nanog mailing list archives
Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream
From: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog () vaxination ca>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:12:14 -0400
On 2016-04-20 13:09, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Going to D3.1 in a meaningful way means migrating to either a mid-split at 85 MHz or a high split at 200 MHz
Thanks. This is what I expected. But in the past, the canadian cablecos had argued that removing the 42mhz upstream limitation was a huge endeavour (they have to convicne CRTC to keep wholesale rates up, so create artificial scarcity by claiming that replacing all those 42mhz repeaters would cost a fortune, so they have to do node splits instead. Arguing at CRTC is all about finding out what incumbent statements are just spin and which are true. Thanks for the links as well.é
RFoG is its own kettle of fish. Getting more than one channel on upstream for RFoG is hard.
But they can allocate a single very big channel, right ? Or did you mean a single traditional NTSC 6mhz channel ?
Current thread:
- DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 14)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Nick Hilliard (Apr 15)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Lorell Hathcock (Apr 15)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Rob Seastrom (Apr 20)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 20)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Rob Seastrom (Apr 21)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 20)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream Nick Hilliard (Apr 15)