Re: [tlug] FTTH ISP recommendation

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On 2008-08-07 09:33 +0900 (Thu), Edward Middleton wrote:

> My point was that standard phone cables unlike category 6 cable wasn't 
> designed for high bandwidth applications and so is not going to have 
> adequate shielding.

Right. And as you say later:

> Category 6 UTP obviously has [no shielding].

So if "no shielding" is adequate for a gigbit link, how much sheilding
do we need for a hundred-megabit link? (I leave working out the answer
to this as an exercise for the reader.)

As for the general argument, if you're saying that it's not possible to
run a hundred-megabit symmetric link over 20m of voice-grade twisted
pair, especially after I've specifically said I've seen tested transfer
rates of 70-80 Mbps over this exact twisted pair I'm talking about,
well, I'm not sure where to go from there.

As for the "SNR" stuff, well, err...I'm also not sure where even to
start. You are aware that a piece of metal doesn't have a "bandwidth in
Hertz", right? And that only communications channels, not wires, have a
signal-to-noise ratio?

I really don't want to be insulting here, and I'll even buy you a beer
at (or after) the nomikai, but you're talking complete nonsense here.

> I presume you have tried lowering the MTU?  It could be an MTU discovery 
> problem.

The characteristics don't indicate that, AFICS. I get very consistent
transfer rates.

> What does your contract make clear.

Not my contract; my landlord. He made it clear that he doesn't want a
cable strung between the nearby utility pole and the vicinity of my
balcony.

> It was my understanding that, in general, landlords don't own the
> utility poles outside there building so it isn't up to them to decide
> how they are used.

He's not objecting to how the utility pole is used; he's objecting to
new things attached to his building.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974   
Mobile sites and software consulting: http://www.starling-software.com