& cplSiteName &
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
inkstainedwretch
inkstainedwretch
1/14/2017 | 6:09:54 PM
Triductor
Triductor was founded in 2006, and has been supplying VDSL and G.hn circuitry to Chinese OEMs. (Thnx to Dave Burstein for pointing me to this info).

-- Brian Santo
KBode
KBode
1/17/2017 | 9:12:50 AM
Broader deployment
I would really love to see broader deployment of this. I've heard about technology like this for a decade, (crosstalk reduction, etc) but it never seems to see any substantive deployment here in the States where it would be the most useful in shoring up lagging networks. 
brooks7
brooks7
1/17/2017 | 11:45:04 AM
Re: Broader deployment
We had an article last week here quoting Tom Nolle that Broadband Internet loses money (I don't believe it).  Why would people spend money on the service given that?

seven

 
inkstainedwretch
inkstainedwretch
1/17/2017 | 12:08:48 PM
G.fast in the USA
G.fast offers something like 300 Mbps up to 300 meters. A decade ago, loops that short were rare in the US. I haven't seen the stats in years, but I assume connections that short are still rare.

What I've been hearing consistently since the technology was first developed was that G.fast would start out being most attractive in markets where physical access is restricted either by statute or by the physical limitations of the premises, or both, which describes markets in Europe.

Not to say G.fast won't be used in the US. It's just that most vendors still seem to think the biggest early markets will be elsewhere.

-- Brian Santo

 
KBode
KBode
1/17/2017 | 12:56:03 PM
Re: Broader deployment
Did he me mean that growth in residential broadband is flat so ISPs don't think it's profitable enough (and are therefore refocusing on media, ads and enterprise)? Or did he say broadband simply isn't profitable? I'll go try to read the article...
KBode
KBode
1/17/2017 | 12:59:34 PM
Re: G.fast in the USA
Makes since it's more common overseas given the dominance of DSL in other markets. But outside of CenturyLink (in I think Idaho) it's still curious it's not seeing more adoption here. I had read I thought that they're at the point where they can deliver 300 Mbps at a thousand meters, which still sounds pretty promising for a lot of these MDUs?
inkstainedwretch
inkstainedwretch
1/17/2017 | 2:10:14 PM
Re: G.fast in the USA
No, it's roughly 300 Gbps at 300 meters -- and that's if you aggregate multiple lines.

Nokia, for example, says explicitly that you can't do G.fast without also doing a fiber rebuild because you need to move your DSLAMs closer to the prem (presumably you'd need more DSLAMs then, too?).

https://networks.nokia.com/solutions/g.fast

There's a chart on that page that shows how G.fast can in fact do 1 gig at very short distances, but that the data rate falls off on a fairly steep slope measured against distance (a well-known phenomenon with DSL).

Neither AT&T nor Verizon have any stomach for such massive rebuilds. And even if Verizon were to change its mind and spend a lot more money on wireline, it would have to consider FiOS, which is FTTP. As it is, both seem to be legitimately vastly more enthusiastic about wireless broadband.

Which leaves Centurylink, which, yes, is mostly isolated in the upper left-hand corner of the country, which, for all intents and purposes, can be adequately described as "Idaho" (speaking as someone who resides in a nominally non-Idaho part of that corner).

So in short, mostly Europe, some parts of Asia,and Idaho right now.

--Brian Santo
brooks7
brooks7
1/17/2017 | 2:32:15 PM
Re: G.fast in the USA
@Brian Why would you replace FTTP with G.fast?  It would make 0 sense.  FTTP is faster.  The whole point of G.fast is to not do the drop cable with fiber but instead use the existing copper.  But you have to bring the fiber into the local 8 home (or so) crossconnects.  That is the fiber rebuild required.  Then there is the whole power thing.  People have been talking about back powering the DSLAM from the homes (I just worry about somebody unplugging their modem and crashing the entire DSLAM).  Other than that, you now have to place a LOT of power nodes or extend it out from the CO.  That is why FTTC (which is what g.fast is) has only happened in 3 places - East Germany, BellSouth and Las Vegas.  The East German network got overbuilt by standard DSL.  BellSouth and Vegas are the old Reltec - Marconi units and the carriers have had difficulty with replacements.

@Kbode - Tom Nolle declared it an absolute loss.  I don't believe it.  I think that they see DSL upgrades as a bad deal compared to other investments.  Unless we force upgrades legally, I would expect them about never.

seven

 
inkstainedwretch
inkstainedwretch
1/17/2017 | 3:22:54 PM
Re: G.fast in the USA
Why would you replace FTTP with G.fast? You wouldn't even consider it.

That's what I meant -- even if VZ wanted to upgrade wireline (which it doesn't), it's been doing FTTP, which is why it wouldn't likely even consider G.fast. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


-- Brian Santo
brooks7
brooks7
1/17/2017 | 4:08:39 PM
Re: G.fast in the USA
@Brian Thanks for Clarifying.

And that has added to the reason that the more advanced versions of DSL have gotten to be smaller and smaller markets.  ADSL (and 2 and 2+) were designed to operate within the cable lengths that the Telco networks used in their POTS design.  Once you need shorter and shorter loops you have to add more and more fiber to the network.  As you do that, suddenly a full FTTP build becomes more and more palitable.  Think about AT&T and U-verse.  If they did g.fast and eventually FTTP, they will have done 4 buildouts in access over that period of time (and I got one of the first ADSL lines from them in 1999).  That could mean 4 generations of technology in one depreciation cycle.

There is an MDU problem as well.  Now we would require DSLAMs in MDU basements and that the building owner allows telco access and power for them.  They are not mandated to allow such access.

All of that leads to these more advanced technologies having smaller markets that they can address.  Tier 1 Telcos want property wide solutions.  Or at least something that is deployable across many lines. The cost to approve, deploy and maintain these sub-scale technologies just makes no sense - outside of high density housing in Asia.

The telcos have latched on to Wireless because they can sell the same bits per second for a lot more money AND they get to charge per person instead of per household.  Now they are just running into families not being able to spend more on their services.

seven

 


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events