Comcast Technology Topic - Page 31 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 4Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #901 of 979 Old 03-10-2015, 04:51 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 29,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Last time I looked, the 6141 was the sweet spot, as the 6183 was insanely expensive. I don't foresee Comcast going to 16 channels anytime soon, so the 6141 is probably fine.



You can buy your own Arris TM822G, which is what my parents did for their Triple Play. Comcast isn't going to FTTH anytime soon!
Actually, Comcast has implemented 16 channel downstream bonding in many areas already and is still expanding. One of those areas is jhachey's home market of Sacramento. My market of Santa Rosa is another. Now whether they implement speeds to make full use of those channels is another question, but the bonding is already happening.
Keenan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #902 of 979 Old 03-10-2015, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dr1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Mizar 5
Posts: 3,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 24
A saturated 256QAM channel is about 36 Mbps, so 16 channels would be 576 Mbps. Looks like there are 250 Mbps plans in some areas.

Ron

HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
dr1394 is offline  
post #903 of 979 Old 03-10-2015, 06:00 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 29,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr1394 View Post
A saturated 256QAM channel is about 36 Mbps, so 16 channels would be 576 Mbps. Looks like there are 250 Mbps plans in some areas.

Ron
Yes, and if I understand correctly, even though you may not have the download speed to utilize all that capacity more channels can help with less noise or possible congestion? Something along those lines, the benefit of more channels goes beyond just speed capacity in other words.
Keenan is offline  
post #904 of 979 Old 03-10-2015, 07:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
Actually, Comcast has implemented 16 channel downstream bonding in many areas already and is still expanding. One of those areas is jhachey's home market of Sacramento. My market of Santa Rosa is another. Now whether they implement speeds to make full use of those channels is another question, but the bonding is already happening.
Well, I was wrong. It's an obvious choice then. 6183, cost be damned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
Yes, and if I understand correctly, even though you may not have the download speed to utilize all that capacity more channels can help with less noise or possible congestion? Something along those lines, the benefit of more channels goes beyond just speed capacity in other words.
Yeah, the more channels it can balance, the more likely it is able to reach the full 105mbps of the Blast! package, which is the highest tier that is reasonably priced for consumers. They offer Extreme 150 in some markets, but that's $$$.
BiggAW is offline  
post #905 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 11:47 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Well, I was wrong. It's an obvious choice then. 6183, cost be damned.



Yeah, the more channels it can balance, the more likely it is able to reach the full 105mbps of the Blast! package, which is the highest tier that is reasonably priced for consumers. They offer Extreme 150 in some markets, but that's $$$.
But in a year DOSIS 3.1 will be the new standard with much higher speeds so does it pay to make a substancial investment in soon to be obsolete technology. Also over the past year that I have had Blast with the 105 speed and with the SB6141 I always had consistent speeds of 119 to 121mbs.

http://www.lightreading.com/cable/do.../d/d-id/714405

Last edited by PaulGo; 03-13-2015 at 12:16 PM.
PaulGo is offline  
post #906 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 12:04 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 29,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Well, I was wrong. It's an obvious choice then. 6183, cost be damned.



Yeah, the more channels it can balance, the more likely it is able to reach the full 105mbps of the Blast! package, which is the highest tier that is reasonably priced for consumers. They offer Extreme 150 in some markets, but that's $$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
But in a year DOSIS 3.1 will be the new standard with much higher speeds so does it pay to make a substancial investment in soon to be obsolete technology. Also over the past year that I have had Blast with the 105 speed. Also with the SB6141 I always had consistent speeds of 119 to 121mbs.

http://www.lightreading.com/cable/do.../d/d-id/714405
I think I'm with Paul on this, I would go with the much cheaper 6141, or the Zoom for now and save the extra $40-$50 and see what happens with DOCSIS 3.1. I really don't think the user would notice any difference between the two modems during actual use. The Zoom I have gives me the same results Paul sees, and it's an 8x4 like the 6141. In fact, I would go with the Zoom over the Motorola as it's $20 cheaper.

Definitely get a modem though, no reason at all to throw away money on Comcast's insane modem rental fee.
Keenan is offline  
post #907 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 01:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
I think I'm with Paul on this, I would go with the much cheaper 6141, or the Zoom for now and save the extra $40-$50 and see what happens with DOCSIS 3.1. I really don't think the user would notice any difference between the two modems during actual use. The Zoom I have gives me the same results Paul sees, and it's an 8x4 like the 6141. In fact, I would go with the Zoom over the Motorola as it's $20 cheaper.

Definitely get a modem though, no reason at all to throw away money on Comcast's insane modem rental fee.
Off topic. 6 months ago our 45unit condo bldg. signed up for internet service from a service called Webpass. They are based in SF - we ar in Okld. They installed an antenna on top of the bldg. Don't know how the tech works. Every unit gets 100 (actually about 90-95)Mbps down and up. $25/mo. No modem is used - just plug an ethernet cord into the jack they install next to the landline jack (I vaguely remember what a landline was). I went down to the utility room and watched s the installer connected their wire to my li in the phone board. Normally, they just use one of the 3 pairs of phone wires running to each unit. He said since I don't have a landline, he can make use of all 3 pairs to give higher speed. Speedtest.net gives me reading of 290Mbps+ down and up!
However - don't see a huge diff. most of the time. My guess is that either my 4 y.o. computer can't handle big speeds or that the various servers I am accessing can't send out faster speeds. I don't see much diff. between the 30-40 we had with Comcast. Do see that streaming runs more smoothly with never a Netflix hiccup.
snidely is offline  
post #908 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 03:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
But in a year DOSIS 3.1 will be the new standard with much higher speeds so does it pay to make a substancial investment in soon to be obsolete technology. Also over the past year that I have had Blast with the 105 speed and with the SB6141 I always had consistent speeds of 119 to 121mbs.
That's actually a good point. The price difference is down to $40 though, so it's not that big of a deal to get a 16 channel modem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snidely View Post
Off topic. 6 months ago our 45unit condo bldg. signed up for internet service from a service called Webpass. They are based in SF - we ar in Okld. They installed an antenna on top of the bldg. Don't know how the tech works. Every unit gets 100 (actually about 90-95)Mbps down and up. $25/mo. No modem is used - just plug an ethernet cord into the jack they install next to the landline jack (I vaguely remember what a landline was). I went down to the utility room and watched s the installer connected their wire to my li in the phone board. Normally, they just use one of the 3 pairs of phone wires running to each unit. He said since I don't have a landline, he can make use of all 3 pairs to give higher speed. Speedtest.net gives me reading of 290Mbps+ down and up!
However - don't see a huge diff. most of the time. My guess is that either my 4 y.o. computer can't handle big speeds or that the various servers I am accessing can't send out faster speeds. I don't see much diff. between the 30-40 we had with Comcast. Do see that streaming runs more smoothly with never a Netflix hiccup.
Hmmm, that's interesting. I looked on their website, and I can't figure out exactly how they install to the unit. It's clearly some sort of wireless (probably Ethernet-based microwave) to the building. They say they only install in buildings built after 1995, but they also say they leave the phone jack there. What it sounds like based on your description is that they are using existing CAT-5 cabling and using two of the 4 pairs for 100mbps Ethernet, and leaving two phone lines open, but in your case they used all *4* (not 3, which makes no sense) for Gigabit.
BiggAW is offline  
post #909 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 03:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 29,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by snidely View Post
Off topic. 6 months ago our 45unit condo bldg. signed up for internet service from a service called Webpass. They are based in SF - we ar in Okld. They installed an antenna on top of the bldg. Don't know how the tech works. Every unit gets 100 (actually about 90-95)Mbps down and up. $25/mo. No modem is used - just plug an ethernet cord into the jack they install next to the landline jack (I vaguely remember what a landline was). I went down to the utility room and watched s the installer connected their wire to my li in the phone board. Normally, they just use one of the 3 pairs of phone wires running to each unit. He said since I don't have a landline, he can make use of all 3 pairs to give higher speed. Speedtest.net gives me reading of 290Mbps+ down and up!
However - don't see a huge diff. most of the time. My guess is that either my 4 y.o. computer can't handle big speeds or that the various servers I am accessing can't send out faster speeds. I don't see much diff. between the 30-40 we had with Comcast. Do see that streaming runs more smoothly with never a Netflix hiccup.
Webpass appears to be a point to point high bandwidth wireless mesh network, utilizing antennas on top of recently constructed high capacity buildings, it seems it works somewhat similarly to how cellular phones work only with much higher capacity. It's not the sort of tech you'll see in single family home suburban areas, much too expensive to deploy that way. Their bread and butter is relatively new, high residency buildings in affluent areas.

As far as speeds, while there are online servers that might saturate 100 mbps plus lines, Apple comes to mind, for almost all uses 100 mbps is overkill. The bottleneck of download speeds is almost always going to be on the sending end, we the user have more capacity than what the sender can utilize. Currently anyway.
Keenan is offline  
post #910 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 03:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
That's actually a good point. The price difference is down to $40 though, so it's not that big of a deal to get a 16 channel modem.



Hmmm, that's interesting. I looked on their website, and I can't figure out exactly how they install to the unit. It's clearly some sort of wireless (probably Ethernet-based microwave) to the building. They say they only install in buildings built after 1995, but they also say they leave the phone jack there. What it sounds like based on your description is that they are using existing CAT-5 cabling and using two of the 4 pairs for 100mbps Ethernet, and leaving two phone lines open, but in your case they used all *4* (not 3, which makes no sense) for Gigabit.
They can only "operate" in bldgs. w. cat 6 wire. As it turned out, they did approach the bldg. in Miami (where we are part time) - but couldn't do it because the bldg. is 23 years old w. cat 5.
snidely is offline  
post #911 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 03:31 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 29,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
That's actually a good point. The price difference is down to $40 though, so it's not that big of a deal to get a 16 channel modem.



Hmmm, that's interesting. I looked on their website, and I can't figure out exactly how they install to the unit. It's clearly some sort of wireless (probably Ethernet-based microwave) to the building. They say they only install in buildings built after 1995, but they also say they leave the phone jack there. What it sounds like based on your description is that they are using existing CAT-5 cabling and using two of the 4 pairs for 100mbps Ethernet, and leaving two phone lines open, but in your case they used all *4* (not 3, which makes no sense) for Gigabit.
Yes, that's what I discovered looking around, and that's why it's only in late model buildings as they have all that wiring already in place. Plant your high capacity wireless antenna on the roof, jack into the existing wiring panel - Ethernet or phone - and you're good to go.
Keenan is offline  
post #912 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 03:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
Yes, that's what I discovered looking around, and that's why it's only in late model buildings as they have all that wiring already in place. Plant your high capacity wireless antenna on the roof, jack into the existing wiring panel - Ethernet or phone - and you're good to go.
The management of the Okld. property (45 units) -NOT and affluent area on the edge of downtown - but most owners or renters are youngish and tech savvy. Anyway, Webpass spent the $ to put up the antenna and offered the 100Mbs service for $50/mo. I don't know how many subscribers they got. Then, in Dec., the condo board decided to take them up on their standing offer to pay $4K "fee" and give every unit in the bldg. service at $25/mo. I guess the main advantage of FAST service is for those who UPload big files. Comcast's upload speed is somewhere between 5 and 10 Mbps.
When I realized they had service in parts of Miami -I called them and it turned out they had already contacted bldg. management and learned wring was 2 years before cat 6 became std.
snidely is offline  
post #913 of 979 Old 03-13-2015, 03:57 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 29,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by snidely View Post
The management of the Okld. property (45 units) -NOT and affluent area on the edge of downtown - but most owners or renters are youngish and tech savvy. Anyway, Webpass spent the $ to put up the antenna and offered the 100Mbs service for $50/mo. I don't know how many subscribers they got. Then, in Dec., the condo board decided to take them up on their standing offer to pay $4K "fee" and give every unit in the bldg. service at $25/mo. I guess the main advantage of FAST service is for those who UPload big files. Comcast's upload speed is somewhere between 5 and 10 Mbps.
When I realized they had service in parts of Miami -I called them and it turned out they had already contacted bldg. management and learned wring was 2 years before cat 6 became std.
I was just parroting what I read on a website about the affluent areas, that's what I get for believing everything I read on the Web!
Keenan is offline  
post #914 of 979 Old 03-14-2015, 11:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
As far as speeds, while there are online servers that might saturate 100 mbps plus lines, Apple comes to mind, for almost all uses 100 mbps is overkill. The bottleneck of download speeds is almost always going to be on the sending end, we the user have more capacity than what the sender can utilize. Currently anyway.
Steam users can use hundreds of mbps downloading games. Same for XBone. Apple can pull big software updates. VPN users can pull a lot of bandwidth, and households with multiple users streaming/downloading simultaneously can pull quite a bit of bandwidth too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snidely View Post
They can only "operate" in bldgs. w. cat 6 wire. As it turned out, they did approach the bldg. in Miami (where we are part time) - but couldn't do it because the bldg. is 23 years old w. cat 5.
Why can't they operate on CAT-5? CAT-6 has no advantage over CAT-5 for Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet. Certain applications like 10GbE or HDMI over CAT can utilize the higher spec'd cable.
BiggAW is offline  
post #915 of 979 Old 03-14-2015, 11:22 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 29,283
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
Steam users can use hundreds of mbps downloading games. Same for XBone. Apple can pull big software updates. VPN users can pull a lot of bandwidth, and households with multiple users streaming/downloading simultaneously can pull quite a bit of bandwidth too.



Why can't they operate on CAT-5? CAT-6 has no advantage over CAT-5 for Fast Ethernet or Gigabit Ethernet. Certain applications like 10GbE or HDMI over CAT can utilize the higher spec'd cable.
I hadn't thought about gamers, and large households, I hope they are cap-free with their service provider!
Keenan is offline  
post #916 of 979 Old 03-14-2015, 11:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
I hadn't thought about gamers, and large households, I hope they are cap-free with their service provider!
All I know (not being a techie) is that it requires cat 6. The bldg. in Miami has cat 5.

BTW - Besides the nearly 300MBps speeds, The Ping numbers range from 3 to 5! I've never played an internet game.
snidely is offline  
post #917 of 979 Old 03-15-2015, 03:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
I hadn't thought about gamers, and large households, I hope they are cap-free with their service provider!
They would have to be cap-free, as they are a competitive carrier going in on top of cable and phone providers. The MDUs they target aren't likely to have large families living in them, but maybe a couple of roommates who are into gaming would could chow down some serious bandwidth.
Keenan likes this.
BiggAW is offline  
post #918 of 979 Old 03-15-2015, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 26
The service (Webpass) is UNlimited. They do seem to charge a lot for businesses. Residential users would use it mostly at night. There doesn't seem to be any diff. in speed between day and night.
snidely is offline  
post #919 of 979 Old 03-16-2015, 04:25 PM
Member
 
1500P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
X1 does not broadcast 1080i/p, why ?

All,
I'm trying an X1 (not Arris) and checked 80% of the HD channels including premium (HBO, STARZ etc.) and COMCAST DOES NOT pass the networks res. as they claim or as many may think !!!!! they all come in in 720P regardless of the network transmission or the X1 output settings, no 1080i or 1080P60, just pure faded 720P. The TV does display as if it "shook hands" with the X1 at 1080P but the picture is faded.

My test involved a DTV Genie and using the same network channels that were displayed in 1080i using the Genie, the X1 displayed them in a faded 720P res. (lack of crisp, contours are not well defined etc.).

Did COMCAST ever came "clean" in clearly stating the specs of their transmission ? for many of us that DO CARE about the resolution and want to make n informative decision of the services we are buying it should be noted. I wonder if this has ever been defined by FCC.

Did anyone else noticed it ? or is it a hardware failure ? I've rebooted/reset the box several times, talking with Comcast CS they were discussing with their eng's and they seem to know what I'm referring to they seem to be reluctant to talk about the issue.

thanks
1500P is offline  
post #920 of 979 Old 03-16-2015, 08:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1500P View Post
X1 does not broadcast 1080i/p, why ?

All,
I'm trying an X1 (not Arris) and checked 80% of the HD channels including premium (HBO, STARZ etc.) and COMCAST DOES NOT pass the networks res. as they claim or as many may think !!!!! they all come in in 720P regardless of the network transmission or the X1 output settings, no 1080i or 1080P60, just pure faded 720P. The TV does display as if it "shook hands" with the X1 at 1080P but the picture is faded.

My test involved a DTV Genie and using the same network channels that were displayed in 1080i using the Genie, the X1 displayed them in a faded 720P res. (lack of crisp, contours are not well defined etc.).

Did COMCAST ever came "clean" in clearly stating the specs of their transmission ? for many of us that DO CARE about the resolution and want to make n informative decision of the services we are buying it should be noted. I wonder if this has ever been defined by FCC.

Did anyone else noticed it ? or is it a hardware failure ? I've rebooted/reset the box several times, talking with Comcast CS they were discussing with their eng's and they seem to know what I'm referring to they seem to be reluctant to talk about the issue.

thanks
I have both the Pace satellite box and the Arris DVR and I have no problems with a 1080p output that is of excellent quality. I am guessing it is a EDID / HDMI handshake issue that is preventing you from selecting a higher resolution than 720p. If you are not happy with the X1 picture quality then I suggest you call Comcast to schedule a service call as you may have a defective box.
PaulGo is offline  
post #921 of 979 Old 03-16-2015, 10:23 PM
Senior Member
 
tibia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Direct channel access

I have triple play and had an X1 system for about a month. I hated it so much I returned the X1 equipment and got my old legacy equipment back. The thing that infuriated me so much is the delay between when a IR command is issued and when the X1 system responds. Specifically direct entering of channel numbers. Enter the first number and wait for the system to display the number I sent. Then press the second number and wait for X1 to display that number, and so on. If you don't wait for the response the system errors. Conversely the legacy system responds as fast as I can enter the channel numbers. I understand it is all that damn cloud stuff that causes the delayed response.


I would have been perfectly satisfied if I could have kept the legacy set top box for my theatre room and let my wife (She loved X1.) have X1 boxes everywhere else in the house but the Comcast customer service rep said legacy equipment is not compatible with the X1 system. Well of course I didn't expect to be able to take advantage of all X1 features with a legacy box.


So my question is does anyone know of any technical reasons why both a legacy and X1 set top box can't be connected at the same time or is this all just a lot of marketing BS from the customer service dude? My neighbor's cable line comes from the same line extender as mine. He has X1 and I have legacy. They both work fine.

Dennis
tibia is offline  
post #922 of 979 Old 03-17-2015, 10:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibia View Post

So my question is does anyone know of any technical reasons why both a legacy and X1 set top box can't be connected at the same time or is this all just a lot of marketing BS from the customer service dude? My neighbor's cable line comes from the same line extender as mine. He has X1 and I have legacy. They both work fine.
Just guessing but each customer account has to be set up with specific codes and the legacy codes are not compatible with the X1 codes. I never had a lag on the X1 Arris DVR but I had one on the Pace satellite boxes. After some complaining Comcast was able to make the Pace boxes fairly responsive (I have no idea what they did).. Another option is the Xi3 satellite box that is as fast as the X1 DVR.
PaulGo is offline  
post #923 of 979 Old 03-17-2015, 10:58 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Cable Weighs Ways to Go Virtual

With their access networks facing swiftly growing bandwidth challenges over the next few years, cable technologists are increasingly looking to virtualization to save the day.
From CableLabs to MSO and vendor labs throughout the world, industry engineers are particularly exploring a number of approaches for virtualizing key equipment and network functions now lodged in the cable headend. The various distributed access architecture approaches (DAA) range from moving parts of the cable modem termination system (CMTS) and edgeQAM modulator or Converged Cable Access Platform (CCAP) device from the headend to the network edge to virtualizing all of them and completely eliminating the physical CCAP platform.

In a recent webinar, "The Economic Benefits of Virtualizing the Cable Edge," hosted by Light Reading and attracting one of the largest audiences yet for a cable technology topic, senior technologists from Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK), Liberty Global Inc. (Nasdaq: LBTY), Juniper Networks Inc. (NYSE: JNPR) and Gainspeed discussed the daunting bandwidth challenges that cable operators face and the pros and cons of the various virtualization options. In particular, they focused on DAA and the role that SDN and NFV technologies could play in fostering those architectures.

Both of the major cable operators addressed the explosion in bandwidth demand that their companies face. Rob Howald, VP of Network Architecture for Comcast, said North American cable operators are facing growth in bandwidth demand from a number of sources, including streaming video content from Netflix Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLX) and other over-the-top (OTT) video services, business services, cloud-based video services and such new broadband services as home automation and security, He also cited online gaming and new video technologies like 4K TV.

Phil Oakley, head of access & edge architectures for Liberty Global, said the large international MSO is "seeing very similar dynamics in the European market." For example, he said, with the recent launch of Netflix in a number of European markets, Liberty Global has seen bandwidth demand surge "as high as 20% in some of our regions."
Howald said Comcast has managed to keep up with increases in bandwidth demand so far by boosting data speeds 13 times over the past dozen years and pulling fiber deeper into its network, thereby reducing the size of its service groups connected to each fiber node. But he said Comcast can't keep doing that indefinitely because of multiple factors including: the limited availability of fiber and wavelengths to keep splitting node size, the expense of pulling new fiber, the facilities demands of new equipment, the power and cooling demands and the need for more spectrum.

Yet both he and Oakley insisted that cable's hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) networks are still well placed to compete against both telco twisted-pair and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) architectures. With the pending launch of DOCSIS 3.1, Howald said, cable operators will be able to offer gigabit speeds to subscribers "much more cost effectively, ubiquitously and faster" than FTTP networks. Oakley agreed, noting that Liberty Global still sees great promise in HFC networks and DOCSIS technology and plans to install all-fiber networks only as a complement to its main HFC strategy.
Samir Parikh, director of product management for Gainspeed, said cable operators are starting to explore the concept of "Distributed CCAP," which calls for moving part or all of the CCAP functions from the cable headend to the network node through virtualization. CCAP itself is a next-gen technology that combines the data processing functions of the CMTS and the video processing functions of the edge QAM in a single device, saving power, space and costs.
Parikh contended that Distributed CCAP, which is also sometimes called Distributed Access Architectures, builds on CCAP's benefits by leveraging "digital transport" to simplify the access network and increase its scale by 10 times or more. "It alleviates power, cooling and space challenges in the MSO facilities," he said. But he noted that "there are multiple flavors of this idea and not all of them are created equal."

Howald said Comcast executives find the notion of D-CCAP very appealing. His company's engineers are now considering DAA because "because of their potential to deliver some important benefits to Comcast that ultimately will allow us to deliver better services to our customers." Those benefits, he said, include greater fiber efficiency through the replacement of analog transport with digital transport, better RF performance through the move of RF signal generation closer to the customer and greater facility scaling through the reduction or elimination of large CCAP or CMTS chassis in the cable headend.
Juniper and Gainspeed, which co-sponsored the webinar, are both strong proponents of the "Virtual CCAP" approach, which would shift all CCAP or CMTS and edge QAM functions out of the headend by eliminating all the physical platforms in the headend and splitting the various functions of the devices between the existing router in the headend, the network node and the cloud. They argue that this approach, as opposed to such other emerging options as Remote PHY and Remote MAC that would move just some of the CCAP functions out of the headend, provides the greatest benefits, especially large space, power and capex savings.

Seeking to buttress their case, Parikh and Andrew Smith, chief architect of cable MSO networks for Juniper, also maintained during the webinar that Virtual CCAP leverage both SDN and NFV technologies to achieve greater operational efficiencies. As a result, they said, V-CCAP produces greater economic benefits than the other methods. "Virtual CCAP leverages both SDN and NFV technologies to transform CCAP," SmitSh said.

With CableLabs now developing interface specs for Remote PHY and investigating the other options as well, neither Comcast nor Liberty Global has yet committed to any of the DAA approaches. But both Oakley and Howald said their companies are closely examining the different options as they prepare to roll out DOCSIS 3.1 and other advanced services.


— Alan Breznick, Cable/Video Practice Leader, Light Reading



http://www.lightreading.com/cable/ccap-next-gen-nets/cable-weighs-ways-to-go-virtual/d/d-id/714455?
PaulGo is offline  
post #924 of 979 Old 03-17-2015, 02:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 61
The big change that all the providers are going to have to make if they want to offer 4K, 200 HD's and gigabit internet all at once is SDV combined with small nodes. It's inevitable, as there is no other way all that stuff is going to fit on an 860mhz plant, even with MPEG-4 and no analog.
BiggAW is offline  
post #925 of 979 Old 03-18-2015, 10:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Comcast Puts DOCSIS 3.1 Live in the Field

DENVER -- Cable Next-Gen Technologies and Strategies -- If there were any questions about how quickly DOCSIS 3.1's development has progressed, Comcast Vice President of Access Architecture Jorge Salinger has laid them to rest.


Speaking here on Tuesday, Salinger announced that Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) is now testing DOCSIS 3.1 in the field. "The target for us is to be in the field establishing network readiness in 2015," he said. "Our overall goal is to be able to deploy DOCSIS 3.1 and gigabit-per-second in a broad scale starting in 2016."
The field tests mean that the largest US MSO has orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) signals running over its existing HFC plant. The cable industry's shift to DOCSIS 3.1 marks the first time that the DOCSIS specification is breaking free of its old 6MHz and 8MHz channels and moving instead to OFDM subcarriers. "We have OFDM signals running in one of our networks, in one of our headends," Salinger said.


Because there is no certified DOCSIS 3.1 hardware yet, Salinger added that Comcast is relying on specially designed equipment for its current tests. The cable operator has D3.1 deployed to select employee homes, and Salinger reported that the initial results are promising. Comcast would like to get DOCSIS 3.1 commercially deployed as quickly as possible in order to roll out new gigabit broadband services.


One of the bigger selling points for DOCSIS 3.1 is the fact that cable providers don't have to upgrade their cable plant to enjoy the benefits of greater network efficiency. However, when Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) CTO of Cable Access and Cisco Fellow John Chapman joined Salinger in a panel discussion on D3.1, he made the point that cable operators should consider upgrading their HFC networks anyway to gain the full benefits of the technology. For example, he suggested it would make sense to start planning now to extend the upstream path.
"I would actually encourage early upgrades," declared Chapman, who is considered one of the fathers of the DOCSIS specs. "Every time you go out to segment the plant right now, why not start planning for 85MHz return? Even if you're not deploying anything at 85MHz for the next year, it takes a while to upgrade the plant."
Chapman noted that many European cable operators, which contend with less out-of-band traffic than their US counterparts, are already looking at expanding to 200MHz for the return path. There's also serious consideration in Europe about upgrading to 1.2GHz in the downstream.


In the US, most cable plants operate at 750 or 860MHz, with a few extending up to 1GHz. Chapman, however, believes that ultimately it will be possible to upgrade beyond 1.2GHz capacity to 1.5GHz, and even 1.7GHz.


As for deployment of DOCSIS 3.1, the immediate-term challenges include the development of new installation and maintenance tools, as well as training for cable engineers and technical operations staff. Salinger noted that unlike with DOCSIS 3.0, D3.1 means that cable modems will no longer operate at a fixed modulation. Some cable modems in a service group could be using 1024 QAM, while others could be running on 4096 QAM. New tools must be able to identify which modulation profiles work best where and understand how to manage the modulation diversity.



http://www.lightreading.com/cable/do...d/d-id/714494?
PaulGo is offline  
post #926 of 979 Old 03-18-2015, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 61
That's quite interesting. Comcast seems to be a lot more aggressive with 1gbps internet than they are with anything else, which is especially interesting considering that they have virtually no competition actually offering gigabit (although Verizon could provision gigabit access to some customers today if they felt like hitting the switch). Two points though.

1. Many of their systems are still 625-750mhz, and are completely out of capacity today. The 860mhz plants should have enough capacity for this, but they are still missing about 70-80 HD's, and have no UHD, so once they are out of bandwidth because they rolled out gigabit internet, then what? SDV is the only practical answer.

2. 1.2 or 1.5 or 1.7ghz plants is a completely ridiculous fantasy. Cox has trouble keeping their 1ghz plants running properly. The practical upper limit for HFC systems is 860mhz, maybe 1ghz if they really want the extra bandwidth. I'm also not sure what the push for more bandwidth is, as by far the biggest user of bandwidth today is SD and HD linear channels, which can, for the most part, be put onto SDV. I predict a future where the 70 or so SDs that the DTAs get, as well as HD locals are linear, and everything else is SDV, which would free up enough bandwidth to keep everything else running. I'm not a fan of this, I hate SDV as a technology, because it's so unreliable with TiVos, but I think it is an inevitability.
BiggAW is offline  
post #927 of 979 Old 03-18-2015, 04:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Mpeg4 compression should free up bandwidth. Also Comcast could eliminate all the SD channels that are a duplicate of the HD channels by mapping the HD channels to the SD locations. The investment would be using cable boxes capable of Mpeg4 (all new cable boxes can do this) and have the ability to decode HD (again all new cable boxes can do this).
PaulGo is offline  
post #928 of 979 Old 03-18-2015, 07:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 244 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
Mpeg4 compression should free up bandwidth. Also Comcast could eliminate all the SD channels that are a duplicate of the HD channels by mapping the HD channels to the SD locations. The investment would be using cable boxes capable of Mpeg4 (all new cable boxes can do this) and have the ability to decode HD (again all new cable boxes can do this).
They can't get rid of SD channels, at least not the popular ones. They have a ton of DTAs and old boxes out there that can't handle HD. Also, MPEG-4 would push them even farther down that path, as it would give them even more SD-only equipment when the oldest part of the HD box roster that can't do MPEG-4 is relegated to use with SD.

MPEG-4 will help, but it's not going to get them to 200 HD's, gigabit internet, and UHD on an 860mhz plant. The math just doesn't work out. If they want to keep up with all of the evolving technologies, they are going to have to use SDV. They could run UHD over IP, and combine the video and internet bandwidth on D3.1, and as they upgrade users to D3.1 and split nodes, they could cut back a bit on D3 carriers, but even all that will only get them so far. Unfortunately, SDV is still required to make the math work, unless they want to continue to fall farther and farther behind in the HD channel count race to DirecTV, and start falling behind in UHD when DirecTV starts rolling that out.
BiggAW is offline  
post #929 of 979 Old 03-18-2015, 11:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States
Posts: 1,011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 183
Do most of the HD cable boxes in the customers' hands support SDV? Or would that require swapping out the HD DVRs and other HD set top boxes that Comcast rents to their customers for boxes that can communicate back what channels are being watched/recorded?

My very humble setup:
Man Cave:Vizio E500i-A1 "Smart TV" (50-in 1080p 120Hz LED/LCD, has Netflix app.), Sony BDP-S3100 Blu-ray player, Roku N1000 (original model), PC (Windows 7), Comcast Internet (120Mbps/12Mbps).
Bedroom:LG 32LV3400-UA TV (32-in 768p 60Hz LED/LCD), HD DVR (Motorola RNG200N), Xfinity Comcast cable (Digital Preferred Plus), DVD/VHS player.
Mark12547 is offline  
post #930 of 979 Old 03-19-2015, 07:24 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,677
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12547 View Post
Do most of the HD cable boxes in the customers' hands support SDV? Or would that require swapping out the HD DVRs and other HD set top boxes that Comcast rents to their customers for boxes that can communicate back what channels are being watched/recorded?
I would think the SDV technology is similar to VOD, so any box that support VOD could support SDV. My main concern is speed of accessing a SDV channel.
PaulGo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off