Maximum optical-fibre data transfer rates was Re: NBN Cabling responsibilities and CSG
Andrew McGlashan via luv-main wrote:
My biggest rant is as follows: "Originally the plan was for a government INVESTMENT of $26.9 billion; with monies coming back as a return on investment upon eventual sale of the network. Now we have the real white elephant version at a cost of $60+ billion and there won't be many suiters willing to buy it unless they can pick it up for a song. Hence, we'll lose a very significant amount (if not every cent), that is spent on this far inferior version that is Turncoat's mess."
It seems to me part of the problem has been that optical-fibre has always been compared with; alternatives like ADSL over copper, cell-phone wireless on the basis of current data transfer rates, which are good, but not 'disruptive' ie around 100Mb/s. The message which NBN failed to convey, was that fibre has vastly more potential. They should have been marketing that potential, so that politicians like Malcom Turnbull, who regardless of his financial prowess is a technology, dumb-cluck; got the message. For example it took me little time to find : "Earlier this year, global telecoms company Alcatel-Lucent claims to have set a new fibre optic world record with an impressive 31 Tbit/s data transfer over a single fibre cable, overtaking the previous record of 26 Tbit/s set by The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in May 2011, by a team of German, UK and Swiss scientists." at :https://www.warwicknet.com/blog/how-fast-can-fibre-optic-go Now this seems to be a more modern fibre-optic cable from that the NBN is laying, but we should have heard about potential data-tranfere rates (DTR) for the cable the NBN is laying, if they had any imagination. Just off the top of my head I would expect cell-phone DTR to be tied to the frequency of the carrier wave but the frequency of that wave sets the cell size. So to double the cell-phone DTR you need a technology that doubles the frequency and in consequence halves the cell size and quadruples the number of towers. Where as for NBN fibre (up to some limit), the DTR can be increased by orders of magnitude; without costs other than the sending and recieving technology. regards Rohan McLeod
On 25/06/18 16:56, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
For example it took me little time to find : "Earlier this year, global telecoms company Alcatel-Lucent claims to have set a new fibre optic world record with an impressive 31 Tbit/s data transfer over a single fibre cable, overtaking the previous record of 26 Tbit/s set by The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in May 2011, by a team of German, UK and Swiss scientists." at :https://www.warwicknet.com/blog/how-fast-can-fibre-optic-go
Now this seems to be a more modern fibre-optic cable from that the NBN is laying,
Actually it's probably the opposite (at least outside lab demos). Oddly enough, the original single mode standard (SMF-28) is actually far better in practice than many of the things that tried to kill it. There's some fibres which are now better for specific systems, but given how well SMF-28 (at least newer versions that are far lower loss) works, and that optical regen sites are already built on most major routes this doesn't really matter. The array fibre NBN used for FTTP is great for their use-case however. By the way, 31Tbit really isn't that fast, 200Gbit/wave * 96 waves (a hair under 20T) is in field deployment using kit from the major DWDM vendors (such as ALU). Whether there's any networks actually populate their links that big I doubt, but as an example, the last time they released numbers (several years back) Comcast had inter-city links of 800g in the US, they're likely up to at least 2-3T these days. For an access network such as theirs the next obvious step after GPON (what NBN FTTP uses) is probably a WDM-based PON variant. For various reasons the density would be much lower, but a 32x1g or 16x10g system should be practical, albeit I've no idea if vendors actually build such systems. (I do backbone & peering networks at $EMPLOYER, haven't looked into what's current in the access space in a while). As for 5G being a practical access technology, it suffers from the same limitations 4G did before it, just even worse. By the time it's deployed in a high enough density to be good enough you've not saved much from just running a cable to each customer. By the way, if you weren't aware, NBN fixed-wireless is simply LTE (AKA 4G cellular) configured to optimise for non-moving client devices.
I read one of the previous high speed attempts (16TB/s IIRC) and it was definitely over "normal" fibre - and several km of it - in a big spool... the "trick" is the equipment at either end... Upgrading from 100MB per house to 1GB per house merely requires upgraded equipment (well - it may only require a configuration change, depending on the ONT installed - but you get the point) - the same all the way back through the back-haul aggregation, to the BRAS then ISP and to the ISP internet feed.... so very similar to copper in that respect - we didn't upgrade the copper to go from 256 baud to ADSL2+, we upgraded the modems... There is a general trend with conservative governments who don't want to support public assets to deliberately run them badly and then "sell them off because we had to"... and as much as I am a fan of blaming stupidity over conspiracy, I'm finding it hard to disavow the trend... On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 at 10:22, Julien Goodwin via luv-talk < luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
On 25/06/18 16:56, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
For example it took me little time to find : "Earlier this year, global telecoms company Alcatel-Lucent claims to have set a new fibre optic world record with an impressive 31 Tbit/s data transfer over a single fibre cable, overtaking the previous record of 26 Tbit/s set by The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in May 2011, by a team of German, UK and Swiss scientists." at :https://www.warwicknet.com/blog/how-fast-can-fibre-optic-go
Now this seems to be a more modern fibre-optic cable from that the NBN is laying,
Actually it's probably the opposite (at least outside lab demos).
Oddly enough, the original single mode standard (SMF-28) is actually far better in practice than many of the things that tried to kill it. There's some fibres which are now better for specific systems, but given how well SMF-28 (at least newer versions that are far lower loss) works, and that optical regen sites are already built on most major routes this doesn't really matter.
The array fibre NBN used for FTTP is great for their use-case however.
By the way, 31Tbit really isn't that fast, 200Gbit/wave * 96 waves (a hair under 20T) is in field deployment using kit from the major DWDM vendors (such as ALU). Whether there's any networks actually populate their links that big I doubt, but as an example, the last time they released numbers (several years back) Comcast had inter-city links of 800g in the US, they're likely up to at least 2-3T these days.
For an access network such as theirs the next obvious step after GPON (what NBN FTTP uses) is probably a WDM-based PON variant. For various reasons the density would be much lower, but a 32x1g or 16x10g system should be practical, albeit I've no idea if vendors actually build such systems. (I do backbone & peering networks at $EMPLOYER, haven't looked into what's current in the access space in a while).
As for 5G being a practical access technology, it suffers from the same limitations 4G did before it, just even worse. By the time it's deployed in a high enough density to be good enough you've not saved much from just running a cable to each customer.
By the way, if you weren't aware, NBN fixed-wireless is simply LTE (AKA 4G cellular) configured to optimise for non-moving client devices. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
-- Dr Paul van den Bergen
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:40:30PM +1000, Paul van den Bergen wrote:
There is a general trend with conservative governments who don't want to support public assets to deliberately run them badly and then "sell them off because we had to"... and as much as I am a fan of blaming stupidity over conspiracy, I'm finding it hard to disavow the trend...
Stupidity and malice are NOT mutually exclusive. Running down public assets to provide an excuse to privatise them for peanuts IS definitely, without any doubt at all, a part of the neo-liberal playbook. Same as cutting taxes for corporations and then crying poor when it comes to funding public services like hospitals, roads, and schools. Sabotaging the NBN was and still is deliberate policy of the Liberals. The NBN is fucked up because they didn't want it to work, so once they got voted in in 2013 they made sure it wouldn't and couldn't. Almost certainly on Rupert Murdoch's orders, but they probably would have done it anyway for ideological reasons anyway. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
I'm not disagreeing, except to point out that conspiracy requires a level of planning and coordination stupidity usually pre-empts... (having said that, I know what you mean) On Wed, 27 Jun. 2018, 01:00 Craig Sanders via luv-talk, <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 05:40:30PM +1000, Paul van den Bergen wrote:
There is a general trend with conservative governments who don't want to support public assets to deliberately run them badly and then "sell them off because we had to"... and as much as I am a fan of blaming stupidity over conspiracy, I'm finding it hard to disavow the trend...
Stupidity and malice are NOT mutually exclusive.
Running down public assets to provide an excuse to privatise them for peanuts IS definitely, without any doubt at all, a part of the neo-liberal playbook. Same as cutting taxes for corporations and then crying poor when it comes to funding public services like hospitals, roads, and schools.
Sabotaging the NBN was and still is deliberate policy of the Liberals. The NBN is fucked up because they didn't want it to work, so once they got voted in in 2013 they made sure it wouldn't and couldn't. Almost certainly on Rupert Murdoch's orders, but they probably would have done it anyway for ideological reasons anyway.
craig
-- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au https://lists.luv.asn.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luv-talk
Julien Goodwin via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
By the way, 31Tbit really isn't that fast, 200Gbit/wave * 96 waves (a hair under 20T) is in field deployment using kit from the major DWDM vendors (such as ALU). Whether there's any networks actually populate their links that big I doubt, but as an example, the last time they released numbers (several years back) Comcast had inter-city links of 800g in the US, they're likely up to at least 2-3T these days.
I don't know how fast the fibre connections are, but Comcast are giving me 300MBPS downstream over Docsis 3, and achieving it, according to my speed tests. This is a fairly recent upgrade. If I had a Docsis 3.1 modem, it might be faster.
On 09/07/18 02:31, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
Julien Goodwin via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
By the way, 31Tbit really isn't that fast, 200Gbit/wave * 96 waves (a hair under 20T) is in field deployment using kit from the major DWDM vendors (such as ALU). Whether there's any networks actually populate their links that big I doubt, but as an example, the last time they released numbers (several years back) Comcast had inter-city links of 800g in the US, they're likely up to at least 2-3T these days.
I don't know how fast the fibre connections are, but Comcast are giving me 300MBPS downstream over Docsis 3, and achieving it, according to my speed tests. This is a fairly recent upgrade.
If I had a Docsis 3.1 modem, it might be faster.
Fiber can do much better, but Docsys isn't bad for most people -- keep in mind though that the cable is "shared", if your neighbors are busy using the bandwidth, you /may/ be starved from it. There is /risk/ of sharing on fiber, but much less so and fiber speeds have amazing potential. Cheers A.
Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
On 09/07/18 02:31, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
Julien Goodwin via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
By the way, 31Tbit really isn't that fast, 200Gbit/wave * 96 waves (a hair under 20T) is in field deployment using kit from the major DWDM vendors (such as ALU). Whether there's any networks actually populate their links that big I doubt, but as an example, the last time they released numbers (several years back) Comcast had inter-city links of 800g in the US, they're likely up to at least 2-3T these days. I don't know how fast the fibre connections are, but Comcast are giving me 300MBPS downstream over Docsis 3, and achieving it, according to my speed tests. This is a fairly recent upgrade.
If I had a Docsis 3.1 modem, it might be faster. Fiber can do much better, but Docsys isn't bad for most people -- keep in mind though that the cable is "shared", if your neighbors are busy using the bandwidth, you /may/ be starved from it.
Well ; as far as I know " fibre-to-the-house" ; which I had in Brunswick is unshared; the installing technician was even kind enough to show me the inside of the street-box; where in one direction the many fibres went to the exchange and the other went to individual, houses. Even the 'expletive deleted' fibre-to-the-node where the connection from street-box to house, is the old Telstra copper is unshared. Of course between exchanges the fibre is multiplexed so there will still be observable, slowing in the DTR between peak and off peak. Perhaps you are conflating it with the old Optus overhead fibre , where neighbours were ( are ?) multiplexed ? regards Rohan McLeod
On 09/07/18 08:58, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:
Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
On 09/07/18 02:31, Jason White via luv-talk wrote:
Julien Goodwin via luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> wrote:
By the way, 31Tbit really isn't that fast, 200Gbit/wave * 96 waves (a hair under 20T) is in field deployment using kit from the major DWDM vendors (such as ALU). Whether there's any networks actually populate their links that big I doubt, but as an example, the last time they released numbers (several years back) Comcast had inter-city links of 800g in the US, they're likely up to at least 2-3T these days. I don't know how fast the fibre connections are, but Comcast are giving me 300MBPS downstream over Docsis 3, and achieving it, according to my speed tests. This is a fairly recent upgrade.
If I had a Docsis 3.1 modem, it might be faster. Fiber can do much better, but Docsys isn't bad for most people -- keep in mind though that the cable is "shared", if your neighbors are busy using the bandwidth, you /may/ be starved from it.
Well ; as far as I know " fibre-to-the-house" ; which I had in Brunswick is unshared; the installing technician was even kind enough to show me the inside of the street-box; where in one direction the many fibres went to the exchange and the other went to individual, houses. Even the 'expletive deleted' fibre-to-the-node where the connection from street-box to house, is the old Telstra copper is unshared. Of course between exchanges the fibre is multiplexed so there will still be observable, slowing in the DTR between peak and off peak. Perhaps you are conflating it with the old Optus overhead fibre , where neighbours were ( are ?) multiplexed ?
Well...... with Fiber using GPON [1], there are shared links coming off for a group of connections. At the end of the day, there will be a congestion point, somewhere (typically) -- it might be a local link before the ISP or beyond the ISP. If everyone with a GPON FTTP link wants to fully utilize their top speed of 100/40, then there will be contention. But, chances are too many fully active connections at that point will be a problem. Fiber all the way would be great, but never likely to happen for homes. ISPs pay NBN for so mnay Mb/s "pipes", if they don't buy enough MB/s (ala, the pipe is too thin), then there will be more congestion no matter what type of technology connects you to the network. At peak times, no ISP is expected to offer everyone full speed either, at least not with "residential" grade product. Business grade product may offer full 1:1 and therefore no contention ... but the ISP still needs upstream links to match to bandwidth requirements. [1] http://www.gpon.com/how-gpon-works Cheers A.
On Monday, 9 July 2018 4:17:14 PM AEST Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
Fiber all the way would be great, but never likely to happen for homes.
ISPs pay NBN for so mnay Mb/s "pipes", if they don't buy enough MB/s (ala, the pipe is too thin), then there will be more congestion no matter what type of technology connects you to the network.
In some more "developed" countries fiber all the way is a common thing. A friend who lives in Vietnam has 2 fiber connections to his home. He was officially out of the service area for the second, so he had to pay $28 and unlimited iced water to get the workers to run a longer fiber - that's apparently how things work there. As for congestion, if you run your own server for a real-time computer game (Minecraft is one example of a game where you can run your own server for no additional license fees if you have a client license) then you just want low latency connections in your local area. Fiber to all homes in a city would be really good for that sort of thing. The "goplay" package in Debian provides an easy way of searching the Games in Debian and it has some multi-player games in the "action" category. How does Warzone 2100 work for a Internet game? I've tried it for LAN games before but not Internet. If it does work over the Internet then you would probably want a fiber network in your city to get the best results. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 09/07/18 23:27, Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:
On Monday, 9 July 2018 4:17:14 PM AEST Andrew McGlashan via luv-talk wrote:
Fiber all the way would be great, but never likely to happen for homes.
ISPs pay NBN for so mnay Mb/s "pipes", if they don't buy enough MB/s (ala, the pipe is too thin), then there will be more congestion no matter what type of technology connects you to the network.
In some more "developed" countries fiber all the way is a common thing. A friend who lives in Vietnam has 2 fiber connections to his home. He was officially out of the service area for the second, so he had to pay $28 and unlimited iced water to get the workers to run a longer fiber - that's apparently how things work there.
Kansas City, Google fibere 1Gb/s symetric ... it is do-able, but try telling NBN Co that or those responsible for what we've got. Here it would cost 10s of thousands of dollars if you are lucky t get your own fiber. A.
participants (7)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Craig Sanders -
Jason White -
Julien Goodwin -
Paul van den Bergen -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker