There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 13:48 (#2TJ3) There is no replacement for Fiber. There's things people try to do to cheap out and give a inferior product, such as brighthouse's "hybrid fiber coax" network. I've used wireless before, even licensed wireless links: They absolutely suck compared to fiber. I'm not talking about bandwidth I'm just talking about you know--actually working all the time.Wireless does incredibly crazy stuff(depending on spectrum). It bounces of things, multiple copies of information arrive from different paths, rain screws with it, microwaves screw with it, winds screw with the antennas, etc.If google fiber wants to change itself from the absolute premier internet provider into something only a backwater coal town with dialup would want, feel free to change to wireless. I'll stick with my FTTH network. Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 19:30 (#2TJP) Actually, microwave links are ridiculously reliable. Before fiber optics, before communications satellites, most long-distance phone calls and TV programming went from microwave tower to microwave tower, all the way across the country, as needed. Today, microwave links from NY (or NJ) to Chicago are competing with and replacing fiber-optics, particularly for high-speed trading purposes, due to the lower latency. http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/09/23/6352231/innovator-windy-apple-announces.htmlhttp://www.computerworld.com/article/2493686/financial-it/microwave-vies-with-fiber-for-high-frequency-trading.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/wall-street-grabs-nato-towers-in-traders-speed-of-light-quest.htmlYou shouldn't confuse your experiences with companies that have "wireless" in their names, that are possibly operating very lean and selling sub-par service, with the underlying technology. I think we can all agree that satellite TV can be pretty darn reliable... if it wasn't, your OTA or cable TV wouldn't work, either, because they get their network programming feed via satellite. Ditto for, say, OTA TV, FM radio, etc. There's no reason local wireless from the end of the block couldn't be every bit as reliable. Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 12:04 (#2TJZ) I've used microwave..that was the licensed frequency stuff that I've used in the past. Now granted it was a different ballpark of equipment than someone using high frequency trading might use so not exactly apples to apples. But what caliber equipment would google use to deliver internet service to the home? I'm betting closer to the stuff I've used than the stuff wallstreet uses. Keep in mind in a point to multipoint environment(unless you're using a satelite) you're not using a directional antenna at both end, and may not even have line of sight--So you're dealing with reflection of signal and all the fun stuff that happens with that.It seems (http://us.aviatnetworks.com/solutions/low-latency-microwave/) microwave propogates faster than light through a fiber optic cable. Cool. So there's certainly a latency advantage. But if given a choice between fiber to the home, and microwave to my home I'd still choose fiber, even at a higher price. While I may suffer 2ms in latency, I'll gladly take that in return for subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours? Also keep in mind that's a direct line of sight link. Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 14:35 (#2TK1) subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.If it would save me the $600 construction fee, I'd certainly be happy to try the wireless, so long as it doesn't glitch too much in bad weather.And with FIOS using 32-way splitters, wireless could certainly beat it on speed.My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours?No, but then I was starting-off with around 95% signal strength. In fact it took about 4in. of snow collecting on the dish to finally cause a signal outage. Poor buggers way up in Alaska need a large dish to pickup anything even on a good day... Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 16:47 (#2TK7) 4 inches of snow? That's really impressive lol.In re: 32 way splitters. I qualify for 500/500(though I have 75/75). I know what the road 'coffin' looks like for my residence, it seems to go back to a concentrator with every residence getting a individual fiber back to what I assume is their central office(or at least some sort of distribution hub). I'm not really sure how the aggregator works but I reliably get 85/85, and I have no reason to doubt their ability to offer 500/500....I'm not really sure how one would split fiber, seems like I'd just need to be on a aggregator with sufficient bandwidth. Honestly the top end would probably be limited by the gigabit ethernet port on the ONT.
Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 19:30 (#2TJP) Actually, microwave links are ridiculously reliable. Before fiber optics, before communications satellites, most long-distance phone calls and TV programming went from microwave tower to microwave tower, all the way across the country, as needed. Today, microwave links from NY (or NJ) to Chicago are competing with and replacing fiber-optics, particularly for high-speed trading purposes, due to the lower latency. http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/09/23/6352231/innovator-windy-apple-announces.htmlhttp://www.computerworld.com/article/2493686/financial-it/microwave-vies-with-fiber-for-high-frequency-trading.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-15/wall-street-grabs-nato-towers-in-traders-speed-of-light-quest.htmlYou shouldn't confuse your experiences with companies that have "wireless" in their names, that are possibly operating very lean and selling sub-par service, with the underlying technology. I think we can all agree that satellite TV can be pretty darn reliable... if it wasn't, your OTA or cable TV wouldn't work, either, because they get their network programming feed via satellite. Ditto for, say, OTA TV, FM radio, etc. There's no reason local wireless from the end of the block couldn't be every bit as reliable. Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 12:04 (#2TJZ) I've used microwave..that was the licensed frequency stuff that I've used in the past. Now granted it was a different ballpark of equipment than someone using high frequency trading might use so not exactly apples to apples. But what caliber equipment would google use to deliver internet service to the home? I'm betting closer to the stuff I've used than the stuff wallstreet uses. Keep in mind in a point to multipoint environment(unless you're using a satelite) you're not using a directional antenna at both end, and may not even have line of sight--So you're dealing with reflection of signal and all the fun stuff that happens with that.It seems (http://us.aviatnetworks.com/solutions/low-latency-microwave/) microwave propogates faster than light through a fiber optic cable. Cool. So there's certainly a latency advantage. But if given a choice between fiber to the home, and microwave to my home I'd still choose fiber, even at a higher price. While I may suffer 2ms in latency, I'll gladly take that in return for subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours? Also keep in mind that's a direct line of sight link. Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 14:35 (#2TK1) subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.If it would save me the $600 construction fee, I'd certainly be happy to try the wireless, so long as it doesn't glitch too much in bad weather.And with FIOS using 32-way splitters, wireless could certainly beat it on speed.My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours?No, but then I was starting-off with around 95% signal strength. In fact it took about 4in. of snow collecting on the dish to finally cause a signal outage. Poor buggers way up in Alaska need a large dish to pickup anything even on a good day... Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 16:47 (#2TK7) 4 inches of snow? That's really impressive lol.In re: 32 way splitters. I qualify for 500/500(though I have 75/75). I know what the road 'coffin' looks like for my residence, it seems to go back to a concentrator with every residence getting a individual fiber back to what I assume is their central office(or at least some sort of distribution hub). I'm not really sure how the aggregator works but I reliably get 85/85, and I have no reason to doubt their ability to offer 500/500....I'm not really sure how one would split fiber, seems like I'd just need to be on a aggregator with sufficient bandwidth. Honestly the top end would probably be limited by the gigabit ethernet port on the ONT.
Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 12:04 (#2TJZ) I've used microwave..that was the licensed frequency stuff that I've used in the past. Now granted it was a different ballpark of equipment than someone using high frequency trading might use so not exactly apples to apples. But what caliber equipment would google use to deliver internet service to the home? I'm betting closer to the stuff I've used than the stuff wallstreet uses. Keep in mind in a point to multipoint environment(unless you're using a satelite) you're not using a directional antenna at both end, and may not even have line of sight--So you're dealing with reflection of signal and all the fun stuff that happens with that.It seems (http://us.aviatnetworks.com/solutions/low-latency-microwave/) microwave propogates faster than light through a fiber optic cable. Cool. So there's certainly a latency advantage. But if given a choice between fiber to the home, and microwave to my home I'd still choose fiber, even at a higher price. While I may suffer 2ms in latency, I'll gladly take that in return for subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours? Also keep in mind that's a direct line of sight link. Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 14:35 (#2TK1) subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.If it would save me the $600 construction fee, I'd certainly be happy to try the wireless, so long as it doesn't glitch too much in bad weather.And with FIOS using 32-way splitters, wireless could certainly beat it on speed.My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours?No, but then I was starting-off with around 95% signal strength. In fact it took about 4in. of snow collecting on the dish to finally cause a signal outage. Poor buggers way up in Alaska need a large dish to pickup anything even on a good day... Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 16:47 (#2TK7) 4 inches of snow? That's really impressive lol.In re: 32 way splitters. I qualify for 500/500(though I have 75/75). I know what the road 'coffin' looks like for my residence, it seems to go back to a concentrator with every residence getting a individual fiber back to what I assume is their central office(or at least some sort of distribution hub). I'm not really sure how the aggregator works but I reliably get 85/85, and I have no reason to doubt their ability to offer 500/500....I'm not really sure how one would split fiber, seems like I'd just need to be on a aggregator with sufficient bandwidth. Honestly the top end would probably be limited by the gigabit ethernet port on the ONT.
Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 14:35 (#2TK1) subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.If it would save me the $600 construction fee, I'd certainly be happy to try the wireless, so long as it doesn't glitch too much in bad weather.And with FIOS using 32-way splitters, wireless could certainly beat it on speed.My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours?No, but then I was starting-off with around 95% signal strength. In fact it took about 4in. of snow collecting on the dish to finally cause a signal outage. Poor buggers way up in Alaska need a large dish to pickup anything even on a good day... Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 16:47 (#2TK7) 4 inches of snow? That's really impressive lol.In re: 32 way splitters. I qualify for 500/500(though I have 75/75). I know what the road 'coffin' looks like for my residence, it seems to go back to a concentrator with every residence getting a individual fiber back to what I assume is their central office(or at least some sort of distribution hub). I'm not really sure how the aggregator works but I reliably get 85/85, and I have no reason to doubt their ability to offer 500/500....I'm not really sure how one would split fiber, seems like I'd just need to be on a aggregator with sufficient bandwidth. Honestly the top end would probably be limited by the gigabit ethernet port on the ONT.
Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1) by entropy@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 16:47 (#2TK7) 4 inches of snow? That's really impressive lol.In re: 32 way splitters. I qualify for 500/500(though I have 75/75). I know what the road 'coffin' looks like for my residence, it seems to go back to a concentrator with every residence getting a individual fiber back to what I assume is their central office(or at least some sort of distribution hub). I'm not really sure how the aggregator works but I reliably get 85/85, and I have no reason to doubt their ability to offer 500/500....I'm not really sure how one would split fiber, seems like I'd just need to be on a aggregator with sufficient bandwidth. Honestly the top end would probably be limited by the gigabit ethernet port on the ONT.