said by Defiance82 :

Pfft and half the nation is still on DOCSIS 1.x. They should upgrade the old crap first..

said by Article :

Our forum users have sloshed through the rumors and Comcast tech whispers, with their best guess on the first trial speeds being something like 16Mbps/2Mbps this June, in Denver.

said by ColorBASIC :

Or drop it all together; leaving the wording in the TOS/AUP but simply not enforcing it.

said by compton :

What speeds can Docsis 3.0 attain?

said by dr2500 :

I'm here! DOCSIS better make it to 6.0 before we start comparing it to Fibre!! :p

said by matrix3D :

Actually they bring up an interesting point... digital television, while probably traveling on a different channel, is really nothing but data just like internet service. Regardless, all of these services use the same pipe so why is one service capped while another isn't?

said by matrix3D :

Actually they bring up an interesting point... digital television, while probably traveling on a different channel, is really nothing but data just like internet service. Regardless, all of these services use the same pipe so why is one service capped while another isn't?

said by LiamJunket :

»www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2006/0···706.html

160 mbps / 120 mbps minimum top speeds, with higher rates possible.

Of course, real life offered speeds will be less than that.

Here is the link to all the specs:
»www.cablemodem.com/specification···s30.html

said by Loker :

You stand correct....now look at it this way! 1ghz network / 6 mhz for channel spacing = about 166 channels now do the math on the bandwidth!
--
Truth has one destination, But many paths!
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 03:48PM:
Re: Fibre

dup post
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 03:49PM:
Re: Fibre

Verizon's ONT can do about 600Mbps down and 155Mbps up according to Tellabs. Video is listed as being a different 'channel' on the Tellabs site so I don't know if the video is included in the 600+Mb capacity or if that 600Mb would be for all of the other non-video services they could offer. DOCSIS3 would have to bond quite a few channels to get that throughput. In any event neither Comcast nor Verizon are going to offer services that will saturate DOCSIS3 or the current FiOS ONT any time soon. DOCSIS3 will be plenty to compete with fiber for the foreseeable future.
reply

---

axus @ 2nd May 03:49PM:
sweet ;p

Glad to hear that FIOS will get some competition. Then both companies will have to compete on other things, like data caps and customer service.
reply

---

dr2500 @ 2nd May 03:54PM:
Re: Fibre

DOCSIS 3.0 is not gigabit.
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 04:03PM:
Re: Fibre

Neither is Verizon's ONT according to Tellabs who makes at least some of the ONTs Verizon uses (1600 series). Like cable, the fiber in the street isn't the restriction...it's the equipment on each end.
reply

---

fiberguy @ 2nd May 04:10PM:
Re: Cool...

I'm assuming you didn't read the statement placed out? or just having a little fun in a discussion forum?

"On top of DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades, the company will use node splits, digital optimization, "bandwidth hog" caps and switched digital video (SDV) to manage bandwidth."

.. all pretty useful information for expansion plans except for Karl's usual slant and spin.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy..."
reply

---

dr2500 @ 2nd May 04:11PM:
Re: Fibre

True...But with GPON being deployed that will change.
I'm a Comcast user and can't wait for the deployment of 3.0 and all the new services that come along with it like smart home monitoring. 3.0 will be a good thing for the cable industry.
reply

---

Vchat20 @ 2nd May 04:13PM:
Re: switched digital video?

I think a batter way to explain it is digital tv services are just like standard analog catv and ota tv in that all the channels are being fed down the line anyways at all times regardless of who's watching. Only when someone decides to tune in, the box simply picks up that specific signal and you have your television channel. More than one box can tune into the same channel simultaneously with absolutely 0 increase in used bandwidth.

Same goes for SDV to a point. That point being if x channel isn't being watched by anyone, it isn't being broadcasted from the headend so that physical channel will be free for other uses if the cableco so desires. If one or more people tune in, THEN the headend starts to broadcast it down the line for the set-top to pick up and display on your tv. Like standard digital cable noted above, there is 0 increase in bandwidth use if more boxes tune into that channel. Only if the channel is no longer being tuned to by any customer does the headend shut it off and free up bandwidth.

HSI and Digital/SDV catv are two totally different beasts so don't try to compare the two as if they are the same. Sure, any cable company could very easily track how much tv you watch and on what channel in the digital realm, and I will give you the fact they could charge you for the time watched rather than a flat monthly rate, but they'd have no real viable reason to do so AND they'd be digging their own grave if they took that direction.

EDIT: As well, the one major point that is being missed here is that catv services remain on the private HFC network built by the cableco so there is no extra cost to them to run that past the cost of equipment. HSI on the other hand has to make it's way out to the public internet via use of backbones they have to pay for much like what we have to for our own connections, albeit much more expensive.

--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 04:14PM:
Re: Fibre

And then cablelabs will cert something new to counter it.

But for us, it's what the consumers are actually seeing that matters. Brian Roberts can crow all he wants about DOCSIS3 but I'll believe it when I see it and support it when it's not being followed with more nastygrams to customers who would dare actually use it.
reply

---

tlcbob @ 2nd May 04:18PM:
Re: Fibre

Fiber Fanboy here! Already have FIOS at 15/2 for $39.95.

Just as Cable goes 16M - FIOS will "Flip the switch" to 30 or 50 Meg. Maybe even symmetrical!!

Look out cable - your technology is limited, based on your wire!
reply

---

anon @ 2nd May 04:39PM:
Re: sweet ;p

Just look at Phyflex or the old Narad Networks. Hear it kicks butt!
reply

---

anon @ 2nd May 05:41PM:
Re: sweet ;p

ANyone look at Phyflex (old Narad Networks)?
reply

---

odreian615 @ 2nd May 04:49PM:
I'm no Comcast fanboy but this is good

It will force FTTH from Att and other players I say bring it on
reply

---

dr2500 @ 2nd May 04:54PM:
Remember

A poorly designed network is not always an easy one to fix.
reply

---

imrf @ 2nd May 04:56PM:
Re: Fibre

No it's not.
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 06:04PM:
Re: Fibre

And DOCSIS 3 cable operators will 'flip the switch' too. DOCSIS3 and current fiber HW from the likes of Verizon are similar in capability. The 1600 series ONTs can do around 600Mb down and 155Mb up and with channel bonding DOCSIS3 should be able to do that and possibly more.

Question is which will actually happen first; wide DOCSIS 3 deployment or flying pigs.
reply

---

anon @ 2nd May 06:17PM:
Re: it's not gonna keep me from switching

»www.ambitbroadband.com/download/···heet.pdf

Is this it? it looks like it is a DOCSIS 1.0 modem.

»broadband.motorola.com/consumers···5120.pdf

The surfboard looks to be DOCSIS 1.1 and 2.0 certified.
reply

---

Rob @ 2nd May 07:07PM:
Re: I'm no Comcast fanboy but this is good

yea ahahhahaha don't make me laugh.
--
YourIP.US - It's Your IP .. and more!
rr.cx - Personal Site.. coming soon.
reply

---

en102 @ 2nd May 07:14PM:
Re: Caps

Expect a more expensive cable bill due to 'programming charges'
reply

---

dvd536 @ 2nd May 08:24PM:
Re: Pfft

heck the current network can handle that!
I would want at least 25000/15000 before having to buy new hardware(modem).
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth
reply

---

dvd536 @ 2nd May 08:28PM:
Re: Fibre

They'll NEVER do symmetrical on res service, that would hurt VZs LUCRATIVE biz packages.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth
reply

---

majortom1029 @ 2nd May 09:39PM:
why +do they need 16/2 for docsis 3?

They dont need docsis 3 to do 16/2 . Cablevision is doing 15/2 with docsis 1.1 and 30/2 with docsis 2.0
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 09:41PM:
Re: Fibre

Why? They don't share availability (in that biz can't get res services). They already have price differences for identical services between res and biz.
reply

---

patcat88 @ 2nd May 10:00PM:
Re: Fibre

VOD is IP and eats at the 622, and that 622/155 is shared with upto 32 users (more like 8 in real world 1.5-1.25 fibers per family/house, and only 10-20% of users who are passed subscribe).
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 10:11PM:
Re: Fibre

I thought that the network terminal box (622/155) was a per house device.
reply

---

ColorBASIC @ 2nd May 10:13PM:
Re: why +do they need 16/2 for docsis 3?

They can't do 8/768 without cancelling people who actually use the service as it is and those who are willing to pay for faster speeds like 30Mb are more likely to be those who would use it.
reply

---

patcat88 @ 2nd May 10:19PM:
Re: switched digital video?

TV is a walled garden product. The channel will go away permanently if too many people watch it. Its their garden, not yours. They will remove the weeds before they grow into trees. Also with TV you can always reduce the bitrate, and nobody can do anything about it, other than switch to another provider, who probably is doing the same thing. :p
reply

---

batterup @ 2nd May 10:35PM:
A bandage for a gaping wound.

quote:

---

On top of DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades, the company will use node splits, digital optimization, "bandwidth hog" caps and switched digital video (SDV) to manage bandwidth.

---

Broadband usages and needs are now increasing along with PC power. The only network that can keep pace is Fiber To The Premise.
reply

---

patcat88 @ 2nd May 11:05PM:
Re: switched digital video?

Cable cos should then have unlimited bandwidth (line speed/max network can handle) between its IPs. Then again, to go between 2 different TWC markets, you go out on Level 3 (TWC's default backbone carrier), even though supposedly TWC/AOL/TW has their own backbone (ATDN). I guess the saying is true, that backbone providers provide nearly free bandwidth to consumer ISPs (the sink/destination) and then rape the business/web server/commercial customers (the producer/source). Also consumer ISPs have asymetrical connections to ensure this business model, plus their backbones will be pissed where there is too much content coming out of the consumer ISPs. If there are no sources (business clients) for content, then you dont need to worry about what will absorb it (consumer clients). Businesses have money to burn, consumers dont, and consumers wont stand $300+ monthly fees. The internet needs to be scraped and replaced by a new system, with new business models that dont prove lethargy guarentees profits.

-consumers need multicast support, most p2p traffic would vanish, a torrent or any other p2p system will now be a multicast stream, and except for unicast (maybe multicast) retransmissions after the global stream finished. **AA will die from a heart attack when they hear this. A dialup modem can be turned into a 10 gigabit fiber line, with fiber channel RAID behind it with multicast.
-TCP needs to be reoptimized, and tolerate more packet loss before it reduces speeds
-the current system of loading websites needs to be changed, its insane with the number of roundtrips that take place on a modern website, even with HTTP keep-alive, a website should be one TCP connection, except unless resources are on different IPs. All resources should be specified at the top of a HTML file, and begin to immediately downloaded, and always begin to download before the HTML page is done loading.
-DNS is a joke, each ISP needs to have caches of the VAST majority of DNS entries (any DNS entry resolved in last 30 days should be good), updates should be pushed to the caches through multicast. The caches need to be very close to the edge of the network. Maybe browsers need to pre-load DNS entries for all links on a page.
-dynamic websites should use more Ajax, and instead of HTML being sent of Ajax, a SQL interface should be provided, with the rendering into HTML done on the client side (saves CPU and lag on server), no more PHP, eghh, there are some minor security concerns, but still. On initial page load where the Ajax code is sent and the HTML templace info, the database result should be already PHPed and HTML embedded in the initial HTML page.
-all internet applications should use QOS, period, to further optimize latency
-IP6 is needed
-all NAT and proxys need to be killed
-there should be no difference between a business and consumer connection, same speed, same price same quality
-there should only be ONE backbone, not this current insanity of peering, free peering is only done by the Ma Bells of IP, and they dont let anyone into their club. Peering causes stupid routing and latency. I just love that on ATT DSL, ALL my traffic goes through VA and Chicago (or is this for the NSA?), even to the cable modem sitting next to me. One backbone will eliminate all this crap.
-competition in the internet should be the transport tunnel to the POP/Datacenter/backbone, the 1st hop/router is the POP you belong to, not any tier 2 or consumer ISPs, that way it will only be 1 or 2 hops to most other websites. The current bus and ring topology guarantees latency and slow speeds. Since everyone has a direct line into the POP/datacenter, Net Neutrality isnt an issue. A pipe provider wont care what goes over the line, since they cant control content, or anything except the point to point connection.
reply

---

Rob A @ 2nd May 11:09PM:
Right...

I doubt they are successful at this.
reply

---

Vchat20 @ 2nd May 11:27PM:
Re: switched digital video?

Actually, back in the early days, Cable HSI used to be this way where you could peer up directly with other neighbors on your node and go filesharing via standard windows file & printer sharing, the whole time maxing out the theorhetical max line speed as determined by the DOCSIS standard (if it was even used back in those days.). Then cablecos wisened up and closed off those ports and capped your speed directly at the modem rather than the CMTS so not only are you restricted to the speed of your paid for HSI tier even inside your own node, you can no longer just open up basic windows networking ports and share all your wares, you all have to go out and use some other p2p system that's now available to all.

And as you stated, yes, to go to different markets you have to traverse the backbones to get there. It's pretty much identical to say making a connection from a local TWC ip to a Comcast ip or even a website in a datacenter somewhere. No real way to get around that one.

And to comment on the rest of your post: I don't doubt the internet at large needs a massive overhaul. The basis of this was all started back in the 70s-80s. Even in the heydey of the WWW back in the 90s, NOTHING was like how we have it now with live video and audio, high resolution photos transmitted in mere seconds, etc.. But who's gonna do the overhaul? You wanna be the one to try and force the whole WORLD to go offline and rebuild the infrastructure from the ground up? As it is, implementing IPv6 is gonna take a lot of work to get done right.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz
reply

---

DaBavarian @ 3rd May 12:24AM:
Re: Fibre

Poor Local Cable Co.....Verizon will act like Cable's older brother....Verizon will be holding the cookie above Cable's head just enough so cable can't reach it. Now matter what Cabel does, Fiber will ALWAYS be better as it is the wire of the future.
reply

---

patcat88 @ 3rd May 12:59AM:
Re: switched digital video?