4 ms·

I don't understand why cable connections are so bad when there is DOCSIS 3.1. Is it that the cable provider just has such a limited link on their end that peopl

I don't understand why cable connections are so bad when there is DOCSIS 3.1. Is it that the cable provider just has such a limited link on their end that people are getting speeds sub 100mbit? Are they vastly over provisioning their networks?

geerlingguy 5y ago
In my case, Spectrum has decided that they want a flashy "gigabit tier", so they provision everything as download bandwidth (940 Mbps), and then only assign 35 Mbps upload. I'd pay extra for business class service, but it doesn't even help, it's the same speed just with some more guarantees and a stable IP.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  It's the same in my area. I have 200/10 now for about $78 month. I don't need more than 100 Mbps down under any circumstance. I would pay nearly $200/month to get on the 940/30 plan here. I don't really feel like paying more than double to get internet that is still painfully slow. Also the DOCSIS network in my area is such low quality it isn't reliable anyways.
  - geerlingguy 5y ago
    Yeah ever since the pandemic started, speeds average closer to 700 Mbps down (which is still about 3x more than I've ever really needed...). I would gladly pay the same amount for like 100 down/100 up, but then Spectrum couldn't call their service "Gigafast".
- Stephen304 5y ago
  Upload speed shenanigans is what pushed me to pursue Comcast's "business tier" gigabit pro fiber and the last 3 or so years have been pure bliss. Unfortunately it's limited to locations right around the corner from fiber so yet another reason I might live in the same place forever, or at least until cheap symmetric 5 gig or more starts becoming the norm.
- SkyPuncher 5y ago
  This is ultimately what drove me away from Spectrum (along with some absolutely piss poor routing that introduced massive lag). $95/month for 400/20. I don't need all of that download bandwidth, but I could use a bit more upload bandwidth.
- somehnguy 5y ago
  This is why when I found out Fios was available in my area I immediately called. I paid for the highest consumer tier of Spectrum available in my area but the upload speeds were still capped to awful levels (20mbit, at max). I'm not actually getting the symmetrical 1gb/s I pay for with Fios either, but it is worlds better than anything Spectrum would offer me.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  Starlink does much the same, no? The median Starlink upload appears to be 14Mbit/sec, per Ookla/Speedtest.
spaniard89277 5y ago
HFC is a mess. It's not worth it to keep improving it. Here in Spain HFC providers are rushing to lay fiber because it's not only more competitive for real speeds, but because maintinance is much easier and cheaper. The savings come in the form of real state, the "last mile" widens a lot, many of the elements of the network are passive so you save up energy too, and you can cram up much more people/€ spent.
jcrawfordor 5y ago
There's a few factors, all of which are in some level of change right now. 1) Cable providers in major markets (urban ones) are offering gbps service and often slightly faster (1.2gbps) now, at rates that I would say aren't great but are not terrible, in my case about $100 a month. Unfortunately that gigabit is downstream only. So high DOCSIS speeds are happening, just not as universally as you'd hope. 2) One of our biggest cable giants, Comcast, has a legacy channel planning problem related to the older Motorola STBs guide and on-demand delivery that prevents them reallocating additional channels to DOCSIS 3.1 upstream for the time being (those channels are in use by the Motorola STBs which don't support anything else). This results in a hard 35mbps upstream limit for most Comcast customers. Unfortunately the route to fixing this is to replace all of the older STBs, which Comcast is slowly doing but this requires getting customers to turn in their old one and pick up a new one... you can imagine how hard it is to get everyone to do this, even offering incentives. 3) DOCSIS 3.1 can achieve gbps+ speeds over an admirably long range but not for a very high customer count. So cable providers are transitioning their HFC network over time to a "node+0" architecture that resembles DSL with serving area DSLAMs... basically they are eliminating distribution amplifiers from the cable network and replacing them with compact field nodes (CMTS and head end) using fiber uplink. This essentially becomes a "fiber to the curb" architecture with cable last mile (more like last thousand feet in urban areas). It needs to be done mainly to reduce the number of customers on each CMTS to reduce contention, and sort of as a requirement for full performance of the DOCSIS 3.1 high speed upstream channels, but as you can imagine this large-scale change to outdoor plant is expensive and time-consuming, although it seems largely complete in a lot of cities. 4) As you get customers on very fast service plans backhaul at the node becomes a problem. This is mostly being addressed through installing new fiber backhaul routes for the new nodes, but in more suburban areas can be a big limitation. 5) All the TV on the cable takes up a lot of bandwidth and makes channel planning more difficult even with the abstraction in STBs. This is why major cable providers are starting to shift towards an IP-only "over the top" architecture where they deliver IPTV over DOCSIS instead of "real" cable television. This will help but once again requires all new STBs.

geerlingguy 5y ago

In my case, Spectrum has decided that they want a flashy "gigabit tier", so they provision everything as download bandwidth (940 Mbps), and then only assign 35 Mbps upload. I'd pay extra for business class service, but it doesn't even help, it's the same speed just with some more guarantees and a stable IP.

sidewndr46 5y ago
It's the same in my area. I have 200/10 now for about $78 month. I don't need more than 100 Mbps down under any circumstance. I would pay nearly $200/month to get on the 940/30 plan here. I don't really feel like paying more than double to get internet that is still painfully slow. Also the DOCSIS network in my area is such low quality it isn't reliable anyways.
- geerlingguy 5y ago
  Yeah ever since the pandemic started, speeds average closer to 700 Mbps down (which is still about 3x more than I've ever really needed...). I would gladly pay the same amount for like 100 down/100 up, but then Spectrum couldn't call their service "Gigafast".
Stephen304 5y ago
Upload speed shenanigans is what pushed me to pursue Comcast's "business tier" gigabit pro fiber and the last 3 or so years have been pure bliss. Unfortunately it's limited to locations right around the corner from fiber so yet another reason I might live in the same place forever, or at least until cheap symmetric 5 gig or more starts becoming the norm.
SkyPuncher 5y ago
This is ultimately what drove me away from Spectrum (along with some absolutely piss poor routing that introduced massive lag). $95/month for 400/20. I don't need all of that download bandwidth, but I could use a bit more upload bandwidth.
somehnguy 5y ago
This is why when I found out Fios was available in my area I immediately called. I paid for the highest consumer tier of Spectrum available in my area but the upload speeds were still capped to awful levels (20mbit, at max). I'm not actually getting the symmetrical 1gb/s I pay for with Fios either, but it is worlds better than anything Spectrum would offer me.
rsynnott 5y ago
Starlink does much the same, no? The median Starlink upload appears to be 14Mbit/sec, per Ookla/Speedtest.

spaniard89277 5y ago

HFC is a mess. It's not worth it to keep improving it. Here in Spain HFC providers are rushing to lay fiber because it's not only more competitive for real speeds, but because maintinance is much easier and cheaper. The savings come in the form of real state, the "last mile" widens a lot, many of the elements of the network are passive so you save up energy too, and you can cram up much more people/€ spent.

jcrawfordor 5y ago

There's a few factors, all of which are in some level of change right now. 1) Cable providers in major markets (urban ones) are offering gbps service and often slightly faster (1.2gbps) now, at rates that I would say aren't great but are not terrible, in my case about $100 a month. Unfortunately that gigabit is downstream only. So high DOCSIS speeds are happening, just not as universally as you'd hope. 2) One of our biggest cable giants, Comcast, has a legacy channel planning problem related to the older Motorola STBs guide and on-demand delivery that prevents them reallocating additional channels to DOCSIS 3.1 upstream for the time being (those channels are in use by the Motorola STBs which don't support anything else). This results in a hard 35mbps upstream limit for most Comcast customers. Unfortunately the route to fixing this is to replace all of the older STBs, which Comcast is slowly doing but this requires getting customers to turn in their old one and pick up a new one... you can imagine how hard it is to get everyone to do this, even offering incentives. 3) DOCSIS 3.1 can achieve gbps+ speeds over an admirably long range but not for a very high customer count. So cable providers are transitioning their HFC network over time to a "node+0" architecture that resembles DSL with serving area DSLAMs... basically they are eliminating distribution amplifiers from the cable network and replacing them with compact field nodes (CMTS and head end) using fiber uplink. This essentially becomes a "fiber to the curb" architecture with cable last mile (more like last thousand feet in urban areas). It needs to be done mainly to reduce the number of customers on each CMTS to reduce contention, and sort of as a requirement for full performance of the DOCSIS 3.1 high speed upstream channels, but as you can imagine this large-scale change to outdoor plant is expensive and time-consuming, although it seems largely complete in a lot of cities. 4) As you get customers on very fast service plans backhaul at the node becomes a problem. This is mostly being addressed through installing new fiber backhaul routes for the new nodes, but in more suburban areas can be a big limitation. 5) All the TV on the cable takes up a lot of bandwidth and makes channel planning more difficult even with the abstraction in STBs. This is why major cable providers are starting to shift towards an IP-only "over the top" architecture where they deliver IPTV over DOCSIS instead of "real" cable television. This will help but once again requires all new STBs.