| reply to ravenchilde
Re: [AB] Whats Next? gpon is 2.4Ggbps down 1.2GBgpps up not 1gb |
|
| reply to Doonz
excited about shaw phone and expanded tv eh, while i hope my parents live for many years to come when they inevitably and unfortunately die so does shaws vision of the future. too bad it's gonna take death to effect change but that seems to be the case for every watershed moment in human history. i might be wrong but people my age of 29 nearing 30 don't seem to be using home phones or decadent cable/satellite tv packages. hopefully shaw gets infused with some honest young talent that understands their bread will be buttered off internet alone going forward and if a viable isp or two arises they will be in trouble. that's assuming the canadian government doesn't continue to provide shelter with some garbage 'preserving canadian heritage' law so outstripped business models are permitted to continue the raping and pillaging. |
|
|
|
| reply to Connor M
said by Connor M:gpon is 2.4Ggbps down 1.2GBgpps up not 1gb
You're right! I've paid more attention to EPON, so I had forgotten that they didn't match up there. Great catch. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to ravenchilde
said by ravenchilde:This is primarily FUD. If you take Netindex.com by 3rd party OOKLA as a comparison: The cable companies are in spots 1 (rogers),3 (Shaw),4,6,7,9. The telcos are in 11,12,13,14 (exception: Bell Aliant in #2 - I believe they're doing a lot of FTTH).
Cite my work as usual: »www.netindex.com/download/2,7/Canada/
So, my question is: If cable is so slow, explain why they're up in the top 10 with the 3rd party resellers?
Also Brad likely hasn't read about DOCSIS 3.1 and the move to OFDM. 10G pipe, and decreasing node sizes. (Keep in mind that GPON by Telcos is only 1G or moving to 10-GPON). Coax has shielding and a much higher frequency spectrum than twisted pair, you'd be foolish to count it out.
PON and DOCSIS share a lot in their overall topology.
Actually it isn't. Peak (burst) speeds is not the same thing as sustained throughput. If cable was so amazing they would not have to do node splits.
I am very much aware of DOCSIS 3.1; which is still 3 years away before you'll start seeing it on MSO networks.
GPON setups have significantly lower levels of over subscription over cable nodes. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Shaw
| im confused r people actually trying to say cable has anything close to the potential of fiber? personally im not a fan of loosing 6-9ms just to have my signal converted to docsis and then back to internet protocol, dsl and cable with both eventually die......fiber is the future, now im just curious for how long will we be able to improve on fiber and if there could possibly be anything else used in the future for carrying amount of data larger then fiber can do, or is fiber the end of the road? and its simply about improving and fully utilizing that technology? i dont know what could be better then light
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U |
|
| said by Connor M:fiber is the future, now im just curious for how long will we be able to improve on fiber and if there could possibly be anything else used in the future for carrying amount of data larger then fiber can do, or is fiber the end of the road? and its simply about improving and fully utilizing that technology? i dont know what could be better then light
I don't know about larger, but some researchers are working on a DWDM/OTN compatible fiber that is hollow. Light travels at about only 2/3 the-speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum through glass. By making a hollow fiber, preferably with a vacuum in the middle, they could reduce propagation latency.
Fiber is a great signal medium, but due to the high cost of brownfielding you'll see the industry (this is MSO/Telco neutral) push copper as far as it can go. |
|
kevinds
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:1 | reply to Connor M
I don't think anybody is saying the potential is anywhere near close, but with how it is used, yes, there isn't much difference in service. As mentioned, with Telus, fiber and copper are the same, except fiber has lower latency.
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel. |
|
Reviews:
·Shaw
| i agree with you to an extent, but when you say "but with how it is used , yes, there isnt much difference" i agree and disagree, there isnt a difference in speeds because telus hasnt had time to make fiber only plans yet i believe (nor have they rolled out fiber to enough areas to make it a reasonable idea) but as i stated previously, i am almost positive telus is using exactly the same tech as google fiber, fios, ect, wich is gpon, so thats kinda like saying if i got docsis 3.1 and then got 250 down, saying its not better then the tech now has to offer, and though the speed might be the same as what shaw offers to some customers now, the consistency aswell as potential for improvement is there, and i think its widely agreed upon most people dont NEED more then 50mbps and once they get to that point upload is the concern (im not saying people cant use 100mbps, im saying generally we have very little use for that much bandwidth at once)
dont get me wrong i still think its dumb telus fiber and copper customers get same up down speeds, other benefits to the telus fiber to tho, its basically like having a bridged router, no actiontec needed, aswell as consistent ping and alot of overhead for optik tv
also if telus was pushing copper as far as it could go why did they start implementing fiber before copper is done? ravenchilds last statement didnt make to much sense to me as telus is doing the opposite
--
Shaw Broadband 100/5 - Cisco DPC3825 - Asus RT-AC66U |
|
| said by Connor M:ravenchilds last statement didnt make to much sense to me as telus is doing the opposite
I'm not sure what you mean? Telus is greenfielding, as is Shaw. Telus IS pushing copper as far as it can go (pair bonding, new profiles, etc). Shaw is also going to push copper as far as it can go with DOCSIS. It just happens that COAX has a much better frequency range than copper pair (in all it's varieties), but one is a star topology and the other a bus topology.
Keep in mind that the bus style topology is where the whole industry is moving with PON (in all it's many flavors of G [ITU-T], E [IEEE], RFoG [SCTE], etc). DOCSIS is already a bus topology, makes you think there might be something there... :P
Keep in mind that active ethernet (star topology) via fibre or copper has been tried by small ISPs around north america, but larger groups (incumbents, MSOs) have never adopted it for residential use (that I'm aware of).
So the future is a bus topology, and I'm not sure we should care if it is copper or fibre, per say. I think the important factors for consumers should be cost vs performance. Why do we care about the transmission medium? Fiber is very trendy, but if it doesn't get you improved service (speed, latency, etc) in some way I don't suggest anyone be caught up on the method of service delivery (other than we are nerds, which is awesome, and I love it...). |
|
Doonz
join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB | reply to Doonz
Op Here,
Great talk you guys. Keep going!! |
|
