Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 2014/Apr/28, at 8:41 AM, Tom Worthington wrote: In practice there may be little difference between FTTP and FTTN, due to the last 3m, in old homes. That is just silly. That's like saying there may be little difference between FTTP and FTTN because some households have computers with only 100Mb ethernet connectors. If you can't install 1Gb copper ethernet then you could use 802.11ac which has a potential bandwidth of 1.7Gbps The theoretical max speed of 802.11ac is eight 160MHz 256-QAM channels, each of which are capable of 866.7Mbps — a grand total of 6,933Mbps, or just shy of 7Gbps. That’s a transfer rate of 900 megabytes per second — more than you can squeeze down a SATA 3 link. In the real world, due to channel contention, you probably won’t get more than two or three 160MHz channels, so the max speed comes down to somewhere between 1.7Gbps and 2.5Gbps. Compare this with 802.11n’s max theoretical speed, which was 600Mbps. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/160837-what-is-802-11ac-and-how-much-faster-than-802-11n-is-it -- Kim Holburn IT Network Security Consultant T: +61 2 61402408 M: +61 404072753 mailto:k...@holburn.net aim://kimholburn skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
Sorry, I meant CDMA ... collision detection. Error correction, as Hamish said ... is a level 3 Feature. Again ... just my 2 cents worth ... --- On 28 Apr 2014, at 6:39 pm, Hamish Moffatt ham...@cloud.net.au wrote: On 28/04/14 18:22, Frank O'Connor wrote: Well, yeah ... but: 1. ANY form of networking causes 'slow-downs' simply by its very nature, irrespective of what the data interface is capable of. 1Gbs hard wired Ethernet? Sure ... if you only have 2 devices connected, are running a single networked application ... and even then all you'll get is 300-500Mbs max due to error correction (huge overhead in Ethernet which increases logarithmically as nodes activate), data scheduling problems and lots of negotiations (e.g.ACK/NACKS, non-data packets ... ICMP for example, and other high level protocols inherent in TCP/IP) between the devices. It doesn't much matter what network architecture you use ... the overheads persist (as they were designed to do by the network protocol inventors) and slow traffic way below the optimum. With networks its important that little numbers like error detection and recovery work ... especially in non-tolerant applications and devices. I think you're getting your layers pretty mixed up here. 1000base-T/802.3ab (Gigabit Ethernet) has no error correction (it has error detection), and given that's it's almost always switched won't have problems scaling as you add more devices and applications unless your switch is completely hopeless. Of course it has overheads that mean you won't actually get 1000Mbit/sec of user data (HTTP or whatever) but the performance is pretty predictable and quite close to the theoretical with modern computers. TCP/IP adds overheads to get its work done but there's no interference between nodes and applications there either. 2. Bottom line: WiFi is no more or less efficient than hard wired network protocols. Indeed, low level WiFi protocols are typically Ethernet protocols ... and hence subject to the SAME efficiency and effectiveness limitations as the wired protocols they emulate. The difference is that with WiFi you can overlay channels more easily than you can on an Ethernet connection ... which doesn't handle packet crowding very well at all. WiFi of course is working on a shared channel, while switched ethernet effectively has a separate channel for each connection. Hamish ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
There's no CDMA on a switched network... Hamish On 28/04/14 19:29, Frank O'Connor wrote: Sorry, I meant CDMA ... collision detection. Error correction, as Hamish said ... is a level 3 Feature. Again ... just my 2 cents worth ... --- On 28 Apr 2014, at 6:39 pm, Hamish Moffatt ham...@cloud.net.au mailto:ham...@cloud.net.au wrote: On 28/04/14 18:22, Frank O'Connor wrote: Well, yeah ... but: 1. ANY form of networking causes 'slow-downs' simply by its very nature, irrespective of what the data interface is capable of. 1Gbs hard wired Ethernet? Sure ... if you only have 2 devices connected, are running a single networked application ... and even then all you'll get is 300-500Mbs max due to error correction (huge overhead in Ethernet which increases logarithmically as nodes activate), data scheduling problems and lots of negotiations (e.g.ACK/NACKS, non-data packets ... ICMP for example, and other high level protocols inherent in TCP/IP) between the devices. It doesn't much matter what network architecture you use ... the overheads persist (as they were designed to do by the network protocol inventors) and slow traffic way below the optimum. With networks its important that little numbers like error detection and recovery work ... especially in non-tolerant applications and devices. I think you're getting your layers pretty mixed up here. 1000base-T/802.3ab (Gigabit Ethernet) has no error correction (it has error detection), and given that's it's almost always switched won't have problems scaling as you add more devices and applications unless your switch is completely hopeless. Of course it has overheads that mean you won't actually get 1000Mbit/sec of user data (HTTP or whatever) but the performance is pretty predictable and quite close to the theoretical with modern computers. TCP/IP adds overheads to get its work done but there's no interference between nodes and applications there either. 2. Bottom line: WiFi is no more or less efficient than hard wired network protocols. Indeed, low level WiFi protocols are typically Ethernet protocols ... and hence subject to the SAME efficiency and effectiveness limitations as the wired protocols they emulate. The difference is that with WiFi you can overlay channels more easily than you can on an Ethernet connection ... which doesn't handle packet crowding very well at all. WiFi of course is working on a shared channel, while switched ethernet effectively has a separate channel for each connection. Hamish ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au mailto:Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 28/04/14 09:32, Richard Archer wrote: Sorry to be a spoil sport, but your story about networking inside the premises has nothing to do with FTTP nor FTTN. ... Sorry to disagree, but why spend billions of dollars getting high speed broadband up to people's homes, if you can't then get it the last few metres inside, for them to actually be able to use? The debate has been about if the fibre should be terminated in the street (FTTN), or run an extra tens of metres to the home (FTTP). The last few few metres within the home has been ignored in this discussion. If householders can't or wont cable this last bit at high speed, then perhaps we have been debating the wrong issue. -- Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150 The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/ PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia http://www.tomw.net.au Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University http://cs.anu.edu.au/courses/COMP7310/ ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 29/04/14 8:37 AM, Tom Worthington wrote: On 28/04/14 09:32, Richard Archer wrote: Sorry to be a spoil sport, but your story about networking inside the premises has nothing to do with FTTP nor FTTN. ... Sorry to disagree, but why spend billions of dollars getting high speed broadband up to people's homes, if you can't then get it the last few metres inside, for them to actually be able to use? Of course you can run the connection the last few metres inside. But that's up to the user, not the network. It's up to the user to decide what level of performance they require and to install the required equipment and cabling to achieve that performance. And to insist the NBN is connected to their premises in the appropriate manner, perhaps paying extra for the installation. This issue is as relevant to FTTH/FTTN as it is to ADSL/cable/wireless. With any internet connection, you need to distribute that internally to all internet-connected devices, selecting the appropriate connection method for each device based on the performance you require. ...R. ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 28/04/14 11:38 AM, Rachel Polanskis wrote: This is where it gets tricky - if there is a power outage, the ONT will stay up, but we need a UPS for the switch now, as with the phone. Some of this kind of logic may be beyond ordinary users, as they may expect to have a phone service in a blackout, but will not, unless they back the network or at least the switch, with a UPS! I have an NBN connection, it's fixed wireless so it has no battery backup. If the power goes out, we just use our mobiles. We have the option of installing a UPS and running the NBN and our VoIP equipment from that, but I agree that this might be beyond most consumers. Related to this, and Tom's posts... perhaps there exists an opportunity for a third party to offer an NBN configuration service. They come in, evaluate the consumer's requirements then install equipment and cabling to meet those requirements. They might even program the set top box and balance the surround sound while they're there :) ...R. ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 29/04/2014 8:37 AM, Tom Worthington wrote: On 28/04/14 09:32, Richard Archer wrote: Sorry to be a spoil sport, but your story about networking inside the premises has nothing to do with FTTP nor FTTN. ... Sorry to disagree, but why spend billions of dollars getting high speed broadband up to people's homes, if you can't then get it the last few metres inside, for them to actually be able to use? The debate has been about if the fibre should be terminated in the street (FTTN), or run an extra tens of metres to the home (FTTP). The last few few metres within the home has been ignored in this discussion. If householders can't or wont cable this last bit at high speed, then perhaps we have been debating the wrong issue. Thats just silly Tom. Are we going to buy everyone a shiny new PC with a gigabit ethernet port just because they have a NBN connection but are using it from a 7 year old laptop? No we aren't. By at least getting it to the wall, you turn it from a large-scale engineering issue to a personal preference and resources issue that can be solved by each household according to their means and knowledge. We don't need to specify the internal arrangements any more than we need to wring our hands that some people might be using older equipment that might not be able to stress out the connection. Some people could afford 9600bps modems when they came out, others were happy to continue using their 2400bps and 1200/75 bps units until they could each update on their own terms, or remain happy with what they had. The device was the bottleneck, and could be updated individually to suit. Over the past broadband years, the network external to the users control became the bottleneck. This 'debate' and infrastructure investment removes the bottleneck from a location where the individual can't influence it, and allows their own equipment and arrangements they can control and update to become the new bottleneck again. This is a good thing. And Robin's correct, it has nothing to do with the external network being FTTN or FTTP or wireless or whatever. In-home distribution is a different problem. While the inhome network distribution is the bottleneck, then we've done a good thing with the external network. P. ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
At 23:32 +1000 28/4/14, Hamish Moffatt wrote: There's no CDMA on a switched network... C'mon Hamish. You know he meant CSMA/CD.(:-)} Lots of us have had that slip of the tongue. On 28/04/14 19:29, Frank O'Connor wrote: Sorry, I meant CDMA ... collision detection. Error correction, as Hamish said ... is a level 3 Feature. Again ... just my 2 cents worth ... --- On 28 Apr 2014, at 6:39 pm, Hamish Moffatt ham...@cloud.net.au mailto:ham...@cloud.net.au wrote: On 28/04/14 18:22, Frank O'Connor wrote: Well, yeah ... but: 1. ANY form of networking causes 'slow-downs' simply by its very nature, irrespective of what the data interface is capable of. 1Gbs hard wired Ethernet? Sure ... if you only have 2 devices connected, are running a single networked application ... and even then all you'll get is 300-500Mbs max due to error correction (huge overhead in Ethernet which increases logarithmically as nodes activate), data scheduling problems and lots of negotiations (e.g.ACK/NACKS, non-data packets ... ICMP for example, and other high level protocols inherent in TCP/IP) between the devices. It doesn't much matter what network architecture you use ... the overheads persist (as they were designed to do by the network protocol inventors) and slow traffic way below the optimum. With networks its important that little numbers like error detection and recovery work ... especially in non-tolerant applications and devices. I think you're getting your layers pretty mixed up here. 1000base-T/802.3ab (Gigabit Ethernet) has no error correction (it has error detection), and given that's it's almost always switched won't have problems scaling as you add more devices and applications unless your switch is completely hopeless. Of course it has overheads that mean you won't actually get 1000Mbit/sec of user data (HTTP or whatever) but the performance is pretty predictable and quite close to the theoretical with modern computers. TCP/IP adds overheads to get its work done but there's no interference between nodes and applications there either. 2. Bottom line: WiFi is no more or less efficient than hard wired network protocols. Indeed, low level WiFi protocols are typically Ethernet protocols ... and hence subject to the SAME efficiency and effectiveness limitations as the wired protocols they emulate. The difference is that with WiFi you can overlay channels more easily than you can on an Ethernet connection ... which doesn't handle packet crowding very well at all. WiFi of course is working on a shared channel, while switched ethernet effectively has a separate channel for each connection. Hamish ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au mailto:Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link -- Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/ Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2 6288 6916http://about.me/roger.clarke mailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.auhttp://www.xamax.com.au/ Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 29/04/14 12:41, Roger Clarke wrote: At 23:32 +1000 28/4/14, Hamish Moffatt wrote: There's no CDMA on a switched network... C'mon Hamish. You know he meant CSMA/CD.(:-)} Lots of us have had that slip of the tongue. Oops, I actually overlooked that. Still not on a switched network :-) Didn't mean to play the pedant. Hamish ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 25/04/14 18:20, Stephen Loosley wrote: ... FTTP model directly contradicts statements by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the telco is focusing on the Coalition’s preferred Fibre to the Node model ... In practice there may be little difference between FTTP and FTTN, due to the last 3m, in old homes. An acquaintance recently had the NBN installed in their home. The installer was unable (or unwilling) into run the fibre to the home office where the computer wass. The installer said the fibre was not flexible and so could not be bent around the tight spaces under the house. This sounds more like an excuse for not undertaking a difficult installation to me. So the fibre now terminates in a cupboard in the centre of the house, about 3m from the office. The householder is then left with the problem of how to get the data the last 3m. They are reluctant to run copper cable internally and can't easily run it under the floor, for the same reason the fibre installer did not want to go there. The householder asked me about using Ethernet over power. My initial reaction was against this, as it seems a shame to carry potentially gigabytes of data into the house on a nice clean optical cable and then try and push it over a dirty electrical cable (which might do 200 mbps). But then what other choice do they have: wireless? For old houses, perhaps NBN should adopt FTTW (Fibre to the Wall): run the fibre to where the existing phone cable enters the house and splice the NBN into the phone cable. The householder's existing phone would then operate as normal and broadband could be provided either over the same phone cable using ADSL, by Ethernet over power, or WiFi. -- Tom Worthington FACS CP, TomW Communications Pty Ltd. t: 0419496150 The Higher Education Whisperer http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/ PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617, Australia http://www.tomw.net.au Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University http://cs.anu.edu.au/courses/COMP7310/ ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
At 09:32 AM 28/04/2014, Richard Archer you wrote: Sorry to be a spoil sport, but your story about networking inside the premises has nothing to do with FTTP nor FTTN. ...R. True, Richard, but it does set up a 'last meter/yard/whatever' connection question. What is the transfer speed available throughout the home from the termination point and how would you do it? I believe my wifi is 55Mbps as I have an old router/modem. Do the newer ones carry faster data speeds? I think ethernet is a top end of 100Mbps. Is there a faster ethernet nowadays? And even if you could get faster than ethernet speed, can the devices on the end -- tablets, laptops, smart TVs, etc. -- deal with those speeds? I guess the full benefit is going to be only as fast as the end device can handle in any event, but the value to a full household is multiple devices using the wider bandwidth that will be provided and being 'future proofed' against the time that the devices catch up. Tom, have a talk with your friend about what he actually needs the speed for and if his end devices can handle it beyond ethernet speed. He may find the 55Mbps of wifi is adequate in any case. Jan Melbourne, Victoria, Australia jw...@janwhitaker.com Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. ~Margaret Atwood, writer _ __ _ ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
A lot of Ethernet these days is 1000Mb/s. On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Jan Whitaker jw...@internode.on.netwrote: At 09:32 AM 28/04/2014, Richard Archer you wrote: Sorry to be a spoil sport, but your story about networking inside the premises has nothing to do with FTTP nor FTTN. ...R. True, Richard, but it does set up a 'last meter/yard/whatever' connection question. What is the transfer speed available throughout the home from the termination point and how would you do it? I believe my wifi is 55Mbps as I have an old router/modem. Do the newer ones carry faster data speeds? I think ethernet is a top end of 100Mbps. Is there a faster ethernet nowadays? And even if you could get faster than ethernet speed, can the devices on the end -- tablets, laptops, smart TVs, etc. -- deal with those speeds? I guess the full benefit is going to be only as fast as the end device can handle in any event, but the value to a full household is multiple devices using the wider bandwidth that will be provided and being 'future proofed' against the time that the devices catch up. Tom, have a talk with your friend about what he actually needs the speed for and if his end devices can handle it beyond ethernet speed. He may find the 55Mbps of wifi is adequate in any case. Jan Melbourne, Victoria, Australia jw...@janwhitaker.com Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. ~Margaret Atwood, writer _ __ _ ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link -- Christopher Vance ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Rachel Polanskis gr...@exemail.com.auwrote: Also, when it comes to the internal fibre link from the wall outside, we were told it is Single Mode Fibre and so is only suitable for short runs. You probably mean Multi-mode fiber, which is only good for runs up to about 500 metres (but can do more depending on the wavelengths used). Single-mode fiber is good for runs measured in the 10's of kilometres or more. Scott ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
It's single-mode fibre, so is OK for long runs - but the installer might have been trying to use the tech-speak to justify doing a lazy installation. NBN's standards allow for around 40m of flexible fibre inside the premises from memory as a standard install - or longer if needed to replicate an existing copper telecommunications connection inside your home or business. If the homeowner wants the NTU installed somewhere that requires longer fibre run internally they are supposed to do it after confirming you'll pay for a non-standard connection fee. See http://nbnco.com.au/get-an-nbn-connection/home-and-business/connecting-fibre/fibreinstallation.html Sounds like there is a lot of snow from installers trying to get away with the fewest minutes on-site as they can get away with, irrespective of NBNCo's standards. On 28/04/2014 11:56 AM, Scott Howard wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Rachel Polanskis gr...@exemail.com.auwrote: Also, when it comes to the internal fibre link from the wall outside, we were told it is Single Mode Fibre and so is only suitable for short runs. You probably mean Multi-mode fiber, which is only good for runs up to about 500 metres (but can do more depending on the wavelengths used). Single-mode fiber is good for runs measured in the 10's of kilometres or more. Scott ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
At 12:58 PM 28/04/2014, Paul Brooks wrote: Sounds like there is a lot of snow from installers trying to get away with the fewest minutes on-site as they can get away with, irrespective of NBNCo's standards. The new 'pink batts' scandal since the handover to the new NBNCo? They are under the pump from Uncle Mal to increase their productivity. Jan Melbourne, Victoria, Australia jw...@janwhitaker.com Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. ~Margaret Atwood, writer _ __ _ ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On 28 Apr 2014, at 12:58 pm, Paul Brooks pbrooks-l...@layer10.com.au wrote: It's single-mode fibre, so is OK for long runs - but the installer might have been trying to use the tech-speak to justify doing a lazy installation. NBN's standards allow for around 40m of flexible fibre inside the premises from memory as a standard install - or longer if needed to replicate an existing copper telecommunications connection inside your home or business. If the homeowner wants the NTU installed somewhere that requires longer fibre run internally they are supposed to do it after confirming you'll pay for a non-standard connection fee. I didn’t pay any extra fees, but I did question the above as I thought a 3m run was a bit short and given my experience with fibre in datacentres, dealt with Single Mode connections of about 30 metres. But anyway, we got what we wanted... See http://nbnco.com.au/get-an-nbn-connection/home-and-business/connecting-fibre/fibreinstallation.html Sounds like there is a lot of snow from installers trying to get away with the fewest minutes on-site as they can get away with, irrespective of NBNCo's standards. I think this is the case. The people who did my install were run off their feet at the time and it was right before the election…. rachel On 28/04/2014 11:56 AM, Scott Howard wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Rachel Polanskis gr...@exemail.com.auwrote: Also, when it comes to the internal fibre link from the wall outside, we were told it is Single Mode Fibre and so is only suitable for short runs. You probably mean Multi-mode fiber, which is only good for runs up to about 500 metres (but can do more depending on the wavelengths used). Single-mode fiber is good for runs measured in the 10's of kilometres or more. Scott ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link — Rachel Polanskis Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia gr...@exemail.com.au IT consulting, security, programming The more an answer costs, the more respect it carries. ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
Mmmm, Most WiFi routers you buy nowadays are 380Mbs, or better, multichannel devices that can handle much more bandwidth than the old 54Mbs puppies. The default WiFi in any 'puter you buy nowadays can handle this no problems. New WiFi standards are on the horizon to take routers and PC WiFi cards to 1 Gbs ... again mainly by channel combination, but what the heck you take bandwidth any way you can get it. And 4G and other standards are already stressing the capability of mobile infrastructure to deliver, rather than phones and tablets and the like to receive. Ethernet is now hitting 10 Gbs (but I only have a 1Gbs port on the back of my 18 month old Mac) and new I/O standards like USB 3 have hit 5 Gbs, Thunderbolt 2 is 20 Gbs and there are a couple of other connector standards that are also pushing the baselines out. For practical purposes I've found USB 3 about 2/3 the effective speed of Thunderbolt ... but I haven't tested the ports with the same drives which could have a huge effect on performance (and the faster RAID drive is attached to the 10 Gbs Thunderbolt 1 port) ... so effectively there may be little between them if the same hardware is attached. That said, both are a huge and very noticeable improvement over my previous USB 2 and Firewire 3. HDMI and other multimedia standards are fairly well documented, but are already hitting the wall with some new content and resolution standards I suppose the point is that no matter what bandwidth the NBN eventually brings to the home, there are a horde of readily available and installed interface standards already in place that can more than take care of it and much much more. The problem won't be stressing the interfaces and devices, it will be the stressing of the NBN's capability to deliver. Just my 2 cents worth ... --- On 28 Apr 2014, at 9:43 am, Jan Whitaker jw...@internode.on.net wrote: At 09:32 AM 28/04/2014, Richard Archer you wrote: Sorry to be a spoil sport, but your story about networking inside the premises has nothing to do with FTTP nor FTTN. ...R. True, Richard, but it does set up a 'last meter/yard/whatever' connection question. What is the transfer speed available throughout the home from the termination point and how would you do it? I believe my wifi is 55Mbps as I have an old router/modem. Do the newer ones carry faster data speeds? I think ethernet is a top end of 100Mbps. Is there a faster ethernet nowadays? And even if you could get faster than ethernet speed, can the devices on the end -- tablets, laptops, smart TVs, etc. -- deal with those speeds? I guess the full benefit is going to be only as fast as the end device can handle in any event, but the value to a full household is multiple devices using the wider bandwidth that will be provided and being 'future proofed' against the time that the devices catch up. Tom, have a talk with your friend about what he actually needs the speed for and if his end devices can handle it beyond ethernet speed. He may find the 55Mbps of wifi is adequate in any case. Jan Melbourne, Victoria, Australia jw...@janwhitaker.com Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space. ~Margaret Atwood, writer _ __ _ ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
Scott writes, Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:56:37 -0700 Subject: Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal Up to 100 cities in 25 markets is very, very far from pretty much standard. Despite living in the middle of Silicon Valley, my city isn't on their list of 100 cities. Even their own map gives a good view on how little this really is in terms of total market .. Thanks for the local perspective Scott. Meanwhile, the tech media continue to talk access up .. http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/543718/wi-fi_hotspot_grab_coming_city_near/?fp=2fpid=1 A mega-battle is brewing between corporate giants such as ATT, Google and Time Warner Cable to build Wi-Fi hotspots in U.S. cities connected to massive gigabit fiber-optic or fast networks of cable providers. In the coming years. Google -- and likely its competitors-- are likely to pump free or low-cost Internet service to city centers and shopping areas, granting shoppers and other users access to a wide array of the services and advertising that are central to Google's revenue model. Both ATT and Google recently announced proposals to provide gigabit fiber services to dozens of U.S. cities -- and Wi-Fi connected to the fast fiber is expected to be a part of that offering. Over the past several years, Time Warner has been busy provisioning its modern cable network to add 11,000 Wi-Fi hotspots for its Internet customers to use for mobile devices in various Kansas City area locales, including stores, parks, walking paths and nightlife spots like the popular downtown eight-block Power Light District. During the last two years the Google Fiber network has steadily mushroomed to 6,000 fiber-optic miles throughout the KC metro area, but it hasn't been connected so far to Wi-Fi. In a 10-page document obtained by the IDG News Service, Google informed 34 cities that are candidates for Google Fiber in 2015 that it will be discussing our Wi-Fi plans and related requirements with you as we move forward with your city during this planning process. Google, in part, appears to be responding to ATT's several year history of supporting up to 34,000 Wi-Fi hotspots nationwide. For instance, ATT runs a Times Square hotzone in New York city as well as hotspots in other city centers and restaurants that can be used without charge by select ATT home Internet customers who are going mobile with smartphones and tablets. Prospects that ATT will expand its Gigapower 1 Gbps fiber optic offering to include Wi-Fi in 21 cities is about potentially adding new services, paid for by end-users or third parties. And for Google, the potential for Wi-Fi atop of Google Fiber is all about market creation for new kinds of ads and services, said Patrick Moorhead, an analyst at Moor Insights Strategy. The fatter the pipe -- whether via fiber or Wi-Fi connected with fiber -- more of the user experience can be delivered a remote datacenter, which is a strategic advantage for Google, Moorhead added. Google could put ads on everything from billboards to smart mirrors to the sides of buildings much, much easier. Also, pervasive, fast connectivity means you can have more dumb clients that get all their horsepower from the cloud as a service, he added Jack Gold, an analyst at J. Gold Associates, said even ATT's reliance on Wi-Fi in many locations hasn't been sufficient to handle the coming bandwidth load of uses, especially things like video over Netflix, YouTube and video used in ads. As users increase their use of rich media, they load up the networks pretty badly, and with an expected 1000x bandwidth increase needed by 2020, there's a real problem, Gold said. Google is seeing the writing on the wall as well as ATT and wants to make sure it can offer its enhanced services where bandwidth may be constrained, Gold added. If you have a slow network, serving ads and serving up YouTube is a terrible experience. And with a terrible experience, users won't go there. And if they won't go there, Google can't serve you ads ... and generate revenues per click. For Google, it's all about making sure they can maintain the click rates they need to keep their money machine going. In cities where Google Fiber is already being rolled out, city and neighborhood leaders have reported that Google has refused in the past to connect its fiber to Wi-Fi for use in apartment buildings and low-income housing projects. They say Google contends that such Wi-Fi service wouldn't be secure or reliable, especially with the signal passing through concrete walls. Google now holds a more positive stance on public locations for its Wi-Fi, especially outdoors, where concrete walls aren't an impediment. We would be interested in providing public, outdoor Wi-Fi access to our Google Fiber cities, although we don't have any specific plans to announce right now, Google spokeswoman Jenna Wandres said Friday. She refused to say if Google's public approach would allow anyone
[LINK] FTTP soon normal
American telco giant ATT has revealed overnight that it will deploy Fibre to the Premises in 100 major US cities in the United States, delivering gigabit broadband speeds. This FTTP model directly contradicts statements by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the telco is focusing on the Coalition’s preferred Fibre to the Node model. In an interview on the Triple J radio station last week, Turnbull explicitly named ATT, one of the largest telcos in the US, was deploying FTTN technology. t is true that ATT has deployed FTTN widely throughout the US. However, overnight, in a statement published online, the telco revealed it planned to upgrade that FTTN platform imminently to FTTP, in a major investment which will see 100 US cities receive gigabit broadband speeds. http://about.att.com/story/att_eyes_100_u_s_cities_and_municipalities_for_its_ultra_fast_fiber_network.html “ATT today announced a major initiative to expand its ultra-fast fiber network to up to 100 candidate cities and municipalities nationwide, including 21 new major metropolitan areas. The fiber network will deliver ATT U-verse with GigaPowerSM service, which can deliver broadband speeds up to 1 Gigabit per second and ATT’s most advanced TV services, to consumers and businesses,” the telco said. “We’re delivering advanced services that offer consumers and small businesses the ability to do more, faster, help communities create a new wave of innovation, and encourage economic development,” said Lori Lee, senior executive vice president, ATT Home Solutions. “We’re interested in working with communities that appreciate the value of the most advanced technologies and are willing to encourage investment by offering solid investment cases and policies.” Other countries which have also deployed FTTN services are also expanding plans to upgrade those networks with FTTP capabilities. For example, in June 2012 British telco BT revealed plans to modify its up to 76Mbps national fibre to the node rollout so that customers will be able to choose to have fibre fully extended to their premises, delivering a large speed upgrade to 330Mbps in the process and shifting its rollout model closer to Labor’s original, FTTP-based NBN policy. opinion/analysis Wow. Sounds like 1Gbps speeds are shortly going to become pretty standard across much of the United States. I wonder how long it will be before Australia will be able to say the same. Right now, NBN Co isn’t even committing to speeds above 25Mbps for the Coalition’s alternative FTTN vision. I’d say that’s a pretty substantial difference in vision. The irony here is also incredible. Just days after Turnbull lists ATT as a poster child for Fibre to the Node, the telco turns around and becomes a global poster child for gigabit Fibre to the Premises. Sounds like some old-fashioned Turnbullian logic there. It appears the Minister did not consult closely enough with ATT during his recent visit to the US. http://delimiter.com.au/2014/04/22/att-deploy-gigabit-fibre-100-us-cities/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+Delimiter+%28Delimiter%29 -- Cheers, Stephen ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] FTTP soon normal
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Stephen Loosley step...@melbpc.org.auwrote: Wow. Sounds like 1Gbps speeds are shortly going to become pretty standard across much of the United States. Up to 100 cities in 25 markets is very, very far from pretty much standard. Despite living in the middle of Silicon Valley, my city isn't on their list of 100 cities. Even their own map gives a good view on how little this really is in terms of total market - http://about.att.com/content/dam/snr/2014/April14/gigapower_national_map_infographic.jpg Scott ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
