching Toward DOCSIS 3.0
Docis 3.0 FIOS all market driven