dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4456
share rss forum feed


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to GvilleDSL

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

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.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


GvilleDSL

join:2009-11-12
Greenville, SC
Reviews:
·Charter
reply 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
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by GvilleDSL:

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

So have a look ...

»Just Saw This Advertisement
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

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.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



GvilleDSL

join:2009-11-12
Greenville, SC
reply 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
Reviews:
·Charter
reply 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
join:2002-05-19
00000

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
Reviews:
·Charter

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
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

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.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


cooldude9919

join:2000-05-29
kudos:5
reply 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.

zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to nunya

@nunva im will to bet coax will be domenant even 30 years from now cell communcations and wirless will never catch on

charter has 1 gigherts cable plant on my area right now it can be upgraded to 3 gigherts with some investment

on this current plant charter offers 60 hd channels 100 meg internet and phone plus 68 analog channels

just getting red of analog alone charter can increse internet bandwith to around 1 gigabyte proveded cmts upgrades and modom upgrades

»web1.phonescoop.com/articles/art···?a=10978 throw into it h265 codec and double the number of hd channels most setops can get that with firmware upgrade

using h265 and sdv and assuming a node size of 200 ppl per node combined with 3 gigherts plant cable can offer as many as 1000 hd channels plus

or if charter was to use docsis 3 to deliver stuff over 3 gigherts plant to 200 ppl per node youed be able to get 62 megabyte of dedicated internet for every user guaranteed without any congestion of course in some markets charter has it down to 100 people per node (most nodes in cleveland tn are 100 per person they upgraded it from 200 last month)

in principal coax has a ways to go its possble to offer google fiber speed and channels over coax with the right upgrades i think your see an end to nuclear weapons and wars long before we see anything overtake coax as the domonant communcations medium for internet/tv


Razoul

join:2012-10-09
Crestline, CA
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to nunya

@nunya the type of crowding I'm talking about comes from having too many users on a single tower, not that everyone uses the frequency for their home, business, lemonade stand or just because they want to broadcast in that frequency for no reason.

If you have a tower with (I'm going out on a limb here for an average cell tower since I don't know the actual number for newer technologies, only CDMA) 500 - 900 customers on it then those airwaves get crowded quickly and the technology can't support each and every user using their phone at the same time otherwise you get speed and latency issues or just downright won't get access at all. I know LTE and others are huge improvements, but I can imagine they still have limitations that will be hit if everyone sends and receives data over it like they would if we started using them for internet, TV or whatever else Verizon and AT&T would like to use them for.

My point has always been there's limitations for wireless and even if the technology is getting better, that limitation will be hit, especially with how AT&T and Verizon like dealing with things now. What about the cell towers that can only have a microwave backhaul? For many places outside of metro areas, that's how AFAIK how they do it and those are only theoretically possible to reach 1Gig. There's a single point of congestion that's a lot harder to upgrade than if it was fiber fed.

Wireless has it's uses, for replacing wired internet connections however, is not one of them. No matter how you play it the technology can't support the strain of everyone getting home from work and firing up an HD stream from Netflix, downloading game patches or video chatting with Grandma about her Thanksgiving plans. It's still wireless and still suffers from weather, interference, etc



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

As I said in my original post, you can't get hung up on AT&T or Verizon. You have to clear your head of those thoughts.
I agree, anything on microwave backhaul will be an issue. As I also referenced in my original post, FTTT will be the dominate use for fiber.
Even off the shelf crappy WiMax radios today can handle 200+ concurrent users per sector without noticeable degradation. Small cell technology is going to put less people on a tower, and allow for extensive spectrum re-use.
That's available today. Here and now.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

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.

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.

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?

The question was Coax vs Fiber for the Future, and I have to go with Fiber. I too spent a Career in Telecommunications, and everything was speeding towards Fiber. Wireless does have it's place and applications, but you won't be able to Stream 4k Video with any quality or consistency. You say only Large Business and Campuses will have Fiber, well I have always tried to copy this for my own home and it has worked out for me. You are right about one thing, the Average Person doesn't know or care about consistent Bandwidth so Wireless is just fine for them. If you want to keep up or stay level with Big Business, Fiber is the Future.


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

Only time will tell, but I can see the writing on the wall. I'm confident that the reason no new fiber networks of significance are being built is that most providers have already decided where things are going. The ILECs and RBOCs have made it perfectly clear that they intend to exit the wired "last mile" business. Fios was a drop in the bucket. U-Verse was a joke. Google fiber is a publicity stunt hardly worth mentioning because of it's relative small scale in the grand scheme. UTOPIA has failed miserably and is only being kept afloat with taxpayer money.

A lot of people keep post that wireless can't do this, or wireless can't do that. So far I haven't seen one example that's correct. Even current WISP customers using old wi-fi technology can stream HD Netflix.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits
reply to Razoul

said by Razoul:

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

Physics.

That's why we get a such a large unlicensed band. The lower frequencies are much too useful to give large chucks out.

5 Ghz tends to bounce off of walls and requires enough power to make it noisy to get reasonable distance out of it.

FYI there is a 900 mhz and 2.4 Ghz (Traditional Wifi ) band that is also unlicensed but they are much narrower because they are much much more valuable

Valuable is defined here as non line of sight ability.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

A lot of people keep post that wireless can't do this, or wireless can't do that.

Wireless just doesn't have the capacity for true broadband.

Many people simply don't understand the scope of wired infrastructure. Just through my wire center we pass terabytes per minute.

Also the fact that fiber splicers and equipment is starting to get VERY cheap, combined with the relatively cheap upkeep compared to copper I just don't see this happening.

Razoul

join:2012-10-09
Crestline, CA
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to DataRiker

said by DataRiker:

said by Razoul:

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

Physics.

That's why we get a such a large unlicensed band. The lower frequencies are much too useful to give large chucks out.

5 Ghz tends to bounce off of walls and requires enough power to make it noisy to get reasonable distance out of it.

FYI there is a 900 mhz and 2.4 Ghz (Traditional Wifi ) band that is also unlicensed but they are much narrower because they are much much more valuable

Valuable is defined here as non line of sight ability.

Thank you, I understand more now. I know I've heard of 900MHz on the Motorola Canopy system but I wasn't aware how the different frequencies were affected by things such as walls. I know having line of sight is a requirement which isn't needed for cell phones, so I can understand how the lower frequencies penetrate better now.

I know distance on 5GHz can be iffy, but most of our backhauls are around 10 miles or so from tower to tower, however like I said above I definitely know about the line of sight issues. If it's even a degree or two off on alignment the signal drops significantly.


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
reply to DataRiker


Wireless just doesn't have the capacity for true broadband.

Why? Because you say so? It most surely does. And, it's only going to get better.

I've place a "span or two" of cable in my days. FO cable isn't coming down in price like it was supposed to. That's not the main issue. For that matter, placement isn't even the main issue. Although the cost of placement far exceeds the materials.
The problem is upkeep. When fiber first came to fruition, the mindset was "set it and forget it". We quickly learned that wasn't reality. It required maintenance and repairs, just as copper cables do. Squirrels still chew on fiber. Backhoes still rip it up. Tornadoes still knock it down. Weekend gardeners till up fiber drops just the same as copper.
Any one still placing cable in easements is a fool not to be placing all green field projects as FO. It may be their last bastion of income 10 years from now when wireless rules.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to kherr

as a wisp owner, I am switching my customers over to fiber. I see it as the long term solution.

Why? It's not subject to interference, it's not subject to trees and growth. Alignment that's good one year isn't good the next it requires service calls. It's more stable, and will be good for 20 years with minor maintenance, where as in 2-3, I'll have to make service calls to replace fixed wireless gear.

There's a limit to how small a wireless cell can get before it starts stepping on the cell next to it.

On wireless you basically have 900 MHz to 2400 to work with. Some of that is licensed, even if it is, you're still subject to stepping all over your own frequencies. 900 can go through walls, trees etc, great, but because of the frequency, it puts through less than 40% of a signal at 2400 mhz. Now spectral efficiency will increase, but what you can't increase is your amount of spectrum, you will still be limited to those frequencies. And the hgiher the spectral efficency, the stronger your signals need to be.... higher SNR and higher power.

Wireless is based off a SNR ratio, just like cable, you need to maintain a good ratio, otherwise it won't work as efficiently as possible. Wireless doesn't stop at your intended target so it will continue on and still see the next tower...Easy right? just turn down the power, well now you need to be closer to the tower and your efficiency goes down.



DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit
reply to nunya

said by nunya:


Wireless just doesn't have the capacity for true broadband.

Why? Because you say so?

I think your confusing max speed with capacity.

There is no way given today's wireless spectrum you could offload even a fraction of wired data to wireless.


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

No. I'm not confused at all. I have a pretty thorough understanding of the big picture.
Carriers today (remember the guys I said to "forget" in my first post?) use the spectrum in a very inefficient manor in order to utilize mobile client equipment nationwide.
Now we are talking fixed PTMP. The box on the side of someones house won't be traveling. That means that you can re-use that "chunk" of frequency in another site only a few miles away. EG, do more with less.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



cablegeek01

join:2003-05-13
USA
kudos:1

While more efficient use of the available spectrum is happening, I don't think it can compensate for the insane increase in bandwidth demand that has been trending over the last few years.
If it keeps going at this rate, 300Mbps won't even make people think twice in 3 years time.
Unless there are some new advances in OFDM/LDCP or similar modulation and FEC schemes, wireless will hit the proverbial brick wall, just like DSL is.


prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

The box on the side of someones house won't be traveling. That means that you can re-use that "chunk" of frequency in another site only a few miles away. EG, do more with less.

no, no it doesn't.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to cablegeek01

Given the prices I have seen for 100mb/s, and faster, I don't see a lot of people going there in the next decade; unless the economy turns around, or the price for the speed comes down to $20 per month.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
reply to prairiesky

Yes it does.



alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

No. I'm not confused at all. I have a pretty thorough understanding of the big picture.
Carriers today (remember the guys I said to "forget" in my first post?) use the spectrum in a very inefficient manor in order to utilize mobile client equipment nationwide.
Now we are talking fixed PTMP. The box on the side of someones house won't be traveling. That means that you can re-use that "chunk" of frequency in another site only a few miles away. EG, do more with less.

Okay, this is what I envision for the future, and you guys decide the Pipe into our homes. Providers like TWC, Red Box, Netflix, Amazon, and the like. Will have massive Servers and store Movies, Games, Software, and Data. The most recent Movies will be in 4k, then 8k, and 16k and who knows. Movie Theaters, Homes, and Business will be able to access Stream or Download this Data. So what Pipe has the biggest reliable consistent Bandwidth? The answer could only be Fiber! For today's Average Person that only uses their iPhone or iPad, Wireless seems sufficient, but for the Home Theater of Today and the Future, Fiber is the only way to go!

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to nunya

care to explain how? The micro cell tech only works so far. IE, look at an apartment block with wifi.

Don't worry, you can use big words and complex arguments. I understand the wireless industry



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12

I already explained why. Pretty clearly.


prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to kherr

ah, then you clearly don't understand wireless. if you do some more reading, you'll start to understand where the wireless model fails in comparison to other techs such as fiber.

Wireless clearly has the upper hand in mobility, but after that, it lags far behind.