Comcast CEO Shows Off Superfast Modem

Gary writes "Comcast CEO dazzled cable industry audience by showcasing a super quick modem, using a technology called DOCSIS 3.0. It was developed by the cable industry's research arm, Cable Television Laboratories. It bonds together four cable lines but is capable of allowing much more capacity enabling a data download speed of 150 megabits per second, or roughly 25 times faster than today's standard cable modems. 'The new cable technology is crucial because the industry is competing with a speedy new offering called FiOS, a TV and Internet service that Verizon Communications Inc. is selling over a new fiber-optic network. The top speed currently available through FiOS is 50 megabits per second, but the network already is capable of providing 100 mbps, and the fiber lines offer nearly unlimited potential.'"

Technical Mumbo Jumbo

[dsginter]

Can someone clarify for the non-technical types (such as myself) what "superfast" actually means?

Re:Technical Mumbo Jumbo

[dattaway]

Superfast means it has the ability to go much faster than the undocumented quota that will get a subscriber kicked off the net.

Re:Technical Mumbo Jumbo

[CaptainPatent]

It's just a little bit faster than reallyfast and a little bit slower than UBERfast

Re:Technical Mumbo Jumbo

[UF00]

wake me up when they offer ludicrous speed

Re:

[admdrew]

Wake me up when they've gone plaid.

Re:

[ATMD]

Cymru? Not yet, then - it's still mostly Labour...

Re:

[644bd346996]

Read the summary!

It bonds together four cable lines but is capable of allowing much more capacity enabling a data download speed of 150 megabits per second, or roughly 25 times faster than today's standard cable modems.

What's so hard about that?

Re:Technical Mumbo Jumbo

[David Horn]

150x faster? My cable modem syncs at 20mbits/second, and so too does the majority of others on the Virgin Media network in the UK.

Re:

[ozbon]

No, RTFA or TFCA (the comment above) - 25x faster than a 6Mbps connection.

If you can get a 20Mbps connection then - duh! - the 150Mbps connection is (roughly) 7.5x faster than what you're currently getting.

DOCSIS 2.0 potential

[norminator]

The DOCSIS 2.0 standard maxes at 43MB in the US and 57MB Europe (NTSC vs PAL channel allocations). DOCSIS 3.0 (spec was ratified in 2006) allows multiple channels to be bonded together for even higher bandwidths (hence the demo).

I'm glad you posted the maximum capabilities of DOCSIS 2.0, because I didn't know what they were, and frankly, I'm now a little depressed. TFA got me all hopeful I'd have my 150Mbps connection sometime relatively soon, but now that I now that the current standard is already 7 times faster "than today's standard cable modems", what's the point of having a modem that goes 150 times that? If we're getting service that's a small fraction of the capability of the current standard, why brag about the new modem? Why not let us have service that actually uses our current hardware somewhere close to it's potential? Or even half of it's potential? Why do they have to start selling us new modems alre...

oh, I see. They want us to buy new modems. OK, my questions are answered.

Re:

[symbolic]

I think it means "megafast," but other synonyms could be uberfast, killerfast, or simply 'tight'. It always helps to have well-defined terminology that can be easily understood.

Re:

[itchy92]

See, the problem is that here in the U.S., we're not accustomed to metric measurements and notation. Megabits, kilobytes, these things mean nothing to us.

Therefore, I propose the U.S. instate a new standard of measurement in accordance with our SI units. There will be 3 bits in a byte, 5,280 bits in a kilobyte, and 43,560 square bits (or 4,840 square bytes) in a megabyte. I think we can all agree that this is much more logical.

(Sigh)

/Sorry, rest of the world

Re:

[secondstory756]

The top speed currently available through FiOS is 50 megabits per second, but the network already is capable of providing 100 mbps

I always thought the trend was towards faster, newer, better, but apparently getting 100 millibits per second is the new goal! Err, wait, is Verizon filling in for zonk?

Re:

[timjdot]

Then you actually get to the cable network and it drops to superslow. Seriously, the whole hype thing is overdone. Anyone who's tried to use cable 7x24 knows it drops toward 30 second latency on web pages on a regular basis. The cable networks are probably overloaded/under designed. What good is superfast when the actual throughput is supersucky!!!

Re:

[Skye16]

I use cable 24/7 and I've never experienced this. And believe me, if my latency were spiking from 40ms to 30000ms while I were gaming, or even checking webpages, I'd fucking notice it. My thoughts are cable in your area just flat out sucks. In mine, it's absolutely divine. DSL, on the other hand, is out for about 45 minutes to an hour every 2 or 3 days for my neighbors on either side of me. Pure silliness.

Saturation

[conufsed]

Bonds together 4 cable lines? I though one of the big issues with cable was saturation from multiple users on the same bit of cable? Not sure here as adsl is by far more available around here

Re:

[jimstapleton]

certain cable companies have a tendancy to overload their hubs, causing saturation, but not all.

Re:Saturation

[CastrTroy]

And maybe I'm not understanding, but I only have 1 cable line running into my house. So how does this help me? Does this require them to lay more lines? Because if it does, they may as well lay fibre-optics, which has much more potential for higher speeds.

Re:Saturation

[SvetBeard]

And maybe I'm not understanding, but I only have 1 cable line running into my house. So how does this help me? Does this require them to lay more lines?

Dude, just go to Radio Shack and get a few cable splitters. Problem solved.

Re:Saturation

[dattaway]

Dude, just go to Radio Shack and get a few cable splitters. Problem solved.

That is if your local Radio Shack sells anything besides cell phones.

Re:

[zippthorne]

Shouldn't your son be the one to do the project? If you're going to do it for him, you might as well just smash open a clapper and put it back together again. (after carefully recording the components for the three-panel display.

I think the problem with science fair projects (at least when I did one) was that way too much emphasis is placed on coming up with a new idea, so the students get the idea that they should actually be doing new science. I know I had a series of terrible "experiments" because I sp

Re:

[norminator]

And maybe I'm not understanding, but I only have 1 cable line running into my house. So how does this help me? Does this require them to lay more lines?

Dude, just go to Radio Shack and get a few cable splitters. Problem solved.

Spoken like someone who works for Radio Shack.
(I know it was a joke, and I'm joking too... sort of.)

4 Channels, not 4 Cables

[Klaus_1250]

They mean 4 channels/frequencies, not 4 cables. 40Mbps over a single channel is normal, so 160Mbps over 4 channels makes sense. Channel bonding is very normal to speed things up, they use it in 802.11n and most newer cellular data transmission protocols. I don't see why this should make slashdot. It is nothing new and nothing revolutionary.

Re:

[TheNinjaroach]

Most Slashdot articles are neither new nor revolutionary, just be happy it's not a dupe (yet)!

Re:Saturation

[crt]

The article description isn't very accurate - when they say "lines", they really mean "channels". Cable modems now operating on a single 6mhz "channel" on the cable line. DOCSIS3 [cablelabs.com] lets the modem "bond" several channels to increase bandwidth. Only one physical cable is still required. This takes away from the # of channels available for TV, but as they move more of the channels off analog to digital (which fit multiple channels in a single 6mhz band) frequency space is being freed.

Re:

[SilentChris]

For the foreseeable future it's much cheaper to lay down cable than fiber. Many, many areas still don't have access to fiber due to restrictions (distance to teleco, local laws, etc). However, cable is abundant. In my area, for example, we're STILL waiting on Verizon FIOS due to local laws. Cable companies would be happy to lay down more wire to my house on the cheap (and I'd be cool with paying for that).

Remember, don't think of things from technical advantages only. Think about it as a business (whic

Re:

[Kadin2048]

For the foreseeable future it's much cheaper to lay down cable than fiber. Many, many areas still don't have access to fiber due to restrictions (distance to teleco, local laws, etc). However, cable is abundant. In my area, for example, we're STILL waiting on Verizon FIOS due to local laws. Cable companies would be happy to lay down more wire to my house on the cheap (and I'd be cool with paying for that).

Remember, don't think of things from technical advantages only. Think about it as a business (which it

Re:

[N7DR]

And maybe I'm not understanding, but I only have 1 cable line running into my house. So how does this help me? Does this require them to lay more lines? Because if it does, they may as well lay fibre-optics, which has much more potential for higher speeds.

That one physical cable going to your home has hundreds of channels, each with a different carrier frequency. DOCSIS 3.0 bonds several of those channels together so that they appear as a single channel to the user.

Analog OTA vs. Cable Analog

[norminator]

Analog channels are about to die at least out here in Southern California they have been in preparing to open those spectrum for bandwidth, HDTV and VOD, although OTA will still be available it seems like you are now gonna have to get a box for each television for digital.

Actually, as I understand it, the cable companies will continue to provide the analog channels they do now... at least, the same ones that are currently broadcast Over the Air. If you get TV programming from your cable company, you're

Re:

[truthsearch]

My understanding is that the biggest bottlenecks are usually the hubs or switch boxes, not the cable itself. In my apartment building, for example, the cable company has told us that the reason for the slowdowns at night when most people are online is from the switch box in the basement, not the cables up to the apartments or the cables out to the company.

When Verizon came in and installed FiOS they claimed a big advantage is the fibers go straight out the buildings to their offices, not slowed down by int

Re:

[redphive]

Cable companies, not all but a good majority, are re-segmenting and pushing fibre deeper into their serving areas. This will allow for greater frequency reuse and provide more available RF spectrum for narrowcast applications such as data, VOD and Voice.

The article is a little misleading, however, in that it isn't bonding 4 cable lines, but up to four 6MHz channels providing up to 24MHz of RF spectrum to data use.

I had seen Cisco's pre-DOCSIS 3.0 implementation (at the time they were calling it Wide-band)

Yeah, sure, sure

[Pig Hogger]

Like if the myriad non-technical morons (marketoids, customer-service reps, account executives, MBAs) that pester big companies would be able to deal with such technology...

And will the backbones follow suit???

Upload?

[ArchdukeChocula]

>a data download speed of 150 megabits per second

The article makes no mention of what kind of upstream speeds you'll get with this technology.

Re:

[Bearhouse]

Good point - that's the real problem inhernet with cable. Not caused by them artificially limiting torrent data.

The operators are not too bothered with that, since they assume people wanting high upload speeds are p2p users.

I'm on cable at home, and when I need to upload big files, (not p2p), it's damn slow...

Re:

[Professor_UNIX]

Uploading is used by content pirates sharing their warez so I'm sure the bandwidth will be the very absolutely minimum required to acknowledge TCP packets being downloaded and nothing more.

Re:

[laffer1]

... or users on a business grade package to host websites. I pay comcast $160 for the ability to host websites on my home connection. i think businesses could use the extra upstream and I certainly could. My wife has to upload installers and demos at work. (She is a programmer/consultant) I upload MidnightBSD ISOs which are certainly not pirated. I don't use any p2p protocol a home because I don't have the speed for it and hosting. I would love to offer MBSD downloads with bittorrent though.

More bandwidth, please...

[rkhalloran]

With more and more households pulling down big files, with HDTV starting to take off and the jump in downloads *that* will cause, with more multi-PC homes (four in mine), of COURSE they're going to want more bandwidth.

And until FTTH becomes more prevalent, cable is the best available option.

Re:

[644bd346996]

What I don't get is the "bonds together four cable lines" bit. Does that mean you need to lay 3 more wires alongside the current one, or can this be done with the same physical cable that we already have? If it requires burying more cables, then it would be foolish to not bury a fiber optic cable.

Re:

[Kadin2048]

What I don't get is the "bonds together four cable lines" bit. Does that mean you need to lay 3 more wires alongside the current one, or can this be done with the same physical cable that we already have? If it requires burying more cables, then it would be foolish to not bury a fiber optic cable.

They really meant "channels" not physical cables; apparently you can take the equivalent of 4 analog TV channels and assign them for data use, and bond them together to make one much-faster connection. However, the

Re:

[linzeal]

Seriously how long until we can download every single TV Show and Movie ever made over a weekend? Will they still be able to even call it piracy when it is so easily copied?

Re:

[Lumpy]

No THEY dont want more bandwidth. THEY want you to buy the ultra premium service and never EVER use it.

what THEY want is a new higher tier levels of service to sell..

You think their current offering is expensive, just wait for this to hit. I'm betting $199.00 a month is their target price to start with but still keep their imaginary "your over the limit" triggers in place.

yeah, cool

[javilon]

and what is the upstream speed?

Re:

[hansamurai]

256 kbs, if you need more you're obviously doing something illegal.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

If you need more, then you should probably pay for a service that isn't for residential users. If the total bandwidth is Z, and they can give you X download, and Y upload, where X+Y = Z. Most people do not use equal upload and download, so they make X > Y, which means that you can't upload as fast, but that you get faster download speeds. Currently, I have 1 Mbit Down, and 128 Up. Which is about 8:1 ratio of download to upload. Other packages available are 5Mbit:384Kbit = 13.3:1, and 6MBit:800KBit.

Re:

[jandrese]

FWIW, I have 30Mbps down/5Mbps up with FIOS. The 5Mbps up is a godsend, since I use my computer for more than just passive web browsing (and no, that doesn't mean P2P/piracy!).

It's really nice to be in a game and go: Gee, it would be nice to set up a Vent server, oh wait, I can run it locally, I have the bandwidth.

Re:

[jZnat]

I live in Chicago. We here (including the suburbs) are about as densely packed as Japan is. Japan gets 30-50 Mbps synchronous (actual speeds, not advertised peak speeds) for about $20-30 a month. In Chicago, we can get 8M/768k (advertised; actual will dip up and down depending on how many people in your neighbourhood are also online) for about $80 a month. What the fuck.

Also, $200-300 per month for just 1.5M synchronous (T1) is a fucking ripoff. We already paid the telcos billions of dollars to fucking

Re:

[sharkey]

DOCSIS sync speeds [wikipedia.org] for the various revisions, including the under-development 3.0.

4 lines = 25 times faster?!

[CaptainPatent]

That means 16 cables should be 625 times as fast

and 128 cables... oh my god

Quick, get the bonding glue and a spool of coax!

It's download time!!!

Can o' worms

[Applekid]

In a related story, RIAA and MPAA have both filed suit in court to preemptively obtain ISP subscriber information before any infringement can occur.

"It's an important step forward for the Web 3.0," Ebeneezer Swindler, lawyer for the RIAA, said. "Someone could get on that evil BitTorrent site and download our content. This happens so fast that by the time we logged in we couldn't even see their IP addresses. Our current technology requires us to temporarily join the pirates so we could get their information... it's no good if they'd already stolen what they needed and gotten out of there!"

"It's NO good," reiterated Swindler, with peculiar emphasis on the "NO."

No government official could be reached for comment as they were busy preordering ivory backscratchers from expected additional campaign contributions from the MAFIAA.

All that bandwidth to the home...

[Anonymous Coward]

...doesn't matter much if the cable ISP's backbone feed is already saturated with today's technology cablemodem subscribers using 1Mbps to 6Mbps units. Their backend equipment and backbone feed would be crushed under the load of anything greater than 10Mbps in every customer's home, let alone 100+Mbps.

Re:

[sarahbau]

Most cable companies cap their services at less than 1/5 of what the current modems are already capable of doing with a single cable line. If I thought there was any chance I would actually get 150Mb, I might be kind of excited about it. With Time Warner, my Downstream is only twice as fast as it was 10 years ago, and the Upstream is the same as it was back then!

Re:

[timjdot]

My experience exactly. In fact, I think my download speed has decreased steadily since 1998 (when I was on a T1 at work) and 2001 (when I was in a more rural cable network). Today I often get nearly 30 second delays in downloading web pages on TimeWarner's network. I'm paying a recurring, high price for a gradually worsening product. The upload and download advertised times are not even close to reality for both TimeWarner (cable) and BellSouth (DSL) to my townhouse.

TimJowers

Funny definition of competition

[Anonymous Coward]

They're competing with FiOS? The connection promised by every phone company 10 years ago that was never delivered despite being given money by the government to do so? The connection technology just now being rolled out by ONE phone company in a handful of cities?

That's competition?

Re:Funny definition of competition

[ScentCone]

The connection technology just now being rolled out by ONE phone company in a handful of cities?

Right. Before it was being rolled out, they weren't having to compete with it. Now it IS being rolled out, so they DO have to compete with it. Is this a little too complex, or something? People (including zoning boards in municipalities, property managers for large buildings, developers, etc) are going to be making lots of infrastructure decisions. Things that weren't, but now ARE available figure into that. If a cable company doesn't show any sign that they're even going to TRY to compete with a wildly faster technology that is now actually in use by actual consumers, what do you think would happen to them over time? That's not a "funny definition" of competition, it IS competition. Or... do you think that something's only a factor in competition if it magically appears on the market in exactly equal supply, with perfect adoption in exact porportion? If you're even slightly thinking that way, then Macs and Linux boxes can't be competition for Windows boxes, either. Which would surprise all of those Mac owners out there, for example. Sort of like my mom would be surprised that when she had her choice of a dish provider or two, two cable companies, and Verizon's FIOS, that competition wasn't a factor in all of those sales pitches at her front door.

Re:

[NeutronCowboy]

Welcome to utilities with defacto monopolies. I've had the same beef for a long time.... In one of the densest area in the US, I struggle to get 1Mbit download without aggreeing to a ridiculous TOS. I'd love to get those speeds, but I don't think I'll be allowed to do anything other than receive IPTV on it. Bleah.

Increased speed means...

[njen]

So you can use up your 'unknown' monthly data limit four times as fast now! I hope that ISP's realise that a faster modem will require a higher data cap.

More information can be found at:

[Anonymous Coward]

More information can be found at:
1. Specifications: http://www.cablemodem.com/specifications/specifica tions30.html [cablemodem.com]
2. Press release: http://www.cablelabs.com/news/pr/2006/06_pr_docsis 30_080706.html [cablelabs.com]
3. Ars Technica article: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060808-7450 .html [arstechnica.com]

I'm going out on a limb here..

[Critical Facilities]

"It's an exponential step forward, and we're very excited," Roberts said. "What consumers actually do with all this speed is up to the imagination of the entrepreneurs of tomorrow."

Well, let's just say that it's a pretty safe bet that Hi-Def Boobies will be involved.

Slowskies

[StarvingSE]

At this rate, they're NEVER gonna get the Slowskies away from their beloved ADSL and get them to become Comcast subscribers...

Not multiple cable lines...

[laurent420]

instead, multiple upstream or downstream channels are used. The real factor in achieving these speeds depends on what modulation type your cable op decides to configure on the CMTS. In a perfect world everything is 256-QAM/128-QAM, but you will often see 32-QAM implimented because the end to end cabling can't support the rf throughput required for higher bandwidth modulation types. The wiki article on DOCSIS [wikipedia.org] is a good place to start for more information.

Horrible description

[slykens]

The description stating that it "It bonds together four cable lines" is a horrible description of what is likely going on here.

Cable/tv channels are 6 MHz wide. On a typical cable system you can use 256QAM to encode digital data for transmission. In 6 MHz you can get about 39 Mbps. If you bond four channels together (24 MHz) that's 156 Mbps using 256QAM.

So what it sounds like is DOCSIS 3 supports channel bonding or perhaps simply a very wide channel.

The "four cable lines" has nothing to do with how much physical coax comes to your house. On paper an all digital 750 MHz plant could deliver on the order of 4.5 Gbps. But having 70 channels of analog really cuts into that.

Re:

[TeknoHog]

Finally, an article where you can use the real meaning of 'bandwidth'!

In 6 MHz [of bandwidth] you can get about 39 Mbps [of channel capacity].

150" tap on a 1" pipe

[anoopjohn]

Just having a faster modem will not result in faster downloads. It is like fixing a huge 150" tap to a 1" pipe. Unless the internet backbone, the servers, the routers, switches, bridges increase their capacities we are not going to see an across the board increase in download and upload speeds. We might see some fast on demand IP based TV solution provided by the ISP and stuff like that. But slashdot.org is probably going to load at the same speed it is currently loading and your email attachments are going to take as much to upload as it is currently taking.

Re:

[TheThiefMaster]

As usual it depends on the website's own internet connection as well as your own. If they can't support more than 1Mbps per person then you won't be able to get anything from their site any faster than that. The "backbone" has plenty of speed and capacity, it's the ends that cause the slowdown.

On the other hand a tracert will show that most of your latency is from your ISPs network, where your traffic bounces between up to 10 machines before making onto the net proper.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Control Group]

but the only way to get private connections between sites is leased lines and the last time I priced a private DS3 my boss got sticker shock

That's not the only way. I worked for a place a while back that ran fibre from their main office to their DR site.

Now, their DR site was fifty yards away, and some of the servers in there were production boxes...but they did string fibre on poles across the intervening freeway. They even had a redundant fibre line in case the first one was cut or damaged.

Now, their redu

Re:Irrelevant for a number of non-technical reason

[Nom du Keyboard]

The only application I can see for these types of speeds is private connections. I would love to have a 100 Mbps connection between my sites,

I don't think the upload speed of DOCSIS 3.0 will come anywhere near the download speed, so your site-to-site will be measured by your maximum upload speed only, which was carefully not mentioned in the article.

Re:Irrelevant for a number of non-technical reason

[N7DR]

Assume for a moment that a cable company will actually run four cable lines to your house in lieu of fiber

Several earlier posts, including one of mine, have pointed out that they will not be running new cable lines to your house.

With that attitude, do you think these guys will actually deploy this technology?

Having sat around the table with "these guys" for most of the past two years while developing the DOCSIS 3.0 specs, I can guarantee that most of the big operators will be deploying this tech

Not "developed by ... CableLabs"

[N7DR]

Comcast CEO dazzled cable industry audience by showcasing a super quick modem, using a technology called DOCSIS 3.0. It was developed by the cable industry's research arm, Cable Television Laboratories.

It is not clear whether the "it" referred to is the modem or the "technology called DOCSIS 3.0". In either case, the quoted information is not true.

DOCSIS 3.0 is a suite of specifications that represents the newest release of the DOCSIS specifications that have been around for nearly a decade now. CableLabs (the usual name for "Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.") managed the process of creating the specs, and performed the actual publication, but the specs themselves were developed in almost entirely by equipment manufacturers, with input from interested (mostly large) cable operators.

Similarly, the modem that was demonstrated was built not by CableLabs but by one of those equipment manufacturers (ARRIS, for whom I work, although I have no direct association with the group that builds the DOCSIS 3.0 modem; I was a contributor to the DOCSIS 3.0 specs).

The complete sleep-inducing suite of specs may be downloaded from www.cablelabs.com.

That's neat and all

[Control Group]

But who cares? Does anyone actually think cable companies are going to provide any sort of significant speed boost to consumers any time soon? They've already demonstrated people are willing to pay $55 USD/month for 3 Mbps/768 kpbs service*; why should they increase those numbers?

And it's not like they're operating in a vacuum, since you can get 6 Mbps/1 Mbps ADSL for $35 USD/month.

*I'm looking at you, Charter.

It's not the speed!

[tkrotchko]

This is all very nice and impressive, but it's besides the point.

Verizon is coming into the Washington metro area with FIOS and based on informal discussions with friends and colleagues is kicking Comcast's butt.

Right now, it's primarily a price issue. High speed internet (5M/2M) is similarly price, but the FIOS TV is where Verizon has a huge advantage. Right now, most people are reporting savings of $25/month (that's SAVINGS) and this is for more channels, but standard def and high def.

Plus, the Verizon installers are, in general, far more professional because they haven't outsourced installation to guys in pickup trucks. They do it themselves, and the quality of their work is outstanding.

The good news here is for consumers... Comcast must do something they've refused to do so far... compete on price, because they have less features than Verizon. Right now, Comcast is offering limited deals (1 year, all your boxes for free), but as FIOS penetrates more neighborhoods, the prices will drop.

This really is good news for everybody.

Re:

[massysett]

Meh, Comcast can compete on inertia. Getting Verizon installed requires being home all day so the tech can drill holes in the wall and install a big ONT. It requires a phone call, and deciphering options. Comcast is already in. Competing on inertia is not a GROWTH strategy for Comcast, but Verizon will have a hard time breaking into homes.

Re:

[k3v0]

verizon also has a much higher cost for installing FIOS and they must compete with comcast who is already well trenched in the video market

DOCSIS 3.0 means mass-market IPv6 devices...

[Cato]

DOCSIS 3.0 mandates both IPv6 and IPv4 support in cable modems, as well as the other improvements. See http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/v6o p s-4/v6ops-4.ppt [ietf.org] for a presentation about why cable MSOs (operators) are deploying IPv6 (Comcast already has IPv6 in its core network and plans to roll out to homes, because it's exhausted the 10.x address space already in IPv4, and is now onto public IPv4). So this means that DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems will really be the first mass deployed IPv6 capable dev

The best part

[Statecraftsman]

The best part of this new technology?

The new modem still has the limitation of only ~300k of upstream bandwidth. It's totally win-win.

FiOS is awesome!!!

[insanius]

if you can get it....

i just dumped comcast entirely and it's about time. they've been blocking verizon from rolling out their TV service for quite some time. FiOS internet is FAR superior...my upload speed is faster hen my friends' comcast download speed. Their TV service competes as well. verizon's HD channels are much better in selection, signal, and picture quality. comcast blows verizon away in OnDemand selection though. FiOSTV offers 0 free movies on demand...$2.99 for Encino Man??...come on ve

Re:

[Paulrothrock]

Can I use the network like I want, without interference from Verizon? Will they block port 80 or Bittorrent?

Yes they block port 80

[laing]

They will unblock it if you are willing to pay about 4 times as much money per month ($200 vs $50). Alternatively you could do what I'm doing right now: Pay $50 per month for a dedicated host somewhere else, and tunnel to it through the FiOS connection. Whoopie! No ports blocked and only a slight increase in latency (which doesn't affect throughput due to windowing). Now of course they could start shaping the encrypted traffic like some other ISPs have done. Thus far they have not.

This is a stop-gap at best

[ElForesto]

As much as the cablecos would like to make us all go "oooh" and "aaah" over this technology, it's still incredibly unimpressive. We won't see rollouts of this technology for at least a year and most projections show just 40% of cable subscribers will have access to DOCSIS 3.0 by 2012. It's really not all that impressive considering that projects like UTOPIA [utopianet.org] and FIOS are currently delivering better speeds than cable and can ramp up to 100Mbps+ without much in the way of equipment upgrades. UTOPIA can even do 1Gbps+ with a minimum of new equipment. This is just another way for incumbent providers to squeeze more blood from the turnip that is their aging copper-based plant. The stock market will reward them now, but the market as a whole will be punishing them in 5-10 years.

What the heck is the point?

[jridley]

They already don't let us use the bandwidth that our DOCSYS 2.0 modems are capable of. What's the point in getting a modem that's 50x faster than what they'll allow us to use instead of only 2x faster? The end result is the same.

I suppose they're going to use this as another level to sell. My idiot neighbor bought the highest speed connection he could buy so it would "improve his gaming response" - really he could have bought the cheapest connection, because he doesn't need speed, he needs low latency.

WTF?

[drinkypoo]

150 megabits per second, or roughly 25 times faster than today's standard cable modems.

Those of us who have read the DOCSIS 2.0 spec know that it caps out at 45Mbps.

Of course, that's in the lab. Just as 150Mbps over DOCSIS 3.0 is. And DOCSIS 3.0 requires that you apparently use four channels. On DOCSIS 2.0 you have a dedicated 8MHz of frequency dedicated to your downstream. So we'll be able to have one-quarter the subscribers per segment/line card?

Comcast Lies Again - FUD Flies

[Nom du Keyboard]

For a company that sells "unlimited" broadband usage at 6Mbs, and can't supply that due to massive under-provisioning of their Internet connectivity, this is an outright sham! Does anyone here think that, short of getting 98% of your Internet content direct from Comcast (remember AOL's walled garden) that they have any hope of providing such service in the real world, when they can't provide a reliable 6Mbs now.

And this is not to mention them throwing you off the system for violating their unpublished, s

Hah!

[tttonyyy]

They'll all cower before my "uberfast" modem, which bonds an unspecified number of tight strings to give a speed increase up to 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0 times greater than reading a DVD a byte at a time over the phone to your mate with a hex editor.

I wouldn't really call DOCSIS 3.0 a "technology"

[ubrgeek]

It's a standard. I remember being one of the people stuck ... er, tasked with, reviewing the first version. It was a painful read, but definately showed that there was "something new in the air." A lot of surprising things were taken into account, especially in a time frame where DSL was just starting to kick cable's ass. I'm curious to see what the new standard includes.

Let me get this straight...

[mypalmike]

> It bonds together four cable lines but is capable of allowing much more capacity...

So, now my internet will have four different tubes?

Copy of Trailblazer technology...

[splutty]

Well..

It's nice to see that the cable companies are doing exactly the same thing as the Trailblazer modems did 20 years ago..

It amazes me it took them so long, considering the fact that all cable systems are already multiplexing frequencies like crazy to begin with.

Ah well :) Good to see something 'new'....

Just a clarification, please?

[Khyber]

Wasn't DOCSIS 3.0 capable of somewhere around a max of 466 mbps? Why only 150, then?

Oh, wait, TV channels. D'oh! Lemme have my 466 megabit! I don't watch television!

Do they use their own products?

[edmicman]

Sort of on topic, sort of off, but does Comcast's CEO actually use Comcast as his cable provider?

I ask this as my Comcrap cable has been knocked out *again* from a thunderstorm. Since January, we've lost service due to an ice storm, a relatively light snowfall, and just plain old rain. Another occasion had the TV service freezing up because it was *raining*. We've received nominal credits (yay, a $1.30 credit on my $90 bill!)

Does the CEO have to read about FiOS offering substantially better speeds and programming at a similar or lesser price than his own cable? If he has a problem, does he have to wait on hold for an hour and a half to talk to someone, just like his technicians? Is his area stuck with a cable guide that is 3 generations behind those in the middle of freakin' Indiana? Does his HD pixellate or get out of sync every so often? Is he happy with the literal handful of HD channels available to his lineup?

Yep, I'm bitter. I use Comcast because I can't get DSL (I'd have to get a landline phone for that anyway, which I don't want) and they are the only provider. I hate it hate it hate it. I just don't understand how someone could subscribe to their service and actually *enjoy* it, given the other technology alternatives that are out there, but just aren't available yet to everyone for some unknown reason. Gahhhhh!

Complete bunk.

[Wolfstar]

This article has one key line that just makes me want to scream.

This is NOT 25 times faster than current standard cablemodems. It may be 25 times faster than Comcast currently OFFERS, but that is a significant difference.

One of the reasons uncapping modems worked as well as it did is because DOCSIS 1.1 and 2.0 are both capable of 45Mbit/sec downstream. There are current services (Disclaimer: I work for Cablevision, where one of these is offered) that are offering 30Mbit/sec download speeds - and getting them. (I personally have topped out at 29Mbit/sec.) There are other technologies than DOCSIS out there that are currently implemented which are easily capable of 100Mbit/sec.

There's absolutely nothing to get excited about with this. If anything, I admit to being puzzled as to why they weren't managing 180Mbit/sec on a modem with 4 bonded channels - 20Mbit/sec is a bit much to be writing off to overhead.

DOCSIS 3.0 is a solid step forward, but this is not the next greatest thing. There are comparative technologies available right now that would require minimal upgrades, if any. And the guy at Time Warner's right, what can't you do with 30Mbit/sec that you can with 100Mbps?

You'll will not see the speed anytime soon

[Danathar]

Most Cable providers are still running at DOCSIS 1.x and are planning a rollout to 2.x over YEARS of deployment.

Your bandwidth is constrained by your cable ISP's bandwidth to their Tier2 or Tier1 provider and your subscription plan.

My modem was capable of a theoretical 40Mb/s+ 5 years ago. I doubt comcast will be offering ANY service in the next 5 years that max out the capability of my DOCSIS 1.x modem.

Re:

[eln]

Dude, have you seen any porn stars up close? The last thing you want is HD porn.

Re:Still not fast enough...

[vertinox]

Dude, have you seen any real women up close? The last thing you want is a girlfriend.

Re:

[zoney_ie]

One of the ISPs here in Ireland, Digiweb (see digiweb.ie), uses DOCSIS 2.0 but over microwave links; i.e. at your house there is an aerial box, and this translates the signal to coax output to a normal DOCSIS cable modem. It would be no big deal if this required four cables instead of one (although probably you could replace it with something more sensible).

I'd really like to know if DOCSIS 3.0 could be used by Digiweb's system; that is, similarly translated to microwave frequencies for use across wireless

Re:

[ptbarnett]

I find it interesting that FIOS can do 100 Mbits now, thought Verizon does not offer that service yet.

FIOS deployments started (and are continuing) with B-PON, which is 622 Mbps downstream and 155 Mbps upstream on a single fiber. A single fiber is split to serve as many as 32 customers. Also, Verizon is upgrading select markets to G-PON (2.4 Gbps downstream and 1.2 Gbps upstream), with more to follow.

I'm not sure where the 100 Mbps limit came from, other than the fiber can probably be provisioned to

No More POTS

[encoderer]

So many people keep using POTS. People! Get with it! This isn't 1975!

PSTN, baby.

PSTN.

Re:

[jandrese]

Shame you don't live in the DC area. Around DC if you get Fios you have the option of getting a 30Mb/5Mb connection for $55/month, which isn't too shabby.

Re:

[Skye16]

You'll get it when they decide you need it, which is directly keyed off how much it would cost them to put it in and how much they can expect to make back from you in profit.

Which, for me, equates to roughly "never". :(

Re:

[mcpkaaos]

when can I get this kind of bandwith without it costing me my first born AND my second?

Sell 'em. Otherwise how will you find time to use it all?

Re:

[slykens]

I'm inclined to believe this is smoke in the wind, especially coming from Comcast. Beyond the fact that most companies (or anyone with security in mind) would never go for a cable connection, cable companies still just can't compete with the telecommunications companies' technological expertise and infrastructure. Cable is a consumer-grade product and always will be. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is what it is.

While I agree with your comment, security really doesn't figure into this equation f

Battle Bots

[lullabud]

I hope they compete like battle bots.