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:3, Informative)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2, Informative)
For the connection we get (15/2), CAT5 is more then sufficient.
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2)
Not to mention that the black box will probably need a power source. I did a few digital phone installs, which are a huge hassle, and they have small UPS's that require power, preferably nearby. Usually ended up installing the whole sheban
Is that old fiber? (Score:4, 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 n
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2)
Well that's just completely untrue. Glass fiber optics can't stand to be bent at all, but plastic-based fiber optic cables can be bent as much as copper without any damaged.
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:3, Interesting)
I do not really buy the 10x more expensive argument... glass (even flawless) is cheaper pr. kg than copper... and btw. you can multiplex a signal on a copper wire too...
Where I live the most expensive part of laying anything in the ground is the digging.
There is one factor that in fact makes fiber cheaper than copper: glass is corrosion-free and will last forever.
Do the math (Score:3, Interesting)
But if you installed Cat3, then you yanked it and went to TSB Cat 5. Now they're goading us into Cat 6, and extended variants.
It's true that 20 years ago, one used bizarre jigs to terminate fiber, but those days are long gone. Optical TDR test equipment had dropped like a rock, and you can get unbelievably cool handheld and laptop-based diagnostic equipment these days for fiber.
And the cost to do fiber has dropped amazingly, too.
Fiber has al
Re:Do the math (Score:2)
But if you installed Cat3, then you yanked it and went to TSB Cat 5. Now they're goading us into Cat 6, and extended variants.
By the book, yes. However, practical experiance is that these demands don't make much difference in practice. I've seen fast Enet work just fine on cat3 and I've seen 2 fastE connections work over a single cat5. I've never seen a GigE connection that actually needed cat5e or cat6. It's usually the expensive cutting edge 1st generation hardware that is so picky. The dirt cheap 2nd
10x more expensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, during the lifetime, fiber requires less power, and due to fewer amps it has fewer points of failure. Of course, a break in the line is more expensive.
So 10x? I don't think so.
Gotta wonder why it's more expensive to lay fiber. (Score:2)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're talking about high-bandwidth installations, and talking to business people. I doubt these people are interested in hack jobs the grandparent describes, especially since it's a sure way to say goodbye to your high bandwidth (tens of gigabits or so).
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:3, Funny)
An And t th& the quali;^$%#& quality of the le1cab$ c^#' cable eems seems to be just f/ fine!
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2)
And with kits like Amphenol's Lightcrimp Plus, you don't need tremendous expertise to crimp fiber optic cables either. Its more expensive than copper (about $1200 for the kit and about $10 per jack) but
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:why it is cheaper. (Score:2)
It's rather stupid to destroy two eithernet cables, rather than buying a $5 coupler. You can certainly expect to find the same kind of fiber optic couplers for a bit more once fiber gets a fraction as popular as ethernet.
Incidentally, it isn't as hard as people make it out to be to work with fiber optic. With some extremely fine sandpaper, the right glue, and a metal collar that w
tell me something i didn't know.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:tell me something i didn't know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tell me something i didn't know.... (Score:2)
Even with the price of installation being the same, the price of upkeep is firmly in favor of copper. Things happen, after all. rj45 gets ripped off of the cable? Cut and crimp and all is well. Just try that with a fiber, the splicing rig only costs what, $50,000?
LCables get abused all the time. While there are people out there who freak out of someone steps on a cat5, my experiance is that cat5 will survive nearly anything that doesn't actually break it unless you're using Cisco switches or exceeding max
Re:tell me something i didn't know.... (Score:2)
TFA ws about premises networks, not city wide. That vplaces things firmly in the realm of copper.
network security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:network security - not really (Score:5, Interesting)
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 jus
Re:network security - not really (Score:2, Funny)
Re:network security - not really (Score:2)
Re:network security - not really (Score:2)
Alternately, you can just go to where there is already a splice, such as an amplifying station.
This is harder than attaching a tap to a copper line, but only because people haven't really tried. I am sure that the NSA and friends c
Re:network security - not really (Score:2)
Also, with larger companies that use fiber, it's fairly typical to configure it in a ring for reliability, with the signal transmitted on both sides of the ring so it can switch over rapidly if one si
Benefits of Fibre: Electrical Isolation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Benefits of Fibre: Electrical Isolation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Benefits of Fibre: Electrical Isolation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Benefits of Fibre: Electrical Isolation (Score:2)
Seems simple... (Score:3, Funny)
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:take the words right out of my mouth... (Score:2)
Re:take the words right out of my mouth... (Score:2)
Re:take the words right out of my mouth... (Score:2)
OK. I'm an American downloading pig. I trade (legally and encouraged by the artists) live music that averages at about a Gig of data per show, and all of the regular other junk that I do. I have, I guess, about the fastest internet one can get now at work, Internet2, and soon to be upgraded to Lamda Rail.
Sure, I guess I would take a 100Mpbs connection at home at the same price or lower than I p
future proofing... (Score:3, Insightful)
please allow me to pull some numbers out of my ass...
20 years ago, 9600baud was "good enough for now". 15 years ago, 14.4kbps was "good enough for now". 10 years ago, 33.6kbps (or was it 56kbps at that time?) was "good enough for now." (well, for some people...those of us on T1s or greater to university networks would beg to differ). 5 years ago, 1.4Mbps cable was "good enough f
Re:future proofing... (Score:2)
Cable TV networks have traditionally followed a 5 year payback cycle, at which time the cable companies would begin a rebuild. The reason for this was because they didn't want to show a profit on the operation, lest they'd have to pay taxes. In the early '90s, the US congress decided they needed to regulate pricing on c
Re:future proofing... (Score:2)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051014-543 3
Whoever gets their fibre network built first will have a headstart over the other. A few months ago, Cox (our cable company) bumped our dload speeds up to 5mbps from 3mbps, I was curious to why they did this. Later, I found out that 3mbps DSL is now available in our area. Who says there is no competition?
In the early '90s, the US congress decided they nee
Re:take the words right out of my mouth... (Score:3, Interesting)
The US is a few years behind, I'd say about 5 right now, in fibre uptake. This mainly was due to the phone companies not wanting to install fibre networks and then be told they would have to lease them out at cost to competitors. This would severly reduce the return on investment they could then make. With a few recent rulings from the FCC, the phone companies have been ramping up fibre inst
Good Questions... (Score:2)
As for campaigns, things
One clarification... (Score:2)
Even with mine, I almost never get much faster than 1~2Mbps on individual fast connections (e.g. downloading from servers in Japan, using BitTorrent, etc), but I have definitely had more than 10 connections each downloading at about 1Mbps simultaneously...
This kind of makes sense for me because of the factors involved: 1.) I use AirPort Extreme, so really, my computer (and one of my roommates on th
Audiophile response (Score:5, Funny)
I use special oxide free copper wiring and power cords to eliminate excessive "power banding" that produce a grittiness to the intenet.
That's why I'm sticking with copper.
Re:Audiophile response (Score:2)
Re:A True Audiophile response (Score:2, Funny)
I agree (Score:2)
POTS (Score:2, Offtopic)
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.
Re:POTS (Score:2)
That's because the modems did 56k down, 33.6k up, at best. Your download being your friend's upload, and vice-versa, the best you could do together was 33.6k. I guess ISPs have special modems that do 33.6k down, 56k up.
Re:POTS (Score:2)
Playing devils advocate here, but with the new V92 standard, the upload was upped to 40kbps. So it *may* be possible for 2 new modems with V92 to connect at this speed max.
Re:POTS (Score:2)
Can't find a recent article on this but here's a start: http://www.wt.net/56k.shtml [wt.net]
You could get 56k, (FCC limit of 53k in the US) one direction only. Here's a better article on how skipping 1 analog/digital gets you a speed boost. (ie: ISP data to you at 56k, but data to ISP at 33.6k) http://www.99main.com/support/how56kworks.shtml [99main.com]
You're (Score:2)
You will get 56kbs in NO MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION. That will be from the digital end, to the analog end. This is because the digitally connected equipment can "sync" to the exchange, and time its signals in such a way it can send them more reliably, the only way 56kbs could be achieved with 8kHz TDM. You and your friend with "good phon
Re:POTS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not short-haul fiber? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fibre cables can't have sharp bends in them because the photons would literally not make it around the bend if it is too tight.
Because of this the cable has to be carefully laid. You can't just string it anywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Why not short-haul fiber? (Score:2)
Re:Why not short-haul fiber? (Score:2)
Worked in a data-centre? (Score:2)
Nope I thought not. Fibre-attach is the standard way that people connect from a server to a SAN, its very expensive at the moment and its much easier to use things like USB 2.0 or Firewire 2.0 as they have much lower production costs.
So its already invented but you probably can't afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not short-haul fiber? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not short-haul fiber? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FireWire (Score:2)
The problem with this it the same as with all optic links, the cable is rigid and can't be turned nearly as tight as copper cables. It isn't that practical for the applications you mention.
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 themse
no way! (Score:3, Funny)
ah, a beginner (Score:3, Funny)
A new way to go online!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fiber lines are harder to illegal tap. There is a device that can connect to a standard copper pbone cable without piercing the outer insulation. By turning a set of dials you can listen in on all of the phone conversations going on through that cable. Such a device wouldn't work on a fiber line because it exploits certain laws governing electromagentism and how electricity travels through wires. In order to illegally tap a fiber line you'd have to cut it, that would disrupt service for a while, and its would instantly be noticable.
Re:A new way to go online!? (Score:2)
Verizon is engaged in the staggering task of rewiring (dewiring?) America, or at least that part of it that falls into Verizon's territory. Whole towns are being upgraded to fiber - first down the street, then indeed brought to your home when you order the service.
The fiber carries voice, data (internet) and video into your home, with the voice being ATM based (converted so that you can use your existing phones), although obviousl
Copper is cheap for now (Score:2, Insightful)
With fibre, in same scenario as above, not much will change, so the same cable can be used for higher speeds.
Fiber to the home (Score:4, Interesting)
We support 802.11 wireless (it sucks, The technology isn't reliable and most people don't understand how to use it!), Cable modems, Dialup, fixed point wireless (this sucks worse, slow and almost unusable), and now "Fiber to the home" of all of them the fiber seems to be the best. We are even considering replacing some cable lines with fiber in existing builds where we have had problems with the cable or we have higher bandwidth demands.
I know the cost is more but maintenance is much lower and that is what kills you in the long run, going out and splicing a rodent chew. Fiber just doesn't have the same problems.
Just my opinion, but I use it now, in the real world and it isn't speculation at this point.
Re:Fiber to the home (Score:2)
They do when it comes to backhoes and trenchdiggers.
SB
Re:Fiber to the home (Score:2)
Actually the costs are the same/lower for infrastructure fiber in just about every way but one: You have to pay techs trained in splicing fiber more than the knuckle draggers who splice copper. Verizon most likely looked at their workforce and figured that since they were paying all their guys to know how to splice fiber, they migh
None of them (Score:3, Funny)
\ way!
\ ____
\ / __ \
\ O| |O|
|| | |
|| | |
|| |
|___/
IPv6 (Score:2)
Perhaps the big players should try and coincide a wide spread roll out of fibre with a general aboption of IPv6. That way we could get all the pain and expense over and done with in one hit. Mmmmmmh huge untypeable IP addresses - just what I've always wanted.
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]:
Fiber at home (or at the office) (Score:3, Informative)
From someone with Verizon's FIOS Service, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:From someone with Verizon's FIOS Service, (Score:2)
Re:From someone with Verizon's FIOS Service, (Score:2)
Re:From someone with Verizon's FIOS Service, (Score:2)
I don't have any other choice for local service providers NOW.
I do have the option of VOIP over my Verizon DSL, which I can't possibly see them taking away with FIOS. I also have the options of cell phones. And you can bet, in short order, that Cable TV companies are going to be providing local phone service of their own.
Re:From someone with Verizon's FIOS Service, (Score:2)
I know that Verizon and Verizon Wireless are 2 different companies (VZ owns the majority stake in VZW, though), but any of the contracts and marketing materials on VZW's wireless data plans specifically prohibit you from using any VoIP services. I would think that we'll see this down the road from any of the carriers that offer voice services.
Read The Fiber Article (Score:2)
As long as I'm livin' here in hurricane land I'm stayin' with 48 VDC current loop BUG* wire.
*Buried Under Ground
On a just barely related note, Sprint is coming under fire from the union for their plans to spin off their land line business (the old Carolina Tel. & Tel.) and leave it saddle
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:Cat3-Cat7 vs. ST, SC, LC is a wash. (Score:4, Insightful)
Changing fiber connectors is not expensive. It takes more skill then crimping copper, but it is not hard. It requires some specialized equipment but it is nothing outrageous. Changing the connector types should not be an issue. All infrastructure fiber should be terminated in a patch panel with a pigtail used to connect the hardware (servers/switchs/etc) to the patch panel. Fiber is somewhat fragile so once infrastructure fiber in in place it is best if it is not touched.
I am not aware of any shop replaceing GBICs every other week, every other month, or indeed ever. In my experience fiber transcievers have been more reliable then copper. At any rate Cisco GBICs aren't that expensive. Through Google I found multimode transcievers for $180.
Any shop that ran copper 10 years ago is running new copper now to take adavantage of 1Gbit/s. Those shops will be running new copper again in 10 years. Fiber shops are using the same old fiber with new switches. When 10Gbit becomes affordable fiber shops will switch over to that.
At my last shop every 24 devices had a 1Gbit/s fiber link to the fiber plant. This density was choosen to keep the copper runs short. Most switches are not full so there are actually fewer then 24 devices per fiber. There are 4-6 dark fibers for every fiber in use. This gives room for spares and future growth. That may be excessive, but the cost of fiber is cheaper then labour. It is a great setup.
As far as I know... (Score:3, Insightful)
I a little startled to hear that fiber is a big deal in the USA. Talk about behind the times!
Re:fiber speeds over copper (Score:2)
I am sure you could do this over fibre as well.
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:fiber speeds over copper (Score:2)
IANAEE
SB
Re:fiber speeds over copper (Score:2)
That sounds like my 14K4 modem, which proudly proclaimed on the box that it could do 57K6, because it supported v42bis (I think). Yes, it could, if the compression algorithm used really did deliver a 4:1 compression ratio - which, of course, never happened when transferring things that needed it; the only large things one transferred were already compressed, and the algorithm wouldn't do much on those.
Of course, what you're talking about is completely different, I just wanted to
Re:fiber speeds over copper (Score:2)
Re:fiber's great, till your lasers start burning o (Score:2)