FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Jan-24 7:02 pm
What cable company will bond 32 channels for residences?This is a nice academic exercise that looks good in the press. But what cable company(one that is, that also delivers TV channels) would dedicate so much of their bandwidth to provide internet access at those speeds. Extremely unlikely for any residential service. But to nodes dedicated to an office bldg, maybe it has some value. But even then, an office bldg would probably be buying OCxxx fiber connections direct from some telco. | |
|
| |
Re: What cable company will bond 32 channels for residences?maybe they may have the room on a 850 Meg - 1GHZ system with lots of SDV, no analog, and lots node splits. | |
|
| DaveDudeNo Fear join:1999-09-01 New Jersey |
to FFH5
Gig speed is the next speed, and some areas of comcast are 100 speed. So this is more proof of concept. Really the cables need to jump up to 25 symmetric soon, otherwise fios will begin domination. | |
|
| | |
Re: What cable company will bond 32 channels for residences?And where is FIOS available? Frontier is discontinuing it. | |
|
| | | |
Re: What cable company will bond 32 channels for residences?FiOS internet in Frontier-land isn't going anywhere. FiOS TV, however, quite possibly is on its way to the scrap heap. | |
|
| |
to FFH5
That speed would be awesome to reach the famous Comcastic 250 GB cap. | |
|
| | |
Re: What cable company will bond 32 channels for residences?You think 250 GB is bad?
In Canada, monthly caps between 2GB ($29.99/monthly) and 175GB ($99.99/monthly) are more common for BROADBAND CABLE. Actually, I think in Ontario, 200GB is the MAXIMUM offered by ANY residental internet service provider.
Feel lucky. Real lucky. | |
|
| |
| |
ClueBy4 to FFH5
Anon
2011-Jan-25 11:31 pm
to FFH5
This is where cable companies are heading. More and more, video content is being transported through cable company networks over IP. If, instead of converting IP video to MPEG video streams, they could be sent out onto the plant using IP multicast via a CMTS, a chunk of head-end equipment could be eliminated. And if you were to move the least watched channels (a majority of them) to IP multicast like is being done with switched digital video, the spectrum crunch becomes less of a problem. | |
|
|
wow crazyso we should be getting more the 5MB on cable easy ? i got sudenlink and they cap at 5mb by 512k where i live man this makes me sad lol | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Jan-24 7:08 pm
Re: wow crazysaid by NoOneButMe:so we should be getting more the 5mb on cable easy ? 1 US spec 6MHZ channel can do more than 20 mbps easily. So all that channel bonding isn't needed for greater than 5 mbps. That speed is a marketing decision more than anything. | |
|
| | Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO |
Lazlow
Member
2011-Jan-24 8:20 pm
Re: wow crazyThe problem is that everyone on that channel of that node has only 38Mbps to split amongst them. What they really need to be doing is using channel bonding on any account at or over say 10Mbps. That way the load can be split over 4(or however many) channels. This drastically reduces the chances of congestion. Instead of 4 accounts being able to congest the node by downloading at the same time (4@10Mbps>38Mbps) you have the situation of (4*38Mbps/10Mbps=15.2). So it takes 15 accounts downloading at the exact same time to congest the node. Moving to a floating speedcap(powerburst or whatever you call it) would further reduce congestion. In this case any actively downloading accounts(for that exact instance) would split the total bandwidth equally. So if only 5 accounts where downloading at that instant, each would get 30Mbps. This would reduce the time they needed to download by a factor of 3 (30/10), freeing up bandwidth(time wise) for other users. There would of course need to be safeguards that prevented abuse(drop powerburst for consistent downloaders during times of high congestion, only as needed). | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by NoOneButMe:so we should be getting more the 5mb on cable easy ? 1 US spec 6MHZ channel can do more than 20 mbps easily. So all that channel bonding isn't needed for greater than 5 mbps. That speed is a marketing decision more than anything. But thats shared with the whole neighborhood. | |
|
hayabusa3303Over 200 mph Premium Member join:2005-06-29 Florence, SC |
Talk about more node splitting.At the rate this is going you will need a node every 100 houses.
Sorry but i think it would be cheaper just to run fiber here. | |
|
|
2 recommendations |
Re: Talk about more node splitting.said by hayabusa3303:At the rate this is going you will need a node every 100 houses.
Sorry but i think it would be cheaper just to run fiber here. Hardly. We're sitting at ball-park 300 subs per node here and we have a high docsis 3 saturation rate. With a Cisco 10K cmts you can just plug in a new SPA card and do some nod splits and have yourself alot more cheap bandwidth. Running fiber to every home would cost many times what expanding D3 tech would. It's too high risk low reward at the moment. | |
|
HarryH3 Premium Member join:2005-02-21 |
HarryH3
Premium Member
2011-Jan-24 9:43 pm
Life in the slow lane...Meanwhile, back in the real world, I'd just be happy if Verizon could deliver more than 3 Mbps to my house. | |
|
| IowaMan Premium Member join:2008-08-21 Grinnell, IA |
IowaMan
Premium Member
2011-Jan-24 11:06 pm
Re: Life in the slow lane...For $ reasons I have the 3Mb/256k for $30 (Mediacom) and that is expensive for the speed. It should be 5Mb or 6Mb for the price with 768K up | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they come Premium Member join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ |
dvd536
Premium Member
2011-Jan-25 5:20 am
Show us the UPLOAD!yawn, who cares about what will never be seen outside the lab under optimal conditions! | |
|
|
luckyAmerica will see this is 2050. lol | |
|
|
tmc8080
Member
2011-Jan-25 10:11 am
ProofThis is proof the US cable companies are holding out on their customers when it comes to what they can offer at the same prices. While it's not realistic to see gigabits per customer.. but come on.. 25/25 measly megabits isn't too much to ask for as entry level... right.. ?
SO START DEMANDING THAT YOUR USA CABLE COMPANY DO BETTER!!! | |
|
| |
Re: Proofsaid by tmc8080:This is proof the US cable companies are holding out on their customers when it comes to what they can offer at the same prices. While it's not realistic to see gigabits per customer.. but come on.. 25/25 measly megabits isn't too much to ask for as entry level... right.. ?
SO START DEMANDING THAT YOUR USA CABLE COMPANY DO BETTER!!! They won't do better...Cable and Telco's only worry about their traditional TV profits.If THEY upgraded their infrastructure,THEN we'd have 500MB-1GB Speeds.Digital distribution is the enemy and the reason why they DON'T want to give us in North America higher speeds and just put everyone on UBB. | |
|
| | |
Re: ProofActually this speed is for HDTV. It is not for Download. Cisco has been working with the cable companies, so that they could provide to the consumer 500 HDTV channels, VOD, and high speed internet, but using DOCSIS 3.0. There is some new TV techologies that are coming in the future called Cinema 4K, so we need the increased bandwidth for these new TV. Plus you have all these companies starting up streaming services. » www.ciscoknowledgenetwor ··· inal.pdf | |
|
| | JPL Premium Member join:2007-04-04 Downingtown, PA |
to JunjiHiroma
said by JunjiHiroma:said by tmc8080:This is proof the US cable companies are holding out on their customers when it comes to what they can offer at the same prices. While it's not realistic to see gigabits per customer.. but come on.. 25/25 measly megabits isn't too much to ask for as entry level... right.. ?
SO START DEMANDING THAT YOUR USA CABLE COMPANY DO BETTER!!! They won't do better...Cable and Telco's only worry about their traditional TV profits.If THEY upgraded their infrastructure,THEN we'd have 500MB-1GB Speeds.Digital distribution is the enemy and the reason why they DON'T want to give us in North America higher speeds and just put everyone on UBB. Except that profitability is tied to bringing in customers. Besides, your theory doesn't hold my own real-world experience. I've been a FiOS internet customer for 5 years. In that time, my speed has gone from 5/2, to 10/2, to 15/5, to 35/35. All without changing providers... How is it that my ISP isn't responding/upgrading their infrastructure? | |
|
| | | kilrathi Premium Member join:2005-04-22 Rockaway Park, NY |
kilrathi
Premium Member
2011-Jan-25 11:21 pm
Re: ProofProblem is even Time Warner wideband 50/5 package doesnt live up to the hype. In nyc this package slows down to below 15Mbps at peak times, and latencies jump to insane levels. Time Warner needs to go back to school on how u build infastructure. | |
|
| | | |
to JPL
Yes, but did that actually result in the cable company increasing their bandwidth? Nope, not really? As I've said elswhere, cable companeis are competing against the OLD technology of DSL. Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner all scoff at actually offering symmetric bandwidth & competitive broadband prices. Cable-Tv is still (in their minds) the KING product. * You can expect a phase out of SDTV long before a move to a new HD stadard such as 4k. There could possibly be an interim resolution higher than 1080p surfacing in coming years, but it won't be 4k.
BTW, cablevision's (NY METRO) network could handle the load of symmetric tiers TODAY if they wanted to.. but the rest catv isp industry succeed at bleeding dry the consumer first at higher profit margins. They should begin testing making 15/15 & 30/30 a reality this summer-- they'd have more luck at customer retention. | |
|
|
|