FTTN or Cable?
- Last Updated:
- Oct 18th, 2017 6:56 am
Tags:
- SCORE
- alanbrenton
- Deal Expert
- Apr 21, 2004
- 58648 posts
- 24637 upvotes
- EugW
- Deal Expert
- Mar 23, 2009
- 22529 posts
- 8939 upvotes
- Toronto
OP, do you know what POI you would be on?
What does that do exactly, and why does it work?
- JAC
- Deal Expert
- Apr 16, 2001
- 16514 posts
- 3319 upvotes
As I understand it, those IP ranges somehow assign you to the nearest YouTube server cache and by blocking the connection, you stream directly from YouTube. Anyhow, check the speed on a 720 video with and without those lines in your router and see the difference.
Blacklisted companies: Roku, Lenovo, Motorola, TP-Link, D-Link, Samsung, HP, LG, Public Mobile, EVGA, Blizzard
- Tijuana
- Deal Guru
- Apr 24, 2006
- 10913 posts
- 1064 upvotes
- Mississauga
Seems to be working for me on dd-wrt.. thanks!
- chovan [OP]
- Sr. Member
- Jul 1, 2010
- 569 posts
- 354 upvotes
Don't know, I got this from traceroute:
traceroute to dslreports.com (209.123.109.175), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.10.1 (192.168.10.1) 0.469 ms 0.697 ms 0.969 ms
2 206.80.253.197 (206.80.253.197) 1221.796 ms 1222.887 ms 1224.338 ms
3 xe-1-0-0-0.ipr02.totftds.distributel.net (206.80.255.124) 1225.317 ms 1226
.662 ms 1228.422 ms
- will888
- Deal Expert
- Dec 12, 2009
- 29541 posts
- 20459 upvotes
- AudiDude
- Deal Guru
- Mar 1, 2004
- 12861 posts
- 1485 upvotes
- Pickering
1. Bell doesn't have money, BCE doesinfamouskid wrote: ↑the distance thing is coming close to an end in the GTA as bell plans to have almost all of Toronto and most of the GTA covered with it by 2015.
majority of the population wont even be on anything higher then 7 - 10 mbps connections unless they are going IPTV.
VDSL is kicking the crap out of cable worldwide. it's cheaper to deploy and easier to implement with existing infrastructure.
and within VDSL1 right now speeds up to 100/100 easily. VDSL2 can go as high as 250/250. and with the 7330's which are soon to be upgraded vectoring and bonding will increase this as well.
bell has the money to deploy fiber whenever it wants so money is not an issue. but right now in the GTA the problems on rogers is more apparent then on bells side.
2. Bells roll out rate for their proposed speeds means we will all be dead by the time they actually achieve the speeds you talk about universally because the way the network is laid out, you can't just update the core, you have to update the distribution and the access layer to get the speeds
3. The majority of the population wants higher speeds and doesn't want to go all IPTV and Bell doesn't want to give them just Internet
4. DSL is cheaper than cable because there are more phone companies on the face of the earth vs cable. When you compare the two, you have to do homes passed, not total sold. When you do that, DSL doesn't look so good. Since DSL is so cheap, how come the prices are so high?
5. How is Bell going to have speed problems when they dole out crap speeds? Maybe the cable companies should cut their speeds to match so they don't fluctuate at all.
6. 14 years ago, I did FTTH and Bell has a few issues they will soon discover
Here is your DSL spec:
Unfortunately for phone companies that are in a cable footprint, this is the new upcoming standard:Second-generation systems (VDSL2; ITU-T G.993.2 approved in February 2006) use frequencies of up to 30 MHz to provide data rates exceeding 100 Mbit/s simultaneously in both the upstream and downstream directions. The maximum available bit rate is achieved at a range of about 300 meters; performance degrades as the loop attenuation increases.
Now nobody really needs 1Gbit upstream, but the difference is, to do this upgrade, cable has to upgrade the CMTS in the head ends and it will be backwards compatible. Think about how many Stingers out in the field have been changed already, how much grooming has been done and how much there is to go, how much digging and whatnot Bell has had to do and how much they still have to go. They still can't deliver any kind of DSL to pockets all over Markham.Docsis 3.1 CPE expected first
It's expected that the first products to come out of the new CableLabs initiative will be hybrid Docsis 3.0/3.1 consumer premises equipment (CPE) that will enable operators to seed the market before they begin to turn on 3.1 spectrum. Rather than tapping the 6MHz- and 8MHz-wide channels used today for North American Docsis and EuroDocsis, Docsis 3.1 spectrum will rely on blocks of much smaller orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) subcarriers alongside the introduction of a more efficient Forward Error Correction (FEC) scheme called low-density parity-check (LDPC).
Efficiency gains from those elements and the move to higher modes of modulation will help to put cable on a path toward capacities of at least 10Gbit/s downstream and 1Gbit/s upstream. Today's 256QAM technology produces eight bits per symbol, while the targeted 4096QAM modulation will push that to 12 bits per symbol, representing a 50 percent increase in spectral efficiency. (See Docsis 3.1 Targets 10-Gig Downstream.)
All Cableco new boxes do IPTV, no upgrades are needed to the outside plant. So every time a company like Bell does a new deployment, which costs big, cablecos turn up the speed and make sure they get crappy ROI. Have you seen how long it takes two techs to fire up TV and Internet in a condo? I was talking to security once and he said they were in there for 3 hours and in that time a Rogers tech installed 3 HDTV boxes, phone and Internet in 30% of the time and left and they were still there.
How can they pay two guys 6-8 hours total to do the same?
Make no mistake cable is versatile, it isn't anywhere near dead because it runs digital. The cable system is a deep fibre system in which fibre is everywhere in the subdivision. Bell ran pure fibre to a house built in 2012, but didn't put one to a 2011 copper fed house right beside, when it was 4 feet away and in the same hydro trench. If they ain't gonna do that, they are clearly watching their budget.
Now you know why I quit. They should have spent all the money years ago when the cable companies weren't a threat and they had fistfuls of money. After I went to a company where we had DSL and a cable system, I learned the power of cable. If you want to beat cable you run GPON, DSL is a stopgap patch. If telcos in the cable footprint go PON, cablecos can deploy RFOG and cablecos have more fibre closer to the home than telcos and with DOCSIS 3.1 won't really need it anyway.
That is why Verizon uses FiOS, because they truly have money, not like Bell or BCE. With a peak market cap of 159 Billion vs just under 200 billion for AT&T vs 36 Billion for BCE (not just Bell) that is what it takes to spank a Cableco.
We will see, but so far phone has done just what I have been saying. I think Rogers was really focused on LTE and getting there first and now it is cable's turn to shine as evidenced by all the new modems, speed tiers, digital boxes and integration of services. Third party Internet providers provide another source of income as more people step up to high speed.
- weedb0y
- Deal Expert
- Aug 6, 2001
- 17811 posts
- 5762 upvotes
- Stuck in a Box
And rogers lte is much to be desired. I have it and have it turned off now. Bell is much stronger on both fronts. Actual experience and I have ftth now and loving it
- leocleoc
- Sr. Member
- Mar 12, 2009
- 508 posts
- 557 upvotes
- Ontario
Bump up this thread...Which technology is better? FTTN internet or CABLE internet. Assume plan prices and download/upload speeds are equal (not an issue).
Also assume the home has cable and FIBER access.
TIA
Also assume the home has cable and FIBER access.
TIA
- ChubChub
- Deal Addict
- Oct 9, 2010
- 3149 posts
- 1334 upvotes
- Windsor
Which TECHNOLOGY is better? FTTN. Which is better in practice in today's world? Assuming same speed and cost? Whichever one has better modem hardware. If those are identical somehow, then I suppose cable, if only because you can put the modem/router anywhere in your house without having to figure out a way to extend a fibre cable.
Generally, fibre has faster throughput. If fibre infrastructure starts letting the nodes get congested like cable did, who knows.
One who is offended by truth, has no place among those who seek wisdom.
- Trooob
- Deal Fanatic
- Oct 25, 2003
- 9294 posts
- 415 upvotes
FTTN denotes using VDSL for the last mile or so, so I wouldn't call it better than cable. With DOCSIS 3.0 practically everywhere now, you can bond to UpTo 32 downstream channels, so unless you're heavily oversubscribed, you'll be fine. Over subscription can easily happen with FTTN or even FTTH.ChubChub wrote: ↑ Which TECHNOLOGY is better? FTTN. Which is better in practice in today's world? Assuming same speed and cost? Whichever one has better modem hardware. If those are identical somehow, then I suppose cable, if only because you can put the modem/router anywhere in your house without having to figure out a way to extend a fibre cable.
Generally, fibre has faster throughput. If fibre infrastructure starts letting the nodes get congested like cable did, who knows.
But I think you're confusing FTTN with FTTH.
- elgordito
- Sr. Member
- May 5, 2017
- 731 posts
- 380 upvotes
Is there a site that has info about areas and what people's experiences are with different providers? Looking for a provider in hull, qc area.
- apvm
- Deal Fanatic
- Aug 23, 2004
- 9468 posts
- 2408 upvotes
- London
For those who are interested in choosing cable or DSL, following is from a DSLR veteran referring to gaming ping during peak hours, you can check full thread from the link :
"On DSL you have 1 or 2 gigabits to the remote DSLAM, with maximum subscribed speed per customer of 50mbit/s (very rarely 100mbit/s). On Cable you have 24 channel nodes with multiple 250mbit/s customers, and probably a couple of gigabit customers too. 24 channels is only good for 960mbit/s total. Yes, some nodes have 32 channels, but that's still only 1280mbit/s, and those nodes probably have even more gigabit customers on them.
On cable, many customers controlling 25% of capacity, and a few controlling 100%. On DSL, many customers controlling 5%, and none controlling more than 10% ever. Assume that both the cable and the DSL node we are thinking about are running at 50% occupancy on average. The odds of the Cable node being fully saturated for any given 5ms time slice are going to be way, way higher than the odds of saturation on the DSL node (or remote, whatever).
I've done extensive testing on one isolated case where it is almost certainly happening. I suspect it is more widespread than that. So, I believe that Rogers choosing to offer gigabit at all, and 250mbit/s speeds to the majority of their customers, is causing ping jitter that a competitive gamer would find unacceptable.
Of course QoS of some sort on the network could fix this problem. I don't know anything about the state of the art in that respect, or what's actually implemented on the ground by Rogers. I don't think there's anything though, at the moment."
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31113737-
"On DSL you have 1 or 2 gigabits to the remote DSLAM, with maximum subscribed speed per customer of 50mbit/s (very rarely 100mbit/s). On Cable you have 24 channel nodes with multiple 250mbit/s customers, and probably a couple of gigabit customers too. 24 channels is only good for 960mbit/s total. Yes, some nodes have 32 channels, but that's still only 1280mbit/s, and those nodes probably have even more gigabit customers on them.
On cable, many customers controlling 25% of capacity, and a few controlling 100%. On DSL, many customers controlling 5%, and none controlling more than 10% ever. Assume that both the cable and the DSL node we are thinking about are running at 50% occupancy on average. The odds of the Cable node being fully saturated for any given 5ms time slice are going to be way, way higher than the odds of saturation on the DSL node (or remote, whatever).
I've done extensive testing on one isolated case where it is almost certainly happening. I suspect it is more widespread than that. So, I believe that Rogers choosing to offer gigabit at all, and 250mbit/s speeds to the majority of their customers, is causing ping jitter that a competitive gamer would find unacceptable.
Of course QoS of some sort on the network could fix this problem. I don't know anything about the state of the art in that respect, or what's actually implemented on the ground by Rogers. I don't think there's anything though, at the moment."
https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31113737-
- MichaelS707
- Newbie
- Apr 5, 2015
- 40 posts
- 3 upvotes
- Saint Catharines
You mean "higher THAN", not THEN.........it's the COMPARATIVE........not happening later! :-)infamouskid wrote: ↑ majority of the population wont even be on anything higher then 7 - 10 mbps connections
- Gee
- Deal Expert
- Aug 2, 2004
- 38395 posts
- 12019 upvotes
- East Gwillimbury
He's been banned for years. Not going to get the message.MichaelS707 wrote: ↑ You mean "higher THAN", not THEN.........it's the COMPARATIVE........not happening later! :-)
- Redsmith
- Banned
- Oct 9, 2017
- 35 posts
- 4 upvotes
Cable is shared connection, the speed is limited. So I will go for FTTN
- apvm
- Deal Fanatic
- Aug 23, 2004
- 9468 posts
- 2408 upvotes
- London
Wonder why? His/her posts were sometime quite helpful.
Thread Information
There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)