The Cable Bandwidth Apocalypse Is Coming - Or not...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
exocet_cm @ 16th Jan 05:04PM:
Ouch!
quote:
Perhaps the money spent on analyst reports should go toward infrastructure upgrades?
But so true!
--
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons..." - T.S Eliot
Ma Blog »www.johndball.com
reply
nasadude @ 16th Jan 05:08PM:
google will pay for it!
aren't they just going to charge google, yahoo, etc. to pay for these upgrades?
that seems to be the business model touted by the telcos - heaven forbid they actually lay out any of their own money and take a risk.
reply
dadkins @ 16th Jan 05:08PM:
Perhaps in some areas...
... but in others there seems to be an abundance of available bandwidth.
Read up on PowerBoost, then do a search here(in Comcast HSI) for PermaBoost. ;)
Instead of getting the first few MB at wild speeds and then tapering back to rated service line speed, some of us are seeing wild downloads for entire multi-hundred(thousand?) MB downloads. :)
The main problem seems to be finding sources to utilize these speeds.
Of course, YMMV.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
pokesph @ 16th Jan 05:10PM:
Re: Perhaps in some areas...
said by dadkins :
... but in others there seems to be an abundance of available bandwidth.
Read up on PowerBoost, then do a search here(in Comcast HSI) for PermaBoost. ;)
Instead of getting the first few MB at wild speeds and then tapering back to rated service line speed, some of us are seeing wild downloads for entire multi-hundred(thousand?) MB downloads. :)
The main problem seems to be finding sources to utilize these speeds.
Of course, YMMV.
My Milage DOES Indeed Vary.. no *Boost here at all. Can't wait for DOCSIS 3 to arrive.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»ppnhosting.com
»www.1-gb.net
»pokemonpalace.net
reply
TKJunkMail @ 16th Jan 05:14PM:
Re: Perhaps in some areas...
The sweet spot in infrastructure upgrades for cable may be in FTTC. They already are using fiber extensively to sub developments and other housing groupings. They could use their existing rights of way to upgrade to the curb without huge investments. And then coax from the curb or pole to inside the house since that connection is already there. That combination along with Docsis-3 should keep them in the game for many years yet.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page
reply
deadi @ 16th Jan 05:16PM:
Yep,
I'd have to say there is a crunch based on what my friends with cable are stating. There are times when playing a game becomes impossible due to high and wildy fluctuating ping, most likely caused by over saturated cable. I dont have that problem with DSL.
--
We learn through the exchange of information, tell me more......
reply
ninjatutle @ 16th Jan 05:18PM:
Its already here
Bears have let loose on the the cable infrastructure.
reply
guhuna @ 16th Jan 05:19PM:
Re: Yep,
said by deadi :
I'd have to say there is a crunch based on what my friends with cable are stating. There are times when playing a game becomes impossible due to high and wildy fluctuating ping, most likely caused by over saturated cable. I dont have that problem with DSL.
ahh, brings back memories of the @home days.
Try to play some Turok 2 and cant because of the 500ms pings.
reply
hayabusa3303 @ 16th Jan 05:26PM:
The Next telecommunications boom?
Sounds like its going to happen again. Not only with teleco but with cable.
I should invest more in fiber :D
reply
dadkins @ 16th Jan 05:38PM:
Re: Perhaps in some areas...
That sucks!
It's not all roses though... I only know of a couple places that can push the killer speeds. :(
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera
reply
MysticGogeta @ 16th Jan 05:38PM:
Re: Its already here
Someones hungry for more bandwidth ;)
reply
RadioDoc @ 16th Jan 06:07PM:
Re: google will pay for it!
You know you're posting in a cable discussion, right?
reply
op @ 16th Jan 06:00PM:
Wait
If cable co's do fiber strait to the home then what happens if there is fiber already in the home a la Fios? I don't want 2 pieces of fiber from 2 different companies when 1 piece of fiber is doing enough.
reply
op @ 16th Jan 06:01PM:
Re: Its already here
Must of been hired by the telcos' :D.
reply
ss4vegito7 @ 16th Jan 06:10PM:
Re: Wait
said by op :
If cable co's do fiber strait to the home then what happens if there is fiber already in the home a la Fios? I don't want 2 pieces of fiber from 2 different companies when 1 piece of fiber is doing enough.
why not? its the same width as coaxial, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Plus cable companies aren't going to run fiber to your home anytime soon anyway.
--
»www.rockinthebury.com
and
»www.cranburypcrepair.com
reply
Anonymous_ @ 16th Jan 06:22PM:
Time Warner Cable
Time Warner Cable is only saveing 50 % cause they downgraded all users when they change over from adelphia
or comcrap
--
Your Thread Is worth less With out Pictures :D
reply
nasadude @ 16th Jan 06:22PM:
Re: google will pay for it!
said by RadioDoc :
You know you're posting in a cable discussion, right?
as a matter of fact, I do. you know I'm being sarcastic, right?
besides, just because the cablecos haven't been stupid enough to publicly announce their desire for a two-tier internet doesn't mean they don't share that viewpoint (you know, the one where Whitacre says google, etc. should be charged more so the network can be upgraded).
reply
tschmidt @ 16th Jan 06:33PM:
HDTV and Internet Access
While their are several techniques to get more out of the HFC network a 850Mhz Cable system only has about 6Gbps of capacity assuming everything becomes digital. Much of the capacity is consumed by analog TV channels that will not be going away any time soon.
6Gbps sounds like a lot but that is gross capability to the Node. Nodes typically support over 100 customers. Switching helps reduce the amount of bandwidth needed to deliver broadcast TV if not all channels are actively being viewed.
As HDTV becomes more popular, as video on demand becomes more popular, and as demand for faster Internet access occurs it is crunch time for the HFC network.
/Tom
reply
sivran @ 16th Jan 06:45PM:
Re: Perhaps in some areas...
Bingo. They're both right! It just depends on where you look.
As for my area, we've been traded to TW/RR and I'm actually sad to see Comcast go. However, with all the cable ISPs that've come through here, I've always gotten my full provisioned speed. Never called a single one of em on slow throughput. No bandwidth crunch here! (yet. Should be upgraded to 7 or even 10 Mbps soon. We'll see how that goes.)
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey
reply
ColorBASIC @ 16th Jan 06:50PM:
Re: Its already here
Next DSLR article...FiOS workers dressed as bears purposely destroy cable infrastructure.
reply
anon @ 16th Jan 06:54PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
ninjatutle @ 16th Jan 06:58PM:
The rest of it...
Next headline will be, Comcast is a bear killer...
reply
bhorow @ 16th Jan 07:06PM:
I don't know about apocalypse but..
Generally speaking competition is driving the need for faster speeds, I don't know about some of the conclusions people are making. I would say that DSL is now the old dial up. At $19.00 a pop. And the defacto standard is do you have at least 5 Meg per second.
The Low end is low 768K, the days of dialup is now gone. In fact unless you talk about $9.00 dialup...almost everyone can now talk about $19.00 DSL.
The speed wars are going to conclude though since. Verizon and Cable companies realize that. They have to cover there expenses. If you noticed Verizon's prices are similar to that of cable. The fact is you have to make an operating profit.
reply
MadMANN @ 16th Jan 07:15PM:
Re: Wait
The fiber that would be at your home already would be owned by Verizon and connected to THEIR network. So the cable company would HAVE to run a second piece of fiber to THEIR system. And most likely, they would do what Verizon does already and remove the coax that already exists to your home from your previous service.
It's no different than areas who have two different cable systems with two separate coax drops to a house, if a sub has used both at one time or another.
reply
Enlightener @ 16th Jan 07:21PM:
Re: HDTV and Internet Access
6Gbps is enough to give 120 customers 50Mbps each. That's twice what AT&T is offering. That could provide several HD streams and internet to boot. Kill analog, replace the DVR with VOD and they should be set for years. Right?
reply
voipguy @ 16th Jan 07:38PM:
SDV Won't Help - Hogwash
Switched video will OF COURSE help.
Once the number of switched channels approaches a large portion of the number of TV sets hooked up in a given node, the channel capacity goes to infinity! This will take care of broadcast, VOD, network DVR, and anything else video (because each set can only watch one or perhaps two streams at a time, and sets watching the same program watch the same stream).
For data, sure there are limits. But if the bulk of the data path is used for video anyway, SDV could accomodate that too. By bonding DOCSIS channels, speeds well over 100 Mb/s are easily achieved.
The biggest limit cable faces is the size of the upstream path. This could be addressed by splitting nodes small enough such that all the coax behind them is passive. Then, the upstream/downstream split could be changed without reconfiguring field amplifiers. This will be more easily done once the analog TV channels go away, and downstream channels 2-6 can be vacated.
reply
Quaoar @ 16th Jan 08:03PM:
The Apocalypse
So today, NetFlix has started their video download service. This is directly bandwidth-consuming, and I expect that bandwidth in all venues will start to be consumed in a huge way, likely (on cable connections) resulting in the apocalypse of bandwidth availability far sooner than we all realize that it could happen.
Net Neutrality will be the watchword for the next year, when ISP's like mine, Comcast, start invoking the invisible quotas for their customers on an exponentially increasing basis.
The delivery of massive content, i.e., a simple DVD amount of data to subscribers, will very quickly destroy the fast connections we have all had for these few years into another version of broadband 'dial-up' equivalent.
None of the broadband ISPs had one inkling that the net would advance in download demand that things like NetFlix would have a debilitating effect on their networks.
I await the apocalypse with trepidation. The electronic world is moving faster than the capital investment world can respond. I predice meltdown!
Q
reply
cwh @ 16th Jan 08:36PM:
Re: HDTV and Internet Access
said by Enlightener :
6Gbps is enough to give 120 customers 50Mbps each. That's twice what AT&T is offering. That could provide several HD streams and internet to boot. Kill analog, replace the DVR with VOD and they should be set for years. Right?
The only problem is, cable nodes are not that small.
reply
Davemaster @ 16th Jan 08:44PM:
Re: The Apocalypse
The bear was electrocuted?
reply
travelguy @ 16th Jan 08:53PM:
Re: The Apocalypse
said by Davemaster :
The bear was electrocuted?
Nah... He was justing watching too much HGTV.
reply
RadioDoc @ 16th Jan 09:07PM:
Re: The rest of it...
Unless Comcast is in the electric power business now, I doubt it. Those pictures have nothing to do with them.
reply
RadioDoc @ 16th Jan 09:10PM:
Re: The Apocalypse
Yeah, but not by a cable TV line.
»www.hunting.net/news/news.aspx?news_id=603
reply
Steve @ 16th Jan 09:12PM:
Re: google will pay for it!
said by RadioDoc :
You know you're posting in a cable discussion, right?
He's making a net neutrality argument here...
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site
reply
digiblur @ 16th Jan 10:34PM:
Re: The rest of it...
Thought the captions with those pictures were saying it was a Sprint cell tower this was at.
reply
anon @ 16th Jan 11:15PM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
Vamp @ 16th Jan 11:35PM:
they SHOULD run fiber.
They already have fiber, they should run it the extra mile.
reply
RolteC @ 16th Jan 11:53PM:
Re: they SHOULD run fiber.
True they should run it further.
Would be nice to have multiple fiber optic ISP's to choose from.
That sounds nice.
But unlikely to ever happen.
reply
RadioDoc @ 17th Jan 02:41AM:
Re: google will pay for it!
Badly.
reply
anon @ 17th Jan 12:33AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
DufiefData @ 17th Jan 02:15AM:
How could SDV not help?
I don't get it--how could SDV not make a difference??? You're talking about overturning the entire current paradigm of cable TV (i.e. everything gets pushed to the STB 24/7), and changing to essentially a Multicasting model. In that case the only bandwidth "constraints" are between headend and SDV edge node. Right?
Virtually all current bandwidth constraints should be removed--future limits should depend only on the processing power at each SDV node. It seems like an obvious bandwidth solution.
What's the issue then? The costs of each node?
reply
batterup @ 17th Jan 02:27AM:
Re: google will pay for it!
said by nasadude :
aren't they just going to charge google, yahoo, etc. to pay for these upgrades?
that seems to be the business model touted by the telcos - heaven forbid they actually lay out any of their own money and take a risk.
Yes google, yahoo and M$ should take risk and run their own cable.
reply
batterup @ 17th Jan 02:34AM:
Re: Wait
said by op :
If cable co's do fiber strait to the home then what happens if there is fiber already in the home a la Fios? I don't want 2 pieces of fiber from 2 different companies when 1 piece of fiber is doing enough.
How could this be accomplished? I know, one company could have a regulated monopoly on a national public switched network. Nah, would never work, the people would bitch. Especially those that want to leach and sucker the people in with promises of cheep long distance..
reply
batterup @ 17th Jan 02:39AM:
Re: I don't know about apocalypse but..
said by bhorow :
The Low end is low 768K, the days of dialup is now gone.
Oh really. Posters to this site are not normal users and should get out more.
reply
batterup @ 17th Jan 02:52AM:
Re: How could SDV not help?
said by DufiefData :
I don't get it--how could SDV not make a difference??? You're talking about overturning the entire current paradigm of cable TV (i.e. everything gets pushed to the STB 24/7), and changing to essentially a Multicasting model. In that case the only bandwidth "constraints" are between headend and SDV edge node. Right?
Virtually all current bandwidth constraints should be removed--future limits should depend only on the processing power at each SDV node. It seems like an obvious bandwidth solution.
What's the issue then? The costs of each node?
Wow, that is beautiful, why aren't you king of all cable.
reply
tmc8080 @ 17th Jan 05:10AM:
symantics
Docsis 3.0 is a cable equalizer.. what is LOST upon the analysis is the necessity to run fiber (FTTN) anyway deep into the neighborhood nodes to SUPPORT the increased bandwidth caps capable for docsis 3.0, Actually-- they could be doing some of this DEEP fiber node construction NOW under docsis 2.0 nodes and just switch the nodes/headend/cablemodems when the time comes.. but cable companies are: LAZY, GREEDY, and STUPID.. because they think a few pennies saved today is better now than dollars spent later.. (2 years down the road). Which by all accounts will have some means of competition breathing down their necks in the form of xdsl or fttx from telcos, or in some circumstances MUNI fiber/broadband shutting out the competition from BOTH cableco and telco alike.
They need to plan where to make the upgrades and implement ASAP,network upgrades.. telcos were never complacent in upgrading AT LEAST the head-end equipment and the backbone infrastructure.. they always migrated to new cheaper, more cost efficient technologies (in most cases) because they had the money (but, until recently the residential customer got the crumbs of bad dsl deployment).. with the new ROUND of cable (tv) rate increases.. cablecos SHOULD be putting some of this new cash to work on network upgrades NOW, not later.. they just need to choose some OUTSIDE plant upgrades in addition to the INSIDE plant upgrades--(it won't get much cheaper to do this later) DOCSIS 3.0 migration costs are relatively fixed industry wide-- it's doubtful any ONE cable company would get an unfair advantage on the equipment/labor/deployment costs anywhere. Telcos are starting to get their ducks in a row and significant increases in bandwidth are coming-- and winning over customers in the process. In addition they need to get some certified docsis 3.0 cable modem design specs to the manufacturing process by q3 2007 or they will be swamped with customer churn as telco broadband overbuilds the faulty DSL that exists today with something as good as (AT&T) or better than (Verizon FTTP) docsis 2.0.
reply
cothrom @ 17th Jan 06:38AM:
Re: Perhaps in some areas...
said by dadkins :
That sucks!
It's not all roses though... I only know of a couple places that can push the killer speeds. :(
Too true!
I was one of the first to get the 10M/1M speed increase with Charter cable at the beginning of Sept. 2006. it was absolutely killer too, everything they promised. By November I started to first see latency issues, speeds were still good for the most part but it would take a minute to access most web pages. By December we started to see speed degration to the point where I switched back to their 3M/256K service. High speed cable works well till it starts getting loaded, but with cable that is the nature of the beast.
--
Some people should'nt
reply
Maxo @ 17th Jan 08:25AM:
Re: google will pay for it!
said by RadioDoc :
You know you're posting in a cable discussion, right?
Now Doc, we can't have a front page news story without a net neutrality flame war. It's just the way things are.
reply
kpfx @ 17th Jan 08:54AM:
Re: HDTV and Internet Access
Typically slightly larger, but close if you're counting HSD passings (total passings are much higher but you never have a 100% connect rate).
Throw in DOCSIS 3.0 and things get interesting. Instead of 6Gbps you now have a theoretical 22Gbps to play with. That can easily handle over 100Mbps per customer.
Of course we're all talking theoretical stuff here. Only time will tell how it gets played out.
reply
rradina @ 17th Jan 09:07AM:
Re: google will pay for it!
My local cable company, Charter, has been running ads for months that proclaim net neutrality is bad. I think the ad was sponsored by the MCO (Missouri Cable Operators?). Although not specifically mentioned, that's a public declaration that they indirectly support the same thing the telcos want.
reply
cdru @ 17th Jan 10:08AM:
Re: The rest of it...
said by RadioDoc :
Unless Comcast is in the electric power business now, I doubt it. Those pictures have nothing to do with them.
Hey, logic, common sense, and the truth have absolutely no business here.
--
Go Colts
reply
i1me2ao @ 17th Jan 01:24PM:
how can this be?
all the ads from twc tout the amount available to do everything you want. it is if the cable companies are politician who speak out both sides of their mouth..
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/
reply
batterup @ 18th Jan 12:13AM:
Re: google will pay for it!
I hope you people don't think so called *Net Neutrality* will help nobodies like you. Do you like caps? Then you will love *Net Neutrality*.
reply
tschmidt @ 20th Jan 07:40PM:
Re: HDTV and Internet Access
said by kpfx :
Of course we're all talking theoretical stuff here. Only time will tell how it gets played out.
True. The other thing to keep in mind is this is download speed (toward customer). Upload is severely constrained. This is not a problem for UDP or multicast but will play havoc with TCP.
/Tom
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
.preview.jpg "37130 bytes")
.preview.jpg "32760 bytes")
