Cable service up/download imbalance complaint

[azazel1024]

What the heck is with Cable Cos and the horrible imbalance. I know most people are heavy on the download side compared to upload, but I thought things like 6-10:1 was bad, 20:1? Jesus.

On an interesting side note (now need to locate link) I found an interesting test on the performance of Wifi and resistance to Doppler shift (IE using Wifi when client and base station are in motion relative to each other). In part because some guy claimed somewhere that Wifi doesn't work at speeds above 55mph.

The University group tested it at speeds up to 120km/h (75mph for those of us in the states). They found very small reductions in performance on the order of less than 10% performance impact testing 802.11g. Since 11g uses 64QAM, that also means similar impacts should be seen on 11n, if possibly less since it may be a little more resistance to frequency shift. 256QAM might cause more problems as the increased character set would reduce tolerance for frequency shift screwing up the Orthagonality of the characters.

Not that I think it matters too much. You'd have to have one heck of a special Wifi setup where you are not in and out of range, even using 2.4GHz and bridges, at something like 30+MPH let alone 75MPH for the stability and performance of the connection to matter.

 

[RMerlin]

What the heck is with Cable Cos and the horrible imbalance. I know most people are heavy on the download side compared to upload, but I thought things like 6-10:1 was bad, 20:1? Jesus.

Poor network planning might explain it. They could lack the necessary free QAM channels to provide the necessary uplink bandwidth.

A few years ago, I remember one local cable co was so bad, that I did the maths, and to saturate their downlink, you had to saturate your uplink with ACK packets. That's how bad it was... Since then, they've greatly improved. I currently have a 3:1 ratio on my connection with them.

 

[System Error Message]

Poor network planning might explain it. They could lack the necessary free QAM channels to provide the necessary uplink bandwidth.

A few years ago, I remember one local cable co was so bad, that I did the maths, and to saturate their downlink, you had to saturate your uplink with ACK packets. That's how bad it was... Since then, they've greatly improved. I currently have a 3:1 ratio on my connection with them.

In the UK BT is the only line that has improved ratios but its still bad at 4:1. Every other company that isnt on BT's line use either 10:1 or 20:1. Virgin media for example will have 20:1 speeds even though they claim 10:1.

I just dont get why they restrict uploads when even for myself i find my uploads almost as much as downloads. Things now are more connected that you could expect to have your own file/media server and use them remotely using your phone for example. Rarely do i even use a thumbdrive anymore.

It used to be that the imbalance was caused because you had less powerful transmitters than your ISP so your upload speed on DSL for example is lower. Cable has been boasting their speeds but in truth is still low because it is shared among a large number of people and has the same issue about transmitters but shouldnt be as bad as DSL.

In the UK ISPs that use BT Lines and VDSL with FTTC get the 4:1 ratio because it is still DSL to the cabinet.

 

[azazel1024]

Yeah, I still don't get it. I realize it could be a lack of channels, but it is (relatively) easy for the Cable Company to simply reallocate channels so more are used for upload and fewer for download. 1:1 is of course ideal, but even 2:1 or 3:1 is fine for most people, but 10:1 is bad and 20:1 is just unworkable. 20:1 basically the entire upload bandwidth would be consumed by ACKs just to saturate the download bandwidth and even 10:1 doesn't leave much spare upload bandwidth if you are maxing your download.

 

[System Error Message]

Yeah, I still don't get it. I realize it could be a lack of channels, but it is (relatively) easy for the Cable Company to simply reallocate channels so more are used for upload and fewer for download. 1:1 is of course ideal, but even 2:1 or 3:1 is fine for most people, but 10:1 is bad and 20:1 is just unworkable. 20:1 basically the entire upload bandwidth would be consumed by ACKs just to saturate the download bandwidth and even 10:1 doesn't leave much spare upload bandwidth if you are maxing your download.

You should tell that to the UK. If it werent for VDSL you'd get 10:1 everywhere else even if you did have a fibre optic line to your house or an ethernet port on the wall in an apartment that has fibre optics to it.

 

[sfx2000]

The 10:1 ratio over Cable seems to be the norm - I'm 50:5 (solid at that), but it would be nice to have more uplink.

It's not a technology limit, it's a business limit, at least here in the US - interestingly enough, markets where Google Fiber has deployed, the limits seem to open up for the incumbent providers to compete...

 

[System Error Message]

The 10:1 ratio over Cable seems to be the norm - I'm 50:5 (solid at that), but it would be nice to have more uplink.

It's not a technology limit, it's a business limit, at least here in the US - interestingly enough, markets where Google Fiber has deployed, the limits seem to open up for the incumbent providers to compete...

Yeah they need to realise that higher uploads wont hurt their business but promote more local content instead of international usage. More local sharing in terms of files, media, having your own stuff. More people now have their own NAS or file servers, media servers, backups, cloud/online storage. Many games have resorted to using p2p since it means they dont have to host their own servers, only need to have a lobby which is very very cheap for hardware requirements. GTA 5 and space engineers are a prime example of this where poor upload speeds affect gameplay to others. A lot of people now create their own content, backing up online, making and uploading videos, streaming all of which require online. Many cloud storages even on NAS do require upload to work.