Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I know it is something to do with how it works and is the reason why the upload speeds are low and need capping to stop over utilisation. That is about it though!

Wondering how it differs from fibre, and why fibre does not suffer the same issues. Am I right in saying that is a problem that can't be solved?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

The upstream up to recently operated only between 18 MHz and 45 MHz frequency. That allows about 4 upstream channels at 6.4 MHz bandwidth. The range used by VM has now expanded to 65 MHz which puts 8 channels available at that bandwidth.

This compares with the downstream where each node if you're lucky and each segment in less well structured areas, has 16 downstream channels at a frequence range 10 times higher.

The upstream frequency range is somewhat more sensitive to RF noise than the downstream. So VM can't put the bit density up as high as on the downstream. VM are moving upstream from 16QAM to 64QAM, expanding capacity per packet by 50%. By comparison downstream currently operates at 256QAM (an extra 33% packing density).

You mention fibre. What do you mean by that? BT FTTC (Infinity)? If so, their frequency plan is totally different allowing a faster upstream to be offered.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Plus a downstream channel has 50Mbps capacity but upstream it's only 18Mbps.

On the downstream side there is no "request to send" necessary and the CMTS can just about completely fill the available capacity while each modem listens to everything all the time and picks out any traffic directed to it. On upstream you can't have every modem transmitting at the same time or they would interfere so there is some overhead organising when each can transmit. That's probably the primary reason why cable suffers so badly from jitter as with xDSL a modem can transmit anytime it needs to because it is the only modem on that particular circuit.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Yes - Kwikkie's filled the gap. An upstream packet (for want of a better term) has to request a fixed size "mini-slot" on each of the two bonded channels. On a busy upstream (p2p is on spoiler; the Cloud is another), then games have to wait for that slot on the basis of queing theory.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I've told you several times before but this is entirely misleading. The "frequency plan" of the two systems cannot be compared in this way, and also the frequency plan has nothing to do with why the two systems offer differing upload speeds and capacities. The term "frequency plan" doesn't even apply in the same way to either technology.

By your reckoning,
VM upstream operates between 18 Mhz and 45 Mhz and contains (up to) 4 upstreams of 6.4 Mhz each

BT upstream operates between 0 Mhz and 17 Mhz and contains two channels of 2.4 Mhz (actually one 1.6 and one 3.2)

How on earth does the latter allow a faster upstream to be offered?

---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

The real answer is very simple and it boils down to the fundamentals of how the two technologies work.

On Virgin Media cable, your cable is shared with dozens to hundreds of other people. Each cable may have enough capacity for 3 connections' worth and 300 people trying to use it. Virgin Media are counting on you not trying to all use it at the same time.

On BT/Openreach fibre, every single cable is dedicated and provides individual bandwidth to every single user. You get the full capacity of your line all to yourself. You're not sharing your speed between 300 other users.

Not entirely. VM can break the cable bundles (nodes) down so they are shared between fewer and fewer people, and this is an ongoing effort that all cable companies are trying to achieve - but each step costs exponentially more (although still less than it's costing BT to roll out their completely new fibre network)

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Ahh now that makes sense. So essentially they can relieve the problem by investing in the network but cannot eradicate. I always thought Virgin was fibre optic, so why can they not offer the same dedicate line?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

The last leg on VM's network is a shared coax cable which serves many subscribers.

The last leg on xDSL is a twisted pair to each individual subscriber.

The real difference between the two is that with VM a low bandwidth pipe (current max 400Mbps down 36Mbps up) is shared by a relatively small number of subscribers and with xDSL a much larger pipe gets shared by a much larger number of subscribers and you are less likely to see congestion problems with that setup.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I don't think that's a fair comparison, because on VM you also have a large pipe shared between a much larger number of subscribers at the UBR and core. The whole point is VM has an additional shared last mile whereas xDSL does not. This moves the bottleneck and contention point to another part of the network that doesn't exist in the competing technology.

There's no significant difference between the "large pipe" mechanics at the UBR and at the DSLAM. The difference is caused by the section between those two and the end user - one is shared, the other is not. Upstream of that everything is shared on any ISP and no technology has any advantage over any other.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Yes I forgotten to specify that the comment on pipe size was specific the the final section of the network. I'd assumed that was obvious.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I think the OP is asking "why is cable asymmetric?" The answer is surely because it started out as a television distribution system with little need for a back-channel and has subsequently been bodged to carry internet. Most if not all of the problems listed by expert commenters above could have been designed out if the growth of home internet had been anticipated.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I think all home broadband is asymetric because there is a limited total bandwidth that cable and twisted pair can carry and favouring downstream suits the majority of users. For most protocols 5% upstream (eg for acks) is ample to keep the downstream running at full tilt.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

it is another one of those marketing gimics they seem to get away with. Only part of the network runs on fiber and I believe that is from an active cabinet back to the UBR and beyond. In contrast, open reach is fiber all the way to your street cabinet which makes their assertion less of a lie.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I think BT's fibre is now as much fibre as Virgin's, i.e. hybrid. The difference ultimately being that Virgin's last mile is shielded coax, whereas BT's is unshielded (or less-shielded, I suppose) copper. The technologies in use, of course, are completely different.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I think, Kush, that's on over-simplification. Fibre is semantically fibre. It's what's done with it that's the difference.

The FTTC fibre node has a strict limit (AFAIK) of 288 users. A VM optical node might well have twice as many.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

As I said, the technology is completely different. What I was referring to was how much fibre it takes before you can say you've got a fibre network. Technically even the ADSL lines eventually connect to a fibre backbone but that doesn't count.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I see ADSL as the "same" amount of fibre as VM, only that the Coax part of the network uses less lossy cables, and amplifiers etc to prevent signal loss

With FTTC, the fibre goes far closer than with Cable, but as Seph and Qasi have already pointed out, the two mediums cannot be compared

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Totally agree. In addition, it was the need to provide backwards compatibility with the broadcast TV standards that drove DOCSIS down it's limited path.

Cable is still limited by it's need to co-exist with the TV spectrum which is also made worse by the increase in HD channels.

If cable has a future then you could see the amplifiers in the streets side cabinets being replaced with VDSL style equipment and fibre being pulled to those cabinets. The coax from cabinet would then be dedicated to a subscriber but have a much higher bandwidth than even the best twisted pair.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

That would be infeasible for some areas where the coax from the cabinet is shared with one drop for a whole block or even street. Upgrading that to dedicated coax would require the same amount of work as a complete FTTP system which would render it pretty pointless.

Frankly dedicated coax isn't required. The sheer capacity of it means even if you divided it four ways with dedicated channels per subscriber you'd still get higher speeds than an average VDSL line (ideal coax has about 6Gbps capacity last I recall, increasing to 10Gbps with DOCSIS 3.1). "Fibre deep" architectures are the future though, they just don't have to go that deep.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Presumably there is a future standard that moves the TV streams off the traditional frequencies and pushes them across the IP layer instead, YouView style? That would open up an obscene amount of spectrum for raw broadband transit.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I don't see how it's,"Bodged" like you say? The CATV system always had a return path and was designed for it. The Plain Old Telephone,(POTS) was just that when invented but has now evolved into providing an Internet service, Data, ect

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Perhaps he means the return paths wasn't intended to he heavily used for mass data or non symmetric, like most data only systems are.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

A house I lived in that was built ~1985 had cable - it was pure analogue direct to standard TVs with no return path at all. The cable was very thick maybe 10 or 12cm over the insulation as I recall. The area was cabled by NTL later but after I'd moved - sfaik they ignored all the old cable system and put in new.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Yet again we’re in danger of digressing off topic but without deliberately appearing to criticise or even ridicule your “presumption” I am genuinely interested on what basis you predicate this “obscene amount of spectrum for raw broadband transit” by future migration to TVoIP?

Currently both TV and BB(Data) are combined prior to (e)QAM and injected in a set frequency plan that is limited by the overall spectrum (5-1002MHz) currently dictated by DOCSIS3(.0)RFI infrastructure.

It’s currently therefore somewhat irrelevant whether you feeding TV,VOIP etc (or DATA) on downstream because they all are restricted by DOCSIS 144byte frame encapsulating a MPEG2/4 packet that either contains a raw (MPEG2/4) media stream or IP?

In fact using a DOCSIS for TVoIP just adds an additional protocol layer as far as I can see?
As unless you migrate to a higher compression algorithm (MPEG6 and /or QAM1024/2048 etc) in order to increase bandwidth utilisation then the alternative as you suggest means effectively discarding the DOCSIS wrapper overhead altogether ala BT21CN Infinity with Ethernet IP last mile?

Now I would suggest therefore that your presumption naively over trivialises the rather significant problems of logistics of how you get from A to B while maintaining backwards compatibility over the current physical RF infrastructure?
Clearly once again I am suffering from a senile comprehension problem and missed some enlightenment that is apparently embodied in your presumption?

If you accept the bandwidth is constrained by DOCSIS mac layer then removing this means a total redesign of the headend! Thats an awful lot of CAPEX outlay on replacing existing CMTS and also upgrades at client end.
Plugging in a NIC/ETHERNET is one thing but disposing of existing CM/SH is quite a challenge in itself, let alone visiting 4Million households given the need to replace a F connector with RJ11 Ethernet port not easily dismissing the fact that the underlying physics will still limit the segment length of Ethernet to only a few hundred metres without deploying Frame Relay,ATM, SONET intervening solutions?.

Now QAS has already alluded to a more practical roadmap by referring to DOCSIS3.1
That not only gives some more symmetry by introducing OFDM which primarily introduces 200MHz either at low,mid or top end splits for upstream but also set’s the foundation for expanding the current 5-1002MHz spectrum into future 1.4MHz-2.4MHz expansion commensurate with Satellite!
All that can be done while maintaining a practical migration of backwards compatibility without disproportionate investment in Head-end and existing client CPE….except….

Even that doesn’t necessarily highlight the difficulties VM face with their current RF Plant? The homologation of legacy franchises means a diverse range of line extender/street cab amps are proliferated through various area infrastructures.
Remember that a significant amount of RF plant was initially poached (off-the-shelf) from our US cousins a couple of decades ago and these Bidi Amps were centred on on DOCSIS/RFI of 5-55MHz/108MHz-860MHz in line with 6MHz NTSC as opposed to current (euroDOCSIS) split of 5-65/85MHz and 88MHz-1002MHz split of 8MHz bandwidths of PAL/SECAM for Europe etc!

VM stated a year or so ago that as part of their network upgrades 38,000 street cabs in the uk would need checking/refurbishing? It we employ some simple maths on that figure then published VM Company reports state there are 4.9Million TV/BB subscribers in the UK. This equates to approx 128 active customers per cab. However the initial flood cabling was designed as Homes Passed Per Node.

So if I walk down my road I observe that the street cabs are placed/spaced approx equivalent to 48 homes per cab and my feed from a primary street cab only has 24tap board, 1 main amp and 3 secondary amps. That infers there are 3 secondary “passive” cabs potentially supplying a total of circa 170 for my cable segment. Of course that deployment is factored on a street of semi detached 3/4 bed houses with an approx 15m frontage with shared drive.
The population demographics thus vary considerably with other parts of say Brighton with Victorian/Edwardian 3 story town houses that have subsequently in the decades now been converted to flats/apartments. Thus what was once classified as a single home passed with something like 14 rooms has now become at least 3 x 4 room separate domiciles! Consequently what was originally calculated 15yrs years ago as a static 25%-40% take-up rate HPPN has trebled since then with no complimentary civil engineering to offset ducting capacity and street furniture limitations!
Further more, obviously there is more than one type of DOCSIS/RFI topology deployed (to support QAS’s post) such that not all RF actives are soley contained within street cabs UK wide but can also be contained within cable pits as well!

Now we have the complexity of trying to extrapolate VM’s 38000 street cab figure to equate potential upgrade of number of cascaded amp chains that could either require minimal replugging of diplex filters or even replacing totally!
Even if these details weren’t commercially sensitive VM is not going to disclose any further useful detail because as can be seen above it will inevitably be area dependent anyway!
We can only speculate on what proportion of 38000 is upgrading street cabs because of tap board congestion and/or standardising amps to euroDOCSIS latest (or hopefully DOCSIS3.1) standard?

Also remember that every DOCSIS/HFC MSO worldwide is inexorably being driven towards a N+1 customer driven topology target before eventually looking towards a FTTP solution whether it be DPON or something radically different and VM haven’t even embodied a MTA second order product yet that is already an option with current NetGear VMDG485 product/chipset options!

So concluding on the initial opening question just how far is this future TVoIP premise of yours? I can’t realistically see this within 10yrs yet let alone 5? DOCSIS still has plenty of latent expansion potential with DOCSIS3.1/x even before another major point release?!!!

As I said earlier it's a genuine question...... enquiring minds really would like to know...... ;)

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Jesus christ mate it was just an idea? Calm down.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Don't get the Horse going - and don't call him "Jesus", Jesus!

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Now that's just what I was thinking but the horse beat me to it.... ;)

Oh and on my earlier post should anybody read it the coax was 10-12mm obviously not cm as my sausage fingers dictated.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I'd assumed it was a reference to how 'evolved' systems often don't provide an optimal solution to a problem.

i.e

Coaxial cable TV systems were adapted to also carry data (and digital TV) but this lead to a system which was heavily asymmetric. In addition, keeping optimal contention ratios in this system can be very costly (re-segmentation).

Analogue POTS were adapted to carry both analogue telephony and data but were limited by line length and quality constraints.

In my view, this form of evolution is often driven by commercial constraints but also the short term view held by most companies today.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Thanks qasdfdsaq and Eeeps, that's what I meant- hence the "little" rather than "no" need for a return-path (see kwikbreaks version of the "fat pipe") :)

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

To be fair he's not entirely far off. The implication is TV uses a large, and static amount of bandwidth on every cable, even for those many customers who don't have TV. By delivering only the TV channels that are being watched (essentially making all channels "on demand") a huge amount of capacity could be freed up.

Say 75 channels are in use for TV delivery, vs. somewhere around 16 for broadband, no single user is ever going to be watching 75 channels (plus radio) at the same time! So if the point was ever reached that all the current passive splitter cabinets ended up having mini-CMTS' put in them, with dedicated coax to each subscriber, then the vast majority of that coax's capacity would be going to waste delivering traffic that is literally being ignored when it could be used for faster broadband delivery.

Even if we never got close to one node per customer, a node with 50 subs on it are still unlikely to ever get close to consuming all 75 TV channels simultaneously, meaning most of the capacity is *still* going to waste when compared to, e.g. an efficient IP-multicast system.

Personally I'd like for VM to eradicate all broadcast TV channels and re-purpose the spectrum for broadband, because I don't watch TV and want faster internet. But even that wouldn't solve the issue of crippled upstream, since almost all the upstream is already being used for internet services anyway; in fact it'd even further skew the upload/download ratios on offer.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

To me is no doubt IPTV replacing cable tv would help cable greatly on frequency capacity.

The problem is a few things I think.

First is ofcom, I think they differientate between broadcast tv and iptv so I think they would have an issue with it. After that for IPTV to be trusted it has to be reliable, no glitches due to eg. buffering that I think for someone like VM to pull off would be extremely diffilcult, after that is CPE replacements, network redesign etc.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Yes, this is pretty much what I was getting at - I don't have a great working knowledge of how DOCSIS works apart from the high level aspects, so I wasn't sure if it was actually a feasible option to do an IP-multicast style delivery method or not.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I think what your both actually alluding to is SDV ?

Although I 'm still a tad confused about the "future part and the obscene additional bandwidth"?

Unfortunately as stated previously VM don't seem to have gone the MTA chipset route which must mean they don't feel an immediate (as in next 3-5yrs) need to free up any downstream TV frequencies using that method?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

VM also don't feel the "need" to upgrade some congested areas until users can barely get 0.1Mbps on their 10Mbps connections. Just because they don't feel an immediate need doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated for the medium-distant future :)

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

There is no need to upgrade such areas. Doing so would be very very expensive I imagine so letting those fool enough to continue paying pay is clearly the way to higher profits which is all that matters. Apparently.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Downstream DS-1 DS-2 DS-3 DS-4 DS-5 DS-6 DS-7 DS-8
Frequency (Hz) 299000000 283000000 291000000 307000000 315000000 323000000 N/A N/A
Lock Status(QAM Lock/FEC Sync/MPEG Lock) Locked Locked Locked Locked Locked Locked Unlocked Unlocked
Channel ID 195 193 194 196 197 198 N/A N/A
Modulation 256QAM 256QAM 256QAM 256QAM 256QAM 256QAM Unknown Unknown
Symbol Rate (Msym/sec) 6.952000 6.952000 6.952000 6.952000 6.952000 6.952000 N/A N/A
Interleave Depth I=12
J=17 I=12
J=17 I=12
J=17 I=12
J=17 I=12
J=17 I=12
J=17 N/A N/A
Power Level (dBmV) 0.27 0.97 0.48 0.42 0.36 0.36 N/A N/A
RxMER (dB) 34.17 34.78 34.08 34.84 34.36 37.94 N/A N/A



Upstream US-1 US-2 US-3 US-4
Channel Type 2.0 N/A N/A 2.0
Channel ID 33 N/A N/A 34
Frequency (Hz) 46200000 N/A N/A 39400000
Ranging Status Success Other Other Success
Modulation 64QAM N/A N/A 64QAM
Symbol Rate (Sym/sec) 1024000 N/A N/A 1024000
Mini-Slot Size 4 N/A N/A 4
Power Level (dBmV) 47.80 N/A N/A 47.50


General Configuration Network Access Allowed
Maximum Number of CPEs 1
Baseline Privacy Enabled
DOCSIS Mode EuroDOCSIS 3.0
Config File
Primary Downstream Service Flow SFID 21931
Max Traffic Rate 135000000 bps
Max Traffic Burst 10000 bytes
Min Traffic Rate 0 bps
Primary Upstream Service Flow SFID 21930
Max Traffic Rate 15000000 bps
Max Traffic Burst 16320 bytes
Min Traffic Rate 0 bps
Max Concatenated Burst 16320 bytes
Scheduling Type Best Effort


© 2010 Virgin Media. All rights reserved.




Been downtime all day for the last 4 days. It's now working but I notice massive change in downstream and upstream. Are these look ok?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Interesting, if you haven't tampered with that config then you have a different one than normal. 15mb upstream instead of 12, provisioned for 135mb instead of 133mb on download, 64QAM instead of 16QAM (although everyone is getting that at some point i think) and a Symbol Rate of 1024000 instead of 5120000 on the upstream.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

128.67Mb download and 13.48Mb upload

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

A TBB monitor would be interesting

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I will upload later when I get home.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

That answers a question I've put a couple of months ago: What will VM do with 64QAM upstream? Increase speed or ease congestion using the 50% extra bit density? It looks like one of each in equal measure if my maths is right.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

oh please don't tell me you believe him

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

There u go

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2013/11/18.png

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Hahahaha

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I wouldn't mind a screenshot of your operational config screen, Telford.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Careful, he knows mspaint.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

lol :p:

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Hey Telford, check this out:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2013/11/17.png

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

^^ wish we all having this! Maybe one day! ;)

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Just upgraded my VM package...

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2013/11/15.png

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Returning to the main topic:

This may seem dumb, but would it not make sense for VM to upgrade the coax between the optical node and street cab to fibre? This seems to be the sticking point when it comes to competing with BTs upstream capability and overall capacity.
Yep, very very expensive and it's not just the cable that would have to be changed, but as a long-term plan would it not be worth aiming for?

<Prepares for ridicule>

Remember this Seph? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_fibre-coaxial

I like it, even if it has so many wrong bits, and it keeps my world nice and simple. :dunce:

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I thought most of the green cabs already did have fibre going into them, with some that are just coax.

There seems to be a different answer to this one every time it comes up, though.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

That's kinda what we were talking about several pages ago.

Though to be honest it'd be just as effective to run ten extra coax lines as it would be to run ten extra fibre lines, both carry DOCSIS RF channels anyway. Although fibre would be thinner so you could probably fit more into the same space if you were limited by duct diameter.

---------- Post added at 01:58 ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 ----------

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2013/11/14.png

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Virgin Media to bring new traffic management on xmas day:

133Mb to become 1.5Tb download and 12Mb to become 1.5Tb upload all day xmas day only

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Yes, but I didn't get a definitive answer. What would be most expensive and which would offer most future proofing? Extra coax or fibre?

I wonder how many areas already have fibre from node to cab then and how many of those have individualised coax from cab to premises?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Qasi has partially answered this as regards the same RF frequencies. The key to higher speed is the number of available channels load balanced to the users. This doesn't rise with a switch from coax to cable. Indeed, unless fibre technology has moved on since I last looked some time ago, a single fibre is constrained to 96 colours (frequencies) whereas coax is not.

The channel number constraint on coax is the (for illustration I'll take the downstream) frequency range divided by the 8 MHz bandwidth (what is it now 200 meg to 1 Gig which gives 100 theoretical channels?).

To answer Kushan's point about fibre at the green cabinet - in my area 5 or so launch cabinets aggregate over coax at an optical node and maybe 20 or so green cabinets go to a launch cabinet.

Something like that,

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Fibre would be more expensive
Fibre would offer more future proofing

Fibre offers virtually unlimited capacity but using it all gets exceedingly expensive - to the point it's much much cheaper to run multiple fibres than to shove more carriers onto one fibre once you go above a certain amount. It also requires more expensive active equipment.

The main advantage of coax is it's easy to manipulate - extending, shortening, splitting, etc. can all be done with a couple of $15 hand tools. Splicing fibre is something you need a dedicated technician to do with a few hundred $'s worth of equipment.


None?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Sorry if it's already been answered but what speeds could/should we be looking at with Virgin in the next two years. Realistically not theoretically. Both upload and download.

200/20? As the next top tier?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

No, should be 200/100 next year

60/30
120/60
200/100

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

:rolleyes:

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

You'd need 4 upstreams per modem with at least 64QAM. Is that what VM are doing?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

That would be pretty damn good if true!

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Telford has a habit of just blindly making stuff up. It won't be true.

Though I do suspect the next tier jumps will be to 60/120/200 but I reckon the upload ratio will remain at 10:1.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Surely not :shocked: Are you sure about that? Whatever next?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

That's about as likely as this:

Did Santa bring your drugs early this year..

---------- Post added at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was at 00:03 ----------

Most likely yes. Even Docsis 3.1 has a recommended 10:1 ratio, so you'll likely be seeing that ratio for years and years to come.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/images...2013-large.jpg

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

To be honest, I have yet to see a post from TC which hasnt been truthful, regarding VMs strategies, although 2:1 upstream does seem very far fetched, so did the doubling of download speed, but TC saw that coming much before everyone else

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Well all VM D3 modems support 4 upstreams and 64QAM

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Virgin Media will bring out 50:1 yes they will as they know they cannot remain ratio at 10:1 forever or they will lose business to BT

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Err.. You must have skipped maths at school.. You're suggesting their next tier will be 200/4. That's 50:1. LOL. That's more competitive how?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

VM need to get back to 10:1 first, last I checked most areas at tiers other than the 120 are not back to 10:1.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

If you make random predictions often enough, you will get some right occasionally, like The Daily Express annually predicting the coldest winter for years. I'm just hoping a ratio of 50:1 isn't one of TC's correct ones.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Fair enough, but on the flip side, can you link me to (or even recall) the last time he was wrong?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Not yet case closed but I'm willing to put quite a few bob on the chances that this one is going to prove to be complete and utter BS...
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...l#post35642660 (it's the 200down 100up by next year prediction)

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Innocent until proven guilty, when was the last time he was proven to be wrong?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Seem to remember him predicting the end of VM and that Sky would cap or block P2P. Haven't looked for a link. These sorts or prediction can take a while to mature. So who knows.

Perhaps TC = The new Nostradamus.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Well firstly, a quick google search brings up a few users on the VM forum using QAM64 upstreams, so theres one thing we have evidence of...

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...t/true#M135133

And these guys have a 16QAM and 64QAM upstream:

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...t/true#M135529

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...t/true#M136965

So from TC's stats, the things I can see no other proof of are:

So the only things I can see out of place is the reduced symbol rate (even the users on the VM forum with QAM64 upstreams have 5120000Sym/sec) and the traffic rates, everything else checks out, so I have no reason to doubt him.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

You have no reason to doubt some random text sprinkled into a forum post? Would you like to buy some magic beans as well?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Did you read my post at all?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Anyone else find it amusing he posted 15mb upload and a few days later VM announce 150/15? lol

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Which means they are probably trialing the new upstream config in his area, they did the same with the 10Mb upload, trial areas were on 50/10 for a while

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Yes I still getting 151.87Mb and 14.88Mb speed. Virgin Media say my area is in trial. I told you so....150/15 as no ones believe me. ;)

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

How are you getting 151.87Mb if your Max Traffic Rate is 135000000 bps?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Magic, obviously.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Proof or it didnt happen

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

But when has he ever been wrong before!

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

I am not going to waste my time here to post some stupid screenshot to prove it. As no ones ever believe me. So, what the point?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Well I have been trying to defend you here but now it seems you are taking the biscuit

---------- Post added at 15:15 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

I cant recall, can you?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

If I posted screenshot or post speedtest here...someone here will saying "ah TelfordCable use mspaint"

So I give up as no ones ain't going to believe me.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

And if you dont post any proof, then even less people will believe you

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Post a photo of a screenshot then.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Put those who insult you on Ignore. At least you'll be spared the insults (although others will see them).

I've gotta say I don't like how the wolf-pack turns on an individual.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

It could be a very lonely forum for you then though :(

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

To whom is that remark addressed?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

To the person you advised...

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Was that an apology or another sly dig?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Neither.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

So you agree you are being unfair then?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

No. I should have posted It could be a very lonely forum for him then though but didn't realise at the time that what I'd posted was ambiguous in any way.

The fact is that TC posts incessant total BS and in return gets constant insults. If he put everybody on ignore who insulted him then he'd end up only talking to himself and possibly you who for some reason claim he's never been proven wrong when he patently has and Seph who felt the sniping was unfair.

Talking of ambiguity I haven't even the faintest idea what you meant by Was that an apology or another sly dig?

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Thus (probably correctly) suggesting every member on this forum picks on him

As I have pointed out not always

I don't claim he has never been proven wrong, I said I don't recall him ever being proven wrong. I do agree with Seph the sniping is unfair, and in my eyes its gone past the point of sniping, and is now bullying.

Looking back I can see how that made no sense as I completely misread your post. As I see it, TC is making posts on this forum as a member, and you (amongst others) are treating him unfairly.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Apart from my comment about the use of "ignore" and my explanation here why I posted that perhaps you'd like to spend some time looking back to find a post from me to back that up. I typically simply ignore his posts.

Re: Can someone explain why cable suffers on upload?
 

Okay, this:

This

And this

May seem quite innocent on its own, but as seph says