Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: G.fast videos  (Read 10590 times)

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2016, 09:07:53 PM »

The most recent stuff suggests that the Americans might be more interested in FTTB variants, for MDU's that already have coax pre-installed, but no cable supplier feeding it. Then using G.Fast over the coax.
Logged

S.Stephenson

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2016, 08:43:40 PM »

The estimated range and speeds are out for the G.Fast revision lets just hope it delivers.  :fingers:

Logged

gt94sss2

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1281
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2016, 09:25:21 PM »

The estimated range and speeds are out for the G.Fast revision lets just hope it delivers.  :fingers

Worth restating that the graph come from an article: http://www.electronics-eetimes.com/design-center/advanced-simulations-gfast-vectoring-co/page/0/2 - and are based on a simulation tool not working silicon so we will need to see what is actually achieved.
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2016, 12:38:21 AM »

Good to see some idea of the improvements coming. A bit disappointing to have no mention of, say, the amount of spectrum needed to get these speeds, or the gauge of copper.

In this case, perhaps the interesting part is the simulator that gives you an idea of the interplay by adding multiple cabs in an area, or in figuring out where to add extra G.Fast cabs.
Logged

S.Stephenson

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2016, 08:01:02 AM »

I'm pretty sure the graphs are for standard BT conditions of 0.5mm copper and FTTC present.
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2016, 02:01:02 PM »

I'm not so confident.

The highest speed, with shortest copper, rarely gets even close to 1Gbps when the 2-23MHz spectrum is being excluded. If the orange line started around 800Mbps, I'd believe it.

And, as the work is done by a German institute, wouldn't we expect them to perform work one a cable model closer to home? 0.4mm seems common in Europe, though I think I've seen 0.6mm is common in Switzerland. Austria is also home to a fair amount of G.Fast interest.

There are lots of conditions that apply to any g.fast graphs, and none of them are specified here. I would be happier with a graph like this one from Swisscom in 2015, with all the attendant details:


I'd love it if we could get graphs that show the new results (increased bit, power and PSD) with the same level of detail. Especially if it came with an idea of the cable model:


It is interesting to see from that model that (in Switzerland, at least) the 0.5mm "standard" copper has less attenuation than 0.6mm copper which is insulated by paper. It just goes to show that the copper alone isn't the only factor!

I *think* the reference "CAD55" cable is actually one of BT's cables - a 4-pair dropwire, with 0.5mm copper. If so, then BT's results are likely to be (currently) just below the blue dots on the Pe4D graph, but better than the Paper graph.
Logged

niemand

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2016, 01:53:55 PM »

It's actually quite depressing that we're finding ourselves discussing the characteristics of in some cases decades old twisted pair still due to it being, by a mile, the main delivery mechanism of connectivity into our homes in 2016.
Logged

Bowdon

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2395
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2016, 05:29:42 PM »

The good thing about VM pushing forward with their cable/ftth network ideas is that BT will have to do something or they will fall behind. I'll sure BT's ego can't take that :)
Logged
BT Full Fibre 500 - Smart Hub 2

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5717
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2016, 05:38:58 PM »

It's actually quite depressing that we're finding ourselves discussing the characteristics of in some cases decades old twisted pair still due to it being, by a mile, the main delivery mechanism of connectivity into our homes in 2016.

Thankfully I've more going on than to ever get depressed about 'twisted pair cables being the main delivery system' ........ but I take your point.

There must be plenty of other depressed folk around as to quote BT CEO (Gavin) .... "The UK is the most digitally advanced nation in the G20, but further investment is required if it’s to keep and extend that lead. That’s why we are poised to invest a further £6bn over the next three years, but we want the regulatory uncertainty to come to an end."


Thankfully, we should maintain our position with a further £6 Billion investment.



[/i]
Logged

phi2008

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2016, 10:56:32 PM »

The good thing about VM pushing forward with their cable/ftth network ideas is that BT will have to do something or they will fall behind. I'll sure BT's ego can't take that :)

If cable had not been rolled out in the 90s, wouldn't there be more of a business case for rolling out nationwide fibre now?
Logged

WWWombat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1674
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2016, 11:54:21 PM »

If cable had not been rolled out in the 90s, wouldn't there be more of a business case for rolling out nationwide fibre now?

There would probably be more of a business case as far as the country is concerned, but probably less incentive as far as BT is concerned.

I read an interesting quote earlier today, from someone describing why NTT in Japan had a high amount of fibre, and the answer came back as: the incumbent (NTT) was losing too much market share, and needed fibre to bolster themselves. Same for Verizon, and why they went for FiOS.

It seems that competition is indeed a driver, but it has to be *serious* competition with serious infrastructure. VM has probably counted as merely "semi-competent" at competition so far, but there are signs that could change, now they woken up again.

Full quote:
Quote
Q: how was that (fibre deployment to enable FTTH) achieved in Tokyo?

A: The same way that it was throughout the FiOS properties.  NTT deployed the fiber in underground and aerial (whatever is appropriate).

The challenge of fibre deployment is the business case.  The number 1 factor in the case is NOT construction.  It is line loss.  In the case of Verizon, they were under extreme pressure from Cablevision (in particular) and other MSOs.  Not only were they losing on the broadband front, they were losing phone lines.  FiOS was built to stem that tide and has been wildly successful from that standpoint. 

Why didn't AT&T follow suit?  If you look at where AT&T is (Texas, California, now the South East) there was more new lines being installed and not as much pressure on lines.  So, AT&T went the U-verse route - trying to save some money.  They are working to play a "lose slowly" game for residential broadband.  They have ftth available for markets that they want to hotly contest, but have not done something ambitious.

NTT was getting its head handed to it by the alternate DSL providers in Japan.  FTTH was a way for NTT to build a network that it didn't have to unbundle and share.  So, it was a lock out the competition move.  This is somewhat different than Verizon - who did have some CLEC competition but its primary competition was from MSOs.

The whole highlight here is that competition can drive FTTH deployments.  Note the utter lack of wireline compeition in Europe.  In spite of article trumpeting FTTH taking off in Europe on this site for the last 10 years based on pronouncements from service providers, almost nothing has happened.

The only other way to get FTTH built is through governement intervention.  South Korea is an example of that.  Australia should have been an example of that but has fallen flat. 

Back to the business case, Construction Costs is the #2 factor...which is why Verizon started in areas with Aerial Plant.

And as a note, none of this has changed for the past 15 years.

(US-UK Glossary: MSO = cable company; CLEC is a non-incumbant telco, quasi-LLU).

The advantage to NTT was that it wouldn't have to unbundle or share fibre. Imagine if BT were offered that by Ofcom?
Logged

S.Stephenson

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
Re: G.fast videos
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2016, 01:24:32 AM »

If BT was offered unbundled and unshared FTTP we would all have FTTP by next week, a bit stupid seeing as BT Openreach should make the same amount of money regardless of the reseller  :-X

Maybe if things get bad enough theyll privatise it Network Rail style and subsidise ISPs like they do rail companies  ::)

I just want me some G.Fast in the short term :D, I thought the original idea of a G.Fast node on every Telegraph pole was an ideal compromise vs full FTTP, everyone could get 300-500mbps and people who wanted more could pay a few £100 to get FTTPoD.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 

anything