x
<<   <   Page 8 / 9   >   >>
splitEndz 12/4/2012 | 9:15:13 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH re: 10g multimode fiber from the CO or MSO to a neighborhood node...It can be done today,

Not unless the CO is 10 feet from the neighborhood node. DOubtful that 10G is the right place to start, even if you meant singlemode fiber. Still way too costly for 10G. Why in the world would you need a 10G feed to a wireless node? To feed a stack of 10,000 802.11 access points with short reach? Why, whyiswhy, why?
whyiswhy 12/4/2012 | 9:15:12 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH My bad! Meant 1Gbps. 50 micron fiber at 1300nm will go about 5Km. Range of 802.11 (without significant gain) is about 200-300m. Delivering 2 Mbps over 10 homes/hops will cover 2.5Km in straight line. 50 lines in spoke fashion is 1 Gbps. Center to center is 5Km.

Just doodling.

-Why
beowulf888 12/4/2012 | 9:15:11 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH The Chief wrote:
"To provide phone, internet, and video it has to be at least 100 Mb. This seems to indicate fiber in the short term."

True. But the once you're dealing with 100 Mbps streams to the home, can the service providers actually support fire-hydrant data streams to 100 of thousands -- even millions -- of customers?

Let's not kid ourselves: FTTH will be a failure if there's not the infrastructure (and the content) to support it.

--Beo
optical Mike 12/4/2012 | 9:15:08 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH But the once you're dealing with 100 Mbps streams to the home, can the service providers actually support fire-hydrant data streams to 100 of thousands -- even millions -- of customers?

Let's not kid ourselves: FTTH will be a failure if there's not the infrastructure (and the content) to support it.

--Beo
---------------------------------
For the last year we have been hearing how the backbone network is so overbuilt, presently operating at only 5% or less then potential. Isn't that the reason to get the fiber to the home now and take advantage of the bandwidth

Mike
big daddy 12/4/2012 | 9:15:07 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH The Internet became a force without content and (adequate) infrastructure - because it gave people a tool and empowered them to create.

Why wouldn't FTTH do the same?
splitEndz 12/4/2012 | 9:15:03 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH re: The Internet became a force without content and (adequate) infrastructure - because it gave people a tool and empowered them to create. Why wouldn't FTTH do the same?


I think you are correct in your way of looking at this as a tool to empower communications rather than empowering "premium hollywood" content and tying the infrastructure to that content. The key thing to note is that the value of FTTH (the high BW for personal communications) is really only (at present) a value locally, within interconnected local communities. It will be many years, and only thru competitive pressure, that any of that high BW traffic will touch and transit internet backbones for any reasonable price.

This is why the municipality is best suited to incubate this, as a local "utility" service. Once the value is established, then private enterprise and or public/private partnerships will come in to the picture. The utility value will never be established otherwise.
beowulf888 12/4/2012 | 9:14:59 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH Mike wrote:
>For the last year we have been hearing how the >backbone network is so overbuilt, presently >operating at only 5% or less then potential. Isn't >that the reason to get the fiber to the home now and >take advantage of the bandwidth

Well, certainly there's a vast overdeployment of dark fiber. But I doubt if there's the switch capacity nor the router capacity to handle all the traffic that could flow across this fiber if it were lit. Moreover, the type of traffic that would exploit FTTH is video traffic. For instance, as a home user you'd want to get a movie feed. Well, the Internet as it's architected today isn't optimized for multicast traffic distribution.

Bottom line: there would need to be a big investment in upgrading core infrastructure before a home user could really exploit FTTH.

--Beo
beowulf888 12/4/2012 | 9:14:58 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH big daddy wrote:
"The Internet became a force without content and (adequate) infrastructure - because it gave people a tool and empowered them to create.

"Why wouldn't FTTH do the same?"

Well, a lot of the Internet's content was home-grown web pages. Despite the complaints about "fraudband" on this list, I've found that Cable and DSL have been adequate for my browsing needs.

I guess what we need to do is understand what sort of content would require FTTH.
1. Email, Instant Messaging, Web Browsing? No. These can run just fine on DSL and Cable.
2. Voice (as in toll-quality phone calls)? Not really. DSL and Cable have the bandwidth to support PCM Voice (56 kbps).
3. Internet Gaming? Well, not being a gamer, I can't really say. But I've heard that the bandwidth of half a T-1 (~750 kbps) is more than adequate to support Internet gaming.
4. Video (multicast or on-demand). Yes, FTTH would be required for this sort of service. Well, coax could carry this sort of service as well. But it is my understanding that most cable systems couldn't support personalized video services AS WELL AS their standard broadcast services (?). Wireless (at least in its current form) wouldn't be adequate for this sort of bandwidth.

So, I suppose we could start broadcasting our home videos over FTTH (and no doubt this would give a huge boost to independent porn entrepreneurs ;-). But realistically, it will be the big content providers who will ultimately drive the content of FTTH. IMHO.

--Beo
rtfm 12/4/2012 | 9:14:45 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH RJ wrote:
So the least our generation can do is solve one earthly problem. I'll suggest that we need to fix our broken communications infrastructure as a top priority. Hopefully, then those behind us will be able to use that infrastructure and find the grace to pick up where previous generations left off.
*********************
I fully agree that our telecom infrastructure could and should be better. (One reason it hasn't happened is that small, innovative solutions are either disallowed or made unviable in a market that is based on scale, size, muscle, and lobbying.) BUT, the bigger problem is not the US's infrastructure, but the world's, especially developing world's. UN estimates say over 2 billion people lack electricity. The number who lack telephones is vastly higher. There are a few saving graces in this in that:
1) The price-performance curve is vastly better for telecom than electricity (based on improvements).
2) Telecom infrastructure can be shared, like in kiosks, as has been successful in India and parts of Africa.
3) Instead of just voice, there are other services (small bits of data) than can have immense value (like "buy" "sell" "flood warning").

If people want to initiate a discussion (LR - Can you set up bboards for threads users find interesting, more traditional bboards, instead of just replying to articles and having tangential topics?) on wireless as an access solution, I've studied that in some detail. It will make a very decent bridge solution for the US, but would complement (and not replace) FTTH/FTTC. Ad hoc networks, with, say, 10 hops just in the local area, will lead to significant clogging, and if you simulate what happens with errors in transmission (just 1% or so), things come crashing down. Yes, 802.11b has faster replacements around and coming, but these don't change the fundamentals. This will give decent bandwidth for most needs. Personally, I find medium speeds enough for most needs, especially based on what I would want to pay.

In terms of distances, 802.11x can go much further with simple antennae (pringles can/yagi included ;), non-powered. 100 mW is the FCC limit, which Proxim can offer (or 20 dBm). The losses for 1 km are about 100 dB, still enough to receive this at the other end (with Line of Sight!). An antenna can boost this quite a bit. But, for neighborhood meshes, instead of distance, the key is usage density. Unfortunately, the 2.4 GHz spectrum barely allows 3 almost-non-overlapping channels. Setting up mini cells would be the best way to get more bandwidth, and then the central point could use any appropriate uplink (especially FTTC).

An interesting application would be the use of this for developing country needs, where usage density is not the bottleneck, nor demands for exotic QoS. Just cheap, raw bandwidth. The bigger bottleneck turns out to be ETSI emission limits, which are a good deal lower than FCC (especially when factoring any possible gains from antennae).

Unfortunately, too often, we constrain ourselves by our past. An example of this is digital radio, which has great potential to provide new *public value* services, but gets stuck in commercial and standards wrangling.

BTW, one of my favorite analyses is on what investments can and can not do is the 3G wireless licensing in UK, about 50 billion dollars(ish). That could have paid for FTTH, everywhere. Instead of 3G, 2.5 G would give quite decent bandwidth, especially for "data anywhere" which is what people really care about. I actually got a UK Government representative to admit the licensing fees were a "bit out of whack." He blamed it on consultants and hype.

rtfm

p.s. I, too, concur with many of your views here. Don't know when and how, but would love to chat more over coffee (or virtual cofee, online? - yahoo messenger style?)
rjmcmahon 12/4/2012 | 9:14:43 PM
re: Experts Talk FTTH BUT, the bigger problem is not the US's infrastructure, but the world's, especially developing world's. UN estimates say over 2 billion people lack electricity. The number who lack telephones is vastly higher. There are a few saving graces in this in that.
____________________

Agreed. "There but for the grace of God go I."

While world infrastructure upgrades are bigger problem, it is also very important that US citizens come to understand their position of privilege on our planet. We need to extend our families, beyond our own, and beyond our neighbors which happen to share a grocery store, to those outside our national boundries.

A great woman in my life, born in 1904 and passed a few days after the turn of 21st century, said to me that the most profound invention was not the automobile, nor the airplane and not the atomic bomb, nor even the admired apollo program. She said the most profound invention brought the world into her living room. For her to see, and to hear, with her own eyes, and her own ears. The television made the world available to her.

That profound and most influential technological invention, has been distorted, mostly due to its broadcast and one-way nature. Unfortunately, it's pictures can no longer be accepted. It's world views, that influence many leaders, (which comes from the son of too much suicide), cannot be trusted.

The understanding that it is how a human sees the world that is most important is what drives the reason why US communications infrastructure must be repaired, or more accurately, why it must fulfill its potential, before we'll ever be able to fulfill our obligations to the world in which we all share.
<<   <   Page 8 / 9   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE