heaphus
Geaux Tigers
Premium
join:2003-04-12
Franklinton, LA
clubs: | reply to Jason
Re: Heh..
Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
--
Proud member of the Cajun Crunch Team |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | no |
|
Alphy
join:2001-12-31
Troy, MI
| reply to heaphus
The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong. I am in no way defending the major ISP's (who wouldn't mind more bandwidth?) but a 1.5Mbit connection will keep the AVERAGE user appeased for quite some time. |
|
Sean
join:2004-01-23
Ottawa
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to heaphus
said by heaphus  :
Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
For cable, yes. Upstream bandwidth is what causes nodes to choke. THat's why DSL (atleast in Canada) has always given the higher upload. |
|
BizFinancing
Premium
join:2003-01-10
Port Orchard, WA | That is primarily the fault of the cable providers who have been too cheap to build their networks properly and to provide sufficient, high quality IP access. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Alphy
said by Alphy :
The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong.
I agree. I would say that the most BBR users represent "the people who want more upstream bandwidth but are too cheap to pay for it so they whine" category. LOL
--
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 |
|
LBDSL
Lightning Bolt
VIP
join:2002-01-07
Auburn Hills, MI
| reply to heaphus
said by heaphus :
Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
With ADSL, as the technology stands now in the US, the MAX you can do on the upload side is 1m, under perfect conditions. Real world 768, or slightly higher is the best you will get.
SDSL can go up to 2.3m, but you have a distance, and cost issue.
--
Lightning Bolt Technologies |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Alphy
said by Alphy :
The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong. I am in no way defending the major ISP's (who wouldn't mind more bandwidth?) but a 1.5Mbit connection will keep the AVERAGE user appeased for quite some time.
But that still doesn't account for Comcast using their funds to purchase rights to distribute content instead of upgrading their network and providing their users with more upload speed. Even the "average" user will want to videoconference in the near future like they've said we could for years.
--
low cost public gameservers www.clanpubs.net |
|
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| reply to LBDSL
said by LBDSL :
said by heaphus :
Is there some major technological hurdle to providing faster upstream speeds?
With ADSL, as the technology stands now in the US, the MAX you can do on the upload side is 1m, under perfect conditions. Real world 768, or slightly higher is the best you will get.
SDSL can go up to 2.3m, but you have a distance, and cost issue.
Actually cable can deliver up to 30Mbps using DOCSIS 2.0 equipment (10Mbps using DOCSIS 1.0/1.1). Thus, technically a cable customer can easily push 1.5-2Mbps easily upstream in real life.
OK, you can say that cable is shared and not all customers can be handled but the same problem exists with DSL in that while each of 500 DSL customer gets its own 786kbps to the DSLAM from the DSLAM to the ISP router the connection is usually a T3 (45Mbps) so it does not really matter. Bandwidth is shared somewhere.
Provided provisioned so, a DSL customer can burst to 786kbps max while a cable customer can burst up to 30Mbps (typically up to 10Mbps due to 10BaseT ethernet found in a typical cable modem) ethernet interface is 10BaseT) |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to BizFinancing
said by BizFinancing :
That is primarily the fault of the cable providers who have been too cheap to build their networks properly and to provide sufficient, high quality IP access.
Even the cable companies' half-@$$ed buildout of broadband easily puts to shame the lack of deployments by the telegraph companies.
--
9/11 was the best thing to happen to Michael Moore
Win another one for the Gipper! Bush/Cheney 2004 |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :
Even the "average" user will want to videoconference in the near future like they've said we could for years.
LOL!!!! The average users I know couldn't define the term videoconference if their lives depended on it. |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| reply to BizFinancing
said by BizFinancing :
That is primarily the fault of the cable providers who have been too cheap to build their networks properly and to provide sufficient, high quality IP access.
Wrong. Unlike telephone systems, cable companies built their fiber networks to be a one-way street; the provider sends data to your cable box, period. |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | reply to LordMalak
$20 webcam + nothing better to do + broadband = video conference
wait it's being done allready, it's the new pr0n craze now, but it can't be done ? |
|
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
1 edit | reply to LordMalak
said by LordMalak :
Wrong. Unlike telephone systems, cable companies built their fiber networks to be a one-way street; the provider sends data to your cable box, period.
That was 20 years ago and in some isolated remote arease are only 1 way. Now, HFC systems (which makes up over 90% of cable systems in the US) are bidirectional. |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | reply to Sean
tell that to my 1Mb upload |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| reply to LBDSL
And then there are those that just have good wiring from their CO/RT/RP... Such as this client of mine: |
|
BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | reply to DrTCP
there's 10mb+ cable modems, their just expensive |
|
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| said by BonezX :
there's 10mb+ cable modems, their just expensive
Motorola 5100 is a DOCSIS 2.0 CM with 10/100 Lan interface and it is not very expensive ($79-20MIR at BestBuy) I am not sure if it really can deliver 30Mbps (enough CPU power, efficient code?) but it should be easily able to provide 10Mbps upstream provided the cable company has provisioned it that way. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to Alphy
said by Alphy :
The survey is incredibly skewed. Saying that BBR users represent the average Cable/DSL subscriber is just plain wrong. I am in no way defending the major ISP's (who wouldn't mind more bandwidth?) but a 1.5Mbit connection will keep the AVERAGE user appeased for quite some time.
I agree 100%
The BBR community are techies. For the most part, we love bandwidth and the internet. Not only do we want fiber speeds, but we want dialup prices. That isn't the way things work, but hey, we can dream can't we?
Sorry, but the BBR community is nowhere NEAR where the average user is today. Some of these users do like the content. However, they aren't looking for faster speeds. For instance, I have a friend who had Comcast HSI and I coaxed him into getting SBC DSL. He saves about $17 a month now and he doesn't notice the difference in speeds at all! Of course, he is just a common user.
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
1 edit | reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :
no
That's somewhat an un-educated statement.
True, there isn't totally a tech-problem preventing any feasible Upstream upgrade, but there are still firm hurdles that need to be overcome.
I'd like to see an upstream speed upgrade, but from what I understand about the limitations of QPSK modulation (which can handle 2.3-4.6 Megabits of upstream depending on the width of the channel), the available upstream bandwidth seems to be the limiting technological factor regarding any upstream cap increase. 16QAM upstream modulation could be used, but it still doesn't provide a large upgrade in upstream bandwidth per channel, and it requires considerably cleaner signal.
As such, any upstream upgrade might possibly require an infrastructure upgrade. I'm not sure if Comcast is willing to spend the money just to deliver more upstream. I'd be willing to bet that's because they don't want to encourage:
• P2P usage
• Running Servers
• Making users more attractive as spam-boxes
I've been saying this for almost an entire year, we'd have more chance of finding a three-legged-ballerina than an upstream upgrade in the next year.
--
Touch a thistle timidly, and it pricks you; grasp it boldly, and its spines crumble. -William S. Halsey |
|
