 
Go Chargers7
Fa Shizzle Ma Nizzle
Premium
join:2002-09-24
Huntington Beach, CA
|  How about PROVIDERS 2.0?
--
Go SD! | |
|  | | | | 
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: 2.0 ? We don't even use 1.1 properly better bandwidth management means nothing to the end-user if the resellers are simply using it to pack more users into the system. cable has and always will be a technology with enormous potential never used because of greed.
--
roadrunner is a good name for the service; i don't remember one cartoon where we actually like the rr character  | |
| | | 
J D McDorce
Premium
join:2001-12-29
Westland, MI
| Re: 2.0 ? We don't even use 1.1 properly In my own jaded fashion, I merely take a look at who funds and runs CableLabs »www.cablelabs.com/about/board/
My read on the function of DOCSIS is simple: to maximize the profitability of the cable industry through standardization and the ability to offer more services through existing pipe. Any benefit to the end users existing services (such as Cable Internet) are left to the whim of their specific provider. | |
| | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by kba4  :
better bandwidth management means nothing to the end-user if the resellers are simply using it to pack more users into the system. cable has and always will be a technology with enormous potential never used because of greed.
I agree with you completely. Somehow, if/when this is implemented by comcast, they are either going to do as you say or use it to charge more for better speeds (although cost to them is almost zero). | |
| | | | systems2000
What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace
 ·Embarq
| Re: 2.0 ? We don't even use 1.1 properly Wouldn't VoIP be considered a server, and doesn't Comcast forbid the use of servers on their lower tier packages? All this will do is bring us into the appliance and software server argument or will Comcast force one to another package (ie. higher price) for the capability? | |
| 
bky
Premium
join:2002-07-05
Austin, TX | cool Cool. I wonder how much my RR cost is gonna go up after they hastle me to use their new VoIP telly service.
--
I think, therefore I am confused. | |
| | 
sjohnson
join:2001-02-28
Sioux Falls, SD
·Golden West
| Re: cool Forget cost, my Ex tried out telephone service (over her cable).
It worked OK, but my kids couldn't call her from my place. Instead they got an intercept stating that the number was disconnected or no longer in service. Her cable co (forgot the name) pointed the finger at Sprint (my provider) and Sprint pointed the finger at the cable co. Neither provider would even consider getting Verizon involved.
Funny thing was, I could call any Verizon telephone number in her area code and exchange with no problem.
Both providers said the fault was in the provisioning of the other provider and neither could/would resolve the issue. She ended up going back to Verizon for her telco service and all was well again.
--
Don't confuse me with the facts... | |
| 
sapo
Computer Love
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA | Another.... Nothing to see here... move along now | |
| 
Iceblink
By your command
Premium
join:2002-03-21
San Diego, CA
|  Depends on your cable provider I guess.
| |
| |
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Akron, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Depends on your cable provider I guess. the only bad thing about having so many services on one line is they'll all go out at once if a cable's cut. no cable? no emergency calls either.
--
roadrunner is a good name for the service; i don't remember one cartoon where we actually like the rr character | |
| 
CoxCable4
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | just another cable modem to uncap =) | |
| 
AP
join:2001-10-15
Baldwin Park, CA
clubs:
| i have never even seen DOCSIS i still on nonDOCSIS and still waiting, then there are also them one way cable modems in some parts of the country.. boy cable internet providers suck.
--
Wisdom is when you think of a really stupid thing to say, and then DON'T SAY IT. | |
| | | | | 
ntguru911
join:2001-03-26
Powell, OH | Re: i have never even seen DOCSIS Akron RR has sucked for a long time. I dunno what the deal is up there. Down here in Columbus, it's usually about 3000down/400-500up. I had a client w/ business RR up there and it never got above 30K/sec down (about 250kbps). | |
| j583698
join:2000-07-14
Sussex, WI
edited
| x x
[text was edited by author 2002-12-24 23:36:45] | |
| 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
| Docsis 2.0 I predict that the cable industry will be adopting this new standard VERY quickly and essentially the only limitation to their adoption of it will be obtaining the necessary funding. (Which given the poor financial health of many of these companies, and the increased difficulties in raising investment capital is a big hurdle for some)
I believe this to be the case because finally, this standard addresses the real issues that have been facing this industry. Docsis 1.1 wasn't adopted for two reasons.
First, it was a bandaid on a gapping wound. Secondly, it simply came on the heels of too little growth in the industry and too big an investment cable operators had already made in the previous standard.
The number one..two..and three problems facing this industry today is the increased popularity of P2P.
Because of the limited upstream capabilities of the previous standard, VERY few users or abusers on any given segment of the network can cause massive amounts of problems for everyone. The previous standard was created at a time when cable systems were never envisioned to be used in a manner such as this.
The vast majority of internet traffic was downloads,
with upstream usage being just a fraction of what it is today.
Because of the problems with the current standard, a huge amount of downstream bandwidth is simply wasted today.
The only real solution to date has been to split off their networks even further..and throw more bandwidth at the problem..a VERY expensive alternative to a properly configured network.
The answer as to what plaques the industry today can be explained in a nutshell. UPSTREAM traffic that is saturating the available upstream bandwidth. This causes DOWNLOAD SPEEDS to be reduced even though there is plenty of downstream bandwidth available.
The reason is, downloading also requires utilizing the upstream bandwidth to send back your acknowledgements.
When that upstream highway is being so fully utilized by traffic that was never envisioned..quite simply those acks can't get thru...or are delayed.
The end result is network problems all around..for the
end users and the cable operators.
Many cable companies today are still nowhere near profitable on their current customer bases. They cannot be expected to simply keep throwing money at a problem like this by throwing more costly...and ultimately wasted bandwidth at the problem...especially for a service where people expect these kinds of speeds at these kinds of prices.
Docsis 2.0 IMO..is the magic bullet they've been waiting for. And, it is the solution that will Solve these problems. Not only that, but it will let them add additional types of services to their offerings..and deliver them in the manner that people expect.
I believe that tiered offerings and symmetric speeds will
also quickly be implemented in this type of a network.
And, quite simply..as much bandwidth as anyone could want..provided they're willing to pay the cost for it.
This standard also has some other very attractive features.
It can be rolled out right along with and in conjunction with their existing standards. It is backwards compatible
with that. PLUS, every user that is added under this standard will immediately help alleviate network problems.
The only real issue to cable operators jumping on this right away I think is going to be the cost.
Modems will have to be replaced and Docsis 2.0 compliant equipment modifications made at the cable plants.
By the same token though, it's going to be very inexpensive compared to investments they've already made in these networks..and, it can be rolled out on a very controllable schedule. In addition..it will allow them additional sources of revenues, Fix the problems that are broken..and allow them to save by NOT trying to fix the problems with patchwork solutions like they have been.
Unless i am so far off the mark as to be brain dead..I'd say look for Docsis 2.0 soon at a cable operator near you. 
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | 
lml2000
Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Docsis 2.0 said by Rick :
I predict that the cable industry will be adopting this new standard VERY quickly
I predict your prediction will not become reality as quick as you believe. Your reasons for failure of adoption of DOCSIS 1.1 were not for the first reason you state, but more or less for the 2nd reason. MSOs have poured billions into their plant over the last decade & have yet to realize a measurable return on that investment while having piled up mountains of debt & facing increasing competition from DBS.
True, cable modem access has been a positive front for most MSOs, but other efforts to provide advanced services, based upon past investment, have met with mixed results, namely VOD & telephony. All this must be weighed against the reality that DBS has eaten severely into the MSO basic customer base, the underpinning of the ability to grow revenues long term.
DOCSIS 2.0 will NOT be quickly forthcoming for the simple reason that the lion's share of cable customers today don't need the bandwidth. When the demand is there, investment in DOCSIS 2.0 will be made, and they will be able to charge consumers a hefty coin for increased bandwidth capability. IMHO, if the MSOs rolled DOCSIS 2.0 out tomorrow, literally, there is simply not enough scalable demand among their customer base to warrant a reasonable ROI.
All these upgrades are demand driven, just like the battle for the last mile, FTTH, etc. Where this industry is either a de facto monopoly, or alternatively an oligopoly, until the market can convince the provider that the dollars will be there should they offer oodles of bandwidth, they will be content to wait until such demand is convertible into sufficient dollars. | |
| | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: Docsis 2.0 While you make some good points, I still have to disagree with some of them.
I think you put far too much emphasis on thinking Docsis 2.0 is needed for future needs. It is needed for todays needs and for the demand that is already there.
I think while most cable operators have fought a good battle in keeping up with networks which are being used
for radically different purposes than originally intended,
they realize it is a battle they will not ultimately win.
You can review any cable operators thread here on BBR
and what you will quickly realize is how very inconsistent
this service is and how prone it is at really any moment
to failures and problems anywhere.
Cable operators have never experienced things like this.
How often did you call your cable TV company for service calls? Once every 10 years maybe?
Forget that. That all went out the window with this offering called Cable Broadband. Some people now probably know their cable co's reps first born childs names by now...they have had so many service calls in because of poor or spotty service. While some are better than others at dealing with these issues..none of them gets very high marks. And, I really don't think for the majority, any of it really ties back to their lack of efforts or money they've spent on these issues. I think it all comes down to a technology that is so stretched and operating at a level now for which it was never intended.
What you're really not considering is that this industry everyday is spending massive amounts of money anyway on
issues they really never foresaw in the first place.
Truck rolls and handling customer service issues alone must
cost them a fortune. And, they'll never recover that from
the current user bases monthly fees. Not to mention how ultimately their service is perceived. As a technology that
often times can be extremely variable in nature, and subject to problems.
Is it really any wonder why even those who have tried it haven't found a market for things like VOIP?
How serious should a cable operators offering be when it's marketed the way that this one is?
"Well..you better be keeping your current line and god forbid you ever relied on this for emergency calls etc."
That is an ABSOLUTE joke of a service IMO..and one that will NEVER be taken seriously.
When this technology can be offered as an ALTERNATIVE
to what you have today..and what you are paying for today..AND..has shown a track record of reliability and success..then, and only then..will it ever be taken seriously. This is NOT demand driven, it is up to the cable operators to PROVE that to their customers.
In addition, cable operators today for the most part are missing out on one of the biggest markets out there, at least in terms of money makers..and that is any kind of a significant entry into the corporate market.
Why? Because they simply do not have the symmetric service to offer...and they do not have the reliability that other options offer.
Frankly, I think what the cable operators today are operating with is a service that is half reliable..consumer based...used by consumers who are willing to put up with the pitfalls many of them experience..More customers service issues than they could have ever dreamed of facing them each day...More expenses in the long run than it would take to DO THIS RIGHT in the first place...commercial accounts that overall would laugh at the possibility of using what they offer today..
and a whole lot of possibilities for additional services..if they really ever had the technology to Properly support it.
The time..for Docsis 2.0..is today. It's now.
And, I think they know that.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | | | 
DrTCP
Yours truly
Premium,ExMod 1999-04
join:1999-11-09
Round Rock, TX
| Re: Docsis 2.0 said by Rick :
The time..for Docsis 2.0..is today. It's now.
And, I think they know that.
Any DOCSIS 2.0 will not solve any of the issues you have mentioned. They will still have the same issues and moreover when they start offering telephony a lot more customers will probably dissatisfied with the level of service they are getting.
DOCSIS 2.0 is only new upstream PHY over DOCSIS 1.1. That means there is about 50% more bandwidth per upstream compared to 2 channel use of DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 (single channel capacity is now x3 but single channel bandwidth required is 2x so effective increase per DOCSIS 1.0/1.1 channel is about 50%) | |
| | | | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Re: Docsis 2.0 said by DrTCP :
Any DOCSIS 2.0 will not solve any of the issues you have mentioned. They will still have the same issues and moreover when they start offering telephony a lot more customers will probably dissatisfied with the level of service they are getting.
I think based on the description of what Docsis 2.0 will offer as described here
»www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020617S0011
It's going to go a long way in addressing the issues I raised in my post.
As far as telephony affecting the service, I couldn't agree more. In fact, it's already happened here in Columbus
I think. We have two RR providers here in town..Insight RR
and Time Warner.
Insight began offering phone service on their lines a few months ago. Whether it's coincidence or not, I don't know..but almost immediately many of us began to experience HUGE reductions in our speeds. I was seeing 500k - 800k when prior to that it was 2000k +.
And, virtually everyone I know across town started seeing the same things. Time Warner customers had no problems at all. Since then, some people I know have returned to the 1200~1500k range, but still are seeing these other #'s from time to time.
No one on Insight, that I know of anyway..is seeing over those #'s anymore.
The only changes they made that i'm aware of on such a large scale was with this telephone service. So, I have to assume that's what's going on.
--
The life you help save just might be your own Team Discovery | |
| | | |
lml2000
Whazzup
join:2000-08-17
Los Angeles, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Quite a lengthy response. But quantity doesn't necessarily translate to quality. I'll try to address issues you raise as concisely as possible.
Present v. Future Needs. You have a RR, one of the best providers over HFC. You likely have, or have had, a robust connection to the Internet in recent past, while many others are still in the dark ages when it comes to broadband. You apparently crave more bandwidth. But you have to realize that you are a minority among your operator's customer base. MSOs will, IN TIME, respond to AGGREGATE demand for more bandwidth, particularly along the upstream; they will not respond QUICKLY, as you assert, to the extreme demand of a few.
Experience of Cable Operators. Sorry, disagree. Ever wonder why distaste of the cable company is so ingrained in our modern culture? Do you honestly think it never existed prior to intro of the cable modem? Come on, if you have some knowledge of the cable industry, you would realize that the cable industry has a long history of providing sub-standard service to many of the customers. Perhaps because you live in an area served by not only two competing operators, but also two "premier" operators, you take a lot of what it takes to deliver quality service for granted. As you state, all you have to do is visit the cable forums here & learn the experience of others who I am sure are served by much less-capable operators than Insight & Time Warner. You need to step back & appreciate the larger picture, which goes far beyond the fiber node that serves your personal PC. If you take that big step, you might realize how fortunate you are, and the industry, as a whole, has a whole lot more to do that just push your particular system to DOCSIS 2.0. Don't worry, it will come. But don't hold your breath, and that's where we differ. Let's talk in a year, and we'll see who's right, OK?
Industry Expenditures. Pretty presumptuous statement you make to me -- that I'm oblivious to present operations of cable operators. I'm not, but I think you're fairly blind if you sincerely believe these operators did not foresee many of the problems you speak of. All you have to do is talk to folks in engineering, and in the field, to learn such problems were expected, and that future problems are expected as DOCSIS 1.1 & 2.0 is rolled out.
VoIP. Apparently, you are experiencing first-hand the issue of provisioning VoIP telephony over HFC. Its problematic & the primary reason the only MSOs to have pushed cable telephony have been Cox & AT&T, whose service is NOT VoIP, but circuit-switched telephony that rely upon very expensive Class 5 switching. You argument and experience make the case for skipping DOCSIS 1.1 altogether, which allows for QoS controls in the network, but not necessarily the robust upstream necessary to hand a high volume of VoIP traffic. But, this does not equate to a QUICK DOCSIS 2.0 rollout. Remember, the issue here is not "if," but "when" DOCSIS 2.0 will be deployed. You seem to think it'll happen "now." I'm telling you you are being somewhat optimistic & that its not likely to happen for at least a couple years . . . on a grand scale. Of course there will be select trial systems that will see DOCSIS anywhere from 6 months to 2 years before other systems. But again, I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you. | |
| | | | |
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
edited
| Re: Docsis 2.0 said by lml2000 :
Quite a lengthy response. But quantity doesn't necessarily translate to quality. I'll try to address issues you raise as concisely as possible.
Frankly, I don't need you to address anything to me. I have more than enough experience with each item I have discussed.
But thanks.
As far as lengthy responses, you seem to have that down pat yourself. 
Quite amazing actually that you feel compelled to write such a novel if your only real disagreement with me is
"Don't worry, it will come. But don't hold your breath, and that's where we differ. Let's talk in a year, and we'll see who's right, OK?"
I'm not holding my breath because if you would have read my posts a little closer you would have seen that I
never said it would come "now". I said the time for it is now.
I also stated:
"I predict that the cable industry will be adopting this new standard VERY quickly and essentially the only limitation to their adoption of it will be obtaining the necessary funding. (Which given the poor financial health of many of these companies, and the increased difficulties in raising investment capital is a big hurdle for some)"
There is a big difference between adopting a new technology, gearing up for it, planning for it..funding it..and rolling it out.
That certainly does not mean I expect they'll be rolling it out next month...the next six months, or even a year from now.
It does mean that I believe it will be a priority for them.
Given that funding is a BIG hurdle though, as I noted, it very well may take a year or two to actually begin rolling it out.
[text was edited by author 2002-12-26 04:22:06] | |
| 
linuxgeek$
Premium
join:2002-09-13
Computer |  what if the aluminum foil on the cable gets damag
| |
| | 
Sledge_Z
@24.51.x.x | Re: what if the aluminum foil on the cable gets damag HAHA I'm getting sick of standing here holding it. | |
| SongBear88
join:2001-03-05
USA | Optimum Online I wonder if this means optimum online will change their claims to 600 times faster than dial up. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·