4 ms·
Progress isn't linear, they're working on all sorts of problems and they're not just deploying DOCSIS for the sake of it. This is the next best solution that Co
by mikhailt 11y ago
Progress isn't linear, they're working on all sorts of problems and they're not just deploying DOCSIS for the sake of it. This is the next best solution that Comcast and other ISPs can do with the current infrastructure they have. This is the right way of approaching the problem, deploy DOCSIS 3.1 as the next step and figure out the replacement for DOCSIS in the future. Customers want these bandwidth right now, not later.
Also, DOCSIS 3.1 has improvements for bufferbloat issue and it would stabilize the current latency issues. They're not ignoring it completely.
If we do what you suggest, we'd be stuck at 10mbps for a long time and instead, we're getting 100mbps bandwidth that does work for your typical usage of netflix, gaming, and so on in a family household. There's a limit we'll reach very soon where no one will care about more bandwidth but they will want rather stability/latency improvements. Data caps is the next biggest issue.
A lot of execs from DOCSIS community agrees that 3.1 is the last upgrade to DOCSIS standard and the next replacement would be a Fiber-based one, which will take a few decades to even figure out. I rather have DOCSIS 3.1 now and not in 10 years because you think we should not do this.
Our US congress had the chance to fix this back in 1990s and they screwed up with enforcing it properly. We could've had a better pure fiber-based national build out but it didn't work out.
- snorrah 11y ago"Our US congress had the chance to fix this back in 1990s and they screwed up with enforcing it properly. We could've had a better pure fiber-based national build out but it didn't work out." Sounds a little similar to what happened in the UK, iirc. British Telecom wanted to do a full fibre deployment but the government upheld complaints of it being anti competitive, and now we have to endure copper *DSL being the default national broadband option and all the pitfalls that entails.
- datashovel 11y ago"Our US congress had the chance to fix this back in 1990s and they screwed up with enforcing it properly. We could've had a better pure fiber-based national build out but it didn't work out." I'm not familiar enough with the industry to have an opinion on this, but it sounds very odd that a private corporation is so tied to government that it can't innovate on its own? How does this work? And how did it end up like this? I guess what I'm after is an ELI5 on this last part of your comment :)
- rayiner 11y agoNationwide private deployment of fiber within the required parameters (i.e. universal service, network neutrality) is impossible without government intervention. The cost is simply too high and the created value is too hard to monetize.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Zigurd 11y agoGoogle Fiber?
- rayiner 11y agoGoogle Fiber doesn't deploy in any city that imposes build-out requirements, which compromises the universal service constraint. Build out requirements are also why my building and a couple of others have FIOS but nobody else does here in Baltimore. Verizon tried to build it, but the city wouldn't let it pick and choose which neighborhoods. Google has also stated that Fiber is a way to shame ISP's into building fiber. It's not clear that an independent company that didn't have synergestic internet businesses would undertake the same capital investment.
- Zigurd 11y agoNearly every SP has made investments in "synergistic internet businesses." They appear to expect to extract the benefits of vertical integration in those businesses without making Google's investment in access. Also, Google has announced the intention to bring Google Fiber to several major cities. It's not a demo, or hobby, anymore.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- mikhailt 11y ago