Cat 6A or better capable?

[Chris313AllNight]

So, with Fiber on the rise (And my entire area slated for a fiber switch according to an AT&T install tech from a friend), can Cat 6A.7/8 do 10G+ (25 ,40, 100 Gig?) Or is getting things like SFP+ or other switches, cards and Fiber cables inevitable? If it is possible, when do you think we'd see an ethernet card that would support that?

 

[Tech Junky]

Cards already exist. QSFP hits 40gbps not sure on the 100gbps but if you're willing to pay anything's possible since DCs have parts to hit much higher.

Copper isn't the best choice though for much higher speeds at a distance. You can get QSFP cables with the modules attached though and just slide them into the card or appliance.

 

[drinkingbird]

So, with Fiber on the rise (And my entire area slated for a fiber switch according to an AT&T install tech from a friend), can Cat 6A.7/8 do 10G+ (25 ,40, 100 Gig?) Or is getting things like SFP+ or other switches, cards and Fiber cables inevitable? If it is possible, when do you think we'd see an ethernet card that would support that?

Up to 40G is possible over Cat 8 but only at short distances and there is very little out there to support it. For the most part, above 10G you're looking at fiber.

There are already 25, 40, and 100G fiber devices. 40 and 100G are the most common. It will cost a small fortune to buy anything that supports it. For home use, 2.5, 5, and 10G will be what you see for many many years to come. If you're looking to be future proof when wiring a home just use duct or conduit so you can pull fiber later if/when needed.

 

[Chris313AllNight]

Thank you. This was just a question. My area is being wired for Fiber now and I'm looking to get myself situated and once I'm all set, get me to a solid 10/10G and then I'll worry the rest later. Especially since things like 10 or faster will be expensive and I've only got so much budget per month. Not to mention equipment and wiring.

 

[drinkingbird]

Thank you. This was just a question. My area is being wired for Fiber now and I'm looking to get myself situated and once I'm all set, get me to a solid 10/10G and then I'll worry the rest later. Especially since things like 10 or faster will be expensive and I've only got so much budget per month. Not to mention equipment and wiring.

If you have limited budget why waste it on something you won't use?

 

[Chris313AllNight]

If you have limited budget why waste it on something you won't use?

This is just an interest of mine. I don't plan on buying anything past 10 yet, way too expensive. Ask me in a year what I have or in 5. I'll probably have a different answer for you.

 

[drinkingbird]

This is just an interest of mine. I don't plan on buying anything past 10 yet, way too expensive. Ask me in a year what I have or in 5. I'll probably have a different answer for you.

Why even go to 10? Unless you have a bunch of people simultaneously downloading large files, it will never get utilized (even if you do drop the money on all the equipment to handle it).

 

[NXIL]

So, with Fiber on the rise (And my entire area slated for a fiber switch according to an AT&T install tech from a friend)

Oh yes, "fiber from AT&T coming to your street soon", I was told that on the phone in 2015.

Nope.

AT&T lobbies against nationwide fiber, says 10Mbps uploads are good enough

AT&T admits fiber is most "future-proof" but wants US to fund slower networks.

arstechnica.com

AT&T to pay $23M fine for bribing powerful lawmaker’s ally in exchange for vote

AT&T said it's "committed to ensuring that this never happens again."

arstechnica.com

Note: they say they will "ensure this never happens again"--being caught giving out bribes.

AT&T delays 500,000 fiber-to-the-home builds due to severe fiber shortage

AT&T planned to wire up 3 million homes this year, will hit 2.5 million instead.

arstechnica.com

AT&T kills DSL, leaves tens of millions of homes without fiber Internet

AT&T stops connecting new DSL users; only 28% of AT&T territory has full fiber.

arstechnica.com

AT&T slashed billions from network spending, cut tens of thousands of jobs

Despite government favors, AT&T capital spending and employment keep declining.

arstechnica.com

Despite tax break, another 20,000 job cuts​

In addition to the drops in capital spending, AT&T continues cutting jobs despite Stephenson previously claiming that AT&T would use a corporate tax break to create "7,000 hard-hat jobs." As we noted in a story yesterday, AT&T had 247,800 employees at the end of 2019, down from 268,220 one year earlier. That's a 7.6 percent drop in employment.

AT&T promised 7,000 new jobs to get tax break—it cut 23,000 jobs instead

AT&T also cut capital spending despite promising $1 billion capital boost.

arstechnica.com

My area is being wired for Fiber now and I'm looking to get myself situated and once I'm all set, get me to a solid 10/10G and then I'll worry the rest later.

I strongly doubt you are going to get 10gbps, unless you are in the bay area/another highly competitive market.

Remember, AT&T has testified that 10mbps is enough for you!

 

[Tech Junky]

AT&T has testified that 10mbps is enough for you!

That's the issue with ILEC/MSO providers. This is why back in the day they all got split up. Of course mergers over the past 40 years brought them back together.

Dealing with numerous providers, ATT is usually my choice of last resort no matter if it's a backup pots line or a 100GE circuit between data centers.

There are regional only entities though that provide 10GE for ~$150/mo under the co-op umbrella. These are popping up all over the place to take on the incumbents both cable and telco. There are even government entities setting up shop as ISPs to combat the industry. Mostly smaller towns though and more remote locations where traditional providers don't see the $$$ as incentive to move into the area or want to charge $20K+ to extend the plant to a single residence.

The other issue with ISP's tends to be all of the misc fees you end up paying on top of that sweet deal you get. Being complacent about your provider / bill costs you more money each year. If it's not mission critical then FWA seems to be the way to go at this point. $50/mo or less if you bundle services. Take it with you anywhere you want like a cell phone since that's basically what it is just in a bulkier format.

Cooperatives Build Community Networks | Welcome to Community Networks

Image Cooperatives around the country have built on their lo

communitynets.org

 

[drinkingbird]

That's the issue with ILEC/MSO providers. This is why back in the day they all got split up. Of course mergers over the past 40 years brought them back together.

Dealing with numerous providers, ATT is usually my choice of last resort no matter if it's a backup pots line or a 100GE circuit between data centers.

There are regional only entities though that provide 10GE for ~$150/mo under the co-op umbrella. These are popping up all over the place to take on the incumbents both cable and telco. There are even government entities setting up shop as ISPs to combat the industry. Mostly smaller towns though and more remote locations where traditional providers don't see the $$$ as incentive to move into the area or want to charge $20K+ to extend the plant to a single residence.

The other issue with ISP's tends to be all of the misc fees you end up paying on top of that sweet deal you get. Being complacent about your provider / bill costs you more money each year. If it's not mission critical then FWA seems to be the way to go at this point. $50/mo or less if you bundle services. Take it with you anywhere you want like a cell phone since that's basically what it is just in a bulkier format.

Cooperatives Build Community Networks | Welcome to Community Networks

Image Cooperatives around the country have built on their lo

communitynets.org

The regional 10G are cool (there's actually companies that an HOA or community contracts with that takes care of everything from licensing to permits to construction to ongoing support). But there is a very hefty initial fee. I think one I saw was like $10,000 per homeowner. But it was in a very rich area of CA so they had no problem coughing it up.

But of course the 10G is shared amongst everyone, which is fine, it's enough for thousands of households.

It also often takes a year or two at least to get it all put in place, depending on the roads and how much of a pain the city is about construction etc.

 

[Tech Junky]

@drinkingbird

It varies by who's deploying it. Some are govt and some are private people and others are companies. The municipal deployments are usually more scalable with enough bandwidth to pass around. One guy built his network after CC wanted 30K to run an extension. So, he got fiber run instead and basically killed CC from servicing that area. He went onto bid for other towns and won a bid for a few hundred customers. Bought his own road boring machines and hired people to get it done quicker.

It all depends on the motivation and budget you have available. It's not tricky to do it's just not something your avg person will even think about. If growth continues in this non incumbent area it will drive prices down and bring speeds up.

 

[drinkingbird]

@drinkingbird

It varies by who's deploying it. Some are govt and some are private people and others are companies. The municipal deployments are usually more scalable with enough bandwidth to pass around. One guy built his network after CC wanted 30K to run an extension. So, he got fiber run instead and basically killed CC from servicing that area. He went onto bid for other towns and won a bid for a few hundred customers. Bought his own road boring machines and hired people to get it done quicker.

It all depends on the motivation and budget you have available. It's not tricky to do it's just not something your avg person will even think about. If growth continues in this non incumbent area it will drive prices down and bring speeds up.

I believe that guy is one of the ones who started a consulting company and is now doing it for other communities if I remember the news video I watched correctly. But those people did have to pay a steep startup cost, but that was one where the city wanted nothing to do with it (other than collecting money from the permits and enjoying the free road re-paving work).

 

[Greg72]

Just because your ISP is using Fiber vs Copper twisted does not mean that you are going to get 10gig or better. ATT shares the bandwidth between customers. So that means if they send 10gig to the Pedestal, it gets splits out between all that are connected and it starts out at 1gig and goes down in speeds. Fiber is only replacing Copper because it is less likely to be stolen and two it lasts a lot longer in the environment than copper. You will never see anything above 1gig going to customers through ATT.

 

[degrub]

ATT is offering 2+ gig fiber in Houston. i know of a few that are paying the premium. Doesn't make much sense except for a modest size business in reality.

 

[Tech Junky]

ATT is offering 2+ gig fiber in Houston

Not everywhere. Then again what should we expect from ATT? They've played coverage games with their plant for decades. The best I've been able to qualify for in HTX is 45mbps DSL / UVERSE and in DFW I could get UV with limited BW as well. I don't remember even bothering checking when I was in ATX.

From a business perspective they play games as well for higher capacity lines. More than happy to hand out T1's for $150/mo but when it comes to something substantial it's like pulling teeth.. I tried to sell a prev employer on qualifying ~150 sites for something other than ATT and got shutdown because someone either really likes ATT or gets a kickback from them on services. I couldn't pin it down to which but, better options exist if you're in the right areas.

For the same cost as the 45mbps CC offers substantially higher BW for the same price. If upload is your pain though then looking at FWA is the better idea for 1/2 the price and twice the upload.

Order Residential Unlimited Internet - TOAST.net Internet

TOAST.net offers high-speed fiber Internet for home and business. We also build websites and provide email for businesses.

www.toast.net

Hmmm... 800 vs 45.... nearly 20X the DL speed for the same price.

 

[drinkingbird]

Just because your ISP is using Fiber vs Copper twisted does not mean that you are going to get 10gig or better. ATT shares the bandwidth between customers. So that means if they send 10gig to the Pedestal, it gets splits out between all that are connected and it starts out at 1gig and goes down in speeds. Fiber is only replacing Copper because it is less likely to be stolen and two it lasts a lot longer in the environment than copper. You will never see anything above 1gig going to customers through ATT.

They're not replacing copper for those reasons. If they were, they'd only do it when it degrades to the point it can't pass the bandwidth or gets stolen. They are upgrading for additional capacity to sell bigger bandwidth and make more money (including on HD and 4K TV etc). What you're describing is FTTC, which does exist many places (and for the most part is limited to around a gig due to the limitations of coax) but they are doing plenty of FTTH where, while still a shared medium, they're putting in plenty of fibers to minimize the sharing.

With the exception of some really old DSL, none of the legacy services are copper for more than 1/4 mile or so anyway, it has been fiber to the street for decades now.

They're already doing above 1G and I'm sure they'll offer 10G soon enough. Whatever they can trick people into paying more for.

 

[Tech Junky]

coax

Speaking of which. When cable starts doing FDX it will challenge Telco more directly with symmetrical speeds. This more bandwidth at cheaper prices.

 

[drinkingbird]

Speaking of which. When cable starts doing FDX it will challenge Telco more directly with symmetrical speeds. This more bandwidth at cheaper prices.

Yeah, curious to see what the growing pains will be. Which will choose FDX and which will go ESD. Both require a massive infrastructure upgrade which begs the question, why not just go full fiber? You're going to have to replace the nodes, amps, and power supplies, and a lot of the existing coax anyway.

I'll be curious to see how 1.9ghz over coax with tight channel spacing and 4k QAM actually performs in the real world with interference etc. Not to mention the 3ghz they're talking about already.

Both technologies have proven pretty difficult to get stable, and it will only get worse when they try to put it over aging cable plants. We'll see.

Cable is turning into the fat girl in size 0 yoga pants. At some point those suckers are gonna split.

The fiber providers are well positioned to win this war at every step. FIOS in my area is still running 1.25G wavelengths but putting people on dedicated fibers for the most part, especially if you get gig internet. All they have to do is upgrade the head end and ONT and they can go to 10, 100, 400, even terabit - everything else in the path is passive (though not sure at what point the beam splitters and TDM on the upload will choke, but I'm sure they're already working on more precise timers and better splitting technology).

Honestly I'm still surprised the cable companies haven't eliminated SD channels (not that it is a huge amount of bandwidth, but the cable box can easily down convert when needed). Some are even still using broadcast instead of multicast, you can tell by how quickly you can channel surf.

Must suck to always be trying to catch up and rig your old tech to do new things. But I guess its fun and interesting find and set new limits.

But I'm willing to bet we'll see a lot more 4K and 8K on fiber than cable. Even with standard 1080 HD, cable is ridiculously compressed. Cable seems to have given up on TV and focused strictly on internet (which I guess makes sense with cord cutting, the money is in data).

 

[Tech Junky]

4K and 8K

ATSC 3 can do that with a wing antenna and tuners. The biggest issue is the Dolby codec licensing for things like Plex. Get the video but no audio at this point. Kind of like being locked into Apple products vs running Linux.

Video is going the way of the dodo in favor of streams since that's all it is anyway even OTA. I ditched cable years ago on favor of spending on other stuff. It does take some getting used to when weining off the prepackaged junk to more specific media. The video packages are 90% junk and filler to boost the bottom line. When I took my content and put it into a spreadsheet most of it was OTA based and only a few things were cable network oriented. Amazon carries most of it and with prime being a perk for gadgets being shipped fast it's an easy sell. $140/yr vs per month for video. Or get creative.

 

[drinkingbird]

ATSC 3 can do that with a wing antenna and tuners. The biggest issue is the Dolby codec licensing for things like Plex. Get the video but no audio at this point. Kind of like being locked into Apple products vs running Linux.

Video is going the way of the dodo in favor of streams since that's all it is anyway even OTA. I ditched cable years ago on favor of spending on other stuff. It does take some getting used to when weining off the prepackaged junk to more specific media. The video packages are 90% junk and filler to boost the bottom line. When I took my content and put it into a spreadsheet most of it was OTA based and only a few things were cable network oriented. Amazon carries most of it and with prime being a perk for gadgets being shipped fast it's an easy sell. $140/yr vs per month for video. Or get creative.

I cut the cord about 10 years ago. Suburb of Boston with roof mounted antenna, plenty of OTA. But I hardly watch that anymore, the little bit of TV I do watch, can find something free on the fire stick easily (and I don't even have prime, just the various free streaming apps). Also have a PC with wireless keyboard hooked up for youtube or whatever I find online. But traditional service will be around for a long time I feel, there are a lot that do not want the hassle of maintaining multiple services to get the channels they want etc. A lot of the streaming services are creeping up in price too, the ones with local channels are all $70 and up now.

Even got my mom set up to stream Comcast via their app instead of pay for the TV box and "broadcast TV" and "regional sports" fees. Their streaming service is like $35 a month all in for local channels (which she can't get with antenna since she's in a valley in NH) and some of the usual filler. Another $17 for the entertainment pack with the other channels she wanted, and it's about $52 per month all in with taxes/fees/etc. DTV, RSN and 1 box are more than that with regular cable, before you even add the cost of the service.

Mind you, they really don't WANT you to get this service. It was a bit of a nightmare getting answers from them and nobody there really seemed to know much about it, but I finally got it figured out.

I think the only marketing point they will have for traditional TV is if they can supply a lot of 4K or 8K programming without much compression. FTTH is best positioned to do that. That is not something the streaming services can do. Even standard HD is highly compressed (surprisingly, still not as bad as Comcast's compression though, nothing like a bunch of blocks when the screen pans quickly). Streaming, at least without multicast support on the internet, is not as scalable as it needs to be, even with them putting direct 10 or 100G connections into the major ISPs.