- Aug 23, 2013
You mean e.g. bitco's false advertising? They say 1:1 contention and then in brackets say 1:10 during network congestion, but the line before that says "best-effort SLA". I am guessing they mean from ISP side, since Frogfoot doesn't directly offer business lines, it's through an ISP.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.
What you pay for is the SLA, how fast they "guarantee" service working again.
RocketNet has a nice page:
Fibre Network SLA's (Service Level Agreements) Fibre customer care and support timelines for all the major Fibre Network Operators.
And you can see FF guaranteeing 10:1 contention ratio.
So 1:16 means 150Mbps guaranteed per user, so if everyone had a 1Gbps line, you'd get better than 1:10 contention.Q: I've heard you split the fibre 64 times, and GPON only provides for 2.5Gbps download. Does that not mean a resident would get far less than 1 Gbps if they bought 1 Gbps access?
Not at all. A splitter is essentially a prism, splitting light, and the first time we introduce a splitter is right at the node, where we create a 4:1 split. Closer to the houses, we add another splitter at 16:1, making the overall split on that route 64:1. Should there be a number of close neighbours who all order and make heavy use of 1Gbps services, we will remove the 4:1 splitter for that route, thus dropping the split for the route to 16:1. Because there is 2.5Gbps available, the possible contention is less than 10:1. Practically, it is highly unlikely that so many people will buy 1Gbps services, and if they do, just as unlikely that they will all be using the full 1Gbps at the same time. To use an "old school" analogy, there are not enough telephone trunk lines connecting the suburb's Telkom exchange to the rest of the world to allow every single resident to make an outgoing call at the same time. The economics of telecoms network engineering relies on contention ratios.
So yeah, anyone saying 1:1 is lying, and even on AON you'll just have the contention from the switch back instead, same issue.
This line shows the issue, what is the backhaul of the switch as well? 10Gbps max? So now 250Mbps or 1:4 contention best-case instead.Fialkov explained that in their implementation, 40 subscribers could plug into a single switch with an uncontended 1Gbps per client.
Cybersmart doing 40Gbps provision for that switch is fine, that will probably be in the apartment block or wherever, since that's where Cybersmart operates, so from that switch to the next switch, does the next switch have 40Gbps backhaul as well to the data center for every switch connected to it? Highly doubt it. What is the end-to-end contention, from end users to e.g. server in Teraco that is off of Cybersmart's network.
No it doesn't since handling burst is what is more difficult than handling constant traffic, modern networks you rarely do sustained stuff in a consumer environment, you're loading the next minute of YT or something, one second burst, rest of the time the line is sitting idle.“To avoid appearing that we are underdelivering, we limit the service to what is realistically achievable on a speedtest even though it costs the same to provision the service at 1Gbps.”
@Jan bad reporting not checking that, max in spec is 128, norm in real-world as max is 1:64, definitely not hundredsGPON, on the other hand, is asymmetrical by design. It also lets the fibre operator split a single strand of fibre hundreds of times.
No, you can have symmetrical on GPON, you just don't do it as home service, you're trying to reduce the number of people who will use it as a home server, or have to plan your network capacity to upload as well, it costs money to do that...Fialkov explained that GPON generally offers a total of 2.5Gbps of download capacity and 1.25Gbps upload capacity per site.
“This is why you see a lot of asymmetrical services with upload speed half the download, as this mirrors GPON’s total capacity,” said Fialkov.
@Jan again fail to check spec, 512 is 10GPON.In addition to the asymmetry, GPON also lets network operators split a single fibre strand 128 times — on some implementations up to 512 times.
No, there's more to it than just client premises to closest switch, still on the last mile provider's side, there's that switch back to another aggregate switch, to probably another aggregate and back.If it’s GPON, it can be contended at the fibre network operator level. On Active Ethernet for services under 1Gbps, there cannot be contention.
You have 40 ports you said, you're not going to run all clients / 40 runs back to the data center/directly to internet, that's a lot of fiber.
All AON means is you have a fiber line from custom premises to switch without a splitter in-between, nothing about what happens after the switch (looking from client side).
Again, missing the fact that contention doesn't matter that much in a home service, it's if peak burst is handled.He also said that with GPON, if the service says 100/100Mbps you have no idea whether the FNO has done that by contending the fibre to minimise their cost per port or kept it uncontended and increased their cost.
“You can be pretty certain that for services less than 1Gbps on an Active Ethernet implementation that the service is uncontended on the FNO level.”
@Jan this is shoddy journalism.
Define maintenance, aerial is more likely to get damaged in bad weather / tree falling over.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.
Aerial will require replacement sooner than trenched, just wear and tear, was something like 10-20 for aerial and 20+ easily for trenched, but most of them should be fine for a good 40 years and trenched will probably outlive everyone.
Maintenance isn't the same as DSL/copper, fiber is just check the switches are fine, check light is still coming through (the equipment should report back how much light is coming through, so should be automated for most networks, let's see what actually happens).