news The chief technology officer of the NBN company yesterday said new modems launched by the company’s equipment supplier ARRIS will allow theoretical top speeds of 5Gbps down and 2Gbps up, in comments which appear to run contrary to ongoing claims by the company that Australians are not interested in gigabit NBN speeds.
In a blog post published yesterday, NBN CTO Dennis Steiger noted he had attended the SCTE Cable-Tec EXPO 2015 in New Orleans in mid-October. Steiger is a Canadian executive which the NBN company hired in June 2014. His speciality appears to be HFC cable networks of the kind that the NBN company is acquiring from Telstra and Optus.
The NBN company plans to replace the equipment in the two HFC cable networks — while leaving the cable runs intact — through contracts with US technology giant ARRIS.
In his blog post, Steiger noted the topic that dominated proceedings at the conference in New Orleans was the DOCSIS 3.1 standard — which represents the latest speed upgrade for HFC cable networks. The CTO said that at the conference, several equipment vendors launched end user cable modems capable of supporting the DOCSIS 3.1 standard. The hardware is expected to hit the market in the first quarter of 2016.
“Among the vendors was ARRIS, which is supplying network hardware to NBN’s HFC rollout,” wrote Steiger. “Arris’s DOCSIS 3.1 modem can deliver a stunning 5Gbps downstream and 2Gbps upstream – that’s five times faster than the fastest 1Gbps speed we offer to our [retail service provider or RSP] customers using Fibre to the Premises and many times faster than most of our other products.”
Steiger added that Hitron Technologies also unveiled its own first DOCSIS 3.1 modem, again capable of 5Gbps downstream speeds, with the a slower 1Gbps upstream speed capability.
“This shows that this technology should be able to easily support the products we offer over the NBN network.”
Steiger noted that these speeds represented the “maximum possible” delivered through the modem. “Actual end-user speeds experienced via services over the NBN network will depend on a range of factors including the speeds being delivered by service providers,” he wrote.
However, Steiger’s comments on speed with relation to the NBN come as other executives at the NBN company have recently been downplaying the need for higher speeds on the network. NBN company chief executive Bill Morrow told a Senate Estimates session several weeks ago that only a tiny handful of the company’s end user customers had taken up gigabit speeds over the NBN network.
It was a statement repeated on Monday by NBN spokesperson Karina Keisler.
Other trends
The executive added that there were several other trends evident at the conference.
“Discussions at the event also focused heavily on the issue of proactive network maintenance on cable networks,” he wrote. “This basically means identifying and fixing problems before end-users even realise there has been a problem at all.”
“Tests on current DOCSIS 3.0 technology have shown reductions of nearly 10 per cent on network maintenance costs when proactive network maintenance is used. With DOCSIS 3.1 offering much more powerful network maintenance tools, the cost savings are expected to be even higher.”
Steiger said this represented “great news” for those on the NBN network, as it meant that when the company launched DOCSIS 3.1 in 2017, the HFC portion of its network should be much more reliable and stable than if the company was using “older technology”.
The executive said the other buzzword flying around the conference was 4K television, with most people at the conference appearing to agree that this technology was taking off significantly faster than HDTV did when it first broke through into the market.
“As 4K requires up to 25Mbps to stream properly – around five times what HD requires –it was reassuring to see vendors expressing confidence that compression technologies are evolving quickly enough to help reduce the load on our networks that 4K would bring,” wrote Steiger.
“The huge buzz around DOCSIS 3.1 – and the giant strides that this technology is making towards commercial deployment – makes us very proud that it will be the cornerstone of our cable broadband network on the NBN.”
I thought 25Mbit was enough for anyone…..
What about the 15Mbit we will need in.. when was it… 2020? 2025? Why would they waste their time talking about such ridiculous speeds that ~nobody~ in Australia will need for hundreds of years?
Surely by the time we need those speeds, the copper magic will have been performed so we can have it as some form of DSL, right? Right?
Was going to comment the same thing. 25mbits is all we’ll ever need /s. they never mention fttp’s highest achievable speeds over few kilometres and talk about how great g.fast is, achieving over 600 mbps with 20 metres of copper or so, and now this. So much BS for the sake of political ideology. What about Minneapolis with their 10 Gbps internet speed ? That’s twice as fast, and has potential to go over 10gbps.
R0nin
Let’s use the nay sayers tatic if they want those speeds they should have to pay for the upgrade like those on FTTN.
Yeah, we should limit HFC users to the same speeds that FTTN users get, then force them to pay upwards of $20,000 to be able to get 100Mbit or higher. Sounds fair, you know, since forcing FTTN homes to pay ridiculous amounts if they want higher speeds seems perfectly fair and reasonable to the Coalition supporters.
Yes funny isn’t it…
These cyclopic followers say FttN is good enough for me, if you want FttP you pay. As such, I have asked these same people a simple question many times…
That question was/is, ok, why is it ok for the government to fund FttN but not FttP…
I have literally never even received a response, let alone the typical, insular dickhead response.
Thing is, their idiot logic can be dumbed down to, well dial up is good enough for me, if you want FttN you pay… with that they disappear only to reappear sprouting the same imbecilic, you pay for FttP, tomorrow…
:/ unfuckingbelievable
they don’t reply because they don’t think someone could be so stupid not to already know… Labour. to run FTTP you need to run a new cable to each person. FTTN you run the fibre to the street corner and you’re done. So much cheaper I can’t even believe people are having the discussion. Do give you an idea when we do installs if we buy wireless at 3 times the cost then a wired option is almost always is cheaper after install. In the scenario you are talking about fibre is EXTREMELY cheap. and the equipment for FTTN v FTTP FTTP is a LOT more expensive so they is ZERO chance of FTTP being even CLOSE to the cost of FTTN.
15Mbit/s in 2023?
This old chestnut.
Please read: http://simonhackett.com/2015/01/14/is-15-megabits-enough/
And yet the NBN is only required to deliver an up to 25Mbps. The NBN would be lucky to deliver 43Mbps for the 95%.
But then apparently only half of Australia by 2023 will think 15Mbps is more than enough. But then only delivering an up to 25Mbps you would have to say that so people on FTTN that would like faster speeds would have to pay large sums of money while the rest get that choice for free.
“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” ~ Bill Gates (1981) on IBM PC’s 640KB usable RAM limit
I thought there was some issue with the Cable of one or both of the networks tho. That they weren’t at the standard needed for DOCSIS 3.1?
Yes. I believe DOCSIS 3.1 requires a bigger heavier cable, which requires a bigger stronger telephone pole.
If someone wants DOCSIS 3.1 and its unnecessary speeds let them pay for new cable and new poles. /s
So if our cable can’t do DOCSIS 3.1 because it’s too thin than these new ARRIS modems are useless on our existing HCF network so what’s the point of the article.
So to use these new modems we have to replace our exiting cables with new thicker cables. Wouldn’t it be wiser just to replace HCF cable with FTTH and then we can get 10Gpbs and upwards.
The current NBN is, Stupid is as stupid does.
Bigger heavier cable? Can you cite a source for this claim? Or any technical details?
It’s widely accepted and in the undisclosed NBN budget that node-splitting will be required to bring the current HFC networks to a level suitable for DOCSIS 3.1 speeds to end users. Final mile (ie the copper segment) of HFC is generally RG6 coax. Is it the RG6 coax, or the fibre segment, or something else that needs to be ‘bigger and heavier’ for DOCSIS 3.1? While your claim seems plausible, I’d like some technical details to back it up. As for the telephone poles not being strong enough, that one I have trouble believing.
http://www.itnews.com.au/news/pole-operators-hit-back-over-nbn-aerial-cable-plan-408901
Thanks. Wasn’t aware of this legislation being changed. If the poles in these locations can’t handle the 40mm bundle of coax and each pole would cost $10,000 to replace I’d guess the cheaper option would be to node split more in that area reducing the amount of RG6 in any bundle, or RFoG instead of RG6. In any case it’s “very limited circumstances” so not a substantial risk to the HFC solution being a cost effective alternative to FTTP.
It must be said tho, I think this is due to additional fibre cables being bundled into the same space to boost the number of optical nodes in the field – Im not convinced this because they need to use thicker cables for DOCSIS 3.1.
*dons flak jacket*
Btw, HFC already uses RFoG as do GPON deployments that support pay tv (eg Telstra Velocity and Verizon FiOS) – it’s merely a standard for transmitting an RF signal down Fibre at a particular wavelength.
It isnt a physical layer “migration path” from HFC to GPON and shouldn’t be confused as one (some unscrupulous Lib biased commentators like to make it sound like it is, it’s not).
We’ll have to disagree on the interpretation of the article. I read it to mean the thick cables are purely bundles of RG6. All the fibre I’ve seen is substantially thinner than RG6 so node splitting should reduce the size of the RG6 bundles at any one point.
My understanding of RFoG is that it does indeed replace the coax portion in an existing HFC network – Sorry to cite wikipedia, but if you look up RFoG the first sentence is: “radio frequency over glass (RFoG) is a deep-fiber network design in which the coax portion of the hybrid fiber coax (HFC) network is replaced by a single-fiber passive optical network (PON)”
What do you think a HFC network comprises of?
It’s Fibre from the CMTS to the Optical Nodes, Coax to the houses – RFoG is merely the standard used to transmit the RF signal from the CMTS to the optical node which is really just a media converter/RF-amplifier.
On GPON RFoG is specifically used to add a 3rd wavelength to the fibre to provide PayTV. Its’ not a network design, it’s a standard – RFoG is litterally “Radio Frequency over Glass” aka Fibre.
http://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/appln/FTTH-PON.html
I think you missed the point.
If FTTN users are going to be slugged huge FoD costs in order to get gigabit speeds, why are cable users getting it done for free?
I thought that cost, not speed was the factor here. Since it’s been determined that we will only need a mean speed of 15 Mbps by 2024 (or whenever), what is the point of NBNCo outlaying this expense?
That’s if you’re following Turnbullian logic of course.
because Labor?
There’s rumour of the FTTN segment being redesigned as FTTC and then VDSL/G.Fast deployed over the existing copper. The economic benefit of FTTN/FTTB/FTTC is not having to run fibre leading into brownfields and in particular apartments. I don’t think NBN are under any instruction to give FTTN users crap connectivity, just to use alternate (non-FTTP) technologies to achieve the highest possible speeds without running new lead-ins.
No mention of FTTdp except for labor even NBN doesnt what’s it going to do for people out side the 1Km range.
FTTN can’t support g.fast as apparently the average length from node to pillars I’d 350m which rules out g.fast.
G.fast is only good for FTTB due to short copper lengths
That’s a good point Graham…
By their own logic they should leave HFC as it is.
Ah, but Rupe and Telstra need the latest and best, so…
There really isn’t any other logical reason for the expense, using their 15mbps is enough, as you say.
I thought so too, but this latest “must rabidly hype speeds faster than we said you need” blog post certainly is telling, either it is another example of the technical illiteracy of GimpCo employees or they like to mislead those that don’t know any better because of political motives…
Especially if you don’t mention the dirty FTTP acronym!
Indeed HC and have you noticed, much like the Quigley articles of Renai’s over the last few days, the usual suspects are strangely absent, “initially”…
… obviously awaiting the official memo on how to best approach their comments, from HQ… again.
ROFL
We need to buy shares in thay popcorn company my friend… :)
Well, in the guys defence, he is Canadian. He’s probably still thinking the way the RotW does, and hasn’t had time to be indoctrinated into the groupthink of the rest of the nbn(tm) baboon pack yet.
so, if you’re getting FTTN and are on crappy copper and at the right distance, you’re pretty much going to be stuck with whatever you can get, while 30% who get HFC get this and the 20% who get FTTP will be able to get 1gbps
Digital divide, anyone?
(and yes that’s not accounting for those poor buggers on FW and Satellite!)
Shhhhh don’t mention the digital divide, G.Fast… VPlus… is going to fix it for the FTTN people! Just you wait and see!
…. Or something.
“and the giant strides that this technology is making towards commercial deployment ” ok so wake me when it actually gets out of the lab into the real world ;)
NG PON2 is out there and available and being used now so this isn’t exactly earth shattering unless you decided to adopt a copper based solution when you already had a fibre based infrastructure in place ;).
Its worth noting that the optical nodes only do 10/1 gbps making a modem that does 5/2 gbps utterly pointless!
Just have to go around with an axe and “disconnect” all the other customers on the run. Still be gimped for upload, but hey… ;)
“the optical nodes” – the ones in the current network, or the ones currently available from ARRIS (I can find at least 3 different types in a quick google search), or the ones to be available from ARRIS in the future when the network starts being node-split?
If you can provide a model for the optical node you’re referring to it would help frame the 10G/1G information you provide in the correct context (ie timeframe).
The Optical nodes in DOCSIS 3.1 deployments:
http://www.cablelabs.com/news/new-generation-of-docsis-technology/
DOCSIS3.1 technology provides significant new value for cable operators and consumers of broadband services including:
Straight from the body that is responsible for developing the DOCSIS standards.
“Speed: Defines support for up to 10 Gbps downstream and up to 1 Gbps upstream network capabilities.”
This is achievable when using 4096 QAM, assuming that the HFC plant has been maintained to a level that is capable of supporting that, correct? Currently I think it is commonly set around 256 QAM on DOCSIS 3.0 in Australia.
I was going to ask, seeing as how the DOCSIS 3.1 speed of 10Gbps down and 1Gbps up is shared bandwidth and not really an indication of per customer speeds, does that mean in order to guarantee 5Gbps downstream you would have to have no more than two of these modems running at that speed on a cable segment at any one time? If so, why doesn’t Dennis Steiger mention HFC will never be configured for the level of contention required to make that happen? It seems disingenuous to boast about the maximum speed capability of the modem when in reality you would need to spend an enormous amount of money on the HFC plant to make that happen?
Also, why does he compare it to the 1Gbps downstream AVC that the nbn currently offers on FTTP when he must know that the GPON NTD for that is currently capable of 2.88Gbps downstream? 10G-PON (finalised in 2010, 3 years before DOCSIS 3.1) is even more capable should individual premises require it, or even NG-PON2 now for 40Gbps of shared bandwidth, with 10 Gbps symmetric upstream/downstream speeds available at each subscriber. I read his comment as though he were trying to downplay the capabilities of FTTP technology and upsell us on their choice of using HFC.
One thing I will say about his blog is that it makes even 1Gbps seem like it will have a very short shelf-life.
Telco’s do the same thing for wireless saying they can achieve XMbps when XMbps is if they only had one user on the tower.
Jason where’s our friend now screaming UPTO, UPTO…LOL
I know I don’t think he was impressed with me. I should have said we will start saying up to when Turnbull and NBN start.
@WhatsNew it’s typical of this partisan NBN
Comanagement team to conflate everything to make their politically chosen dogs breakfast look as good as possible.As you correctly noted, 10/1Gbps shared doesnt support many 5/2Gbps services (well actually it doesnt support any x/2Gbps services at all)!!!
I agree with all of the comments regarding 10Gbps/1Gbps being in the DOCSIS 3.1 specification. But why would a manufacturer (ARRIS) design and produce a MODEM capable of 2Gbps upstream if the standard can’t support it? Is it possible they will also produce upstream equipment in the future that along the same lines as the MODEMS will support >1Gbps upstream? If so, those nodes may support 10/10? Who knows? As I read the DOCSIS 3.1 spec I got the feeling it was minimum 10/1, not maximum 10/1.
No idea, future upgrades maybe?
most of the CableLabs doco says “up to 10/1Gbps” for DOCSIS 3.1.
Sounds fantastic… but how many people will be sharing that 5Gbps? Since we have a (political) target of 50 Mbps that will be 100 people, or, if you assume only 10% are using it on average, lets make that 1000.
Sounds like the cheep way to go. Anyone want to bet against?
Lets pin them down to how many people will be sharing, or how slow it can get during peak hours, before they add a node.
Well, Steiger was hired to sort out the HFC network. You wouldn’t expect him to limit his account of what great things HFC will deliver. Demand for services from real end customers will mean he is not embarrassed. In another 2 years the picture will be different. Most people haven’t heard of Ultra High Definition yet. (8k @ 120 fps ~125 Mbps using h265)
For NBN as a whole they have revised down their expected FTTN rollout in the latest forecast as HFC will go to more.
I’m sceptical as to how much FTTN we will see in the end. Its done its political job. Now might be the time that reality takes over. There is an assessment to be made of each Distribution Area. As the viability of FTTN recedes in part due to reduced revenue potential so can the FTTN rollout be adjusted.
I have been focussing more on Global Warming and taking note of what is actually happening in the world, a substantial increase in storms with high winds and intense rainfall events, interspersed with extreme heat. It is going to be interesting to see how the external active powered equipment copes with that environment. There are interesting times ahead and I doubt the resilience of the arial active network
How many subscribers will that peak speed be divided into at 8pm?
Then we can talk about speeds…
The fibre strand from exchange to house is dedicated to 1 house
The HFC that runs from node down a suburban street is shared by a few hundred houses. 5Gbps/100 houses = 50mbps/house, if it’s distributing to 200 houses it’s 25mbps/house.
But it’s OK, that all we’ll ever need anyway!
great comment StevoTheDevo
Congestion rates and the NBN CVC pricing construction will ensure that contention ratios will easily be 1,000 customers per mbps of bandwidth provisioned.
Simply because of the greed of the telcos and the NBN/government.
Can I just check I have this right:
Speed is irrelevant because who needs it, unless it’s over copper or hybrid – in which case isn’t it fantastic!
If this was a Fibre GPON trial that claimed eleventy billion gbps or something it would be decried as criminal waste.
Where on earth are all the flat-earth folks screaming about costly upgrades that aren’t needed??
I need 2-5gbps over HFC when I clearly do not need, and shouldn’t have to pay so much for silly speeds over fibre? Beuller??
Remember how 4K was just a fad? heh. good times. :)
—
Technology improves; things change. Glad to see NBN co are looking down the line. I just find it comical that such a thing is perfectly fine, as long as it isn’t FTTH/ FTTP.
Yes. You fully understand coalition clown logic.
Yep. Basically the faster the fibre is the more of a waste it is because the copper zealots can say “Who needs those speeds?” It’s a crazy world where a fibre speed breakthrough actually hurts arguments in favor of FttP but we’re building a FttN fraudband patchwork so obviously politically motivated coalition clowns know better than the ones pushing fibre to it’s limits…
Have we reached peak Cognitive Dissonance at NBNCo yet?
There’s always a bigger fish. There is no peak.
That’s the joke.
Personally I think they jumped the shark when they denied the existence of project fox …. or was it the CBA that ignored the business community and said we’d never need more than 15mbps or ….
Damn, too much stupid to choose from!!!
Sigh.
This sounds like total line capacity, not actual customer provisioned line rates.
Renai, you should seriously flag this for what it is, an idiot exec who went to a presentation and read some numbers off a slide that completely mis represented the product.
Line capacity is 10/1Gbps which as i’ve already pointed out makes a 5/2Gbps modem utterly pointless.
Essentially all it means is the modem can bond together 50% of the available downstream channels and 200% of the available upstream channels! Like I said, it’s pointless.
It is worse than that.
It is an exec who knows full well that the current network architecture is not capable of delivering those speeds, and it would take several 10’s of billions of dollars more in order to remove the bottlenecks required to get there.
Then you have to deal with spectrum squatters such as Foxtel….sorry this is not just a misrepresentation, it is gross negligence in public relations, coming from someone who DOES know better.
How funny this is. This is starting to get really pathetic, not that it hasn’t been pathetic these past couple of years. NBN has probably realised how large a failure MTM is and so now they will go to extra lengths to say 5Gbps on HFC is better than the 1Gbps on FTTP in order to sell it. Let’s be clear that at present and possibly for the next few decades that fibre wins hands down. There is no competitor. Fibre could go up to Tbps without a problem. I can’t imagine how much money has to spent on upgrades for HFC to be able to reach those speeds, not to mention whether it will be possible at all when everyone is on at the same time. I would really like to see how much this will end up costing. Anyway, I thought the Liberals said Australia wouldn’t need more than 25Mbps. This seems like a move to cover up their cost blowouts and the fact that NBN has been stuffed.
beema, yours is the clearest comprehensive summary of this farce.
It’s easy to imagine when you realise the fraudband policy is dependent on uncertainties. Coalition clown prefer uncertainties (vs virtual guarantees on fibre) because it gives them a way to weasel out of any promises they make in the future. In the mean time expect them to throw as much money at it as possible to ensure the perception is that “it works” to keep voters happy long just long enough and after that it’ll be too late.
Is this the NBN’s way of trying to deflect attention from that dog of a technology FTTN ?
pretty much.
well that and trying to appear like they are using comms technology which is relevant to the 21st century!
Forgot to add to my post earlier but what about 5Gbps FTTN, wireless or satellite? If HFC makes up only about 30% of the NBN, why would NBN be celebrating 5Gbps HFC? What about those on FTTN, wireless or satellite? Wait, let me guess. They will buy new copper or HFC and then roll it out in those areas.
More BS than in a cattle yard!!!
I was under the impression that the upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1 would require the removal of Foxtel from the network, due to the increased spectrum required to offer the speeds they’re talking about.
Nope, just needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency_over_glass and they don’t run into any issues.
HFC is good for at least the next ten years if they upgrade it properly.
Not that simple.
RFoG allows the HFC cabled infrastructure to run a GPON system over the top.
This means new HFC nodes to get the wavelengths off the GPON lambdas (huge task), and new transmitters in the exchanges for the same reason (not a big task…but still a pain in the butt).
Even then, RFoG is really only something you use ONCE you have reached N+0 network topology, and you are hitting bandwidth walls. That wont occur for several decades given current bandwidth demand growths (Cisco do a great number on this with their tri-annual VNI reporting), and existing capacity of the network to deliver to meet those demands.
RFoG is an end-game intermediary tech to swap the network over from N+0 HFC to FTTH, you wont likely see it deployed in Australia in your lifetime.
I wish ppl would stop ascribing mythical capabilities to RFoG – to put it simply, RFoG is merely an industry standard for transmitting RF signals (eg DOCSIS) over Fibre (aka Glass).
It’s already used heavily in HFC to connect the CMTS’s to the Optical Nodes (hence the Hybrid / Fibre / Coaxial acronym) and it’s used in GPON Networks (it’s an optional add-on) by companies like Verizon, Telstra, Bell Canada etc to provide TV services (again using DOCSIS) over their GPON networks using a 3rd dedicated wavelength. At the NTD/ONT there is an extra media converter that converts the 3rd wavelength to the RF signal for your TV Set-top box.
The only differences between RFoG’s use in GPON and HFC networks are as follows:
1/ in GPON its uni-directional and the normal IP network is used as the return path (eg for telling the provider you want a PPV service).
2/ in HFC it’s bi-directional (using two wavelengths over two fibres and the network is fully active) as the RF signal is used for both transmitting TV/Data and receiving data etc.
eg http://www.ncsind.com/productImages/DownloadFiles/BLN1001GHzMONodeInstallManual.pdf
I hope that clears things up.
I think you are confusing HFC with RFoG. The two technologies, whilst similar in nature, are not at all the same.
RFoG is the use of CWDM to overlay an FTTH network technology on the existing HFC cables, to facilitate the migration from HFC to FTTH.
RFoG have the capability to deliver an HFC-compatible fibre-node to the customers home, all connected up via optical splitters using a PON architecture (whilst the HFC network continues to operate over this hybridised technology implementation).
Im not confused at all – RFoG is merely a system for pumping DOCSIS (RF) over Fibre.
Lately they have come up with a number of clever implementations but RFoG itself is nothing new and has been around since HFC.
Btw, if you are interested in some of the interesting new implementation possibilities, this Arris slide pack is good value.
http://www.piedmontscte.org/resources/july2015/ARRIS_RFoG_SCTE_150715.pptx
Btw, there’s a nice article here that touches on Verizon’s FiOS implementation:
http://www.bbcmag.com/2015mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar15_RFReturn.pdf
If NBN Co use the Optus HFC rather than the Telstra HFC, wouldn’t the issue of Foxtel spectrum be removed?
That ‘if’ scenario will never come true. NBN have selected, and will be using majority Telstra network. Optus segments will be cut and combined over to telstra nodes, or new nodes will be ran out to segment optus areas up.
Both cases, foxtel will still be a resident.
Im pretty sure the Optus network still carries Pay TV – see Optus TV Featuring Foxtel:
http://www.optus.com.au/shop/entertainment/optus-tv-featuring-foxtel
5gbps.
D3.1 carriers @ 256QAM (46dB CNR end of line threshold) can deliver approximately 50mbps per carrier.
5gbps / 50mbps = 100 carriers.
This modem can lock onto 100 carriers? That’s…amazingly cool…but it is also thoroughly deceptive to state this.
Current network architecture has bandwidth bottlenecks at 750mhz (useable forward path space of 85-750mhz).
If each EURODOCSIS carrier is 8mhz wide, there is no room for 100 carriers to sit in the network, no matter how many CMTS’s they throw at it.
(750-85)/8 = ~83 carrier capacity TOTAL (this does not account for the transient squatter known colloquially as FOXTEL) This assumes zero dead-band between carriers, so the effective figure is likely a bit closer to 75-78 carriers total.
The bottlenecks will need removal to reach that speed.
Bottlenecks such as line amplifiers, drop amplifiers, splitters, isolators, node (with associated node receivers and transmitters)….any ideas how much THAT would cost!?
A furphy if i’ve ever seen one.
Btw, unless this “wonder modem” has 10GbE Ethernet ports on it, it’s going to be unable to provide services above 1/1Gbps to the LAN!
I would think that the reality is that most users are saying “why should we have to pay (even) more to get those speeds? That’s why we don’t want it!”
Comments are closed.