Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35788623)

it doesn't work like that dude. The modulation directly corresponds to bandwidth and the amount of data that can go over that channel (it is to do with the number of bits per symbol). To keep it nice and simple qam64 provides a 50% increase in bandwidth from qam16 so I think you are roughly looking at going from 20mbits/channel to 30mbits/channel.

If you are using three channels (on qam16) then it is 3x20mbits=60mbits. Using your example, adding the three channel modulations to make qam48 would give you far less than what you currently have access to. What you are missing out on is 3 x qam64 channels which is 3x30mbits/channel=90mbits potential bandwidth.

You haven't got anything to worry about being stuck on qam16, it has been the normal for the last couple of years. In order to achieve the higher modulations your (or VM's network) has got to be a far higher standard and there has got to be less noise. This is why we have seen upstream channels fall back to qpsk in the past; slower connections but more noise tolerant. What some users have already reported seeing is being moved to qam64, but as issues crop up with noise they temporarily fall back to qam16. Things are moving in the right direction and as the shubs re only capable of using 4 bonded upstream channels the way forward for VM is to change the modulation and try and squeeze as much juice out of it as they can.

Originally Posted by roughbeast (Post 35788692)

Doesn't work like what? You answered my question. "Is this indicative of anything?"

Originally Posted by roughbeast (Post 35788692)

My three channels are 16QAM each = 48QAM. Is this indicative of anything?

Clearly not 64QAM.

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35788698)

lol, look at you trying to pull a fast one. Your original post which was edited before I had chance to reply:


I was expecting somebody to pull me up for it and ask me what I was going on about but I didn't expect it to be you :doh: So yes I did answer your question quite precisely.

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35788683)

congratulation dude, you are the first :dunce:

Originally Posted by RubberyDuck (Post 35788676)

Sure...

82.7.217.x

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35788720)

if it's actually supposed to be 4 upstreams

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35788736)

if the capability is already there to bond 4 upstreams shouldn't VM "hit the button" and do everyone is one go right now? Surely it is a win-win and can only help VM by reducing congestion? (similar to making 8 downstreams available to everyone whether they need them or not). It would definitely give them some breathing room while they sort qam64 out.

Originally Posted by roughbeast (Post 35788706)

Yep, minor edit within 1 minute of me originally posting it. I removed the bit that said 16QAM x 3 = 48QAM. I thought that was stating the obvious and the QAM64 bit because obviously I didn't have 64QAM per channel. Didn't need saying.

Originally Posted by RubberyDuck (Post 35788670)

Doubt it makes any difference, but I have 4 Upstreams:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2015/07/26.jpg

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35788777)

I know it's not 4 but look what I have just woken up to :)

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2015/07/24.jpg