Your statement assumes FNO's have done due diligence in their designs, monitor their ports for congestion, have a plan to reduce splits without re-splicing and downtime and an upgrade strategy to next gen PON - the thing is most don't.Hehe, just because you CAN contend GPON doesn't mean you have to congest. If you design GPON properly, you'll monitor each port and if any come close to congestion, you can lower the split ratio where necessary, giving more bandwidth. Also, this guy needs to go look up XGS-PON and 50 GPON. Eventually when the average consumer orders high enough bandwidth services to saturate a GPON port, you would overlay an XGS-PON layer on the same fibre, increasing your fibre bandwidth by 10, and his switches will need replacing every few years anyway. This is all marketing fluff and doesn't truly translate to customer experience. Even on a business side, you can actually dedicate bandwidth on a GPON network, so you'll never contend. The only true advantage for AE is a symmetrical 1G service, which is a bit too close for comfort for a standard GPON network.
But I digress, the guys are trying to differentiate themselves and are overreaching quite a bit - nothing new.
The weird thing is I get exactly the line speed I pay for on my Openserve GPON line. Is there anybody who doesn't?Your statement assumes FNO's have done due diligence in their designs, monitor their ports for congestion, have a plan to reduce splits without re-splicing and downtime and an upgrade strategy to next gen PON - the thing is most don't.
Just to add to the confusion, aerial can be underground so I would go with what Vuma say.Mine is Vuma trenched except if you ask Vuma - their books say Vuma aerial. Any idea which it is?
Look I think if you get the speed you signed up for and without any packet drops or higher latency you good to go. Does not really matter if it's split a million times.Hehe, just because you CAN contend GPON doesn't mean you have to congest. If you design GPON properly, you'll monitor each port and if any come close to congestion, you can lower the split ratio where necessary, giving more bandwidth. Also, this guy needs to go look up XGS-PON and 50 GPON. Eventually when the average consumer orders high enough bandwidth services to saturate a GPON port, you would overlay an XGS-PON layer on the same fibre, increasing your fibre bandwidth by 10, and his switches will need replacing every few years anyway. This is all marketing fluff and doesn't truly translate to customer experience. Even on a business side, you can actually dedicate bandwidth on a GPON network, so you'll never contend. The only true advantage for AE is a symmetrical 1G service, which is a bit too close for comfort for a standard GPON network.
But I digress, the guys are trying to differentiate themselves and are overreaching quite a bit - nothing new.
No, but I was making the point that you cannot say GPON by design will contend and congest. So I was disputing the claim about the technology.Your statement assumes FNO's have done due diligence in their designs, monitor their ports for congestion, have a plan to reduce splits without re-splicing and downtime and an upgrade strategy to next gen PON - the thing is most don't.
I think you need to differentiate the ISP to the FNO. ISP's are delegated to by the FNO's and dont have this information on how many times the FNO splits the line. ISP's get charged a fixed rate by the FNO irrelevant if the line is split 128 times or 2 times. Its the FNO's who control 80% of the price you pay for fibre. The ISP's fight for the few rands there after.Can Laurie then give us a heads up on how to find out if you've been split many times by the FNO and ISP. I surely don't split my money to pay the ISP. Why can they not play open cards on what you actually paying for. I do not mind paying for a decent service and getting what i actually pay for.
Who regulates the FNO's and ISP's and why are they getting away with it.
I don't mind paying for an uncontested 1Gbps line
True, but the FNO also spent 80% of the money on the infrastructure, so it's in their interest to split and aggregate it just enough to be cost effective (you can't have Vumatel charge 2x the price of Openserve etc.), but also to ensure it does not impact customer experience (by the same breath, if Earl's discount FNO is half price of Openserve, but provides a terrible service, everyone will move - price isn't everything).I think you need to differentiate the ISP to the FNO. ISP's are delegated to by the FNO's and dont have this information on how many times the FNO splits the line. ISP's get charged a fixed rate by the FNO irrelevant if the line is split 128 times or 2 times. Its the FNO's who control 80% of the price you pay for fibre. The ISP's fight for the few rands there after.
nobody is saying because you on GPON you will not get the speeds you paying for. Openserv are actually good, their reluctance to sell symmetrical products for a long time and limiting max to 200Mbps down for just as long shows this. They know the risk.The weird thing is I get exactly the line speed I pay for on my Openserve GPON line. Is there anybody who doesn't?
No, but I was making the point that you cannot say GPON by design will contend and congest. So I was disputing the claim about the technology.
That said, your statement about FNO behaviour is true, but a separate topic. I could contend an AE network just as easily, and I can promise you that Vumatel does, and they would be stupid not to. For the same reason you don't have a 20 lane road leading to an estate with 20 houses, you don't backhaul a 500 port 1G fibre switch with 500G. You just need to be sure that you have enough lanes or Gb that you don't start congesting. I mean, that is pretty much all an FNO, ISP or operator does - traffic management.
My point ultimately is that both technologies can be effectively deployed if you do it correctly, while not impacting any subscriber experience.
What about Vuma Reach in the ground?AFAIK
Everyone + vuma aerial = GPON
Vuma trenched = active ethernet
I think Reach is also GPON. Like I said earlier, aerial can be over and underground afaik.What about Vuma Reach in the ground?
Also I have seen Vuma aerial fibre and trenched in the same road, just one side is trenched and the other is on the street light poles...
You're right, which is why FNOs are hopefully already looking at XG(S)-PON to supplement their network once this inevitably comes. You can overlay it on top of GPON without affecting any of the existing clients and just connect the high bandwidth guys on the XGS-PON layer. I think at the moment we're not quite there yet - or at least only in extremely few select areas/scenarios.Absolutely, the tech is sound if used as intended.
I'll be nervous as an FNO, GPON is old now, like 2007 ... with the ISP's in ZA only differentiating themselves by either price or speed this is pushing 1Gbps packages to R1k, inevitably this will lead to multiple 1G clients per PON port. While "baseload" can easily be monitored, monitoring for microbursts in this scenario, which can be many 100's of thousands of packets per second and last only milliseconds is not so easy. It's gonna be a problem for some FNO's guaranteed
nobody is saying because you on GPON you will not get the speeds you paying for. Openserv are actually good, their reluctance to sell symmetrical products for a long time and limiting max to 200Mbps down for just as long shows this. They know the risk.
Laurie is taking exception with ISP's/FNO's selling dedicated 1:1 Business services as fact - when in reality the underlying network is unknown at best, he is 100% correct here.
These business then end up paying premium rates for a supposed superior business service when in reality they get the same link as the house next door on the R700 package - they not even split residential/business on the OLT's to apply some sort of QOS. So what they paying extra for? It's a lie in my opinion
Cybersmart guarantees by providing a dedicated wavelength per customer, and they doing that today - you can't really fault that.
Whether the cable is trenched or aerial makes NO DIFFERENCE to the service provided.Mine is Vuma trenched except if you ask Vuma - their books say Vuma aerial. Any idea which it is?
Whether the cable is trenched or aerial makes NO DIFFERENCE to the service provided.
There is NO SUCH THING as an exclusive only aerial fibre network anymore. It is ALWAYS a mixture. In some areas there might be no overhead infrastructure. It is the equipment used to provide the service that determines the nature of the service, (active or passive) and then asymmetrical or symmetrical and then only the capacity of the service.
But is and will always irritate those of us who know how this all works.Hehe, just because you CAN contend GPON doesn't mean you have to congest. If you design GPON properly, you'll monitor each port and if any come close to congestion, you can lower the split ratio where necessary, giving more bandwidth. Also, this guy needs to go look up XGS-PON and 50 GPON. Eventually when the average consumer orders high enough bandwidth services to saturate a GPON port, you would overlay an XGS-PON layer on the same fibre, increasing your fibre bandwidth by 10, and his switches will need replacing every few years anyway. This is all marketing fluff and doesn't truly translate to customer experience. Even on a business side, you can actually dedicate bandwidth on a GPON network, so you'll never contend. The only true advantage for AE is a symmetrical 1G service, which is a bit too close for comfort for a standard GPON network.
But I digress, the guys are trying to differentiate themselves and are overreaching quite a bit - nothing new.
Thanks for taking the time to emphasize those points, please take a look at my request at the top of this page?Whether the cable is trenched or aerial makes NO DIFFERENCE to the service provided.
There is NO SUCH THING as an exclusive only aerial fibre network anymore. It is ALWAYS a mixture. In some areas there might be no overhead infrastructure. It is the equipment used to provide the service that determines the nature of the service, (active or passive) and then asymmetrical or symmetrical and then only the capacity of the service.
Aerial fibre has an inherent safety factor built in you can see where it is.Agreed. Depends on the area - no difference. There are some people saying maintenance in more on aerial, but these days people are just as likely to dig up fibre than they are to drive over the pole.