Which the vast majority of time residential DSL is asymmetrical.

That depends on the provisioning of the DSLAM they can be provisioned for symmetrical or asymmetrical.

What hurts DSL's latency is the very limited upstream, on 896kbps up it's very easy to saturate that and cause buffer bloat.

Bandwidth yes, latency, maybe not.

That's why a P2P fiber connection, such as shown in the chart appears to have lower latency, but add in the real world switching and routing and it becomes a totally different game.

Well, DSL *can* have lower latency.. but AT&T loves interleave, which has always made the minimum DSL latency I ever experienced ~20ms. If they'd just let lines use FastPath that can do it, then sure.

The majority of latency is not from the method of transport, the majority of it is in switching and routing.

That's why a P2P fiber connection, such as shown in the chart appears to have lower latency, but add in the real world switching and routing and it becomes a totally different game.

Bandwidth yes, latency, maybe not.

Like for like though, assuming generally good conditions for both DSL and Cable, cable is going to have lower latency and higher bandwidth.

It's like anything: depends on the local plant

Then from a technology perspective alone DOCSIS 3.1 is much superior to any DSL flavor.

Especially drastic upload speed improvements, this 0.75Mbps up is complete garbage and latency on DSL fluctuates like crazy because your upstream gets easily saturated, so latency on cable will be much better.

I am definitely not. I am looking at things from a technology perspective alone.

It IS fiber to the home, only difference is it's not using xPON. They are literally bringing fiber to your home, and often times inside it as most put the ONU/ONT inside.

I don't think it's that hard to see why individuals like @GTAXL and myself would gladly take even regular old HFC over DSL--it'd mean more bandwidth and a likely *decrease* in latency.

You're clearly not in the same situation, then, as most of CL's rural users, who typically only have access to ADSL2+ and, if they're very lucky, ADSL2+ with line bonding---but CL has pretty much ended the latter for their residential segment.

RFoG would be for individuals in our location--at least it's *fiber to the home*.

I'll GLADLY take it over DSL any day of the week.

Much less crappy doesn't negate it being crappy. It's an upgrade in the sense that the fiber could be migrated to a PON network but that's about it. I surely do not want such coax in my home. Get rid of the old legacy crap.

Much less crappy considering you're on your own node and not sharing bandwidth. You'll get more consistent speeds on RFoG and the benefit of being able to be easily upgraded to EPON down the road. RFoG is definitely an upgrade than being on the old HFC network. Also, I don't see why ARRIS or Motorola couldn't make an ONT that just gives an Ethernet handoff and can speak the DOCSIS language without having to run coax to a cable modem. I get you may want a coax handoff to run to existing coax to cable boxes, etc. but a lot of these rural areas for RDOF don't even have existing coax as they aren't in the cable footprint to begin with. Only coax we ever had in our house was from the Directv satellite dish to the receivers.

Yes, it is the same crappy DOCSIS network. Just replacing the drop to the premises with fiber but still coax for the rest.

I'm guessing RFoG is essentially fiber to a module on the side of your home, then coax from there to within your home television/modem?

Michigan also has expansion and is NOT FTTH. You should learn to read actually.

It was just approved last year, given it some time.

I'm guessing RFoG is essentially fiber to a module on the side of your home, then coax from there to within your home television/modem?

Good luck on D4.0. That unicorn that is always just around the corner. I'll believe it when I see it.

Untrue. I have sold and installed fiber internet to more then one location that is residential in Ohio and in Centurylink’s service area. Also by them and CHTR.

Charter is not building any FTTH networks. They are expanding their network as is and they keep saying that.

While I'd prefer just straight FTTH, quite frankly, I'd settle for cable--at least there's a road to symmetrical gig with DOCSIS 4.0.

None of that matters, back to the basic bottom line, why should a company offer a fiber service to residential subscribers for say $100 per month, when they can use the same fibers to offer business or commercial service subscribers service for 10 or more times as much?

And have a lower churn and less tech support problems.

I cannot speak for CL but AT&T has two internal companies for fiber, residential is considered part of entertainment and business is part of what used to be called Core Network, that name has changed since I went to Wireless.

And they operated like two different companies, if residential didn't have you mapped for fiber you couldn't get it, if you wanted ASE (business) they could make it happen to a residence.

And unless their is a E-Mux involved they don't even share the same fibers, each has their own within the same company.

I don't know enough of why but my guess is it has something to do with P&L and tax's.

I had something similar out here with CL I need a 100/100 connection and that means fiber, CL residential forget, CL business, sorry not interested.

So I contacted Speakeasy and they agreed to get fiber here, it is on CL fiber from the same RT I get internet out of and CL could have sold me service from but didn't want to even though technically I am running the business out of the same property my home is on, it's just in a different building on the same property.

Likewise there are 3 American Tower sites that are around me that where part of my turf, AT&T wanted fiber to those sites CL's answer no way Jose, even though they had fiber at 2 of the sites to serve DS3's out of RT's.

So another part of AT&T which is a registered CLEC in Florida dropped an order on CL to install fiber to the sites and that was ok with CL.

If you can figure out CL's logic on that one, I will buy you a steak dinner at Ruth Chris.

And sometimes even when there is fiber companies still do screwy things, I have a buddy of mine who left the PD and went into insurance, the good neighbor company, his wife who opened her own company reading MRI's and such was going to co-locate in his office, she needed a real connection, with a real good uptime guarantee, AT&T can do that, but not for the location she wanted to be in.

The FUed part is AT&T has a E-Mux in the building where she wanted to co-lo with her husbands business and his business already had ASE through a national contract with AT&T.

Frustrated she contacted me, so I contacted my connected in marketing and gave her all of the information, about an hour later the service she wanted was agreed to and a due date was in the process.

The problem was a database error and the marketing person the MRI lady talked to was just too lazy to literally push the issue one floor up in the same building.

And after just working a database problem in a Frontier turf I am convinced this lack of internal silo to silo communications is an industry wide problem and it needs to be solved and whoever solves it will make a lot of money in the process.

So that's a project I am digging into.



]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-What-will-the-sale-to-quotApollo-Fundsquot-mean-for-us-rural-customers-33185333 Sun, 15 Aug 2021 12:45:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-What-will-the-sale-to-quotApollo-Fundsquot-mean-for-us-rural-customers-33184929 said by Well Bonded:

No one is screwing the regular people, they are the ones wanting what they are unwilling to pay for.

I disagree with the statement that broadband is important only to a very small segment of society. But even if that were true, it is not likely to continue to be true. It still might not attract capital investment because there are cheaper ways to make money in the US.

And yet that hasn't happened and the market has been a fail over and over and over.

Because if there is a true need someone will step up and serve the market, but artificially forcing a business to serve a perceived consumer is a fail every time.

How do businesses exist without consumers ???

That is a consumers problem, not a business problem.

If they (consumers) cannot figure how make a profit for what they want, then they should fade away, it's their problem not anyone's else's problem.

The need for fiber is growing, and if telcos would of just cut into their profits a little to replace their copper with fiber long ago, they'd be sitting on massive profits today.