[Aloha]

I'm still a fan for cost reasons of FTTN, because I think with Coax in the last mile, you can deliver fantastic performance, so long as you're not also trying to delivery video too.

Furthermore if you actually run Coax in duct for buried circuits, its easy to replace with fiber later.

[bayindirh]

Our telco converted all its infra to FTTN via fiber. So, I've actually have fiber connection up to the front of my building, then it's terminated and distributed via VDSL to the street.

I have a 50/8 mbps connection at home and, it gives all the performance it can give. The telco keeps the speeds a bit higher to handle VDSL overhead, so we have a real 50/8 mbps IP connection at premises.

I'd rather not rewire my home and use existing equipment (which can handle 350mpbs), rather than bringing in fragile fiber into the home.

[xenadu02]

This sounds like post-hoc rationalization.

I have Sonic fiber in SF. 1Gbps symmetric, over a "fragile fiber" run directly into my home. It works quite well. The drop cable is pre-made in standard lengths with weatherproof connectors. The glass is embedded in a large-ish diameter substrate that resists sharp bends naturally so the installers don't need to take special care to prevent losses, just don't try to force the cable to bend beyond what it wants to do (very different from your standard fiber patch cables in a switch room). It is robust enough you could cable staple it to a wall without issue. Terminates in a tiny ONT that gives me Ethernet on my side.

They're deploying 10Gbps for all new installs and I'm eagerly awaiting my upgrade. No change to the fiber itself are required, just swapping equipment on both ends. This same fiber can do 100Gbps in the future if the need arises, possibly more. No coax plant can come close. The fact that an independent ISP can do this for $40/month and make money at it proves the economics.

There is no reason not to run fiber unless you're more focused on rent extraction than investing in your business... at least in suburbs and cities. (See ATT's public comments and focus on milking wireless while dis-investing in physical plant as an example of goosing profits because they don't face real competition in most of their service area).

[bayindirh]

> This sounds like post-hoc rationalization.

Uhm, no, it's not.

I'm using a 1gbps symmetric connection at the office, for the last decade or so. The network speed is limited by my NIC and the cabling to the switch. The network at the office has more bandwidth (we're the network backbone).

We have fiber ran into our apartment buildings. My apartment's termination box is at the wall across my flat door. On the other hand, the speed I can get from that fiber is not higher than the current VDSL offerings, and they both cap at 100mbps downstream (upstream is probably limited at the same speeds with VDSL). Since the FTTN box is also outside, the speeds and stability from that VDSL connection is rock solid.

For no apparent speed advantage, I need to terminate a thick fiber, and need to run it in the open across the house, drilling walls in the process, or move my house's whole internet infrastructure near it. Both are illogical given the floor plan of my house.

Then comes the equipment part. Again, I'll need to change my core router at home and change everything (I have a mesh network at home), or cascade it to ISPs fiber router, which is another box, more cables, and more management. If the ISP allows me to use my own router, I'd need a media converter from fiber to copper. Which's again more cables, more boxes, more management.

As a result, I'd rather use my house's in-wall cabling to get the speeds I'm happy with instead of getting a shiny (pun intended) technology with no speed advantage.

If the speeds offered here changes over time, I can re-evaluate my choices, but as the xDSL technology gets better, I'm guessing that it'll keep the same speeds with fiber offerings, at least for residential stuff in my area. So, I project that I can upgrade my network speeds at least for a decade without changing my network equipment or cabling.

[Aloha]

Does Sonic own their own fiber network?

[xenadu02]

Sorry I should have been clearer: I am referring to "Sonic Fiber" which is their own infrastructure, not any kind of resold service which they do offer in areas where they have not deployed their own fiber infrastructure.

In the Bay Area they have fiber in SF, South SF, Daly City, Redwood City, Berkley, Oakland, San Carlos, Burlingame, Albany, Brentwood, and probably more. They are rolling it out mostly in areas with poles at the moment because the cost of burying is quite high.

They've proposed "microtrenching" in SF to reach areas with all underground utilities but so far the city hasn't been very interested and it isn't cost-effective for them to dig up the sidewalks to install conduit. I hope that will change at some point.

[fragmede]

They own some fiber. They'll also sell you service using AT&T's fiber if that's what's there.

[zbrozek]

Yes.