scroll down...

"Plunkett, Dennis" wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul B. Webster VK2BZC [SMTP:paulb@MIDCOAST.COM.AU]
> > Sent: Monday, 22 May 2000 13:59
> > To:   PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Subject:      Re: An idea for faster upstream rates[OT]
> >
> > John te Lintelo wrote:
> > > Nope, both Telstra and Optus cable are bi-directional with a faster
> > > downlink than uplink.  The only net connection I've heard of that
> > > required a separate phone call for uplink is satellite.
> >
> >   How much faster?  I'm really suspicious of the deployment here (By the
> > way, I'm in the country, so we've only got Austel - and not that I have
> > Austel as high-speed Internet would be the only reason I'd pay for
> > satellite and I can't offhand think of any high-speed program content on
> > the Internet that I need that desperately).
> >

I have Optus cable which runs under the '@Home' brandname, which I think is very
big in the US, and probably has the same sort of performance we get here.  My
download rate has been as high as 384kbyte/s within Australia, and as good as
100kbyte/s from the US (but rarely worse than about 14kbyte/s).

The upload rate is capped to 16kbyte/s to ensure 'reasonable quality of
service'.  Really I think it is so we can't make ftp sites etc.

There is no telephone line required for any of this, all thru the cable.

>
> >   For example just how *much* of the cable currently deployed has back-
> > channel capability at all?  I understood that most didn't since that

All of it?

>
> > makes it *much* more expensive.  Back-channel must mean fibre
> > duplication, mustn't it?  And both Internet streaming and even more so,
> > view-on-demand must require substantial forward channel allocation in
> > the first place.
> >

>      OPTUS don't use fibre, just plain old coax! The back channel is a
> multiplexed / mulitdrop cable to each and every household. Ever wondered why

Coax seems to be doing an excellent job!  I am sure that adding 'backchannel
capability' is still cheaper than using fibre.

If your interested, the 'Work Order From' they left has this information:
RF Levels
NIU/STU 95.25MHz = 10.9, 471.25MHz = 9.3, 555.25MHz=-6.9, 744.25=4.2
Anyone know what that means?

Also, the DNS says my hub is in Belrose (sydney) and I am in Killara (sydney),
so I wonder how many people are sharing my coax?

>
> the local network has not taken off. If I recall there was a problem with
> the possiblity of getting dial tone due to ...

If they had given me 6 billion dollars to build a cable network, I bet *I* could
have got dial tone!

>
>         Yes the cost to transmit at a high rate is born on the householder,
> but the telephone companies don't want you to have any chance of actually
> ontaining and monitoring the ongoing data (Humm.. this can be done on the
> current network)
>
> >   Seems to me that a simple, global forward pre-programmed network is
> > dead easy and cheap, you have only one main central program server.
> >
>         Yes it is and you don't have to worry about clock synchronisation
> over the network
>
> >   Once you start adding separate program streams to serve sub-areas, you
> > need sub-servers, and you may also need the back-channel servers and
> > overall, it requires *much* more infrastructure.  How much of that do
> > we have here at this point in time?
> > --

640kB should be enough for anyone! hehehe ;P

>
> >   Cheers,
> >         Paul B.
> >
> >
>         Dennis