dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
8
share rss forum feed


mackey
Premium
join:2007-08-20
kudos:12

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: Actually, I have to agree with Time Warner and At&t for once

said by silbaco:

Have you proved why it is needed? I don't think you have. You proved to me why you "wanted" it, not why you "needed" it.

Sorry, the same thing can be said about the internet in general. You don't NEED cable or DSL speeds. You don't even NEED dial-up either. You don't NEED the internet at all.

Saying you need the faster speeds because you want to watch 5 hi-def Netflix streams is no different then saying you need a cable/DSL connection because you want to watch a single standard-def Netflix stream.

said by silbaco:

It is not necessarily At&t/Time Warner's problem that they have old infrastructure. They have been operating services for a long time.

Yes it is their problem. They refused to slowly roll out FTTH over the last 10 years, so they're now looking at a complete overhaul as they need to do it all at once. Had they put the millions if not billions they got in tax breaks and subsidies for their fiber deployment into actually deploying it we would not have the situation we currently have.

said by silbaco:

It would be extremely expensive for At&t and TW to do the same thing google is, and they would not be able to turn a profit at the same prices google is charging.

Bullshit. It would be no more expensive for them then it is for Google. In fact, they could probably do it cheaper due to economies of scale and because they already have some of the supporting infrastructure in place already. If Google can do it, TWC and ATT could do it too. They're too busy giving money to shareholders and execs to actually put anything back into their network however.

said by silbaco:

So I have to agree with TW and At&t. If google gets the perks, so should they.

Yes, if they decide to actually deploy FTTH they too should get the perks. No spending huge amounts of money on the extremely expensive FTTH deployment, no perks.

/M

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
Our economy needs the internet, or it would collapse. Our economy does not need gigabit internet.

I don't watch netflix, because I don't need it.

It will probably cost less for these companies to do it all at once when the time is right than to have started doing it 10 years ago. Fiber keeps dropping. Deploying it early on was a huge expense, and some of those fiber networks already need upgrading to compete with modern standard fiber deployments.

Don't forget what these companies actually do. TWC and At&t are in telecommunications. Google is a web content provider who is entering the communications industry with a tiny deployment after deployment costs have dropped to a fraction of what they were with TWC and At&t entered the industry. And the fact remains Google is unlikely to ever turn a profit from this service, despite the perks they received. But that is how google operates. They lose billions on android and have lost billions on youtube.

FTTH deployments are not as easy as google makes them look. My ISP is actually under going one right now. Eventually, I will have it. But it won't be gigabit speeds and it won't be near as cheap as google either. I should also state my ISP is a nonprofit and is in a huge amount of debt from the ftth deployments, that they may or may not be able to pay in the future. These deployments are expensive and supplying gigabit speeds is not as cheap as google makes it look.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit
3 Things

First, our economy NEEDS the internet or it would collapse? Prove it! Besides who are you to say it doesnt "need" gigabit to not collapse?

Second, I see I am speaking with someone that has no clue of networks. You do realize that the cost to upgrade would be a complete waste if you dont deploy it to the 10-15 year future right? Copper certainly would not be that, thus fiber is the only way to go and providing 10mbps or 1gbps is an incremental cost barely measured in the scheme of things. Why do you think Google is doing 1gbps over say 100mb symetrical? 100 would still put them in the upper echelon of all ISPs.

Third, it appears you are arguing just to argue because 1 you have no clue about networks and 2 you constantly want to impose your opinions on what is NEEDED (by your definition) and what is not on everyone else.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
Considering networks is what I do (no I do not work for an ISP) it seems you are probably arguing with someone who knows MORE about networks than you.

Proof it? Seriously? The fact that you want me to prove that our economy needs internet access because every single business relies on it in one form or another means you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

Deploying something 15 years early in something as fast paced and ever changing as networking is stupid. It costs several times more and after 15 years, needs to be overhauled again. More than once. And in At&t's case, while maintaining their old copper lines because the FCC says they have to. If At&t deployed fiber to the home 15 years ago, that would have been stupid for business.

Why are businesses still deploying 5E and cat 6 cable instead of fiber? Clearly fiber networks are superior right? Hmm. I know a large place that did deploy fiber to computers. They even had fiber NICs. Guess what happened? 3 years later they deployed cat 5E and 6 throughout the entire building and regretted putting in fiber. It was costly, far more expensive to maintain, and now all the equipment would actually be slower than the copper cat 6 network. What a shame.

I am arguing this because it is funny to watch you make things up.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

1 recommendation

Lets see businesses deploying copper still. Lets look at those facts shall we?

1.) Copper is still capable of 1gbps (even 10gbps) at such short Ethernet lengths, are easily terminated and dont really require any special skills like fiber. 2.) Switches above 10gbps are not so common place yet and thus are still very expensive and not worth the added cost for a vast majority of businesses out there. 3.) Fiber for such short runs would be expensive because a major cost in fiber is the splicing and short runs totaling into the hundreds or even thousands for even an office of 500 people is not worth it when you consider #1 and #2 above. 4.) ISP's do not provide WAN links that would be usable at an affordable price for said speeds (reason we are here discussing this). 5.) Few servers are capable of utilizing even bounded multi-gigabit cards, especially servers that a vast majority of the businesses you are lumping together would use. Should I go on?

And I am calling BS on you knowing a company that deployed fiber to the desktop and went back to copper. Not that there arent some out there that did that and then during a remodel went the cheaper route (see #1-5 above). I just think you personally are full of crap and if it is a true statement, then it was probably to 3-5 workstations and a server. Your argument that it is more costly to maintain and is slower than copper shows your lack of knowledge, yet again. If you are truly going to tell me that running copper for a a quarter mile, mile or many miles is more reliable and faster than fiber you truly need to exit from this conversation. Or is it that you have been defeated on the ISP side so now you are attempting to bring this to a local level?

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
Fiber in the business doesn't really require many skills either. Fiber is not difficult. It is a bit pricey if you don't have the proper equipment.

1. But don't business want to be future proof by 15 years? Is that not what you are incompetently arguing for? I never said it was realistic. You did. Gigabit WANs are not very hard to come by just so you know. They just take money.

2. Call BS. Actually it was 3 floors and several hundred workstations and probably around a dozen servers. And actually, it was far more expensive to maintain. The cost of the hardware that failed at a pretty high rate was the main reason for installing copper. Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

When did I ever say running copper long distances was more reliable than fiber? Man you just keep making things up.

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to silbaco
Faulty logic. What is good for you is not necessarily good for others and you shouldn't push your values upon others, unless you are prepared to have other's values pushed upon you as well.


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 edit
reply to silbaco
said by silbaco:

Considering networks is what I do (no I do not work for an ISP) it seems you are probably arguing with someone who knows MORE about networks than you.

I'd like to challenge you on that.
said by silbaco:

The fact that you want me to prove that our economy needs internet access because every single business relies on it in one form or another means you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

No. The Internet is extremely vital. It's as vital as having a home phone or the Interstate/Highway system.
said by silbaco:

Deploying something 15 years early in something as fast paced and ever changing as networking is stupid. It costs several times more and after 15 years, needs to be overhauled again. More than once. And in At&t's case, while maintaining their old copper lines because the FCC says they have to. If At&t deployed fiber to the home 15 years ago, that would have been stupid for business.

I call bullsh*t on this one. The standards have been set and are still in use to this day. Fiber has been around and you can shove any transport stream through it, either it be Ethernet, ATM, or SONET. It can also support future technologies. Let's see you shove that though a single pair of copper. If you want faster speeds with fiber, just change the GBIC.
said by silbaco:

Why are businesses still deploying 5E and cat 6 cable instead of fiber? Clearly fiber networks are superior right? Hmm. I know a large place that did deploy fiber to computers. They even had fiber NICs. Guess what happened? 3 years later they deployed cat 5E and 6 throughout the entire building and regretted putting in fiber. It was costly, far more expensive to maintain, and now all the equipment would actually be slower than the copper cat 6 network. What a shame.

Wow. I know of a few areas where they would prove you wrong.

Maintenance? No maintenance needed if you left the fiber itself alone. You can shove 10GigE through fiber. Heck, you can shove 40GigE and 100GigE through fiber. Can you do that with Cat6? Nope. Well, you could, but you'd have a large amount of dropped packets due to signal issues.

As for the "deploying CAT5e and 6" part, ya.. it's cheaper and easier to work with.. But there is so much you can shove through it. If you need bandwidth, you need fiber. If you already have a fiber infrastructure, you could send 10GigE to each workstation. The initial cost of the switch would be high, but if you get a good switch and not a cheap POS, it'll last for decades. As for equipment failure, buy cheap equipment.. expect sh*tty results. Next time, buy Cisco or Juniper. DO NOT GO CHEAP ON YOUR CORE NETWORK.
said by silbaco:

I am arguing this because it is funny to watch you make things up.

Ya. Funny that we didn't make this crap up.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.2G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo]

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
I didn't say you were making crap up. You are not the one I was replying to. And challenge me all you like. Not going to change anything.

I know the internet is vital. Hence is why I was arguing that it was. Skippy is the one who said it wasn't when he told me to "Proof it!" :S

The cable can support future technologies. That doesn't mean the hardware can. Obviously the fiber cable is future proof (although now we are already talking about have nanotube fiber in the future). But that doesn't make it a good business decision for At&t 15 years ago. They would still have to operate their copper network. Operating 2 networks for 15 years would have been extremely uneconomical, regardless of how future proof fiber is. Waiting a while longer makes deployment not only cheaper, but saves over having to maintain 2 networks as required by the FCC.

I didn't buy the equipment, and to be honest, I am not positive on what brand it was. But I am positive that it was not cheap nor shitty equipment. Hence is why they switched to copper. This wasn't done yesterday. It as done quite a while ago actually, back when fiber in the business didn't make sense for many reasons including reliability. But they did it anyway, because it was supposed to be future proof. Technically it is still there and they could still use it. But they won't for some time.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to silbaco
Fiber terminations require much more skill then copper. I am not talking about running a 3 foot patch cord that simply plugs in with an SC connection. I am talking about running the lines through the walls to the workstations period at length. You dont just cut and punch-down fiber.

1.) A non-isp business going 15 years out would be shear stupidity being that they will do 1 of 2 things within that time period A. Complete remodel or B. move locations. You brought in non-isp businesses to the argument concerning fiber, not me.

2.) Still calling BS on your part, but thanks for playing.

Lastly you are the one claiming copper is the way to go in an ISP conversation, did you not say that?

jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
reply to silbaco
What about all that dark fiber laying around the country that WAS laid 15 years ago... Heard of Wiltel? Paying pretty well now! Companies need to think LONG term as well as short term.