dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed
« 1760 feetaerial fiber »
This is a sub-selection from pathetic

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

2 recommendations

reply to ArrayList

Re: pathetic

Listen,

Cable is already fibre to the node. It's only the "last mile" where it gets converted to coax that it is in question.

Comcast by waiting has made a much better decision to go w/ ethernet over fibre versus the PON model which costs way more and is less flexible (FiOS). I said this a few days back.

Now there are always restrictions w/ new service especially when they are moving to fibre because lets face it they will need stick time before they get this right.

This is also targeted toward power users or business users and this will be extremely profitable.

All in all people should be cheering that this is happening because once they break the seal (as it were) they are going to have a hard time justifying old skool cable in 10 years out in the boonies. In any case cable is way better positioned that DSL just because the technology is easy to upgrade and 15 mbps will stream multiple HD streams today.

I think this is great. The more fibre that gets run the better. My only issue is that this is WAY less efficient than what happens in the other utilities in the house (you only get one gas, elec, hydro). Until someone opens their eyes and treats this like a utility, the US will remain 3rd world in internet speed and penetration. This is easily solved by providing a fibre drop, and then a utility node where this can be strung to said competitors POP. Imagine the possibilities with open competition fibre to the house.

tanzam75

join:2012-07-19
Regulated utilities have an incentive to invest in infrastructure, because they get a guaranteed return on capital.

This was the old Bell System model, in which they gold-plated the infrastructure. The more money they spent on their network, the more money they'd generate for their investors. (After two decades of neglect, though, the old phone network is now falling apart.)

Contrast this to the deregulated situation, in which companies are very tight-fisted when it comes to capex.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to elefante72
Google Fiber is PON. My bet is that, these days anyway, PON if done a certain way is still cheaper than Active Ethernet. The difference here is that Comcast is deploying surgically, thich doesn't make sense for PON.


wesm
Premium
join:1999-07-29
Redmond, WA
reply to elefante72
said by elefante72:

Listen,

Cable is already fibre to the node. It's only the "last mile" where it gets converted to coax that it is in question.

Comcast by waiting has made a much better decision to go w/ ethernet over fibre versus the PON model which costs way more and is less flexible (FiOS). I said this a few days back.

How is PON less flexible? A properly deployed PON infrastructure will be virtually maintenance free and can have any number of services deployed on top of it. All that has to happen is having another "color" (wavelength) muxed onto the network at whatever aggregation point the operator is using. Verizon and Frontier already run three discrete services over their networks; adding a fourth (what kind of service?) would be easy.

Install is more difficult than plugging into current copper infrastructure but that's because the copper has been in the ground for years. Once a majority of the homes in an area have a fiber drop and installed ONT, ordering new service becomes a matter of plugging in the equipment the service provider ships out, just like coax or copper today.


somms

join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT
reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:

Google Fiber is PON. My bet is that, these days anyway, PON if done a certain way is still cheaper than Active Ethernet. The difference here is that Comcast is deploying surgically, thich doesn't make sense for PON.

»en.wikinoticia.com/Technology/in···s-161-km


We follow with interest every step you take Google's new experimental fiber network that is unfolding in Kansas City. On this occasion, one of its leaders explains how each household connected individually to the Google Fiber Huts, which unlike GPON networks such as Telefonica can offer 1 Gbps symmetrical.

John Toccalino, project manager, explains that being installed in various parts of the city a few huts or nodes called Google Fiber Huts. Inside house the OLT equipment that connect the pairs of fiber, which then hung from utility poles, reach every home. For its explanation, we understand that Google is not using a GPON network like the one in Spain is installing Telefónica.

Google does reach each individual fiber from Google Hut Fiber to the home. The main advantage is that each line is independent and can use their full capacity for a single user. The disadvantage is that a deployment of this type is more expensive than the displays in a tree, as used by Telefonica, in which each fiber coming from the OLT is divided into several stages into sub-segments by splitters, so that all Users are both the same optical signal, but each uses it only for the fraction of time allocated to it.

With this architecture, the network of Google not only provides 1 Gbps to each user, but this is symmetrical, which would be impossible in a GPON deployment, having to share all the users upload rate up to 1, 25 Gbps.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
EPB uses GPON and offers gigabit to its highest-end subscribers.

Google may not be using GPON. They may be using X-GPON for their rollout, which has a bit more upstream capacity (2.466 Gbps).

They are using PON though, according to a screenshot or two taken at one of GFiber's active locations.

reply to wesm
Verizon and Frontier PON currently use 3 wavelengths, 1310nm (upload voice and data) 1490nm (download voice and data) and 1550nm (downstream video) as opposed to services, they are different wavelengths of light between the OLT and the ONT.

PON allows 1 fiber to be ran to a typical location where you would find a copper cross connect box and split that signal depending on the total length of the fiber anywhere between 8-ways to 64 - ways. This is Much cheaper to deploy (compared to active ethernet) not to mention the network is passive so the only electronics that require maintenance are the ONT and the OLT.

Initial investment for a new home will almost always be more expensive for any type of fiber since copper is easier to work with, faster to install, not to mention the electronics involved with Fiber are move expensive.

I am confident that many municipalities will have FTTP/FTTH products available within the next 10-15 years. In the grand scheme of life, FTTH is still in its infancy, copper has had well over 100 years to be perfected, its just a matter of time before fiber is perfected enough to where companies will actually have a decent ROI within a reasonable amount of time.