  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | pathetic only 305mbps over fiber? wtf is that?! | |
|
 | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: pathetic It's Comcast remaining competitive. I thought that's what consumers wanted. | |
|
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: pathetic The average consumer doesn't know what they want. I want them to man up actually USE that fiber. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| Re: pathetic Listen,
Cable is already fibre to the node. It's only the "last mile" where it gets converted to coax that it is in question.
Comcast by waiting has made a much better decision to go w/ ethernet over fibre versus the PON model which costs way more and is less flexible (FiOS). I said this a few days back.
Now there are always restrictions w/ new service especially when they are moving to fibre because lets face it they will need stick time before they get this right.
This is also targeted toward power users or business users and this will be extremely profitable.
All in all people should be cheering that this is happening because once they break the seal (as it were) they are going to have a hard time justifying old skool cable in 10 years out in the boonies. In any case cable is way better positioned that DSL just because the technology is easy to upgrade and 15 mbps will stream multiple HD streams today.
I think this is great. The more fibre that gets run the better. My only issue is that this is WAY less efficient than what happens in the other utilities in the house (you only get one gas, elec, hydro). Until someone opens their eyes and treats this like a utility, the US will remain 3rd world in internet speed and penetration. This is easily solved by providing a fibre drop, and then a utility node where this can be strung to said competitors POP. Imagine the possibilities with open competition fibre to the house. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: pathetic Regulated utilities have an incentive to invest in infrastructure, because they get a guaranteed return on capital.
This was the old Bell System model, in which they gold-plated the infrastructure. The more money they spent on their network, the more money they'd generate for their investors. (After two decades of neglect, though, the old phone network is now falling apart.)
Contrast this to the deregulated situation, in which companies are very tight-fisted when it comes to capex. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Google Fiber is PON. My bet is that, these days anyway, PON if done a certain way is still cheaper than Active Ethernet. The difference here is that Comcast is deploying surgically, thich doesn't make sense for PON. | |
|
| | | | |  somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: pathetic said by iansltx:Google Fiber is PON. My bet is that, these days anyway, PON if done a certain way is still cheaper than Active Ethernet. The difference here is that Comcast is deploying surgically, thich doesn't make sense for PON.
»en.wikinoticia.com/Technology/in···s-161-km
We follow with interest every step you take Google's new experimental fiber network that is unfolding in Kansas City. On this occasion, one of its leaders explains how each household connected individually to the Google Fiber Huts, which unlike GPON networks such as Telefonica can offer 1 Gbps symmetrical.
John Toccalino, project manager, explains that being installed in various parts of the city a few huts or nodes called Google Fiber Huts. Inside house the OLT equipment that connect the pairs of fiber, which then hung from utility poles, reach every home. For its explanation, we understand that Google is not using a GPON network like the one in Spain is installing Telefónica.
Google does reach each individual fiber from Google Hut Fiber to the home. The main advantage is that each line is independent and can use their full capacity for a single user. The disadvantage is that a deployment of this type is more expensive than the displays in a tree, as used by Telefonica, in which each fiber coming from the OLT is divided into several stages into sub-segments by splitters, so that all Users are both the same optical signal, but each uses it only for the fraction of time allocated to it.
With this architecture, the network of Google not only provides 1 Gbps to each user, but this is symmetrical, which would be impossible in a GPON deployment, having to share all the users upload rate up to 1, 25 Gbps. | |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: pathetic EPB uses GPON and offers gigabit to its highest-end subscribers.
Google may not be using GPON. They may be using X-GPON for their rollout, which has a bit more upstream capacity (2.466 Gbps).
They are using PON though, according to a screenshot or two taken at one of GFiber's active locations. | |
|
| | | |  wesmPremium
join:1999-07-29
Redmond, WA
·Frontier FiOS
| said by elefante72:Listen,
Cable is already fibre to the node. It's only the "last mile" where it gets converted to coax that it is in question.
Comcast by waiting has made a much better decision to go w/ ethernet over fibre versus the PON model which costs way more and is less flexible (FiOS). I said this a few days back. How is PON less flexible? A properly deployed PON infrastructure will be virtually maintenance free and can have any number of services deployed on top of it. All that has to happen is having another "color" (wavelength) muxed onto the network at whatever aggregation point the operator is using. Verizon and Frontier already run three discrete services over their networks; adding a fourth (what kind of service?) would be easy.
Install is more difficult than plugging into current copper infrastructure but that's because the copper has been in the ground for years. Once a majority of the homes in an area have a fiber drop and installed ONT, ordering new service becomes a matter of plugging in the equipment the service provider ships out, just like coax or copper today. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: pathetic Verizon and Frontier PON currently use 3 wavelengths, 1310nm (upload voice and data) 1490nm (download voice and data) and 1550nm (downstream video) as opposed to services, they are different wavelengths of light between the OLT and the ONT.
PON allows 1 fiber to be ran to a typical location where you would find a copper cross connect box and split that signal depending on the total length of the fiber anywhere between 8-ways to 64 - ways. This is Much cheaper to deploy (compared to active ethernet) not to mention the network is passive so the only electronics that require maintenance are the ONT and the OLT.
Initial investment for a new home will almost always be more expensive for any type of fiber since copper is easier to work with, faster to install, not to mention the electronics involved with Fiber are move expensive.
I am confident that many municipalities will have FTTP/FTTH products available within the next 10-15 years. In the grand scheme of life, FTTH is still in its infancy, copper has had well over 100 years to be perfected, its just a matter of time before fiber is perfected enough to where companies will actually have a decent ROI within a reasonable amount of time. | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | You want consumers to man up and use fiber that they don't know that they want? | |
|
| | | | said by openbox9:It's Comcast remaining competitive. I thought that's what consumers wanted.
Should be priced around $300 a month with a $500 installation/activation fee, and a hefty ETF.
Yea, I don't think Verizon is losing sleep over this.  | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: pathetic
Verizon FiOS Ultimate Tier w/2-yr Contract |
Once again, given all of the whining around here, why are people not happy that Comcast is starting to jump on the FTTH bandwagon? | |
|
| | | | somms
join:2003-07-28
Salt Lake City, UT | Re: pathetic »nextbigfuture.com/2012/09/world-···ond.html
The present achievement indicates that transmission of one petabit per second (Pbps), capacity equivalent to sending 5,000 HDTV videos of two hours in a single second is possible over 50 km, which is approximately the distance between medium-haul telecom offices. This sets a new world record throughput over a single strand of optical fiber.
Fiber just smoked the 1Pbps barrier...obsolete copper cable would never be able to come close to this!  | |
|
| | | said by FBGuy:only 305mbps over fiber? wtf is that?!
"Only 305Mbps?" They still have to have sufficient bandwidth at the aggregation points (POPs) where all these last mile connections are muxed.
What irritates me is they are still providing an asymmetrical speed. Just make it symmetrical 305Mbps Comcast.
Regardless, this looks like a knee-jerk reaction to FiOS and not a long term solution since it's delivered over Metro-E. | |
|
| |  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Re: pathetic What would they use in place of Metro Ethernet? | |
|
| | | JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL Reviews:
·Mediacom
| Re: pathetic said by DaSneaky1D:What would they use in place of Metro Ethernet?
Actual fiber? Although I suppose it doesn't make a difference at these speeds and distances. And it isn't clear if they're using fiber or ethernet for their metro-e installs. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: pathetic metro ethernet is delivered over fiber | |
|
| | | | DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou Reviews:
·Charter
| Ethernet is just the layer 2 protocol used to transport traffic. Fiber would just be the physical medium to connect the service.
Metro Ethernet is a very common (and still progressing) protocol being used to deliver a very wide variety of services these days. This is happening in place of using SONET or some other TDM infrastructure.
I just ask my question because the anon poster made it sound as if Metro-E was some sort of backwards technology. | |
|
| | | | | | Metro Ethernet is what businesses get when they buy 100-megabit dedicated connections for $2000 a month.
To get access to it as a consumer for $300 a month is a pretty good deal. (Granted, it comes without bandwidth guarantees.) | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | said by JTR:said by DaSneaky1D:What would they use in place of Metro Ethernet?
Actual fiber? Although I suppose it doesn't make a difference at these speeds and distances. And it isn't clear if they're using fiber or ethernet for their metro-e installs. Actual fiber? What does that even mean? You have to have a layer 2 network technology to carry it over the fiber.
Be it Ethernet or SONET or whatever. You just don't magically connect fiber and make a network. | |
|
| | | | | | said by JTR:said by DaSneaky1D:What would they use in place of Metro Ethernet?
Actual fiber? Although I suppose it doesn't make a difference at these speeds and distances. And it isn't clear if they're using fiber or ethernet for their metro-e installs. What do you think they are doing? Do you think they are running Cat-5 cables on the telephone poles lol? | |
|
| | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Why do you consider Ethernet over fiber a knee-jerk reaction to FIOS?
They are matching Verizon's FIOS product which is also asymmetrical. I do agree that the upload could be symmetrical but Verizon (and probably Comcast too) probably doesn't want cost comparisons from those who currently pay thousands per month because they need that type of upload capability. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by FBGuy:only 305mbps over fiber? wtf is that?!
You're seriously griping about 300+mbit/s service? Get some damn perspective! Most home LANs are still 10/100. They are offering three times that bandwidth, for an internet connection, what the hell is the problem?
The only question I'd ask is why it isn't being offered as a symmetrical product? Hell, I'd rather have 100mbit/s symmetrical than 305/65, but that's just me.  Perhaps they don't want to rock the traffic balancing boat and muck up their peering arrangements? That could theoretically be an issue with the bittorrent kiddies, though one has to wonder if there are enough of them to make a significant difference. Are people who aren't willing to pay for movies/software/etc really willing to pay $300/mo to help others avoid paying?
And yes, I know, there are legal uses for bittorrent, but every legal swarm I've ever joined was already seeded to the point that I couldn't even contribute my full ADSL bandwidth, let alone the speed we're talking about here. | |
|
| | |
| | | | | Re: pathetic "Most home lans are still 10/100?"
Absolutely. DSLR and it's readers do NOT represent the majority of homes it represents a very small section of what people really have.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: pathetic As far as I've seen any router made in the past few years (computers also) is going to have GbE on it. DSLR may not be representative but someone who is going to buy a 300mbit package is going to know they need more than a 100mbit switch, router or NIC card, not to mention unless you really haven't upgraded anything in your house in the past few years your computer equipment will support it too.
You always seem to hate on DSLR and yet post here all the time. What gives? Are you just that thick that you feel the need to let it be known how much you dislike this website... on this website? | |
|
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: pathetic He runs an ISP...and adds a dose of reality to some of these topics. Like the fact that most folks don't care about more than a few megabits per second, as long as those few megabits are reasonably low-latency and jitter-free...and are usable 24x7 to most of the Internet.
Also, there are still routers made in the past six months that are only 10/100. They're also less than $30 apiece. Cheap computers...same thing. Granted, if you're paying $300 per month for an internet connection your stuff is probably all gigabit, but I'll let you in on a secret: there's a very, VERY small percentage of the Internet that can run at 300M down. This is from experience...I've used Mac Pros running Windows 7, tied to a campus network (good peering and transit) at a gigabit, with 10G to the peering point and 10G pipes to places where they were needed...and gotten less than 300 Mbps on every speed test I came across. This is with high-end Cisco gear on every hop, no throttling and no congestion (the entire campus averages 300-400 Mbps at this point, and that's with a supercomputer or two).
As much as I think gigabit symmetric on GFiber is cool, you'll find that even 300M is next to impossible to max, and will be for the next two or three years. 100M is about the fastest residential connection where you aren't running headlong into diminishing returns. | |
|
| | | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: pathetic said by iansltx:As much as I think gigabit symmetric on GFiber is cool, you'll find that even 300M is next to impossible to max, and will be for the next two or three years.
Not sure about you, but last I checked things can change quite a bit in 2 or 3 years. | |
|
| | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: pathetic Yep. $20 says that 24 months from now you still won't need 300M for 99% of web sites. Of course, that's mostly because there will still be people who can't get 50M at that point. | |
|
| | | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: pathetic said by iansltx:Yep. $20 says that 24 months from now you still won't need 300M for 99% of web sites. I'll go a step farther and say that over 90% of the population won't have a need for 100 Mbps by the year 2020.
In other words, I'm saying that I believe less than 10% of the population will have any real need for even 100 megs for at least 8 more years. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: pathetic it kinda sucks when things go good for awhile then they just peter out. Seriously, what stopped the growth of broadband? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: pathetic Cable and Teleco greed with a splash of incompetent government representation is what stopped broadband. | |
|
| | | | | | You know, I frequent another specialized website that's music related and people over there also say that the people on THAT website do NOT represent the majority of people, yet when you go out to shows and talk... The opinions between the lay people and the forum posters frequently align...
So funny though that you said this today... | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by battleop:"Most home lans are still 10/100?"
Absolutely. DSLR and it's readers do NOT represent the majority of homes it represents a very small section of what people really have.
I'd say that close to half of the small businesses I work with are still 10/100. They may use gigabit to link switches together, or to plug their servers in, but the workstations are still plugged into 100mbit/s ports. And why not? Gigabit switches are becoming more and more affordable, but fast ethernet switches are cheaper yet, and they comfortably meet the needs of many customers. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: pathetic It's hard to convince a customer they need a gigabit switch for a network that's total usage isn't even 10mb.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. | |
|
| | | | | I've been on gigabit for several years and put everyone I help on gigabit as well. | |
|
| | |  NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by MovieLover76:I think most of us (myself included) have upgraded to gigabit by now.
I checked the cost of upgrading to gig LAN. I will upgrade as I retire 10/100 hardware and replace it with 1000 hardware, and not one ms sooner.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: pathetic The equipment is ridiculously cheap nowadays. | |
|
| |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by Crookshanks:said by FBGuy:only 305mbps over fiber? wtf is that?!
The only question I'd ask is why it isn't being offered as a symmetrical product? To avoid bastardizing their LUCRATIVE biz product. Why do you think D3 upload rates are so chintzy? with bonding on most cable providers its to safeguard biz revenues.
--
Despises any post with strings. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Shirley, you can't be serious. | |
|
| |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Re: pathetic Quit calling him Shirley. | |
|
 Black_MageMy backup spell is WarpPremium
join:2012-09-12
USA
kudos:1 | Left in the dust Suddenly my 12 Meg DSL connection looks like....dialup.  | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | Connecticut? There's no fios in Hartford. That's AT&T land. | |
|
|  KommiePremium
join:2003-05-13
united state
kudos:2 | Re: Connecticut? They have FIOS in Greenwich, and Stamford. | |
|
| | Ok with this can we get the added HBO, max,show , starz HD?? Ok with this can we get the added HBO, max, show , starz HD channels back??
as well other stuff like goal line HD, Bigten ALT HD, pac12 HD (only hd in very small areas) and the FULL HD line up for MLB EI, NHL CI, MLS DK, and NBA LP?? | |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA | All that's needed All that's needed is an 8x4 channel bonding DOCSIS 3.0 modem. Easily deployed on a DOCSIS 3.0 cable plant that has 8x4 channel bonding enabled. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: All that's needed said by IowaCowboy:All that's needed is an 8x4 channel bonding DOCSIS 3.0 modem. Easily deployed on a DOCSIS 3.0 cable plant that has 8x4 channel bonding enabled.
Really? Docsis 3.0 over 8 channels has a theoretical upper limit of 304 Mbps. Real life results would be much less than that. | |
|
| | | | Re: All that's needed Real life results would be exactly that. You only see degradation with load, or poor signal and/or line quality. You would have to have really small nodes and something like 24 channels to offer service at those rates. In reality DOCSIS is a horrible option for deploying anything greater than 100/20Mbps without a literal ass load of nodes.
IowaCowboy doesn't understand that DOCSIS is shared it seems. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: All that's needed said by NiteSn0w:Real life results would be exactly that. You only see degradation with load, or poor signal and/or line quality. which some or all would probably exist in most areas. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: All that's needed Very true. These conditions are all too common in places like New York and New York Metro. They have problems such as 300ms latency and completely intermittent service that cable companies are unwilling to fix. | |
|
| | Missing The Story Many of you are missing the real story, here.
1. Somebody's actually deploying new fiber.
2. This is a direct result of something that's missing in a large part of the U.S.: Competition.
If this turns out to be real, and it turns out it makes money for Comcast, and it turns out it makes VZW sweat, perhaps VZW will up their game. Then Comcast will have to up their game, in response. Perhaps you can see where this is going?
And maybe, just maybe, Comcast will find "Hey, that wasn't so hard. Plus customers really like it and we can make money at it," and choose to deploy it elsewhere... such as in God-forsaken "AT&T" land--against that company's lame DSL-on-steroids. (Tho there's little need, being as Comcast already trounces "AT&T" with their cable product.)
We can hope.
Funny, it would be, if a cable company ended-up being the premier end-user data provider in the U.S., would it not?
Jim | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| the whole story? This only seems like a strategy for customers onboard.. FIOS is still about $100 cheaper as a stand-alone product. Next, deploying it with those caveats are going to throw around the cherry picking "qualification" tool that telcos had for DSL service.. remember those? The... NO your copper is not good or close enought to a central office deal-- except more arrogant.. NO, your business or residence is not close enough to our node for you to buy a $300 300mbit tier.. piss off..
Comcast will have to build infrastructure slowly to convert coax as a fiber (installing rack-ports in the node) that handwriting's been on the wall since the early 2000s. The main difference is the amount of nodes Comcast has and the amount of nodes FTTP has are quite diffent aggregations (a Verizon having 7-10:1 MORE with powered cabinets of 1:1 rack mounted fiber ports when compared to Comcast).
In NYC, Time Warner and Cablevision could do this cheaper than comcast due to the higher ratio of customers and installed base of nodes.. Time Warner is already onboard with offering more fiber in Manhattan (business customers only). Still waiting for the other shoe to drrop with Cablevision.. but that shoe seems stuck and not about to move due to Verizon's lack of will to finish what it started with FIOS.
Comcast obviously sees a day when 300mbit won't be enough.. Somebody started looking at the track record of fiber R&D and docsis R&D and saw some startling parallels to DSL... the line doesn't crossover at 300 megabit, but the closer you get to a 1 gigabit line per customer.. fiber to the premise begins to cost more over docsis.. Luckily this presentation to management swayed them or it could be another dozen years with no improvement and cable doesn't want to be DSL (Docsis SLow) in 12 years. | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| aerial fiber wonder if they are doing aerial fiber only because they don't want to do and have to retract their "fios digs up your yard" commericals... what if we have conduit to our house underground and it goes right to the node because that is also where our tap is at? we have to put an aerial in in a 100% UG neighborhood? | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
| | Trivial number of potential customers? Only 10 cities and within 1/3 mile of fiber node sounds like a trivial
number of potential customers. Any estimates? | |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | 1760 feet thats even crappier than DSL.
* y a w n *
--
Despises any post with strings. | |
|
| brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: 1760 feet said by dvd536:thats even crappier than DSL.
* y a w n *
Show me a DSL circuit doing 300+ Mbps now or even close to that. | |
|
| | rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: 1760 feet I think he is talking about the distance. i also dont think he is considering the fact that the distance is only related do to costs involved and what they are willing to do for that install fee. In other words the distance is only cost related and its probably safe to assume they would be willing to go further if your willing to pony up cash to have it done. Its not like dsl where its physically impossible to do. its fiber, They can go a hell of a lot further than a third of a mile. | |
|
|
|
·
