[heroprotagonist]

Last I knew, they still needed to finish working with their counterpart monopoly on their collaborative new Xumo device and get all the systems lined up to use it.

Then they need to kick the little old grandma's still watching traditional cable off their network and set them up on a new Xumo streaming box instead. Then they drop the old video channels and use their frequencies to provide faster service on the same old copper wires.

[martinald]

Not sure this is right. DOCSIS4.0 (which I think is what you are referring to?) doesn't require TV channels to be moved off plus it can coexist with existing DOCSIS3.0/3.1 (I think the plan is to actually bond 3.0, 3.1 and 4.0 channels together - much like how most 3.1 rollouts actually are majority 3.0 channels for BC purposes).

DOCSIS4.0 does use higher frequencies though and this requires a lot of additional work to upgrade the infra to support this.

I think what Comcast is calling '10G' is the fact you can now order a totally new FTTH run which doesn't use coax instead.

Tbh it's a confused strategy. If you're going to offer XGS-PON to everyone, why bother with DOCSIS4.0? It doesn't really make sense to run fibre runs just to one customer, you could probably do a whole street in not much more time.

[Alupis]

I don't know how coax internet works, or how the channel allocations work, but it seems to me if they can offer 2Gbps/200Mbps already why can't we opt for a channel reallocation and get like 1Gbps symmetrical, or at least 1Gbps/500Mbps or something?

I do understand the legacy channel allocations were designed for almost entirely download - but 2Gbps? That can't be...

[I_Am_Nous]

The way those cable modem systems work is essentially laying a data channel (usually several) on top of the existing coaxial cable network, similar to DSL laying data on top of the existing telephone network. However this means the cards which transmit and receive are still very much analog beasts, pumping out some incredible signal levels to as far as possible. Similar to DSL, the download centric focus is built into the design. Also, your small modem can't scream nearly as loud as the downstream signal can so some signal loss is more likely, limiting the upload channels. Finally a cable modem network is usually quite shared, with something like 8 transmission lines feeding entire neighborhoods or cities. Depending on node congestion you may not even get your advertised speeds. At least with DSL your line is basically dedicated to you lol

[lotsofpulp]

> I don't know how coax internet works, or how the channel allocations work, but it seems to me if they can offer 2Gbps/200Mbps already why can't we opt for a channel reallocation and get like 1Gbps symmetrical, or at least 1Gbps/500Mbps or something?

Because they cannot actually offer it, it is all marketing bullshit.

Always assume coaxial upload bandwidth is slim to none. They probably just advertise a burst speed you get for 5 seconds. If it is not symmetrical, it is not real in my mind.

[trogdor]

How do burst speeds work? What is happening when you get, like, 10X faster upstream speed - for an instant - and then it drops back to its normal crawl?

[lotsofpulp]

I assume they take it from the neighbors, which is why you never see coaxial cable internet providers advertise upload bandwidth. They only ever state download, and even then, those are also burst speeds, so you assume if you buy 100Mbps down from coaxial you only get 50Mbps or less sustained.

Because they are heavily oversubscribed and don’t want to invest in fiber infrastructure to increase capacity.