Docsis 4 takes a step forward

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, StDragon said:

The US is vast in size, and so therefor is the disparity in infrastructure between rural and urban. Unless you live in the city or suburbs, you're not going to have a water district that would otherwise supply piped water and sewage treatment. In our rural areas, it's well water and septic tanks.

 

 We will see more LEO sat (Starlink) service and cellular 5G adoption before fiber is ran out to rural areas.

Literally the same exists in every country. Just isolate a single state in the US, it's got rural and urban. Ok now compare whatever US state you choose to any other country of comparable land area. No excuses, size of the US is not the issue.

 

There are also a lot of rural areas here that have water supply and a lot more, a lot more with high speed internet access. It just cost a  ...... load to do it heh.

 

P.S. US is literally nothing compared to Australia for that type of argument, being that they are the same land size but like 10x less population.

[StDragon]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

A lot of US ISPs are using CGNAT now though, that's pretty much havoc and the death of any home hosting because of it.

IPv4 space is officially exhausted. However that shouldn't preclude ISPs by giving out public IPv6 addresses. In fact, that's where the majority of traffic will be used in cellular devices going forward.

 

So long as you've got your AAAA host name setup (you can use a dynamic DNS provider for this), you can still host content behind your dynamic IPv6. Once that's available, the big issue is going to be games that listen in on IPv6 as well (this will probably be the majority of interest on this forum).

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, StDragon said:

IPv4 space is officially exhausted. However that shouldn't preclude ISPs by giving out public IPv6 addresses. In fact, that's where the majority of traffic will be used in cellular devices going forward.

 

So long as you've got your AAAA host name setup (you can use a dynamic DNS provider for this), you can still host content behind your dynamic IPv6. Once that's available, the big issue is going to be games that listen in on IPv6 as well (this will probably be the majority of interest on this forum).

Windows by default preferences IPv6 so as long as consoles do the same, Xbox should since it's "Windows" then I don't think it will be a massive problem, other than the server end needing to be IPv6.

[StDragon]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Literally the same exists in every country. Just isolate a single state in the US, it's got rural and urban. Ok now compare whatever US state you choose to any other country of comparable land area. No excuses, size of the US is not the issue.

 

There are also a lot of rural areas here that have water supply and a lot more, a lot more with high speed internet access. It just cost a  ...... load to do it heh.

 

P.S. US is literally nothing compared to Australia for that type of argument, being that they are the same land size but like 10x less population.

Most of Australia is along the coast. The US is more likely to be compared with China and Russia in terms of population placement and landmass. It matters, a lot when factoring costs to build out due to economies of scale per capita.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, StDragon said:

Most of Australia is along the coast. The US is more likely to be compared with China and Russia in terms of population placement and landmass. It matters, a lot when factoring costs to build out due to economies of scale per capita.

That sir is a myth, or HIGHLY exaggerated. Plenty live well far away from the coast and also it's not like it matters where. You and they have cities and rural, sure the middle of Australia is a desert and almost nobody lives, people do, but this doesn't discount the scale problem you have with this argument.

 

The US is one of the largest economies in the world, faster internet access to more people could be made a priority and funding could go towards it without issue. It won't, we both know it. But land size and where people live is not the issue, this is not unique to the US in the slightest.

[leadeater]

https://www.chorus.co.nz/tools-support/broadband-tools/broadband-map

 

Bunnythorpe, a rural town of 222 people (est) has Fibre internet access here in my country, as does many other similar tiny in the middle of nowhere places.

 

Ongaonga: 168 population, Fibre

Kimbolton: 270 population, Fibre

Mangakino: 1257, Fibre

Pukenui: 810, Fibre

 

[StDragon]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The US is one of the largest economies in the world, faster internet access to more people could be made a priority and funding could go towards it without issue. It won't, we both know it. But land size and where people live is not the issue, this is not unique to the US in the slightest.

That's an entirely separate argument, because it's not a technological issue.

 

I will translate for you what you really mean, even if you're not consciously aware of it.

 

You're making a moral argument that because of your aforementioned statement about the US, the infrastructure should be built out via higher ISP rates and/or tax funded subsidization. That, or make ISPs non-profit.

That's not my decision, but functionally that's what you're advocating for, because that's what it will take to achieve your preconceived notions of how a 1st world should operate.

 

BOM and labor to implement, and maintenance is not without additional costs. ISPs known this, and they've calculated the ROI per capita within their own financial interests. Above and beyond that, it becomes a political issue which I won't get into.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, StDragon said:

You're making a moral argument that because of your aforementioned statement about the US, the infrastructure should be built out via higher ISP rates and/or tax funded subsidization. That, or make ISPs non-profit.

That's not my decision, but functionally that's what you're advocating for, because that's what it will take to achieve your preconceived notions of how a 1st world should operate.

 

BOM and labor to implement, and maintenance is not without additional costs. ISPs known this, and they've calculated the ROI per capita within their own financial interests. Above and beyond that, it becomes a political issue which I won't get into.

I making the argument because it's been done before, in many different ways. Also US ISPs make profits hand over fist, public funding isn't necessarily a requirement. Legislate the requirement to deliver improved access with actual consequences for not doing so is one way. Again we both know not happening.

 

But really the only argument I am making right now is the US doesn't make it a priority, that is a public and private sector comment, and also that the size of the US is simply a red herring point. It's just not why nor the cause of anything itself and isn't unique to the US in any way shape or form.

 

Sure here public funding was given to private companies to build out a national network that is owned and operated by those companies, at a profit, but that funding comes with requirements over how it is used, targets they must meet and the overarching project is managed by the gov/crown. It is however all still private companies deploying privately owned and operated infrastructure with public money. None of them are or have been forced to do anything where ROI is not possible.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

No not really, had a pretty long arguing with our isp (cable provider) why i do not want the "more secure" private address. Lets just say i made short work of their misleading marketing.... (And dont even get me started on their insistance that their router is definitely better than whatever i have ATM.... )

Must be a small provider. I’m fairly sure all the major cable providers don’t do CGNAT. 

[jagdtigger]

18 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Must be a small provider. I’m fairly sure all the major cable providers don’t do CGNAT. 

Its part of a bigger one which also uses cgn....

[Donut417]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Even encountered some people here on the forum that had them on their connections. I think smaller ISPs choose it more to save cost and I've heard some places do it on legacy DSL now so they can use the IPs on services that benefit more with the extra IP space.

Ive seen those people as well. Most of them were in South East Asia. While some smaller providers in the US might use it. The big guys, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon FIOS, Cox, WOW and Charter for example I believe all give public IPs currently. 

 

At this point IPv4 just needs to go away. Figure out a work around with software that needs to use it and just go to IPv6 all around and not play around with the stupid CGNAT. 

[Paul Thexton]

How is the IPv6 rollout going in the rest of the world? In the UK our ISPs appear to be just flat out sticking their heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will just magically go away

 

It's at the point where it's literally a meme https://www.havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk

[Donut417]

29 minutes ago, Paul Thexton said:

How is the IPv6 rollout going in the rest of the world? In the UK our ISPs appear to be just flat out sticking their heads in the sand and hoping that the problem will just magically go away

 

It's at the point where it's literally a meme https://www.havevirginmediaenabledipv6yet.co.uk

Comcast dual stacks. But some ISP's have been slow to roll out. Verizon FIOS kidna recently got IPv6. Some ISP's are doing shitty rollouts of it. Some ISP's dont want to spend the money I guess. I mean they have to buy equipment that can do IPv6. Actually I was told thats the reason its taken so long for some ISP's to roll it out was due to equipment just not existing, as not all ISP's use the same tech (Docsis vs GPON for exampl). Plus there are a lot of legacy applications that only know how to use IPv4. 

[Kisai]

21 hours ago, Salv8 (sam) said:

shouldn't be that much of a problem, if it's properly shielded and isolated it's not gonna affect the cable signal quality that much...

The problem is that 95% of the cable installations in the USA and Canada were built in the 1980's, and homes built between 1990 and 2010 have cable "in the walls" with sometimes inappropriate splitters or terminators.

 

If cable was installed correctly, all the cable's to each room are independent and converge on one master splitter in a box outside the house that is locked up by the cable company. But what happened during the pre-digital era is that people often made 'illegal' splices into those cables to bring the one room that cable was actually installed in, to other rooms. After the digital upgrades, most of those splitters were removed, but it's still the cable that was installed in 1980-2000.

 

MDU's (eg condos and apartments) that were built after 2000 don't typically have "cable" to individual units, as there's often an enterphone or security system wired into it. Internet over cable/telephone often isn't the same in these buildings, and the actual internet is done by separate equipment.

 

Like when I lived in one condo, only one "phone" outlet worked for DSL, and it was the one in the bedroom. I imagine the same for the cable outlets.

 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, Kisai said:

those splitters were removed,

To add in to that, any unused ports on a splitter should be terminated by a terminator, the issue is you can get interference from open ports. 

 

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

imagine the same for the cable outlets.

My aunts apartment has one line coming in to the living room. They literally drilled thru the walls and ran wire thru the next room to the master bedroom (two bed room unit) to put a coax line in that room. All I have to say is it looks like hell. 

[bcredeur97]

im just excited for the upload speeds. Give me 100mbit download and it's all I really need.

Makes streaming media from your house easier and higher quality! 

[StDragon]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The problem is that 95% of the cable installations in the USA and Canada were built in the 1980's, and homes built between 1990 and 2010 have cable "in the walls" with sometimes inappropriate splitters or terminators.

 

If cable was installed correctly, all the cable's to each room are independent and converge on one master splitter in a box outside the house that is locked up by the cable company.

That was RG59. Newer domiciles should be wired for RG6 coax.

 

With regards to retrofitting older homes for cable internet, typically what's done is that a single run of RG11 or RG6 is run from the tap to the home. From that run of cable, it's then connected to a splitter or set of splitters. Ideally you only use one splitter, but place in-line filters to the connections going to TVs to prevent egress RF back to the modem. Though if the entire home is RG6, filters aren't necessary.

 

Also worth noting, RG59 is rather moot anyways. If a room is to be wired up to cable TV, the set-top box will often need RG6 for switched video capability; modern cable boxes are basically cable modems in of themselves with up-stream data transmission. 

 

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, StDragon said:

With regards to retrofitting older homes for cable internet, typically what's done is that a single run of RG11 or RG6 is run from the tap to the home. From that run of cable, it's then connected to a splitter or set of splitters. Ideally you only use one splitter, but place in-line filters to the connections going to TVs to prevent egress RF back to the modem. Though if the entire home is RG6, filters aren't necessary.

 

That depends when service was installed. Our internet service was originally install in the early 2000s and Im pretty sure it was RG59 that was installed. The original cable from that time that went from the grounding block to inside our home is still in use. While from the tap to the grounding block is im guessing RG6 not all the cabling is. That original cable connects via a barrel connector to some RG6 that leads to our attic, then in the attic another barrel connector connects the RG59 that leads to my room. Our internet works fine. 

[StDragon]

6 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

That depends when service was installed. Our internet service was originally install in the early 2000s and Im pretty sure it was RG59 that was installed. The original cable from that time that went from the grounding block to inside our home is still in use. While from the tap to the grounding block is im guessing RG6 not all the cabling is. That original cable connects via a barrel connector to some RG6 that leads to our attic, then in the attic another barrel connector connects the RG59 that leads to my room. Our internet works fine. 

Yes, very common.

Basically RG59 is deprecated. It's rarely removed, and only left disabled and bypassed with a new run of RG6 if needed.

[kirkyg]

On 6/9/2023 at 7:26 PM, Donut417 said:

 

Summary

Cablelabs to begin testing submitted Docsis 4.0 modems starting on June 26. As long as modems meet the spec they can be certified Docsis 4.0 ready. 

 

Quotes

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts

I know my cable ISP Comcast has been beating the Docsis 4.0 drum for a while now. One thing I found interesting is the fact there are two flavors of Docsis 4.0. As stated above there is FDD and FDX. It seems Comcast will most likely be doing FDX, would potentially mean symmetrical internet on slower plans. I do know they are currently upgrading a few areas with 2 Gbps down and 100 to 200 Mbps up. Now with previous Docsis iterations the cable companies tended to not push the standard to 100%. Mainly due to the fact that Docsis is much like the WIFi spec, where you can have environmental interference. Because effectively the cable co's are using the same spectrum used by AM/FM radio, Cellular service and Broadcast TV. If anything this should help keep cable companies somewhat competitive with Fiber, at least at lower speeds. Who knows what residential Fiber speeds will be at when Docsis 4.0 starts to really roll out. 

 

What I find interesting reading the CableLabs website is that now Docsis 4.0 is going to be 10 Gbps down and 6 Gbps up. I recall at one point it was supposed to be 10 Gbps symmetrical. I wonder if they are having issues with the standard? Another question I have is with some cable companies killing off TV services, like WOW just did, will that have an impact on service in some way? 

 

Now with all this, its still up in the air on when Docsis 4.0 will be deployed, but I'd imagine that if they are certifying modems, the standard has to be pretty well done and the equipment for the ISP side, has to be about done as well. Which is probably why some ISP are deploying Mid splits for upstream to start those upgrades that we all have been waiting for. 

 

Sources

https://www.lightreading.com/cable-tech/cablelabs-kicks-off-docsis-40-modem-certification-program-/d/d-id/785227?

 

https://www.cablelabs.com/technologies/docsis-4-0-technology

 

Under suggestions Im adding some info about Docsis. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS

 

If you want more info about the spec I suggest looking at the cable labs website as they have more info about the specs of each standard. 

I've spent the last couple of years really understanding the history of docsis architecture since fiber is in all but a few neighborhoods around and I'm stuck with just cable for the time being.

 

There seems to be a misconception w cable that for instance the 10gbps / 6gbps FDX docsis will be an option as a customer to purchase internet rated at those speeds. While it is truth that a single node may be fed by fiber 2x or 4x and the over all shared nature means you literally are sharing that bandwidth across 120-200+ homes. They simply cannot offer 1/4 to 1/2 of available bandwidth to a single customer or the network could degrade rapidly.  In contrast xgspon fiber shares a single back haul fiber between a much smaller set of users usually only a few homes within a neighborhood. It makes it very easy for att and others to open the pipe and let customers purchase all the bandwidth they want. 

 

If you look at docsis 2 3 and 3.1 rollout you'll see that cable companies oversubscribe alot based on their node to home ratio and typically are forced to sell to tier service about 25% of the overall technologies bandiwdth. As such I expect and hoping atleast they can max out at 2gbps symmetrical. I do not expect with docsis 4.0 there will be a possibility of competing with att 5gbps symmetrical speed. Unfortunately docsis 4 fdx with amplifiers and all it may not even be stable with 2gbps symmetric but we'll find out in less than a year once Comcast gets certified modems and rolls them out. They already updated the nodes in my area w the new amplifiers and they are pretty much ready to turn it on once the premise equipment is available. 

[jagdtigger]

23 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Figure out a work around with software that needs to use it

 

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, kirkyg said:

bandwidth across 120-200+ homes.

Well thats not the case in all areas. Comcast did some areas as Node +0 which only have like 20 homes max. But yeah, they will have to do more node splits. I dont expect symmetrical uploads honestly, I think 100 or 200 Mbps is like going to be the max for a while. Eventually cable companies will have to go to some kind of fiber service, it just they are going to right out their copper network like the phone companies have been doing for decades. 

[williamcll]

Size is not the issue here. These ISP are raking in ever growing profits and they certainly can afford to hire more laborers and cabling.

 

 

[Donut417]

23 minutes ago, williamcll said:

laborers

The US has some of the lowest unemployment rates currently. It's not about being able to afford to hire people. It's about finding people willing to do that type of work. Labor shortages have been an issue for quite a while. 

[williamcll]

16 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The US has some of the lowest unemployment rates currently. It's not about being able to afford to hire people. It's about finding people willing to do that type of work. Labor shortages have been an issue for quite a while. 

Increase wages?