Breaking News
Blog

DOCSIS 3.1: Coping With Design Gotchas Before Rollout

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
jackOfManyTrades
User Rank
Author
Re: This needs to be explained rather than just stated
jackOfManyTrades   10/2/2013 3:10:11 AM
NO RATINGS
I guess it would. I don't know why DOCSIS 3.1 uses OFDM. DVB-C2 does, too. It may be that it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the a other and as a lot of other systems use OFDM these days, it's easier to design a similar system. eg DVB-T2 (and T) uses OFDM; DVB-C is single carrier, but DVB-C2 is OFDM and very similar to DVB-T2. It makes designing a chip to do both easier and cheaper.

Bert22306
User Rank
Author
Re: This needs to be explained rather than just stated
Bert22306   10/1/2013 3:31:58 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, that would make sense. In which case, though, the same would apply to using LDPC FEC with single-carrier QAM.

jackOfManyTrades
User Rank
Author
Re: This needs to be explained rather than just stated
jackOfManyTrades   10/1/2013 3:23:50 AM
NO RATINGS
I think the key phrase is "and other coding techniques". DOCSIS 3.1 uses an LDPC FEC, which makes it possible to use 4096-QAM. There's your 50% increase in capacity.

Bert22306
User Rank
Author
This needs to be explained rather than just stated
Bert22306   9/27/2013 4:36:29 PM
NO RATINGS
"The addition of OFDM modulation and other coding techniques results in a 50 percent increase in throughput versus QAM channels across an equivalent bandwidth."

Is this only because the guard bands between 6 MHz channels can be slightly narrower?

Use of OFDM is only really called for in environments with a lot of multipath interference. Are they having multipath problems in cable systems? Otherwise, a single carrier scheme like QAM should give measurably lower levels of threshold SNR, so I don't see this unqualified statement that OFDM is desirable in cable systems as a slam dunk. Sounds like another tradeoff that needs to be mentioned, at least in passing.

LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Upstream vs. downstream
LarryM99   9/27/2013 3:18:00 PM
NO RATINGS
Jim, it looks like there is a significant increase in upstream bandwidth and a smaller increase in downstream. Am I reading that correctly? Does that indicate a departure from the assumption that most traffic goes to the cable customers instead of from them?

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed