New "twisted light" fiber optics technology

[Irving]

So I keep seeing articles about this new method to twist light and boost the efficiency of fiber optic cable ability to transmit data. The most important part, I think, is that it can be retrofitted into current infrastructure.

https://www.inverse.com/article/50196-technology-makes-internet-100-times-faster

While this is cool sounding, I have to wonder, if implemented, how much the end user experience would really change. I don't know much about this stuff, but it seems like current routers and modems would be a choke point. Right now, if you can watch a movie or listen to music with no buffering, would you notice anything different if it were faster?

[68Charger]

So I keep seeing articles about this new method to twist light and boost the efficiency of fiber optic cable ability to transmit data. The most important part, I think, is that it can be retrofitted into current infrastructure.

https://www.inverse.com/article/50196-technology-makes-internet-100-times-faster

While this is cool sounding, I have to wonder, if implemented, how much the end user experience would really change. I don't know much about this stuff, but it seems like current routers and modems would be a choke point. Right now, if you can watch a movie or listen to music with no buffering, would you notice anything different if it were faster?

Tech like this just lets growth rates of data usage continue to climb... resolution improves (without buffering), overall content improves with no slower speed.

HD gets replaced by 4k, then 8k..

Currently the highest data rate in production widespread use is 100Gbps.

No one end user application can utilize all that bandwidth... but 1000s of users can with ease.

[GilpinGuy]

I'm hearing about 5G cell networks eventually overtaking any land based networks, with 5G being incredibly fast for any normal user for anything including streaming video. Is this pie in the sky stuff?

Of course up here we can't even get Comcast or any broadband wire service. Point to point (can't do it here in the trees) or shitty satellite is all we got, so I'm hoping for a 5G boom soon.

[Justin]

Nope. 5G is on it's way. As I understand it the spec is done, testing is done, and the beginning of the rollout is underway.

[izzy]

Like 68Charger is saying, something like this will mostly improve the over all backbone of the internet. I'm just hoping to get fiber to the home at this point, been on the pre-order for over a year now.

[68Charger]

The 5G being rolled out now is preliminary "pre-standard", and will have to be retrofitted to standardized equipment once it's available....
That being said, one of the goals of 5G is to use it for "last mile" egress into homes... For those in urban areas, it will mean competition for true broadband (300Mbps to start with, speeds in excess of 1Gbps are possible)

it's such a high frequency that it doesn't have a long range- but that's good when you want Bandwidth "density"... with bigger cell size comes bigger BW requirements per cell site. It's less expensive to deploy in existing neighborhoods than fiber, and can compete with cable, DSL, etc. but it needs density to be cost effective. not towers, but small devices with tiny antennas on light poles.

So it won't be coming to rural areas- probably never... they would have to deploy a device within 1/2 a mile of your residence to be effective- how many houses are there in a 1/2 mile radius in your neighborhood?
From a technology and economic standpoint, point-to-point wireless or mesh wireless are really your most likely options in rural areas. Trees and other foliage are a challenge to overcome, but there are ways...

The big companies really aren't interested in rural areas- we've asked... even as an employee. The easy money is in dense urban areas- and big companies are kinda lazy that way, and risk averse.
I'm using a smallish P2P wireless provider- trees are a serious issue here in East Texas, and not much topology advantage (you can't put a transceiver on a mountain top)... it really needs to be line-of-sight. Many customers here are told they need to install a tower to get above the trees before they can get service. (like a ham radio tower... many houses around here have them for TV antennas- nearest stations are 60mi away, and they were installed before satellite TV)

[Grant H.]

5G won't effect the fiber networks, it has to use them to provide their service. Cell towers don't use other cell towers to backhaul their data. They use high end microwave links or direct to fiber connections.

The furthering of fiber technology, especially when it can be utilized over existing fiber runs, will improve service for lots of folks.

68Charger hit the nail on the head with 5G. They won't be covering rural areas with it, probably ever. 5G will use lots of spectrum, including the existing 700MHz band. However, to deliver the throughput they are promising they will have to utilize the higher chunks of the spectrum that the spec calls out (15GHz and millimeter bands like 50GHz). These higher bands will be capable of delivering the high rates of speed that they promise, but this comes with extremely limited range (especially when one of the radios is hamstrung with a particularly shitty antenna - cell phones). It also doesn't account for the degradation of performance during snow and rain storms.

The best anyone in a rural area can hope for is the existing 4G performance that they have.

[68Charger]

The best anyone in a rural area can hope for is the existing 4G performance that they have.

To be clear, I was referring to fixed wireless (WISP), not 4G cellular as the best option - 4G cellular usually has higher price tag and/or low data caps... unless you buy/lease a grandfathered unlimited plan. And then there's the latency.

My ISP uses Wireless equipment by Ubiquiti, a company with hardware for unlicensed solutions that will reach over 100km at up to 2Gbps, and FCC licensed backhaul solutions exceeding 300km and 1.2Gbps.
They also have mesh solutions that can provide seamless Wifi over large areas (like a stadium or a park)

I just measured my wifi latency to a server in Dallas at 15ms (10ms jitter), and to the same server using Sprint 4G LTE at 53ms (39ms jitter). For those not technically inclined, lower is better on those measurements.

I'd startup a WISP on the side if my employer didn't already emphasize non-compete (and I know how many lawyers they have on payroll to back it up)... even though I can't get their @#%^& service at my house anyway.

[Grant H.]

To be clear, I was referring to fixed wireless (WISP), not 4G cellular as the best option - 4G cellular usually has higher price tag and/or low data caps... unless you buy/lease a grandfathered unlimited plan. And then there's the latency.

My ISP uses Wireless equipment by Ubiquiti, a company with hardware for unlicensed solutions that will reach over 100km at up to 2Gbps, and FCC licensed backhaul solutions exceeding 300km and 1.2Gbps.
They also have mesh solutions that can provide seamless Wifi over large areas (like a stadium or a park)

I just measured my wifi latency to a server in Dallas at 15ms (10ms jitter), and to the same server using Sprint 4G LTE at 53ms (39ms jitter). For those not technically inclined, lower is better on those measurements.

I'd startup a WISP on the side if my employer didn't already emphasize non-compete (and I know how many lawyers they have on payroll to back it up)... even though I can't get their @#%^& service at my house anyway.

I understood your point for internet service. I was more speaking to 5G capability in general.

I'm very familiar with UBNT, and WISP's. I was involved in starting one in CO, that has since been sold off in lieu of other adventures.

You likely know this, but for clarity, you cannot get 2Gbps at 100KM with a UBNT radio. The 2Gbps will be at 0-10 miles tops, and once you get to 100km, you're talking about low Mbps.

Carrier grade backhaul links, in the realm of $20k-100k per link (2 radios, 2 dishes), only produce 50-100mbps at 100km...

UBNT is good at "specsmanship"...

They have a lot of good products, but their wireless claims can be a little misleading/excessive.

[68Charger]

I understood your point for internet service. I was more speaking to 5G capability in general.

I'm very familiar with UBNT, and WISP's. I was involved in starting one in CO, that has since been sold off in lieu of other adventures.

You likely know this, but for clarity, you cannot get 2Gbps at 100KM with a UBNT radio. The 2Gbps will be at 0-10 miles tops, and once you get to 100km, you're talking about low Mbps.

Carrier grade backhaul links, in the realm of $20k-100k per link (2 radios, 2 dishes), only produce 50-100mbps at 100km...

UBNT is good at "specsmanship"...

They have a lot of good products, but their wireless claims can be a little misleading/excessive.

I'm aware...speed is based on signal strength and signal/noise ratio. I figured I was already getting wordy and nerdy. Should have used or instead of and, but confusing when trying to stay brief.

Their value (price vs performance) is decent, I have some of their gear to keep 3 houses connected with wifi... want to run fiber between houses, but that's a project for another day.

5G is not just for phones and tablets... they are definately marketing it as home broadband and competing with cable & LECs. Also execs get all frothy at the mouth over IOT (Internet of Things), where everything will connect to the internet... appliances, toys, etc... billions of potential streams of revenue!

[Delfuego]

Any article that mentions "Game Changer" is out for me. Too much game changer, perfect storm bs. Does anyone really think a company like Comcast would upgrade to this when they still haven't upgraded from coax. Comcast regularly tells me that my customers need to pay $20-$40k just to run a couple hundred feet of copper/fiber/whatever to the office building. I am not holding my breath for any innovation by nearly any American ISP's. Seoul Korea residents were getting 1gb fiber for $30 15 years ago. We now have 100mb for $100+ here in the good ol' usa...

[Grant H.]

Any article that mentions "Game Changer" is out for me. Too much game changer, perfect storm bs. Does anyone really think a company like Comcast would upgrade to this when they still haven't upgraded from coax. Comcast regularly tells me that my customers need to pay $20-$40k just to run a couple hundred feet of copper/fiber/whatever to the office building. I am not holding my breath for any innovation by nearly any American ISP's. Seoul Korea residents were getting 1gb fiber for $30 15 years ago. We now have 100mb for $100+ here in the good ol' usa...

Same old apples and oranges comparison with Seoul for internet speeds... It means nothing in reality.

Seoul ISP's have 10 million customers in a 200 sq mile area. It's called population density. It makes problems like broadband much simpler.

Good 'ol USA has more customers, but over a much larger area (3.8 million sq miles). As fiber has become more widely available, the prices have dropped dramatically. I have 1gbps fiber to the home for $60/month. Folks I know in VERY rural CO and WY have fiber to home for reasonable costs. One of the bigger issues with roll out of FTTH in the US is bureaucracy. Thornton had a group interested in starting to roll out FTTH, and they got shut down because they couldn't guarantee having EVERY SINGLE home in Thornton connected. Could have had a large portion moved to FTTH, but city bureaucrats got in their own way and fubar'd the whole thing up.

As for realistic data for South Korean internet, the AVERAGE internet speed in Seoul is ~30Mbps... (2017 statistics)
Average for the rest of the world is 7Mbps. (2017 Statistics)

So yeah, they pay less for better.
Gigabit for $30/month 15 years ago? LOL. Not even close buddy.

[BladesNBarrels]

...Seoul Korea residents were getting 1gb fiber for $30 15 years ago...

Home, sweet home..

76458

But, I got me some 1 gig internet access!

[Gman]

I'm hearing about 5G cell networks eventually overtaking any land based networks, with 5G being incredibly fast for any normal user for anything including streaming video. Is this pie in the sky stuff?

How do you think all of those 5G cell towers will connect you to things? With really beefy fiber backbones. The 5G part is 'last mile' type of connectivity (yes I know it covers more than a mile).

The latest 5G announcements from Verizon were really important because of the investments they have put into their fiber.

[GilpinGuy]

Dang, all hope is lost for decent internet up here. [gohome]

[Delfuego]

My point is that we are standing in our own way on these issue. Can it be done, yes. Will we ever see it, no. In areas of high density in the US we still have nothing even resembling fast, consistent internet. I deal with this on a daily basis. We are not falling behind, we are getting lapped. Most gigabyte internet in the US is over COAX cable with BNC (british navel connectors). The is some bullshit right here. It only provisions 10mb up on a good day and the techs that are deploying have told me "it blows".

And yes they did have GB fiber for $30 15 years ago.

And 5G is not even a thing yet. We just like making things sound faster. Maybe they will have 5.5G in my area soon for my new iPhone 11 [Roll1]

[68Charger]

My point is that we are standing in our own way on these issue. Can it be done, yes. Will we ever see it, no. In areas of high density in the US we still have nothing even resembling fast, consistent internet. I deal with this on a daily basis. We are not falling behind, we are getting lapped. Most gigabyte internet in the US is over COAX cable with BNC (british navel connectors). The is some bullshit right here. It only provisions 10mb up on a good day and the techs that are deploying have told me "it blows".

And yes they did have GB fiber for $30 15 years ago.

And 5G is not even a thing yet. We just like making things sound faster. Maybe they will have 5.5G in my area soon for my new iPhone 11 [Roll1]

Just who is this "we" you're blaming? 10Mbps upload is functional for 99% of users, what's the latency? And what does the connector type got to do with it? With copper, distance is limiting factor (now we're back to pop. density) if you liver where fiber is deployed, the oversubscription rate of your provider will determine your speed... the fiber itself can do 100Gbps with the right equipment... but only to the next hop.

If you think it's bad in metro areas, try living truly rural... I'd gladly shell out $150+/mo for 100Mbps out here... but ain't gonna happen... like Grant said, population density is key.

I'm paying $120/mo for 15Mbps business class (no throttles, no caps, no limits) and not bitching about it.
Provider can do 40Mbps for ~$300/mo for my location (based on signal strength)

How's the internet in North Korea? Just about as relevant as 15 year old cherry pickings in Seoul.

5G is being deployed in select cities (not in AZ or CO) right now on a preliminary standard (as I already mentioned)... 300Mbps for $50/mo is what I read, final standard will top out well above 1Gbps. Irrelevent where I live, but I would never move to a metro area for better internet.

[Gman]

The 5G being deployed now is being used for research. We're still a few years away from full deployment at really high speeds/bandwidth.

[BigBear]

I just want to play an occasion video game without lag.... lol

[Gman]

I just want to play an occasion video game without lag.... lol

No kidding. This seems to be getting worse, depending on the game.

[MrPrena]

Any article that mentions "Game Changer" is out for me. Too much game changer, perfect storm bs. Does anyone really think a company like Comcast would upgrade to this when they still haven't upgraded from coax. Comcast regularly tells me that my customers need to pay $20-$40k just to run a couple hundred feet of copper/fiber/whatever to the office building. I am not holding my breath for any innovation by nearly any American ISP's. Seoul Korea residents were getting 1gb fiber for $30 15 years ago. We now have 100mb for $100+ here in the good ol' usa...


Same old apples and oranges comparison with Seoul for internet speeds... It means nothing in reality.

Seoul ISP's have 10 million customers in a 200 sq mile area. It's called population density. It makes problems like broadband much simpler.

Good 'ol USA has more customers, but over a much larger area (3.8 million sq miles). As fiber has become more widely available, the prices have dropped dramatically. I have 1gbps fiber to the home for $60/month. Folks I know in VERY rural CO and WY have fiber to home for reasonable costs. One of the bigger issues with roll out of FTTH in the US is bureaucracy. Thornton had a group interested in starting to roll out FTTH, and they got shut down because they couldn't guarantee having EVERY SINGLE home in Thornton connected. Could have had a large portion moved to FTTH, but city bureaucrats got in their own way and fubar'd the whole thing up.

As for realistic data for South Korean internet, the AVERAGE internet speed in Seoul is ~30Mbps... (2017 statistics)
Average for the rest of the world is 7Mbps. (2017 Statistics)

So yeah, they pay less for better.
Gigabit for $30/month 15 years ago? LOL. Not even close buddy.


Yup few advantage having a dense population. Less investment and more subscribers.
Few of my friends works in Seoul and told me that my video chat has latency and lag.








Home, sweet home..

76458

But, I got me some 1 gig internet access!

The one with Michelin tire on top of the roof is my house. Jk :)

Price of those slum in Seoul would probably cost more tha n median house in north Thornton/Westminster area.

Those guys basically bought a small chunk and waiting for development. $$.
When 40 story apartment goes up, they make another premium.

[Irving]

Any article that mentions "Game Changer" is out for me.

So were you the last of your friends to find out about the Game Genie?

[Grant H.]

On the discussion of copper vs fiber:

You may not be aware, but copper is noticeably cheaper and more readily available than fiber.

Currently, there is a waitlist for bulk orders of duct/direct burial fiber, and the manufacturers/distributors are taking advantage of that fact with their pricing.

Also, field installation of coax connectors is much simpler and cheaper than fiber. The simple quick cam/crimp fiber ends suck at signal loss, and fusion gear is still expensive for good quality gear.

Sure, ftth is better than coax, from a purely spec standpoint. In reality it is a very different animal.

Not to mention the wholesale access for Longmonts ftth roll out has been an issue. The fiber backbones that longmont purchases bulk access from are all overloaded already. The negotiations to get bandwidth have been problematic.

[Duman]

It would be nice to read the article without having to use Facebook or otherwise being assaulted by MSN.

[Irving]

Should be a link to continue without signing up. I read it through Flipboard on my phone. Sorry didn't realize there was so much pop-up garbage.

[Irving]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TptIs0k-spg

[Gman]

Those guys are a hoot.

[Irving]

1ms latency is only a whisker!

[68Charger]

Other notes for people to mull about: You can also run an ubiquiti repeater "station" off of a rogue solar cell with a couple car batteries if you have LOS issues, get creative. It's also legal in virtually-everywhere to have a 40 foot pole if you need height. (Channel master costs like... $150 on amazon?) They have pretty low power utilization and they are low voltage. If you get equipment on ebay, you can make a 100mbps ubiquiti bridge for about.... $50-$60.
The older equipment works great, just doesn't work with the latest whiz-bang management app. That's only important if your managing it for someone else.

You're going to be in it for more than that with a solar & battery setup... but they use 24v on PoE (Power over Ethernet), and older units are only 15w per unit- so 30w for a repeater setup

[68Charger]

I also rely on ubiquti bridges of various types, and I have a lot around - 5ghz, 2.4ghz, 900mhz, with lots of experience in them. People need to be more aware of them. Cable installer wants 20 grand to run cable 200 feet? Screw them, do a 200 foot ubiquiti bridge.

My internet currently comes from 6 miles away, free, at a cost of 1ms latency. That's it.

1ms to where? I'm only 1ms to the Canton PD, LOL.

I measured to nearest metro area, because that is where the nearest IXs are (Internet eXchange, cross connect between internet carriers). There are 6 in Dallas, IIRC.

[ben4372]

I'm just reading this thread a little after looking into 5G. Irving actually started it before my curiosity of 5G. I'm not sure how twisted light is different than the current muxxing, except maybe more compact? I do know 5G might be awesome. A more worldly friend reminds my how slow USA is in catching up. Cars, medicine, tech. I do know that fiber to the home has fallen out of favor with Comcast, and they are reallocating resources to the cities that are going to launch 5G first. Much like they did trying to get ahead of Google fiber. The part that might slow the 5G is the number of cell sights needed to make 5G work. As mentioned, you'll need to be closer to a tower. Turns out some cities are making it expensive to deploy new towers. Same 5G experts also reminded people that 15-25 meg is what most people need.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/09/22/the-dawn-of-5g-will-wireless-kill-the-broadband-star/#5b34fa9afd7f

[Grant H.]

Snip...
Anything updated in the last 3 years is quite safe. There's a lot of insecure ubiquiti equipment around if people have a bad streak

That's debatable, depending on the hardware that is used.

The newer AF stuff is pretty secure. Most of the rest of it is still rather vulnerable.

UBNT has several very useful and worthwhile product lines (Edgerouter and Edgeswitch(or the Unifi variants), Unifi AP's, and Unifi Video), but they are starting to lose market share in the wireless side. They have over promised and under delivered, and their prices keep climbing. Cambium ePMP and Mimosa Wireless are continuing to whoop up on them.

[Grant H.]

If you are curious about the bleeding edge of wireless, read this: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/chicago-new-york-and-back-85-milliseconds

I have met one of the wireless engineers that was involved in the McKay Brothers network. Some of the things they came up with are slick.

I've heard that the Tradeworx network took many of their ideas and simply used newer radios and antennas to improve upon it.

In case you were wondering, these aren't built with $150 microwave radios.

[68Charger]

If you are curious about the bleeding edge of wireless, read this: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/chicago-new-york-and-back-85-milliseconds

I have met one of the wireless engineers that was involved in the McKay Brothers network. Some of the things they came up with are slick.

I've heard that the Tradeworx network took many of their ideas and simply used newer radios and antennas to improve upon it.

In case you were wondering, these aren't built with $150 microwave radios.

This is possible because the speed of light in fiber is actually about 2/3 the speed of light through air.

They don't mention the bandwidth... while we have a 100Gbps circuit from Chicago to the Jersey coast, you can't get that kind of BW on microwave. The HFTs have to focus on segments of the market with limited BW.