 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to NetAdmin1
Re: 38 Mbps x 8 said by NetAdmin1:FiOS uses a completely separate lamba, or wavelength, of TV service. Or for those on this forum who are technically challenged to various terms, they can add more colors of light to their fiber, each color running at capacity. So I could run TV on blue, Internet on red and Voice on green. If I want more TV capacity I could add orange, yellow and violet. Of course the granularity is much greater than this but the concept is the same. Fiber has much more growth potential.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
| said by n2jtx:Or for those on this forum who are technically challenged to various terms, they can add more colors of light to their fiber, each color running at capacity. So I could run TV on blue, Internet on red and Voice on green. If I want more TV capacity I could add orange, yellow and violet. Of course the granularity is much greater than this but the concept is the same. Fiber has much more growth potential. You should know about techncially challened. Doesn't sound like they covered a lot of theory in the technician test... *snicker*
Colors are simply different frequencies. RF or light, it's still the same concept.
There is equipment available today to push cable to 3GHz, which is triple the bandwidth it has today. This is more than enough to offer what FiOS can offer. |
|
| Your argument has a few flaws.
1)If cable can switch to a 1 GHZ plant, then couldn't Verizon do the same thing? Also that 1 GHZ plant would ride entirely on the 1550nm video light stream right? That means the 1310 and 1490 still dedicated to voice and data correct? So Verizon still wins. (Same applies to 3GHZ)
2)DWDM = Dense wavelength division multiplexing. Verizon can fit a lot more wavelengths of light onto the fiber but currently it is cost prohibitive to do so in a residential/consumer application, but if consumer demand requires such a route, the fiber has a lot more capacity left in it.
3)If cable were to split their nodes down to 32 subscribers like Verizon has with their FiOS, then why not just go fiber to the home, it couldn't really be that much more expensive right?
4)Doing the math on a 3GHz cable plant with 38 Mbps per channel yields a theoretical max speed of 19Gbps using the entire bandwidth for ip/data (correct me if my math is wrong) Meanwhile Verizon has posted successful trials of 100 Gbps on fiber already.
5)Cable attenuates faster than fiber especially when you get into the higher frequency ranges.
6)In the real world (not lab tests) fiber will work better than coax.
Btw, I do agree however that cable has plenty of legroom left for the needs/demands of today's consumer. But it will never have the same capacity as fiber. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by waiting4fios:Meanwhile Verizon has posted successful trials of 100 Gbps on fiber already. That was a long distance backhaul, not to the customer premise. Comcast and Time Warner have successfully trialed the same thing over fiber. |
|
| reply to waiting4fios
said by waiting4fios:Your argument has a few flaws. 1)If cable can switch to a 1 GHZ plant, then couldn't Verizon do the same thing?
Theoretically they can. What's your point? quote:
Also that 1 GHZ plant would ride entirely on the 1550nm video light stream right? That means the 1310 and 1490 still dedicated to voice and data correct? So Verizon still wins. (Same applies to 3GHZ)
Voice and data are a still very small portion of the cable spectrum used for the last mile. quote:
2)DWDM = Dense wavelength division multiplexing. Verizon can fit a lot more wavelengths of light onto the fiber but currently it is cost prohibitive to do so in a residential/consumer application, but if consumer demand requires such a route, the fiber has a lot more capacity left in it.
As we've seen, consumer demand drives nothing, at least in America. You aren't going to see what FTTH is fully capable of, at least not within the next 10 years. Verizon will have to get a return on its initial FiOS deployment first. quote:
3)If cable were to split their nodes down to 32 subscribers like Verizon has with their FiOS, then why not just go fiber to the home, it couldn't really be that much more expensive right?
The infrastructure for last mile coax with 32 subscribers each is pretty much there. They probably won't even need a truck roll for most subscribers. It would be transparent and not an 8 hour install for most subscribers. Less cost per subscriber to deploy. quote:
4)Doing the math on a 3GHz cable plant with 38 Mbps per channel yields a theoretical max speed of 19Gbps using the entire bandwidth for ip/data (correct me if my math is wrong) Meanwhile Verizon has posted successful trials of 100 Gbps on fiber already.
Safe to say, you're not going to see 100GBps for a residential internet connection anytime soon, at least not in America. Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware. quote:
5)Cable attenuates faster than fiber especially when you get into the higher frequency ranges.
Smaller nodes will overcome this. quote:
6)In the real world (not lab tests) fiber will work better than coax.
I never denied that. quote:
Btw, I do agree however that cable has plenty of legroom left for the needs/demands of today's consumer. But it will never have the same capacity as fiber.
True. But as we can plainly see, the FiOS fanboys on DSLR just LOVE to play "my provider can beat up your provider." |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | "Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 Ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware."
I do not know what you have been smoking but 100 meg Ethernet is only 12.5megabytes/s most current hard drives are capable of sustained 70megabytes/s with many of the newer(non scsi) drives breaking 100. The vast majority of new computers come with GigE(125Megabytes/s) with a lot of them coming with dual GigE connections. I run both Linux and windows(only when I have to) and have both doing 70megabyte/s transfers without doing anything special. You should also be aware that the vast majority of new machines come with Raid chipsets and that a significant portion of the population is using them( two 70MB/s drives in a Raid0 array will match GigE). Todays desktop hardware is very much capable of handling even GigE speeds. |
|
| You are still NOT going to see gigabit to the home speed in America anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. |
|
| reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:There is equipment available today to push cable to 3GHz, which is triple the bandwidth it has today. This is more than enough to offer what FiOS can offer. Here's the problem with that... There is no equipment that supports 3Ghz HFC yet. And for the foreseeable future, there won't be. If you are talking about Vyyo (or another vendor), their equipment is proprietary, which is a huge barrier to wide scale deployment. Not to mention all the plant work that needs to be done to get it 3Ghz capable.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
1 edit | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:The infrastructure for last mile coax with 32 subscribers each is pretty much there. Name one provider that is close to having node densities of 32 homes? The average node size is about 500 homes/node.
»www.networks2008.org/data/upload···agen.pdf
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
 Jafo232You Can't Spell Democrat Without Rat.Premium
join:2002-10-17
Boonville, NY | reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:"Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 Ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware." I do not know what you have been smoking but 100 meg Ethernet is only 12.5megabytes/s most current hard drives are capable of sustained 70megabytes/s with many of the newer(non scsi) drives breaking 100. The vast majority of new computers come with GigE(125Megabytes/s) with a lot of them coming with dual GigE connections. I run both Linux and windows(only when I have to) and have both doing 70megabyte/s transfers without doing anything special. You should also be aware that the vast majority of new machines come with Raid chipsets and that a significant portion of the population is using them( two 70MB/s drives in a Raid0 array will match GigE). Todays desktop hardware is very much capable of handling even GigE speeds. Your argument is partly true. However, do not forget to consider that most homes now have more than one appliance using the Net.
My home may not be average when it comes to net usage, but I have 8 appliances connected to the home. If I hooked everything up, it would be 10. I can download movies via my DTV on demand, or get them via the xbox 360. Each member has their own laptop, one appliance basically plays music all day, and then there is my office with it's servers and a desktop.
I honestly can see a use for much larger bandwidth TODAY, much less what I will probably need 10 years from now.
--
Custom PHP/Perl Development. Vbulletin And Wordpress Mods Too! |
|
| reply to fifty nine
Youre the cable fanboy trying to convince yourself.. and others .. that coax is just good as FTTP.
Tell that to the thousands of people out there having internet slowdowns during peak hours.
LOL |
|
| reply to Lazlow
he said 100 MB not 100mb. So 100MB= 100 MEGABYTES. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
1 edit | Frustrated
If you go back and read the thread you will see that he was replying to 100Mbps and Gbps. The natural assumption would be that his use of MB and GB in his reply was a typo(confirmed by his use in the later reply of gigabit). If it is not, then his initial reply is irrelevant anyway. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to Jafo232
Jafo
I assume you are replying to the quote of EatMe and not to me. My point was the todays desktops are more than capable of handling even GigE speeds, so we can handle (in house) much more bandwidth than the ISPs provide. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | reply to Lazlow
Most older onboard/offboard GigE solutions used the PCI bus, and topped out between 400-600mbit/s.
This hasn't been a problem for onboard chipsets for quite some time, nor is it a problem for modern PCIe network cards. PCIe 1.0 1x provides 250MB/s of aggregate bandwidth after overhead, so you'd have to saturate your NIC in both directions to consume all the bandwidth.
PCIe 2.0 (which has been shipping for some time now) of course doubles that to 500MB/s per lane (and PCIe 3.0 doubles it again), but I've not heard of anything but graphics cards that support it to date; anything that needs more than 250MB/s just uses a 4x slot (rare on desktops, more common in workstations and servers), which currently provides 1-2 GB/s of bandwidth (depending on version). |
|
| reply to Lazlow
said by Lazlow:That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. The hardware and software combo is. Most people are using Windows, and with a gigE adapter on a PCIe bus, Windows barely passes 100MBps.
Maybe if more people used Mac or Linux, but their numbers are still small. |
|
| reply to Jafo232
said by Jafo232:said by Lazlow:"Today's computers would be lucky if they could even use 100 MBps of bandwidth. Most computers still come with 10/100 Ethernet adapters, and most gigabit adapters don't even achieve half of gigabit speed under Windows (or Linux for that matter) with desktop hardware." I do not know what you have been smoking but 100 meg Ethernet is only 12.5megabytes/s most current hard drives are capable of sustained 70megabytes/s with many of the newer(non scsi) drives breaking 100. The vast majority of new computers come with GigE(125Megabytes/s) with a lot of them coming with dual GigE connections. I run both Linux and windows(only when I have to) and have both doing 70megabyte/s transfers without doing anything special. You should also be aware that the vast majority of new machines come with Raid chipsets and that a significant portion of the population is using them( two 70MB/s drives in a Raid0 array will match GigE). Todays desktop hardware is very much capable of handling even GigE speeds. Your argument is partly true. However, do not forget to consider that most homes now have more than one appliance using the Net. My home may not be average when it comes to net usage, but I have 8 appliances connected to the home. If I hooked everything up, it would be 10. I can download movies via my DTV on demand, or get them via the xbox 360. Each member has their own laptop, one appliance basically plays music all day, and then there is my office with it's servers and a desktop. I honestly can see a use for much larger bandwidth TODAY, much less what I will probably need 10 years from now. I actually have a lot of things hooked up to my internet connection too. I have a couple of TiVos (the genuine ones, not the knockoffs), game consoles (Wii and XBOX360), Vonage, BD-Live player and slingbox. Even when I was on 10MBps I was able to use everything with no problem. Online gaming? No problem. Slingbox? No problem. Netflix HD on TiVo or XBOX360? No problem either. I've used some of these simultaneously while my better half was on her computer using her work's VPN.
In fact my whole house is wired with Cat6, from the basement to the attic. 30 ports total with a 48 port GigE switch in the basement. The firewall I use is my old P4 machine with pfSense.
I still barely use a 30 meg connection. A GigE connection would still be hardly used.
In fact, let's go even further. At work I manage a small server farm, roughly 150 servers. At the firewall, total usage up/down barely reaches 300MBps. We have 2GBps fiber from the server room to the internet. The vast majority of my servers are internet facing and serve public internet customers. Some through a caching service, but some directly. Some of the traffic is video, some html and static images. I'm even serving HD video now. Currently we're doing around 300MBps outbound, and 100 inbound.
So even if commercial users don't use a full gig, why would home users? |
|
| reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:Youre the cable fanboy trying to convince yourself.. and others .. that coax is just good as FTTP. Tell that to the thousands of people out there having internet slowdowns during peak hours. LOL I never said that coax is as good as FTTP. I am saying that they can offer what Verizon is offering today and well into the future with no big infrastructure outlay.
To that, the FiOS fanboys like to crow "no!!! cable sux! FiOS rules!" |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | reply to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by Lazlow:That may very well be, but do not try to use the hardware(user's) as an excuse for not providing it. The hardware and software combo is. Most people are using Windows, and with a gigE adapter on a PCIe bus, Windows barely passes 100MBps. Maybe if more people used Mac or Linux, but their numbers are still small. Do you mean 100Mbps? I assure you, a Linux nor Mac desktop will pull over 800Mbps (100MBps) on the same hardware as Windows.
Aside from that, Mac or Linux is no more capable than Windows and you will not see a significant throughput advantage. I see about 500Mbps to my little dinky Windows Home Server with a Celeron Dual Core and standard SATA 1st gen hard drives. I can pull from the server close to that as well on my Vista desktop and over 300Mbps to my laptop. My Linux (CentOS) desktop has slightly lower performance than my Windows machines.
My Dell 2950 servers with 15k RAID-10 SAS arrays can push close to what you're talking about, but even then a single server can't saturate a 1Gbps link ... and I have Linux and Windows servers on the same hardware.
Irregardless of all that off-topic nonsense the vast majority of people at home still run 802.11b or 802.11g and until they upgrade to something faster, will never see more than 11Mbps-15Mbps anyway.
To add to the overall thread, regardless of what AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner would have you believe, there is no bandwidth apocalypse and Cable is not in trouble any time soon. FiOS serves a VERY SMALL portion of the Northeast and tiny areas scattered elsewhere. People seem to forget Time Warner and Comcast are more worried about AT&T than Verizon. And AT&T frankly brought a knife (U-Verse) to a gun-fight. DOCSIS 3.0 will eat U-Verse for lunch.
So we'll continue to see what we've seen so far. Time Warner and Comcast will respond to FiOS where they have to with limited DOCSIS 3.0 deployments and no-caps. They'll make up this investment by capping, throttling, and squeeezing every bit (pun intended) of bandwidth from the current plant before upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0. As it stands right now, Cable has the advantage over U-Verse and unless a drastic shift in technology happens, with DOCSIS 3.0 they will stay competitive for many, many years to come against FiOS.
Would the world be a better place if everyone had 1Gbps fiber to their house? I think so, absolutely. But unless the government steps in, private business will not deploy that type of technology for 10+ years. The financials just don't make sense. |
|
