Backhaul....

[nahum365]

I do have a fiber easement across my property.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 on Tapatalk

 

Do you get fiber service at home? If so, that would be awesome.

[S4GRU]

 

Do you get fiber service at home? If so, that would be awesome.

 

Not quite. We could call it indirect fiber. I have copper from my box into the house. About a 250' run. Also, Windstream does not offer fiber residential service. All their residential service is maxed at 12Mbps/768kbps around the country, even if it is capable of greater speeds. Supposedly, Windstream is going to increase those caps to 24/2 in places that can support it. Which I assume mine can since I have fiber to the Windstream box out on the highway.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

[nahum365]

 

 

Not quite. We could call it indirect fiber. I have copper from my box into the house. About a 250' run. Also, Windstream does not offer fiber residential service. All their residential service is maxed at 12Mbps/768kbps around the country, even if it is capable of greater speeds. Supposedly, Windstream is going to increase those caps to 24/2 in places that can support it. Which I assume mine can since I have fiber to the Windstream box out on the highway.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Copper can be just as good as fiber sometimes. Especially when their is a competitor. I was paying $100 or so to FiOS, when I realized Comcast had much better deals- 50Mbps for $30, 30Mbps for $20, 300 channels for $30 (no HD). So I now pay $50 for TV and 30Mbps Internet. I had 15/5 from VZ and 150 channels before.

[iansltx]

 

Copper can be just as good as fiber sometimes. Especially when their is a competitor. I was paying $100 or so to FiOS, when I realized Comcast had much better deals- 50Mbps for $30, 30Mbps for $20, 300 channels for $30 (no HD). So I now pay $50 for TV and 30Mbps Internet. I had 15/5 from VZ and 150 channels before.

 

You're lucky. In my area with Comcast (CO) prices were double that. Then again, we had no competition to speak of; 12 Mbps was the fastest DSL money could buy.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[halcyoncmdr]

You're lucky. In my area with Comcast (CO) prices were double that. Then again, we had no competition to speak of; 12 Mbps was the fastest DSL money could buy.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

This is my area. There is a cable competitor (Cox), but their areas don't overlap, so I wouldn't exactly call it competition at all. They just cover the same geographic City. Cox covers Tucson proper, Comcast serves the rest of Pima county. Centurylink is here, but since it was Qwest, all of the equipment is old and maxed at around 25Mbps, but 90% of the area isn't capable of anything above 12Mbps, and my house is at a terrible 2Mbps maximum.

 

On top of that my Comcast bill runs around $160 a month for 250 channels with DVR/HD (most of which I don't watch because they are crap, seriously thinking of going cable-free for a year to try it) and 25/3.5 internet.

[nahum365]

 

 

This is my area. There is a cable competitor (Cox), but their areas don't overlap, so I wouldn't exactly call it competition at all. They just cover the same geographic City. Cox covers Tucson proper, Comcast serves the rest of Pima county. Centurylink is here, but since it was Qwest, all of the equipment is old and maxed at around 25Mbps, but 90% of the area isn't capable of anything above 12Mbps, and my house is at a terrible 2Mbps maximum.

 

On top of that my Comcast bill runs around $160 a month for 250 channels with DVR/HD (most of which I don't watch because they are crap, seriously thinking of going cable-free for a year to try it) and 25/3.5 internet.

 

There are still a lot of Comcast-only areas, where VZ fiber doesn't reach, but the prices are still good. We wouldn't be able to afford smartphones with a cable bill over $90...

[halcyoncmdr]

The only options in this area are Comcast, CenturyLink and Cox. Or mobile broadband of some kind of course. And since Cox and Cocmast don't actually compete, it's very limited.

[Paynefanbro]

Wait, Verizon is providing fiber to Sprint sites in some places? If that's the case, I would hope that Verizon would be running fiber to the Sprint towers in the NYC area rather than companies like Optimum and Time Warner having to run their Ethernet.

[JohnnyAwesome]

Wait, Verizon is providing fiber to Sprint sites in some places? If that's the case, I would hope that Verizon would be running fiber to the Sprint towers in the NYC area rather than companies like Optimum and Time Warner having to run their Ethernet.

 

Verizon is the RBOC(Regional Bell Operating Company) in NYC, meaning they have control over a lot of the fiber in the city. I would't be doubtful if they are providing Metro ethernet to some sites that are on top of certain buildings that may have near Verizon Monopoly due to choice or no one else being interested. Especially in a post-Sandy world in NY, It would be better for Sprint to have diversity in who handles backhaul when possible.

[iansltx]

Wait, Verizon is providing fiber to Sprint sites in some places? If that's the case, I would hope that Verizon would be running fiber to the Sprint towers in the NYC area rather than companies like Optimum and Time Warner having to run their Ethernet.

 

TWC and Cablevision's fiber infrastructure is quite good. They would be delivering gigabit ports to as print towers at any rate, and really the only piece of their networks that is ever congested is the last, coaxial, mile. Which never gets touched in a back haul build.

 

My bet is that they're a heck of a lot cheaper than Verizon anyway, for comparable performance.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Paynefanbro]

I was just reading that Optimum runs Fiber to the poles outside and then they run Coaxial cable into your home, is that what they'll do to the towers?

[S4GRU]

I was just reading that Optimum runs Fiber to the poles outside and then they run Coaxial cable into your home, is that what they'll do to the towers?

 

Sometimes. It varies.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[iansltx]

Sometimes. It varies.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Wait, there are AAVs that use coax for part of the infrastructure? I can believe Cat5e...but not coax. PM if you'd like to prove me wrong on this one...

[S4GRU]

 

Wait, there are AAVs that use coax for part of the infrastructure? I can believe Cat5e...but not coax. PM if you'd like to prove me wrong on this one...

 

I cannot prove you wrong. However, based on a conversation I had with a Samsung engineer early in deployment where he was talking about cable Ethernet installed at a site in Chicago, he said that sometimes they are installing coax directly to the telco box. He said final connections from AAV were not fiber very often. He is the guy I got the term "indirect fiber" connections from.

 

The connection from the telco box (demarcation) to the routers would be Cat 5e in this instance.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

[Jamal46409]

I cannot prove you wrong. However, based on a conversation I had with a Samsung engineer early in deployment where he was talking about cable Ethernet installed at a site in Chicago, he said that sometimes they are installing coax directly to the telco box. He said final connections from AAV were not fiber very often. He is the guy I got the term "indirect fiber" connections from.

 

The connection from the telco box (demarcation) to the routers would be Cat 5e in this instance.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

I believe this and have heard another instance of this. I have a friend that is a network administrator in the northeast portion of the country. He recently got a Comcast internet service that has 300mbps (only offering in that part of the country right now). They created a telco box outside of his house (just like POTS, but running coaxial to it), and ran a CAT6 line from that box inside his home.

 

http://www.techspot.com/news/49522-comcast-launches-305mbps-broadband-doubles-25-50mbps-tiers.html

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

I cannot prove you wrong. However, based on a conversation I had with a Samsung engineer early in deployment where he was talking about cable Ethernet installed at a site in Chicago, he said that sometimes they are installing coax directly to the telco box. He said final connections from AAV were not fiber very often. He is the guy I got the term "indirect fiber" connections from.

 

The connection from the telco box (demarcation) to the routers would be Cat 5e in this instance.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

That stinks somewhat but oh well... Long as the bandwidth at the cabinet is what they need and is clean/consistent then it could be fed by a piece of string for all I care...

From the cabinet to the RRU its Ethernet connection though as opposed to coax correct?...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[S4GRU]

 

That stinks somewhat but oh well... Long as the bandwidth at the cabinet is what they need and is clean/consistent then it could be fed by a piece of string for all I care...

From the cabinet to the RRU its Ethernet connection though as opposed to coax correct?...

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

Yes. From cabinet to RRU's is fiber installed by OEM subcontractors.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

 

[Sgt. Slaughter]

 

Yes. From cabinet to RRU's is fiber installed by OEM subcontractors.

 

Robert via Samsung Note II via Tapatalk

 

Good.

 

Then like I said before, it could be delivered to the cabinet via string for all that matters as long as that delivers their spec requirement, there should be little worry on that front.

 

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[iansltx]

I believe this and have heard another instance of this. I have a friend that is a network administrator in the northeast portion of the country. He recently got a Comcast internet service that has 300mbps (only offering in that part of the country right now). They created a telco box outside of his house (just like POTS, but running coaxial to it), and ran a CAT6 line from that box inside his home.

 

http://www.techspot....mbps-tiers.html

 

Weird. I've read official Comcast statements/install forum posts on DSLReports that say that the medium to the CPE is fiber (practically identical to a Metro Ethernet circuit that you'd see hooked up to a cell tower in fact), not coax. And it makes sense for Comcast to deploy at higher bandwidths this way, because there is a limited amount of usable spectrum on a run of coaxial plant (450-1000 MHz depending on the area, usually 860MHz), and it only makes sense to dedicate multiple channels to broadband usage if lots of people are using them (a few dozen or so is sufficient, but on the other hand the cable provider side of DOCSIS channels is expensive...it's not just a cable modem on the other end). When you're to the point that you need to keep eight DOCSIS cannels unused (or have twelve DOCSIS downstreams available at one-third utilization) just to serve one customer, it's cheaper to build out fiber to that one customer.

 

Don't get me wrong. You can use coax for point to point communications; that's how you connect radios to antennas if they aren't antenna-integrated radios (RRUs have short coax pigtails). But that's not the kind of plant that you see out in the field for a cable company, and MetroE over fiber is. But hey, I'd be happy to be proven wrong by a photo of some sort of coax modem at the demarc to an NV site, converting RF to Ethernet.

[S4GRU]

 

Weird. I've read official Comcast statements/install forum posts on DSLReports that say that the medium to the CPE is fiber (practically identical to a Metro Ethernet circuit that you'd see hooked up to a cell tower in fact), not coax. And it makes sense for Comcast to deploy at higher bandwidths this way, because there is a limited amount of usable spectrum on a run of coaxial plant (450-1000 MHz depending on the area, usually 860MHz), and it only makes sense to dedicate multiple channels to broadband usage if lots of people are using them (a few dozen or so is sufficient, but on the other hand the cable provider side of DOCSIS channels is expensive...it's not just a cable modem on the other end). When you're to the point that you need to keep eight DOCSIS cannels unused (or have twelve DOCSIS downstreams available at one-third utilization) just to serve one customer, it's cheaper to build out fiber to that one customer.

 

Don't get me wrong. You can use coax for point to point communications; that's how you connect radios to antennas if they aren't antenna-integrated radios (RRUs have short coax pigtails). But that's not the kind of plant that you see out in the field for a cable company, and MetroE over fiber is. But hey, I'd be happy to be proven wrong by a photo of some sort of coax modem at the demarc to an NV site, converting RF to Ethernet.

 

Sounds good. Just reporting as it was explained to me.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 on Tapatalk

 

 

[Jamal46409]

Sounds good. Just reporting as it was explained to me.

 

Robert via Nexus 7 on Tapatalk

 

Same here..

[Deval]

Interesting read, I have Verizon FiOS for home service, and can verify that they run fiber to prem. I have an ONT (optical nework terminal) installed in my basement, connected to a battery backup. From there, the TV and Internet run over coax, and the voice is tapped into the house wiring with plain copper.

 

For cell sites, as long as they have scalable connectivity, I'm good. That's the key feature of Ethernet backhaul that often gets lost in conversation.

[tommym65]

Maybe we need some clarification here: "Ethernet" is the data protocol which provides packetization and error checking for whatever data you may want to transmit: Ethernet can transmit voice, video, html, or any other type of data. Ethernet can be carried on virtually any type of physical medium, including copper, coax, fiber, and microwave. The type of physical medium may determine the maximum and sustainable speeds of transmission, but does not determine the format or content of the data. Older cellular technology tended to use specialized, proprietary data protocols, primarily because Ethernet imposes a fairly large amount of overhead for error checking, addressing, etc., and the older physical media (e.g., T1) were so slow that using the Ethernet protocol caused unacceptable delays or loss of data. However, the newer physical media are fast enough to easily pass large amounts of data (including high quality standard voice and, in the future, VoLTE) using Ethernet. Thus, worrying that "Ethernet" backhaul will be too slow for "4G" communication is like worrying that leather seats will affect your car's brakes: It's comparing apples and boomerangs.

[Deval]

Maybe we need some clarification here: "Ethernet" is the data protocol which provides packetization and error checking for whatever data you may want to transmit: Ethernet can transmit voice, video, html, or any other type of data. Ethernet can be carried on virtually any type of physical medium, including copper, coax, fiber, and microwave. The type of physical medium may determine the maximum and sustainable speeds of transmission, but does not determine the format or content of the data. Older cellular technology tended to use specialized, proprietary data protocols, primarily because Ethernet imposes a fairly large amount of overhead for error checking, addressing, etc., and the older physical media (e.g., T1) were so slow that using the Ethernet protocol caused unacceptable delays or loss of data. However, the newer physical media are fast enough to easily pass large amounts of data (including high quality standard voice and, in the future, VoLTE) using Ethernet. Thus, worrying that "Ethernet" backhaul will be too slow for "4G" communication is like worrying that leather seats will affect your car's brakes: It's comparing apples and boomerangs.

 

I agree, but if you look at the general market nomenclature and "buzz words", Ethernet is the word of the day.

[WiWavelength]

I agree, but if you look at the general market nomenclature and "buzz words", Ethernet is the word of the day.

 

...which is interesting because Ethernet has been around for more than 25 years.

 

AJ