dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Skippy25

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

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.



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.