"Fiber-backed" - mean anything specific, or marketing buzz? [telecom]

[Matt Simpson]

Windstream, the local telco in this area, has just started running ads
about their new "fiber-backed" internet service:

We've just built 100% fiber-backed high speed internet in
Lexington

After one of the largest local network upgrades in recent company
history, Windstream零 High-Speed Internet service in Lexington is
now 100% backed by fiber technology.

What does fiber tech mean for me?

"Fiber-backed" simply means a reliable high speed internet
connection is now closer to you than ever before. Fiber technology
sends light pulsing at ultra high speeds over glass fiber strands
that can transmit high-quality and massive amounts of information
over longer distances. Our Lexington network now fully supports
this technology, and the result is an enhanced network that, even
during the heaviest online traffic, provides a fast, uninterrupted
connection.

I'm pretty sure their DSL customers still have copper running to their
homes. They may have added more fiber somewhere in their backbone.
"Closer to you than ever before" might mean they've run fiber to the
neighborhoods.

Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
"fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
that they've buried some more fiber?

[Scott Dorsey]

Matt Simpson <net-n...@jmatt.net> wrote:
>
>Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
>involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
>"fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
>fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
>that they've buried some more fiber?

It means only one thing: you're not getting real "fibre to the desk"
service but something cheaper and inferior.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jim Bennett]

On 2013-04-22 13:00, Matt Simpson wrote:
> Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
> involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
> "fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
> fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
> that they've buried some more fiber?

You have pretty much nailed it. All of the real backbone of both the
internet and the PSTN are fiber. Closer to the customer, virtually all
of the remote switches and DSLAMs used in small CO's, and the packet
switches that are quickly replacing them, connect to the higher level
switches over fiber. There is microwave backhaul in use in very remote
areas, such as rural cell towers and very rural CO's, but that is
irrelevant to this discussion.

I suppose there could still be some small CO's that connect to higher
level switches over copper, but their number is dwindling. Going any
real distance over T-Carrier, whether true T1 or the HDSL2 and HDSL4
transport that replaces it, gets expensive. Copper and repeaters require
truck rolls to stay working, and skilled techs in those trucks.

Whether their marketing hype is actually based on any real change in
their backbone connectivity is anybody's guess. If they really did run
fiber out to the neighborhoods, as with u-Verse or HFC CATV, you would
certainly know, because then they would be pushing a whole raft of more
expensive offerings.

Jim
==================================================
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.

[Doug McIntyre]

Matt Simpson <net-n...@jmatt.net> writes:
>Windstream, the local telco in this area, has just started running ads
>about their new "fiber-backed" internet service:

...

>Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
>involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
>"fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
>fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
>that they've buried some more fiber?

Yes, almost every internet link in the end will involve fiber of some kind.

Most likely what they did, like most every other telco is to upgrade
their DSLAM network. Old school DSLAMs talked over ATM/SONET
type technology. Ie. T1s, DS3s, OC3s.

Many remote DSLAMs out in the field were fed by IMUX bonded T1s, which
didn't provide much bandwidth, was usually sufficient in the olden
days, but not any longer.
But the copper was there, and bonding 8 T1s (usually the max) gave at
least 12Mbps down/up to a remote DSLAM. Although larger deployments,
especially located in existing fiber huts could have utilized DS3s
(45Mbps) or OC3s (155Mbps).

All new DSLAMs talk over Gigabit Ethernet, and for a remote, you'll
want that over fiber. So they most likely upgraded their cable plant
to get GigE fiber out to all their remote DSLAMs.

Thus, you get "Fiber-To-The-Node" or their term Fiber-Backed. Qwest
got into some problems saying All Fiber Internet until they got called
on it, so they developed the FTTN term instead.

The last-mile is still copper as you surmise, because that is what DSL
is defined to be. And if the prem is 5 miles away from the remote
DSLAM, even though it is lit with GigE fiber, you'll still get ~1Mbps
or whatever the DSL signalling can eek out of the copper loop.

Since the term "fiber-backed" means absolutely nothing, what do you
want it to be deinfed as? :-)

[Koos van den Hout]

Matt Simpson <net-n...@jmatt.net> wrote in <net-news69-24413...@news.eternal-september.org>:

> I'm pretty sure their DSL customers still have copper running to their
> homes. They may have added more fiber somewhere in their backbone.
> "Closer to you than ever before" might mean they've run fiber to the
> neighborhoods.

> Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
> involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
> "fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
> fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
> that they've buried some more fiber?

It's just marketing, aimed at confusing you when a competitor offers fiber
to the home.

Cable "Internet" providers in the Netherlands also like to remind us that
most of their network is fiber-based when their competitors threaten to win
over customers with fiber to the home.

Koos van den Hout

--
Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
ko...@kzdoos.xs4all.nl
Weather maps from free sources at
http://idefix.net/ http://weather.idefix.net/

[PV]

Matt Simpson <net-n...@jmatt.net> writes:
>Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
>involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
>"fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
>fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
>that they've buried some more fiber?

As others have said, "Fiber backed" is mostly a null term these days,
because not much DOESN'T have fiber in it somewhere (part of a good
telcom diet).

However, it likely means that they've run fiber to DSLAM type devices,
and connected (or will connect, if you buy digital services) copper
lines in the area to it. This is a good thing - when my neighborhood
went green for uverse because of a dslam dropped about a block from my
house, I went from 1930s era copper plant, which was unreliable and noisy
as hell, to dead quiet lines. I later switched over to uverse and run my
landlines on VOIP, and it's been never been this reliable.

So yeah, it's a marketroid term, but that doesn't mean that there
haven't been substantial improvements to your telco's network. *
--
* PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something
like corkscrews.

[Stephen]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:34:45 -0400, Jim Bennett
<ajbcommc...@frontier.com> wrote:

>On 2013-04-22 13:00, Matt Simpson wrote:
>> Considering that almost any internet service is probably going to
>> involve some fiber somewhere, when is it appropriate to call a service
>> "fiber-backed"? And how much more fiber do you need to be "100%
>> fiber-backed"? Does this statement mean anything specific? Or just
>> that they've buried some more fiber?
>
>You have pretty much nailed it. All of the real backbone of both the
>internet and the PSTN are fiber. Closer to the customer, virtually all
>of the remote switches and DSLAMs used in small CO's, and the packet
>switches that are quickly replacing them, connect to the higher level
>switches over fiber. There is microwave backhaul in use in very remote
>areas, such as rural cell towers and very rural CO's, but that is
>irrelevant to this discussion.

FWIW rural bits of many countries still use micriwave backhaul

some modern kit still seems to work in SDH chunks of 155 Mbps, but
will present some or all of them as Gigabit Ethernet

[Moderatro snip]

--
Regards

stephe...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl