Fiber Optic vs Copper 234
pcnetworx1 writes "Recently companies, such as Verizon with their FIOS service, have begun to migrate from legacy copper to fiber optics. Corning (admittedly one of the largest fiber optic cable makers) is running an article which explains why it is actually cheaper to go for the fiber optics."
why it is cheaper. (Score:5, Informative)
But fiber carries hundreds to thousands more channels of data than copper.
that's why it's cheaper.
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:5, Informative)
Benefits of Fibre: Electrical Isolation (Score:3, Informative)
fiber speeds over copper (Score:1, Informative)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:POTS (Score:4, Informative)
Essentially, one of the sides of the connection had to be digital, if you ran two analogue signals (Two modems) back to back, you got 36K, but they found out if that one of the sides of the connection was digital, and was essentially guaranteed to be error free, they could push the speed at which that side transmitted. Hence what the other side recieved at. Whether you actually got 56K was also extremely dependent on the quality of your line. I remember being about 200m away from the exchange on the copper run (I worked at an ISP, so we had a line run for testing) and still only getting 52K.
We used to tell customers it was just the theoretical maximum as nobody in the country at the time had a chance in hell of getting those speeds.
take the words right out of my mouth... (Score:5, Informative)
I am currenly on 100Mbps up/down fiber for just about US$50 per month (split among two other roommates equals less than $20/person) just outside of Tokyo. Lots of people say "The US is so broad that we can't do this!", but I fail to see why this kind of connection isn't available in US cities. I am outside of the most dense parts of Tokyo (in fact, I am in a suburb of Kawasaki), but that didn't stop the ISPs (So-Net in my case) from running fibre to apartments.
Come on, USA! At least in the cities, there is no reason to be so far behind with regards to residential access!
Re:Why not short-haul fiber? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know if you can get away with less quality over short runs. Because it is an optical system I would expect that it will either work or not, there won't be much middle ground.
Most of my experience with fibre dates back about ten years when I was involved with a large, distributed CCTV system. The cable would enter the building via a large pit (about a metre across) and from there it would be cable tied to mesh cable guides all the way to the network terminating gear.
Where the cable had to negotiate a corner in a room (for example, wall to ceiling) it would follow a gentle curve from one cable guide to the next with a radius of curvature of about 200mm.
Fibre cabling around the 19 inch racks which held the equipment was done with a similar amount of care.
The funniest thing I saw was a contractor who used an auger to bore a hole straight down into one of our main inner city roads. The auger went straight into the pipe holding the fibre for a nearby traffic camera and 100 metres of cable wound itself around the auger bit exactly like pasta aound a fork.
Needless to day that length of cable was totally stuffed.
Re:fiber speeds over copper (Score:4, Informative)
Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing isn't so much a protocol as it is an improved method of encoding.
The main obstacle to adoption, as far as I'm aware, is the crosstalk incurred at the amplifiers.
Most fiber-optic connections these says make use of amplifying L.A.S.E.R.s wherein the incident EM photons induce the emission of photons of identical frequency from atoms which are in an energetic state. However, due to the finite power of the pumping source, and the finite population of the atoms used as lasing medium, there can be problems with crosstalk - Transmitting a high level on one frequency depletes the population of energised atoms in the lasing medium and causes the amplification ratio of the other frequencies to drop.
I read a while back about one type of L.A.S.E.R. amplifier where a single frequency was injected transversely to the path of the intended amplified radiation. This would make each frequency have a constant "big" competitor for the energised atoms, and thus drastically decrease the magnitude of this crosstalk.
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2, Informative)
For the connection we get (15/2), CAT5 is more then sufficient.
Re:network security - not really (Score:2, Informative)
So this means it is easier to detect a wiretap on a fiber network then on a copper one, because you have to splice the fiber, where as you can just park your device a few feet away & still get the signal with copper.
Is that old fiber? (Score:4, Informative)
Fiber at home (or at the office) (Score:3, Informative)
From someone with Verizon's FIOS Service, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:IPv6 (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about other countries, but AARNET here in Australia recently upgraded their network [aarnet.edu.au] with 10Gbps fibre connecting major metropolitan centres as well as Seattle and LA in the US. Slower copper links are used for redundancy and connecting not-so-major metropolitan centres. And it supports IPv6 as well as IPv4.
It's refreshing to see their attitude about IPv6 in their design goals [aarnet.edu.au]:
Also, Australians can use their IPv6 migration broker [aarnet.net.au] to get a local IPv6 tunnel.
Cat3-Cat7 vs. ST, SC, LC is a wash. (Score:4, Informative)
The article says the same cable is used, but it glosses over the terminaors. I've gone through ST & SC, and now LC. Every couple of years they change the connector and then you stuck with frankefibres (patch cable with the new connector type on the patch, and the old on the machine.) It costs big bucks to replace your connectors. I hope they plan to stay with LC for a while, because replacing the connectors is nearly as expensive as replacing all the wiring.
We have an office building. The copper used to go down several floors
to a central patch. We figured we'd modernise by having the copper terminate at switches on each floor, and run fibre down. Great except the fibre downlinks blow like popcorn. We were replacing cisco gbics every other week, and they're not cheap.
For long haul, I'm sure it makes a lot more sense, but in terms of building infrastructure, it would not have saved anybody much in the
past 10 years if they had stayed with copper. And the end point electronics are still way more expensive.
Where fibre was a big win was with HIPPI. We had copper HIPPI and those
cables were about an inch thick with 100 or so pin connectors. The fibre was just plain ST terminated multi-mode. Much easier to run.
If the phone companies start rolling it out in a big way, maybe the
price for end point equipment will come down.
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:3, Informative)
The best is single-mode glass (the stuff used for single multi-gigabit 10+ kilometers long stretches with ~2dB/km loss which is highly breakable and fairly expensive, the equally breakable but less expensive multi-mode glass fibers are limited to about 1Gbps and typically less than 5km due to modal dispersion and ~10dB/km losses while bend-tolerant and much less expensive plastic fiber with ~20dB/km losses are limited to only a few hundred meters for applications that need gigabit speeds. For residential 100Mbps service, plastic fiber would be plenty good enough to handle the last km from the nearest back-haul switch to subscriber terminal. (The loss figures are what I remember from a class where they were mentionned nearly 10 years ago.)
And yes, you can bend most plastic fiber on less than a 3cm radius. Sharp bends do increase losses but plastic fibers at least let you back off with little to no permanent damage instead of spontaneously breaking like glass fibers would if you went a little too far.
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why not short-haul fiber? (Score:2, Informative)
It's called Fibre Channel; but it is mainly enterprise class. (And yes, the spelling I just gave is correct.) You can buy portions of it cheap on EBay (Optics for $10 - Search for "Optical SFP" or HBAs for $50 (Host Bus Adapter; PCI card with optical connections) -- search for "Fibre Channel HBA")... but then you need the drive enclosure (typically rack mount) and the drives themselves.
The optics themselves aren't the expensive part of this system, at least according to the EBay ecosystem.
Well, plastic fiber won't likely go 100m (too much attenuation) .. but glass optical fiber is fairy flexible -- a little more so than my mouse's cable -- but it is not kind to kinks, especially. There is a post later that indicated it's all or nothing wrt. bend radius -- not true. Increasing tightness will cause increasing attenuation, but true cut-off (no light passed) is difficult to attain, even when you are trying to do so.
Just my thoughts; not representing any particular company view, yadda, yadda...