Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei > wrote: > > 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.

Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

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

Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 10:43 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei > wrote: > > Also, have cablecos with such limits for upstream begun to upgrade the > cable plant to increase the upstream bandwidth ? Canadian cablecos have > told the regulator it would be prohibitively

Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

In our small, aging plant very near the Mexican border in south Texas, the SNR for <~30MHz is ~20 dB so we can only use two upstream channels. It works okay for our 150 cable modem customers. They can get 40 Mbps upstream throughput. The downstream channels are around 300MHz with much better

Re: DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: > Canadian cable carriers seem to have all told the CRTC they can only > carry 42mhz in the upstream because their amplifiers and nodes only > amplify that narrow band in the upstream direction. > > Is/was 42mhz common across north america ? 42MHz was the traditional

DOCSIS 3.1 upstream

Canadian cable carriers seem to have all told the CRTC they can only carry 42mhz in the upstream because their amplifiers and nodes only amplify that narrow band in the upstream direction. Is/was 42mhz common across north america ? In a typical installation, how much of the 42mhz is actually