dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
5394
kherr
Premium Member
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL

kherr

Premium Member

[HSI] Coax vs Fiber -- What's in the futre

So I get into the same argument from a fellow club member that insists ALL cable companies have replaced coax (copper) for fiber. So how many markets out there have FTTH or very nearly there. I have read that Comcast was going to do their 300Mbs package over fiber in FIOS areas, fact or fiction.

Fiber is the future but costs money and there’s a lot of copper out there.
Does fiber to the node have any immediate advantage since the rest of the node may be copper?? Or will it greatly increase the bandwidth available to the node?? Although fiber has the potential of being limited less, it’s still held back by the hardware lighting it up.

Once you have fiber to the node, does it bring into play FTTH in the relative near future??

As Fios does it, a customer has a single strand all the way to the CO, correct.

ATT U-Verse is a good example of fiber to the node, yet is limited to about 24M because whatever flavor of DSL and needing bandwidth for TV, but fans out with dedicated pairs to the homes. Does this topology have any future with cable or will it stay as is till there is real competition to go all out FTTH??

Cable has seen advancements in technology as far as speed goes, are they nearing the limits till major rework needs to be done, or can we see yet more increase in speed (UpLoad too please) with copper.

Google is another freak as it looks like a one time deal. With language to abandon the build in two years if they want to, they aren't exactly going to be a player.

In my opinion Fios was an “in your face” upgrade to show it could be done if enough money was thrown into it. Since the move to wireless is in full swing, I doubt any new fiber builds by the telcos is just a wet dream. So that only leaves cable, what is your opinion as to the real future of fiber.
zed260
Premium Member
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN

zed260

Premium Member

well fiber to the home is not likely to happan for most cable companys coax still has a ways to go they have many things coming to push the date coax dies further back

from sdv to 3 gighearts coax plant to newer encoding etc

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958 to kherr

Premium Member

to kherr
Eventually, cable will see that not enough people are going to be stupid enough to pay for those absurd speeds, which are basically useless unless you have 64 people connected at the same time and the max speeds will level out.

Doubt very seriously if cable is going to spend the money to upgrade to fiber if no one else is pushing them to do so.

GvilleDSL
join:2009-11-12
Greenville, SC

GvilleDSL to kherr

Member

to kherr
Coax still has a great deal of life left in it. I just hope they get get upload speeds a bit higher in the near future(upload channel bonding). I honestly don't need absurd download bandwidth but a nice 30/30 package would be ideal.

As far as services like Uverse....i really don't know where that is going. Looks like a dead end to me...similar to DSL.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

nunya to kherr

MVM

to kherr
I've been working in the communications industry in some way, shape, or form for my entire career.
10 years ago, I would have told you fiber is the "natural" future of telecommunications.
Today, I would have to change my answer with some caveats. Fiber will still have it's place in the future.
FTTP (FTTH) will be relegated to large businesses and campus situations.
Everything else is trending toward wireless. Wireless is where it's at. When I mention wireless, people flip out and assume I'm talking about cellular wireless providers. I'm not crazy, and that IS NOT who I am talking about, per se.
We all know that cellular wireless providers are slow, lumbering, overpriced, and plagued with service and customer service issues. They probably are not going to be the innovators.

I'll back up to present day. The telco's have pretty much conceded residential video and data to the cable company. Landline voice is becoming a "non-issue"; an afterthought. Telcos failed to move when they had the chance. The cable companies had coax.
Cable will "rule the easement" for the next 5-10 years. I think cable is in it's "golden age".

The "real" future of telecom will be this: FTTT (fiber to the tower). From there, "small cell" networks deliver the data pipe. No easements, no fences, no poles, no weekend gardeners cutting cables or drops, no cable repairmen, no line techs.
A guy will roll up to the house and screw a box to the side with a small antenna. Instant broadband. 10 years ago, this was unthinkable. Today, it's completely doable.
All the "box" will deliver is 1's and 0's. After all, video and voice are nothing more than data.
Even existing wireless technology can deliver the bandwidth needed for all these services - and it's only getting faster.

I'm a wire guy. I always here the same argument from other wire guys: "But a wired connection is always faster and more secure". It is. But most people don't care. As long as they get their Honey Boo Boo Child, Facebook, Youtube, and calls from Grandma.
Why would any company want the ongoing headache of extensive OSP when they could deliver everything wirelessly?

mtnarea
@charter.com

mtnarea

Anon

I'll have to respectfully disagree on the wireless as the future thought. I work for a wireless ISP and pushing any sort of decent speeds in a real world application will be hard, if not impossible if you try and service as many people as cable and DSL do, line of sight becomes an issue as well as how crowded the airwaves are. We current push about 200mbit tops on a good day from a single tower. That would mean hundreds or thousands of towers with either microwave backhauls or fiber brought to every one to service the amount of customers any wireline provider has in their service area. We can theoretically support a maximum of 65 clients on a sector, but get closer to 40 - 50 before problems happen.

Rain affects signal, sunspots affect signal. I agree with wireless for places that don't get anything else but for it being the future? Absolutely not, the limitations are much bigger with wireless and will ultimately leave it to under serviced areas or for direct links between different business locations within a city who don't want to rent a dedicated line between the places and have the line of sight.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

nunya

MVM

Based on the specs you are quoting, I think it's safe to say the WISP you work for is using old wifi technology in unlicensed spectrum.
I'm talking about WiMAX (802.16x) and true LTE technologies. Even today, WiMAX and LTE cells can handle 400-600 clients with ease.
There's better stuff coming down the road as well.

mtnarea
@charter.com

mtnarea

Anon

We're using the 5GHz frequency, regardless of that even with 700 people on a tower they'll get slammed if they can't provide the output to everyone. A basic connection speed of 10mbit spread over 700 users gives us roughly 5gbit to a tower. Take in to account distance from tower, EMI, and anything else and you'll be lucky to push that. For cell phones it's fine, people don't care about sustained 10mbit or their latency as much as they do for their computers, gaming consoles, etc which is what will easily kill a network like that. Also since 10mbit where I live is slow and 30 or 50mbit is what you normally get I can't see that tower pushing anything remotely near that speed sustained.

It looks good in theory, but I'll stick with my fiber which unless the line is cut will do its full throughput day and night regardless of weather, amount of users (myself) on the line or any other factors that make using wireless second to wired connections. It has a use in unserved areas with terrible terrain that doesn't allow fiber but other than that it will definitely not keep up with fiber in any aspect, no matter how you look at it or try to play it. When LTE can do 1gbit per customer for a full tower of 700, no fluctuations in speed if everyone hits that at once or signal issues, then I'll consider it a serious contender.
cooldude9919
join:2000-05-29

cooldude9919

Member

said by mtnarea :

We're using the 5GHz frequency, regardless of that even with 700 people on a tower they'll get slammed if they can't provide the output to everyone. A basic connection speed of 10mbit spread over 700 users gives us roughly 5gbit to a tower. Take in to account distance from tower, EMI, and anything else and you'll be lucky to push that. For cell phones it's fine, people don't care about sustained 10mbit or their latency as much as they do for their computers, gaming consoles, etc which is what will easily kill a network like that. Also since 10mbit where I live is slow and 30 or 50mbit is what you normally get I can't see that tower pushing anything remotely near that speed sustained.

It looks good in theory, but I'll stick with my fiber which unless the line is cut will do its full throughput day and night regardless of weather, amount of users (myself) on the line or any other factors that make using wireless second to wired connections. It has a use in unserved areas with terrible terrain that doesn't allow fiber but other than that it will definitely not keep up with fiber in any aspect, no matter how you look at it or try to play it. When LTE can do 1gbit per customer for a full tower of 700, no fluctuations in speed if everyone hits that at once or signal issues, then I'll consider it a serious contender.

Fiber is the way to go, but it seems less and less likely we are going to see it go more wide scale and the LEC's dont want to spend the money.

Also keep in mind everyone oversells. For example i have 100mb from charter, but they are only doing 4 channels here, which means a max of around 150mbps shared between a lot of users, so if more than 2 of those users have 100mb they both couldnt max their speeds. Even fiber is shared at the neighborhood level, given not to the same extent, but even an area of customers couldnt do your example of 700gbit (1gbpsx700), hell im sure some Central Offices dont even have that much pipe feeding them.

I think every product has its place, but lets at least be reasonable and realistic in our discussions here.

GvilleDSL
join:2009-11-12
Greenville, SC

GvilleDSL to nunya

Member

to nunya
I think that is what AT&T plans on doing in the future since their copper is becoming so limited. Some sort of wireless plan...fiber to the node/tower then wireless to the consumer for internet/tv/phone etc. However i agree that we aren't there yet technologically speaking. There are too many issues with wireless atm as stated above. I for sure wouldn't even touch wireless unless they can resolve these issues first...esp latency and security.
Razoul
join:2012-10-09
Crestline, CA

Razoul to cooldude9919

Member

to cooldude9919
I think it's easier to push 1gbit per customer over fiber than it'll ever be with a wireless solution. With fiber you can have less customers per splitter, giving them more bandwidth over the fiber going to that splitter, not to mention fiber upgrades don't mean replacing the fiber, just upgrading the equipment on either end and you can attain more speeds over the same piece of fiber that you previously got 10GBit on. My point here is that fiber is MUCH easier to upgrade and actually provide throughput similar to what I'm talking about, wireless... not so much.
cooldude9919
join:2000-05-29

cooldude9919

Member

said by Razoul:

I think it's easier to push 1gbit per customer over fiber than it'll ever be with a wireless solution. With fiber you can have less customers per splitter, giving them more bandwidth over the fiber going to that splitter, not to mention fiber upgrades don't mean replacing the fiber, just upgrading the equipment on either end and you can attain more speeds over the same piece of fiber that you previously got 10GBit on. My point here is that fiber is MUCH easier to upgrade and actually provide throughput similar to what I'm talking about, wireless... not so much.

I think everyone will agree its easier to push 1gbit over fiber than other options, i never said that wasnt the case. If we will ever really see it expanded on a wider scale is the real qusetion, and as much as verizon got bashed by the stock market and such even if ATT wanted to do it for some crazy reason i dont think they would want to deal with the repercussions
Razoul
join:2012-10-09
Crestline, CA

Razoul

Member

That's the problem, they do it for stockholders, not to futureproof their landline side. It may never happen, and it's a shame if that's the case but I feel as if wireless is definitely not the answer to their complete lack of willingness to compete on anything wired. I'm glad Google (just because everyone knows about it now) and the smaller providers (UTOPIA, LusFiber, EPB, etc) are opening up and doing what they're doing, shows that some people understand the point of investing in last-mile infrastructure is not always a bad thing.

I guess my point is, wireless has it's uses, but transmitting TV, Phone and Internet is not it, even though it looks to be that's where the telcos want to take it. (Maybe not TV, but I hope you can understand my point.)

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

nunya

MVM

In the future, there won't be any differentiation between the three services. It's all just data. Hell, that's how I have it right now. I do not have any connection to the outside world other than internet and cell phones.
"TV" is streamed or OTA, and phone is VoIP.
While everyone shouts for fiber, there's something that the average Joe doesn't "get": It takes a lot of money to keep OSP maintained. Placing the OSP is only part of the consideration.
The ongoing maintenance expenses are phenomenal. Municipal taxes alone on OSP would boggle your mind.
Passing the buck by selling low cost receiving equipment saves the provider tons of money. That means all the provider has to do is maintain the transmission sites. If a customers equipment fails, they'll offer them two choices - DIY drop ship or expensive truck roll.
No provider wants to be in the "last mile" business. It's a necessary evil. Every provider has been looking for a way "out" ever since I can remember.

I don't know why we are hung up on the Gigabit speed. It's not necessary, and won't be for a while. By the time it is, there will be a mainstream wireless solution.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to GvilleDSL

MVM

to GvilleDSL
said by GvilleDSL:

As far as services like Uverse....i really don't know where that is going. Looks like a dead end to me...similar to DSL.

It is DSL, VDSL.

As for "dead end"...in my area we have DSL (a couple of providers), and Comcast. Comcast offers 16M, 24M, and 50M; starting at $57.95 for "bare" Internet, or Internet+Basic TV. If DSL is a "dead end", and I lose my $20 DSL, Comcast will gladly sell me 3M for $40.

I think I'd rather go back to dial and save $30 a month for more important stuff. IOW, it serves a small niche of users who aren't interested in Ferraris and Porsches and Jaguars.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Beat me to it.

I was just about to say IT IS DSL!

cablegeek01
join:2003-05-13
USA

cablegeek01 to kherr

Member

to kherr
Most cable companies are now HFC (Hybrid Fiber Coaxial), meaning that they have fiber to the node(neighborhood), and then distribute the signal to each home via coax. This model still has plenty of life left in it, with traditional DOCSIS 3.0 delivering 600Mbps reliably in a lab environment (16 channel modem).
The proposed DOCSIS 3.1 standards call for downstream throughput of up to 5Gbps, so I don't believe you'll see a huge push for fiber to the home for another 5-10 years.

INtheKnow
@charter.com

INtheKnow

Anon

Use all of the available bandwith for hsd and stream all video services over IP that is the future no need to run fiber to the home.

GvilleDSL
join:2009-11-12
Greenville, SC

GvilleDSL to DataRiker

Member

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

Beat me to it.

I was just about to say IT IS DSL!

Yeah i know technically it is DSL, but i love how its marketed as Fiber...even on this website. lol.
GvilleDSL

GvilleDSL to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
Most people do not have that many choices as far as providers/plans go so consider yourself lucky. And yes, DSL is a dead end due to distance restrictions....it always has been.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to GvilleDSL

MVM

to GvilleDSL
said by GvilleDSL:

Yeah i know technically it is DSL, but i love how its marketed as Fiber...even on this website. lol.

Cable is also marketed as "fiber", though it is just FTTN, and has been since deployment of the HFC.

... DSL is a dead end due to distance restrictions....it always has been.

When the alternative to DSL is pricey cable, DSL has a market. It always will until, cable offers "Economy" tiers with DSL speeds for DSL prices.

BTW, cable also has distance restrictions; and when the population density drops drastically, an MSO is no more likey to deploy HFC than a telco to deploy DSL. If you live just 500 feet beyond the maximum distance of the HFC plant, you are likely SOL for CHSI service.

GvilleDSL
join:2009-11-12
Greenville, SC

GvilleDSL to kherr

Member

to kherr
Ive never seen cable marketed as fiber ever before....just cable. Even if it is now hybrid coax/fiber to the node. Check the review section here on dslrepots for Uverse and it falls under fiber which is laughable.

"When the alternative to DSL is pricey cable, DSL has a market."

Yeah but that market is limited and not available to everyone. I wonder how long these telcos are going to keep supporting DSL as well...Seems like Verizon and AT&T are trying to push their customers to FIOS and Uverse. Like i said you are lucky to live in an area where you have options. Id imagine 90% or more of the US does not.

Also as far as distance issues are concerned id have to say DSL comes up far more often then that of a consumer wanting cable service. How many times have you heard of someone complaining they cant get DSL when the neighbor across the street can compared to cable? Perhaps if you live out in the middle of nowhere and not in a community then i could see it being a problem. But then again it would be a problem for DSL as well.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

said by GvilleDSL:

Ive never seen cable marketed as fiber ever before....

So have a look ...

»Just Saw This Advertisement

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
·Charter

nunya

MVM

Charter is currently running a carefully worded deceptive commercial as well that makes the viewer think that cable is all fiber.
It's one of the "get charter, it's smarter" commercials. I'm sure the phone company lawyers are drawing up their complaints as we type.

GvilleDSL
join:2009-11-12
Greenville, SC

GvilleDSL to kherr

Member

to kherr
I have yet to see any of these CMs but then again i dont watch much tv anymore. I still dont understand why Uverse is labeled as fiber on this site...makes no sense.
Razoul
join:2012-10-09
Crestline, CA

Razoul to nunya

Member

to nunya
said by nunya:

I don't know why we are hung up on the Gigabit speed. It's not necessary, and won't be for a while. By the time it is, there will be a mainstream wireless solution.

Just wanted to reply to this quote mostly. I don't disagree with the fact that wireless can have mainstream use. My issue with it is the latency involved rather than gigabit speeds. If there is too much traffic in a given frequency range then it'll interfere, causing issues with speed fluctuation and latency issues which don't happen with fiber.

For home solutions, wireless can and most definitely has worked for some people, but it still has it's limitations that give me cause for concern. It's a lot harder to just move everyone to a different frequency if say the 5.4 - 5.6GHz range gets filled, since that's all you have allocated to you and you can't use other ranges, plus you'd have to give customers different antennas for the new frequencies if the one they already have doesn't support it.

I realize my argument may be kind of daft or not with the times, so I'll just make it known that this is my opinion on the issue and I don't claim to know much, so if anything is obviously wrong I'm more than happy to get corrected on it.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

The 5 Ghz band is a junk frequency rage.

Really anything above 2100 Mhz is no good for fixed wireless.
Razoul
join:2012-10-09
Crestline, CA

Razoul

Member

said by DataRiker:

The 5 Ghz band is a junk frequency rage.

Really anything above 2100 Mhz is no good for fixed wireless.

How so? It's used pretty widely for wireless internet providers (the 2.4GHz and 5GHz range using UBNT equipment being an example), so if it was no good, why do they use it?

I ask in all seriousness, since I don't actually know what makes it no good.

nunya
LXI 483
MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO

nunya

MVM

Because it's unlicensed spectrum (it's easy to do). That's also why it's crowded. That's not really the kind of wireless we are talking about here anyway.
cooldude9919
join:2000-05-29

cooldude9919 to Razoul

Member

to Razoul
said by Razoul:

said by DataRiker:

The 5 Ghz band is a junk frequency rage.

Really anything above 2100 Mhz is no good for fixed wireless.

How so? It's used pretty widely for wireless internet providers (the 2.4GHz and 5GHz range using UBNT equipment being an example), so if it was no good, why do they use it?

I ask in all seriousness, since I don't actually know what makes it no good.

5ghz isnt that croweded, the primary issue is you need full line of sight for it to work right. Needing full line of sight (no trees or anything) to a tower would obviously limit your client base for a fixed wireless solution.