It’s a bit sad really that we can’t imagine a dynamic future, in which technologies, processes, enablers and markets develop rather than reamain static at this moment in time. And I think that is Tom’s problem … not enough imagination.
But anyway, the limiting factor with fibre isn’t the specific hardware networking technology used … it’s to what degree developments occur that allow it to handle and detect more frequencies (colours) and channels. End point technology changes, but it’s the capability of the MEDIUM that you need to take into account. Yes, PON 10 GB is split 128 through channels (colours/wavelengths/discrete )s, but PON 10TB (in 4 or 5 years time) may be able to be split to 128,000 channels and PON 10 (to whatever power in 25 years time) may be able to detect and channel 128,000,000,000 channels ON A SINGLE FIBRE - and there are many distinct fibres in a cable. It’s simply a matter of the start and end point devices on that network being able to produce, detect and monitor same … and that’s a technology problem for the start and end-points. That’s the beauty of an analogue medium like light. Who ever thought we’d be going back to analogue after digital got such great press? And no matter what you say … the range of radio frequencies (and hence channel and data carrying capacity) is vastly limited compared to it’s electromagnetic cousin, light. And that doesn’t even begin to look at problems of scalability, interference, cross channel interference, range, error and other quality issues that WiFi incurs - as well as a host of the other issues that others have raised (power, maintainability, repairability, technology mix issues and the like) Tom is wrong … but he’ll never accept that. So I suggest we just leave it at that. Just my 2 cents worth … --- > On 26 Feb 2016, at 3:56 PM, Hamish Moffatt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26/02/16 15:41, Andy Farkas wrote: >> On 26/02/2016 14:17, Karl Auer wrote: >>> Implementing such technologies when we already have technologies available >>> with upper limits so far away we can barely see them is stupidity that >>> defies credence. Regards, K. >> >> Portugal is rolling out a 80000Mbps [*] fibre to the home network. I'd like >> to see wireless or VDSL do that! >> >> All we get is a guarantee of a lousy "up to" 25Mbps. >> >> [*] yes 80000Mbps or 80Gbps. Perhaps people don't realise what Gbps >> actually means - it's 1000 times Mbps. >> >> < >> http://advanced-television.com/2015/11/06/pt-portugal-targets-5-3m-fibre-homes-by-2020/> > > It's PON, which means you are sharing the fiber. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10G-PON > > The 10G PON article talks about a 128-way split, which means worst case > 625Mbit/sec per home. > > So while it's obviously better than 25Mbps, don't get excited about the > headline 80Gbps. > > I couldn't find out what the uplink speeds are. They will be less, as sharing > the fiber in this direction is significantly more complicated. > > Hamish > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
