Roughly same speeds on DSL and fibre comparable?

[Giganizer300PRO]

My ISP sucks. Shifty Internet speeds, router was crashing all the time, set-up box crashes all the time...

Basically, what I wanna know is, are roughly the same speeds comparable when one is on fibre and one on DSL?

I know how much fibre is better, but does any of that matter at 10mbps?

[OddsCrazyStuff]

10mbps should be 10mbps, regardless of how you get it.

I belive the only difference is how stable it is.

[OddsCrazyStuff]

My ISP sucks. Shifty Internet speeds, router was crashing all the time, set-up box crashes all the time...

Basically, what I wanna know is, are roughly the same speeds comparable when one is on fibre and one on DSL?

I know how much fibre is better, but does any of that matter at 10mbps?

And please follow your own topics, so we dont have to quote you all the time.

[dzonidev]

-snip-

-snip-

Well not quite. You see fiber provides the lowest latency for example, on ADSL you can get anywhere from 10-25ms, cable 8-15ms and fiber 0.5-4ms (these are my estimates based on what I saw)

With ADSL, if you pay for 10Mbps you will never be able to achieve 100% of that speed. Actually around 85% will be the max you can get. ADSL has a lot of loss, because of the technologies it uses (SONET, ATM, L2TP, etc...). Now ADSL2+ is a bit better, but my point still stands.

With cable the story is the same there is inevitable loss, but it's not as bad.

And finally fiber, there is no loss. Also when you sign a contract for Fiber but what you get is an ADSL line that's connected to fiber very near you, that's called complete and utter bullshit. You are still using ADSL, just the node that connects to fiber is much closer.

Wireless is a different story.

[Giganizer300PRO]

Well not quite. You see fiber provides the lowest latency for example, on ADSL you can get anywhere from 10-25ms, cable 8-15ms and fiber 0.5-4ms (these are my estimates based on what I saw)

With ADSL, if you pay for 10Mbps you will never be able to achieve 100% of that speed. Actually around 85% will be the max you can get. ADSL has a lot of loss, because of the technologies it uses (SONET, ATM, L2TP, etc...). Now ADSL2+ is a bit better, but my point still stands.

With cable the story is the same there is inevitable loss, but it's not as bad.

And finally fiber, there is no loss. Also when you sign a contract for Fiber but what you get is an ADSL line that's connected to fiber very near you, that's called complete and utter bullshit. You are still using ADSL, just the node that connects to fiber is much closer.

Wireless is a different story.

So basically what you're saying is, fiber has the lowest latency of all, but otherwise it's pretty much the same thing if it can reach same speeds?

[Blebekblebek]

data transfer with copper had 8mbit limitation as far as i know, that might explain why you constantly having problems with your connection.

because at higher rate your connection become unstable because copper can't handle higher signal.

 

Fiber... is just another whole level, it could deliver high speed bandwith through whole city.

 " As of 2011 the record for bandwidth on a single core was 101 Tbit/s (370 channels at 273 Gbit/s each).^[30] The record for a multi-core fiber as of January 2013 was 1.05 petabits per second. ^[31] In 2009, Bell Labs broke the 100 (petabit per second)×kilometer barrier (15.5 Tbit/s over a single 7,000 km fiber).^[32] "

 

again, our internet problem could be easily fixed if our ISP taking action by upgrading their copper network with fiber.

I don't understand why, or how, or what make them not to.

[schizznick]

data transfer with copper had 8mbit limitation as far as i know, that might explain why you constantly having problems with your connection.

because at higher rate your connection become unstable because copper can't handle higher signal.

 

Fiber... is just another whole level, it could deliver high speed bandwith through whole city.

 " As of 2011 the record for bandwidth on a single core was 101 Tbit/s (370 channels at 273 Gbit/s each).^[30] The record for a multi-core fiber as of January 2013 was 1.05 petabits per second. ^[31] In 2009, Bell Labs broke the 100 (petabit per second)×kilometer barrier (15.5 Tbit/s over a single 7,000 km fiber).^[32] "

 

again, our internet problem could be easily fixed if our ISP taking action by upgrading their copper network with fiber.

I don't understand why, or how, or what make them not to.

DSL especially ADSL2+ far exceeds 8Mbit. In fact using g.fast and extremely small loops you can get a gig. Using more common VDSL you can easily get 60Mbit by 30Mbit at upto 5000 feet. All flavors of DSL do have more overhead than fiber so you do lose some in the ATM to Ethernet conversion. However using PTM it is possible to limit that on both ADSL2+ and VDSL. Working for an ISP we have many flavors of Fiber mixed with Many types of DSL. Fiber's biggest advantage, as was stated by dzonidev, is latency. Fiber is vastly superior in that department. Remember Ethernet cable like Cat6a is rated to 10Gbit and it is copper.

 

Testing to the edge of our network I usually see about 6ms ping on ADSL and 1ms on Fiber. Testing to the Internet for example to google. They are usually around 35-40ms for both. So that latency may not translate to much of an advantage depending on your ISP's network. 

 

As to installing fiber, The most expensive part of any network upgrade is opening the ground. In fact FiberOptic cable is cheaper than Copper every day of the week even if you add in the cost of optics and ONT's. However opening the ground to lay the fiber can get extremely expensive when you look at paying right of way and trenching in the cable. That's why, as an ISP, we always convert large communities  at a time so we can fill that trench with as much fiber as we need plus some for expansion. It's not an easy decision to convert to fiber, so a large amount of planning goes into it. In some communities it is more cost effective to use technologies like VDSL and G.fast to give people higher speeds as an intermediate step. Remember many ISP's have a large investment in existing Copper so it's a hard decision to abandon that and move. You have to know you will be able to successfully sale it. We have deployed a large amount of fiber and one of our largest issues is many people don't upgrade the Internet package they have, this means we had a large expense and no return on that investment. Some people like those on this forum are willing to pay for those higher speeds and services, but we all have family and friends who are not. 

 

Ultimately Fiber is the future but it will take time to get to it, and copper still has some time till it's dead. 

[arronleeds]

Well not quite. You see fiber provides the lowest latency for example, on ADSL you can get anywhere from 10-25ms, cable 8-15ms and fiber 0.5-4ms (these are my estimates based on what I saw)

With ADSL, if you pay for 10Mbps you will never be able to achieve 100% of that speed. Actually around 85% will be the max you can get. ADSL has a lot of loss, because of the technologies it uses (SONET, ATM, L2TP, etc...). Now ADSL2+ is a bit better, but my point still stands.

With cable the story is the same there is inevitable loss, but it's not as bad.

And finally fiber, there is no loss. Also when you sign a contract for Fiber but what you get is an ADSL line that's connected to fiber very near you, that's called complete and utter bullshit. You are still using ADSL, just the node that connects to fiber is much closer.

Wireless is a different story.

not always true, i know someone who was on adsl2+ and he got around 10ms (no joke) on vdsl he has around 15ms, i dont know how but yeah.

 

adsl is limited to 8Mbps, adsl2+ is up to 24Mbps (depending on provider) vdsl is dependent on distance from the cabinet and fibre isnt dependent on anything i dont believe.

[schizznick]

not always true, i know someone who was on adsl2+ and he got around 10ms (no joke) on vdsl he has around 15ms, i dont know how but yeah.

 

adsl is limited to 8Mbps, adsl2+ is up to 24Mbps (depending on provider) vdsl is dependent on distance from the cabinet and fibre isnt dependent on anything i dont believe.

Correct, however using bonding you can double that on both ADSL2+ and VDSL. Fiber is limited to distance but that is based on the SFP/XFP. I believe in most cases that's 80km for customer use on a 1Gbit fiber. Our 10Gbit XFP's are limited to 40km. 40Gig and 100Gig are also limited. Farther distances are available but they can be expensive and may not function in all equipment.  

[arronleeds]

Correct, however using bonding you can double that on both ADSL2+ and VDSL. Fiber is limited to distance but that is based on the SFP/XFP. I believe in most cases that's 80km for customer use on a 1Gbit fiber. Our 10Gbit XFP's are limited to 40km. 40Gig and 100Gig are also limited. Farther distances are available but they can be expensive and may not function in all equipment.  

in the uk they've adopted G.inp so far and are currently rolling out vectoring which should make lines support over 100Mbps on vdsl. currently only 1% of  the uk population can get the full 80Mbps that vdsl offers as its max speed which im lucky to be one of these. so they need to sort it out soon because many lines can still not support good speeds, the current leader in the uk for domestic internet dont use twisted pair and use docsis 3.0 cable which they're already giving out 152 Mbps on, 2x as much as any other provider can expect for the companies who can provide 1Gbps to virtually nobody (unless you live in an expensive apartment).

 

the uk has really fallen behind.

[schizznick]

in the uk they've adopted G.inp so far and are currently rolling out vectoring which should make lines support over 100Mbps on vdsl. currently only 1% of  the uk population can get the full 80Mbps that vdsl offers as its max speed which im lucky to be one of these. so they need to sort it out soon because many lines can still not support good speeds, the current leader in the uk for domestic internet dont use twisted pair and use docsis 3.0 cable which they're already giving out 152 Mbps on, 2x as much as any other provider can expect for the companies who can provide 1Gbps to virtually nobody (unless you live in an expensive apartment).

 

the uk has really fallen behind.

Vectoring is great if everyone in the cable sheath is VDSL with vectoring. Our issues is we have some people who are too far for VDSL in the same bundle as those who are short enough. So Vectoring is out for us. Rural areas tend to be like that because residences are more spread out. I can't wait till we are all fiber which is planned to be completed network wide by 2020. As a proof of concept we are currently seeing if we can make 2Gig down by 1Gig up using GPON. Docsis is a great technology but also needs a robust copper network to make work. Plus Cable is always a shared medium where DSL is dedicated to the Access Equipment.  

[arronleeds]

Vectoring is great if everyone in the cable sheath is VDSL with vectoring. Our issues is we have some people who are too far for VDSL in the same bundle as those who are short enough. So Vectoring is out for us. Rural areas tend to be like that because residences are more spread out. I can't wait till we are all fiber which is planned to be completed network wide by 2020. As a proof of concept we are currently seeing if we can make 2Gig down by 1Gig up using GPON. Docsis is a great technology but also needs a robust copper network to make work. Plus Cable is always a shared medium where DSL is dedicated to the Access Equipment.  

fibre rollout has started happening in the uk and it started in the city right next to me so i reckon il be able to get 1Gbps within the next 1-2 years "hopefully".

 

i get where youre coming from about the docsis, its a very good way to give good speeds out but the issue is latency, all you hear about is bad latency spikes over docsis, in the uk anyway.

[toxicnos]

You may get better ping with fiber optic as the equipment is likely newer. Also if you are getting below 10mb/s and pay for the full 10mb/s on DSL you may get closer to 10mb/s on fiber.

[Wombo]

10mbps should be 10mbps, regardless of how you get it.

I belive the only difference is how stable it is.

Bandwidth =/= speed, these are two completely separate things. Not to mention DSL is fairly atrocious if you want a consistent connection.