[kwlug-disc] Wightman Telecom

[unsolicited]

My FTTN was Fibre To The Neighbourhood.

My impression on my example reference is fibre was brought to a box one 
or more homes back of the install, and the copper already running to a 
converting subscriber's home hooked into it. In this case, a new box was 
put on the side of their house, too. This box (I think) does some split 
out between home phone (for twisted pair to it), network, where they ran 
CATx around the outside, in via a window frame to the Fibe router, and 
(in the outside box) one or more other cables for TVs - probably network 
to set top boxes. (All I know is there are no ethernet wires from the 
router to the TVs, yet the TV set top boxes get DHCP addresses from this 
router.) [Hmmm, this implies a switch in the box, and, moreover, a 
router in front of the internet router, which means the router is 
providing DHCP out its WAN port ... hold on, wait, what?]

I don't know, but expect, that more than one piece of fibre gets run to 
the central location. On the assumption that FTTH is a future 
possibility, so you have to have enough strands to cover off the 
immediate neighbourhood / sufficient redundant strands just in case. (Do 
redundant strands even make sense? It seems difficult to me to 
accidentally cut one strand without catching them all!)

I have no reason to think a home would normally ever get more than 
gigabit (full duplex), unless fibre IN the home becomes affordable. Even 
if you had 10GB in the home, I don't expect it'd be talking at those 
speeds out to the world.

[All bets being off for non-residential.]

Anyone know the capacity of a fibre link? Even at full duplex gigabit, I 
imagine a number of such would be multiplexed onto a single fibre strand.


On 13-10-21 06:37 PM, zixiekat at gmail.com wrote:
> I can only say, as the OP, that I meant it as Fiber to the Home.
>
> Uncertain about the other initialisms.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> *From: *Bob Jonkman
> *Sent: *Monday, October 21, 2013 6:20 PM
> *To: *KWLUG discussion
> *Reply To: *KWLUG discussion
> *Subject: *Re: [kwlug-disc] Wightman Telecom
>
>
> I need a quick refresher in acronymity:
>
> FTTH: Fibre to the Home? or Fibre to the Hub?
>
> FTTN: Fibre to the Node? or Fibre to the Neighbourhood?
>
> FTTC: Fibre to the Curb?
>
> ...and what is the difference between FTTHub, FTTNode and FTTCurb? Seems
> to me they all terminate the Fibre in the big brown boxes on the street,
> depending on copper for the last few hundred metres.
>
> Is there an acronym for Fibre to the Exchange Building? Is that what
> Eyesurf.net is using?
>
> --Bob.
>
>
>
> On 13-10-21 05:53 PM, zixiekat at gmail.com wrote:
>  > I will have to confirm, but the conversation I had with a coworker
> who has it in
>  > Listowel, it's fiber right into his house.
>  >
>  > Wightman doesn't use bell or Rogers last mile. They are their own
> last mile
>  > provider.
>  >
>  >
>  > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>  > *From: *Cedric Puddy
>  > *Sent: *Monday, October 21, 2013 4:38 PM
>  > *To: *KWLUG discussion
>  > *Reply To: *KWLUG discussion
>  > *Subject: *Re: [kwlug-disc] Wightman Telecom
>  >
>  >
>  > I'm only using Wightman for business, so in the places that I've
> brought in
>  > Wightman Fibre, it's been Fibre-the-the-Building.
>  >
>  > I agree though, that most FTTHome initiatives have ended up being
>  > FTTNeighbourhood, but hey, it's still better than
> Fibre-To-The-CentralOffice
>  > like we've got now :)
>  >
>  > -Cedric
>  >
>  > On 2013-10-21, at 4:29 PM, unsolicited <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
>  >
>  > > FWIW - friends recently got Bell's FibeTV (long story, apparently
> continuing
>  > - lightning strike, things blowed up REAL good).
>  > >
>  > > Although one's impression might be it's FTTH, apparently it's
> actually FTTN.
>  > (Perhaps depends upon the neighbourhood?)
>  > >
>  > > Any reason to believe any Wightman effort would actually be FTTH?
> Trenching
>  > for such would seem to be a major cost impediment to pricing being
> disruptive.
>  > >
>  > > Or would it only be a limited rollout, more commercial than
> residential?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > On 13-10-21 02:32 PM, Cedric Puddy wrote:
>  > >> Wightman is good people (I've worked with them in the past through a
>  > >> subcontract, and also use their services at a bunch offices we
>  > >> support out that way), so them having a presence in town would be of
>  > >> interest.
>  > >>
>  > >> Whether they are able to get the access they need to provide FTTH at
>  > >> the sort of disruptive pricing they've accomplished on their home
>  > >> turf is a great question, and if they can, it'll be a great win for
>  > >> the consumers in KW.
>  > >>
>  > >> -Cedric
>  > >>
>  > >> On 2013-10-21, at 2:26 PM, Colin Mackay<zixiekat at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >>
>  > >>> So apparently Wightman telecom is opening an office in Kitchener.
>  > >>> From a few friends I know in Listowel, they offer FTTH, which
>  > >>> includes internet, TV and phone.
>  > >>>
>  > >>> Not sure if this means they'll be rolling it out in K/W anytime
>  > >>> soon (I've emailed them to inquire), but if so, it might be a nice
>  > >>> service. From what I've heard it is rather low latency and
>  > >>> apparently uses the MS IPTV protocol for TV, which works with
>  > >>> MythTV.
>  > >>>
>  > >>> Just thought I'd throw that out there.
>  > >>>
>  > >>>
>  > >>> -Colin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org