News   Dec 20, 2024
 957     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 736     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.2K     0 

Gigabit Fibre - Bell and City of Toronto

In fact, I wonder how much of that FTTN infrastructure can be utilized as the basis for FTTH implementation. Can it be as simple as shoring up the pipes to the neighbourhood nodes, and then running all the FTTH from those nodes over the hydro poles?

Bell's Fibe isn't as close to the home as most FTTN implementations. It's so far away (about 3,000 ft/900 meters) that it's almost not FTTN. Their goal was a VDSL2 connection that could get internet and television to your house. Television takes about 25 megs and the internet takes the remaining. If you were close to the node you could get up to 175 meg service (I'm not sure if they offered it...but you could theoretically get it). Farther away it got down to around 25 megs.

The nodes used for Fibe probably won't be sufficient for this type of rollout...there will be some infrastructure redundancies but small in the larger scheme of things. (and the cost they will try to charge the consumer for the installation)
 
Where to start?
First, I guess, with the news that Bell and Hydro have had a reciprocal pole sharing agreement since forever. The agreement was called "Joint Use" and is now almost non existent. I wouldn't be surprised if Toronto Hydro was attached to a far greater number of Bell poles than vice versa principally because inner city lane lighting is almost always provided by hydro on Bell pole lines.
Existing Bell "Fibe" service is accomplished by providing a fibre cable to the neighbourhood interface (that large gray green box around the corner from your home) and plain old twisted copper wire pairs to your home on the existing pole lines. This pole line and the copper wire cables on it are likely at the end of their life span for two reasons, they are worn out or deteriorated and not able to provide the level of service that your community wants (ie second and third lines in a home that originally only needed one). Replacing this old plant with new Fibre distribution may be cheaper than replacing it in kind with no benefit other than reduced maintenance costs but it will allow for the new faster service on a one home at a time demand schedule because every home will be plugged into it even if the subscriber chooses not to upgrade. A pole that carries only Hydro and TV conductors is by definition not a telephone pole.
How do I know all this stuff? I am a retired Bell outside plant engineer.
 
It would be interesting if Toronto gets gigabit fibre. However, it would be extremely expensive to install them (and sometimes impractical even).

Densest areas would get gigabit fibre first, since it would serve the most people per length of the fibre.

If many places get gigabit fibre, then it would be feasible for more people to work in home offices, thereby freeing up the transportation network (including public transit).
 
The good news is that new fiber breakthroughs such as "Corning ClearCurve" fiber has dramatically decreased the cost of installing residential premises fiber. Fibers can now safely wrap around a pencil without losing signal, so it can fold around curves now, and even wire along baseboards like phone wire. You couldn't do that before.

In many cases, once the street is wired, it's now possible to install into a house for under $1000 per house average, amortizable over just a few years. Especially if the municipality makes it easy for the ISP installing fiber.

This transition to easier-to-install fiber happened less than 3 years ago, and is now industry standard for a lot of new fiber installs to existing dwellings, dramatically lowering costs. The $2500 figure is somewhat outdated and does not account for new fiber-install technologies...

Copper is getting more expensive. Within 30-50 years, our copper needs to be replaced, and in many cases it is now cheaper to replace them with fiber instead of copper. Some of the 50-year-old phone wire in many old Toronto neighborhoods need to be replaced and those are getting fiber instead. They don't corrode and degrade like copper wire does -- lower maintenance -- and copper-theft-resistant.

Within 20 years I think fiber will finally be widespread, just by sheer copper maintenance expense and copper theft problems. Copper phone line wires don't usually last more than 50 years -- we have very little 1930s or 1940s phone wire in use today. Toronto's 1950s/1960s/1970s phone wiring is slowly pushing against that limit in some neighborhoods.

This is part of the reason why you see a fiber push by some companies. Fiber is finally starting to be "Worth it". Rollout will be slow, but don't be surprised when Bell rips out your copper phone wire to your demarc point circa ~2020-2030s. Some phone companies in some countries are doing that now today already - to save money...

I think this is good time for Bell to begin installing fiber to existing dwellings.
 
Last edited:
During construction of my condo, I was told that fibre runs right into my unit. I get up to 175Mbps up and down. If the prices are reasonable, I'd be happy to get Gigabit Internet speeds because I rely on high speed for work and all my entertainment.
 
Keep in mind that for typical usage, fibre doesn't provide a notable speed difference. There are definitely deminishing returns

I have 40 Mbps at my home and almost 200 Mbps at a place where I used to work. I used the two services for months and nothing really felt particularly faster on the 200 Mbps than it did on the 40. Even when downloading most files it didn't feel notably faster. It wasn't until I ran a speed test that I realized that I was on an ultra fast connection. I defiantly would not pay more for an ultra fast fibre connection, unless I had a business need for it.
 
TheTigerMaster, wait until you have a 1 Terabyte Dropbox or SkyDrive account.
Then it makes a massive chasm of a difference.

Terabyte cloud accounts are starting to fall under $100 per year at some cloud services. Some of those accounts come for free with your Microsoft Office subscription, or some Apple packages!

I tell you, 50 Mbps is too slow sometimes when your syncing "to the cloud". I now put hundred-megabyte files there sometimes, and twice I've even put a gigabyte-sized file there.

---
For readers unfamiliar with "cloud storage" such as Dropbox, iCloud, SkyDrive, etc:

Example 1 -- All I do is put/save/move/whatever a file into my Documents folder, and now it's automatically being copied to all the other computer's and device's "Documents" folder too, exactly mirroring files so that all devices have identical "Documents" folders automatically. PC and laptop? Your documents are conveniently exactly the same on both computers. Edit on one, you see edits on the other. Save on one, you see your file on the other. Mac and iPad? PC and Mac? PC and laptop? Android and iPhone? No problem. The cloud's keeping the file identical in both directions.

Example 2 -- When I snap a photo or take a video on my phone, the photo automatically appear on every single device I own (no matter the OS). It's already shown up in Mac's iPhoto (of my Mac), Windows Photo Viewer (of both my Windows PC and laptop), and Android Pictures (of an Android tablet), without me lifting a finger to transfer a photo, other than pressing my phone's shutter button or video-record button. Goodbye camera cables! Goodbye memory card readers!

It's lovely being able to sync my photos & see them automagically appear on all my iPhone/Android/Mac/PC/Linux's automatically (like iCloud, but not limited to Mac). It is all secured by two-factor authentication (typically a password and a verification SMS).

It's now synced all over the place. Whether it's 1 kilobyte, 1 megabyte, or even humongous like 10 gigabytes, it's now being automatically made accessible to the other devices I own (using the Internet as the conduit). This is where the gigabit heft makes a big difference.

That's the beauty of full integration with a cloud service such as SkyDrive or Dropbox. Though iCloud is more common as it is now introducing many to cloud storage for the first time, it's more vendor locked (to Apple devices). But it is not the only option. Now imagine it being a 300 megabyte video file, but your Internet's connection upload speed is only 2-5 Mbps (e.g. 40/5). You're not giong to be picking up your tablet/laptop to show off that video to somebody else during the same dinner party -- it's still synchronizing through the cloud. With gigabit, you can press a record button at a party on either your iPhone/Android, and then immediately pick up your laptop or tablet to show off the "Happy Birthday" video on a bigger screen seconds later, since the file's already quickly copied to it over your gigabit.

And to save space, I can remove them off the phone but they'll still show up in Dropbox. So I can view all of 1 terabyte of stuff on just a 32 gigabyte iPad. Or all my video files I've ever filmed in my lifetime, automatically backed up on all my devices, with all those files/folders mirrored across my devices. If my laptop blows up, I don't have to worry -- all my documents, photos, video files I've taken is located in the Dropbox and another copy is already on the laptop too. No uploading/downloading. I just copy files into the "\Dropbox" or "\SkyDrive" folder and it reappears on all other systems after a short delay.

And with a click, I can share an album to a friend to save -- to instantly give them temporary access to a few gigabytes of photos. All from my phone.

IMHO, Residential users that use cloud storage, now need gigabit -- thanks to terabyte-sized cloud services that allows saying goodbye to thumbdrives, CD/DVD burners, and memory cards.

Most free accounts are only 5 gigabytes but some free accounts are now 1 terabyte for the first year (e.g. when you purchase certain Microsoft products or Microsoft Store laptops today).

The new generation, including millenials are getting hooked on things like iCloud on their iPhones, and once free terabyte accounts are eventually more popular like free GMAIL accounts, everybody ends up needing gigabit.

Yes, this is offtopic, admittedly. But most of this thread is really a sidetrack, although barely under the transport umbrella via the "telecommute" excuse. And the cloud storage can prevent some travelling (like delivering a CDROM or DVDROM), people at work now use it to deliver photos and video files to editors, etc. News companies like Toronto Star now accepts reporter submissions via cloud storage, for example -- for a quick large delivery of photos, etc -- faster than email or driving to the head office to deliver a full memory card.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that for typical usage, fibre doesn't provide a notable speed difference. There are definitely deminishing returns

I have 40 Mbps at my home and almost 200 Mbps at a place where I used to work. I used the two services for months and nothing really felt particularly faster on the 200 Mbps than it did on the 40. Even when downloading most files it didn't feel notably faster. It wasn't until I ran a speed test that I realized that I was on an ultra fast connection. I defiantly would not pay more for an ultra fast fibre connection, unless I had a business need for it.

For the majority of homes right now (2015) 50 meg service is plenty. 50 Meg's will give you 2 HD video streams and enough left over for surfing.

But we've seen an explosion in demand. The required amount of download speed doubles every 2-5 years (I forgot the rule of thumb). So by 2020 it will we will require 100 Megs plus (IofT, 4k TV, the cloud, etc). Old copper plant won't handle it. So Bell has to either upgrade or let Rogers win the battle.

I understand the price is around $500-750 per condo, $1000-1500 for aerial to a house and $2500 for buried all in for the build and equipment (it use to be over double this but the price of fibre has dropped). Depending on the penetration (i.e. number of homes using it) it is about a 7-10 year payback. It's a questionable investment for Bell but its either this or slowly lose the battle to Rogers.

If anyone is hoping for cheap prices don't hold your breath. Check out Bell Aliant's pricing on the east coast (a 100% owned subsidiary that has built a similar network to 500,000 homes). Same prices for the same download speeds.
 
Where to start?

Existing Bell "Fibe" service is accomplished by providing a fibre cable to the neighbourhood interface (that large gray green box around the corner from your home) and plain old twisted copper wire pairs to your home on the existing pole lines. .

Here's an example of the FTTN box in your neighbourhood (I couldn't find a picture of the actual ones in Toronto nor do I know the brand Bell uses).

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/07/this-is-what-a-fibre-to-the-node-nbn-cabinet-looks-like/
 
In my neighbourhood the phone and cable wires run along poles at the back of everyone's property with individual connections strung across backyards. With FTTH is that going to change or are they just going to string up fiber too?
 
Here's an example of the FTTN box in your neighbourhood (I couldn't find a picture of the actual ones in Toronto nor do I know the brand Bell uses).

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/07/this-is-what-a-fibre-to-the-node-nbn-cabinet-looks-like/
From Google for I believe Ottawa:

image.php


image.php


Mine in Toronto looks similar to this:

1277821314-boite_a_bell-1bc4f03e94.png


I assume the node is the big rectangular wart hanging off the left of the box in this pic. In mine, the box looks similar, and a Bell tech told me the node was a similar wart hanging off right side of the box. I had a picture somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.
 
In my neighbourhood the phone and cable wires run along poles at the back of everyone's property with individual connections strung across backyards. With FTTH is that going to change or are they just going to string up fiber too?

The answer is...it depends.

Most likely they will string up the fibre and bring it into your house the normal way.

If it is on your property did the survey show an easement across the back yard giving a company the right to string the wires across? Which one, Bell or Rogers or none?

If Bell does not have the legal right to access your backyard the risk to them is that they string it up and then one of your neighbours forces them to remove it (since they are illegally in the back yard). If it's really unsightly and you don't want wires in your backyard you'll have to call the Bell/Rogers legal department and it'll take a year plus and tons of calls before they will do anything (if at all).

They may make the decision as part of the FTTH implementation to move these wires to the front yard (on the hydro poles). This may make it harder for them to get from the pole in the front yard to the old demark....which means fun wiring in your basement.

The other issue is those people (i.e. myself) who convinced the repairman to just lay an underground pair from the telephone pole to my house. I then dug a trench and therefore do not have a wire going from the pole (except hydro). I really hate having wires running down the side of my house (I know...almost OCD). I wonder if I can convince them to do the same?
 
TheTigerMaster, wait until you have a 1 Terabyte Dropbox or SkyDrive account.
Then it makes a massive chasm of a difference.

Terabyte cloud accounts are starting to fall under $100 per year at some cloud services. Some of those accounts come for free with your Microsoft Office subscription, or some Apple packages!

I tell you, 50 Mbps is too slow sometimes when your syncing "to the cloud". I now put hundred-megabyte files there sometimes, and twice I've even put a gigabyte-sized file there.

For cloud storage, probably the most important thing is bandwidth limits. Higher speed is pointless if they limit how much you can use it.

My internet is 100/10Mbps and unlimited. I would be happy with 30/5Mbps too if it meant high limits or unlimited.

For storage? That's why I buy a portable HDD. What is more cost effective: a 1TB portable HDD for a one-time cost of $80, or the Dropbox subscription for $100 a year plus the extra monthly cost of Bell Gigabit Fibre Internet?

USB3 is also already way faster than any internet now or future gigabit internet. But no HDD will be able to transfer data fast enough to saturate a gigabit fibre internet connection anyways, let saturate a USB3 connection...

Cloud storage is great for something like a business where multiple people need to access and share the same files especially over long distance. But for single users, I don't see the point of it.
 
For cloud storage, probably the most important thing is bandwidth limits. Higher speed is pointless if they limit how much you can use it.

My internet is 100/10Mbps and unlimited. I would be happy with 30/5Mbps too if it meant high limits or unlimited.

For storage? That's why I buy a portable HDD. What is more cost effective: a 1TB portable HDD for a one-time cost of $80, or the Dropbox subscription for $100 a year plus the extra monthly cost of Bell Gigabit Fibre Internet?

USB3 is also already way faster than any internet now or future gigabit internet. But no HDD will be able to transfer data fast enough to saturate a gigabit fibre internet connection anyways, let saturate a USB3 connection...

Cloud storage is great for something like a business where multiple people need to access and share the same files especially over long distance. But for single users, I don't see the point of it.
I use a 1TB Thunderbolt external hard drive. It is much faster and roomier than Dropbox, given that my Internet speed is 25MB/s at best (though in practice, it is closer to 5MB/s) and have a limit of 350GB per month. Cloud storage's main advantages lie with businesses that need to share multiple large files with multiple clients located far away from each other. There is a good reason why I still use USB flash drives and external hard drives (one-time fees and quick connection > monthly subscriptions for the same amount of space and saving USB slots), although I do use cloud storage when I want to attach large documents to share with people (primarily Google Drive).

Another major advantage of USB flash drives and external hard drives is privacy. All the files on USB flash drives and external hard drives belong to you with complete control over them, while those on Dropbox et al. belong to the respective companies (which is why Dropbox et al. have terms and conditions for using their services) and you having no full control over them.
 
Last edited:
It all depends. Cloud storage can save money for individuals too. It is an individual's choice whether the benefits outweigh the cost/risk (security) etc. I do use two-factor authentication.

It saves money for me because I no longer need my personal home computer to be powered 24/7 for remote access so I'm actually saving more money with a 1 terabyte cloud account because I can access my computer's files without my computer needing to be on anymore! Gaming PC use more than $100 per year of electricity costs while idling. And that's even assuming you're using free remote access such as Remote Desktop or VNC -- not paid services like GoToMyPC. (so that improves security in a sense).

Configuring my friend's computer to have their "My Documents" and "My Photos" folder automatically sync to the cloud was a BIG lifesaver. A year later, he had his laptop stolen. He thought his lifetime's repository of documents and photos were permanently lost! It was almost like throwing photo albums and file folder boxes into a fire. But I explained to him that the cloud can be accessed without the original computer. And I showed him how to prevent the thief from seeing his files (we logged onto the cloud service to redflag that computer -- to autodelete when the laptop thief next went onto WiFi. Most thieves aren't experienced enough to prevent that sort of thing). But the cloud was like a fireproof safe to my friend. Not everyone is smart enough to back up their files, the cloud actually improved HIS security AND saved his ass. Imagine if it was your mom's or dad's computer, and they don't know what "backup" means.

Carrying an external hard drive around so everything's always with you, can subject it to damage and lost files (all the way back to the last backup you did) while the cloud service replication (and undelete capabilities) provides a measure of safety from common individual backup habits too. With cloud, peace of mind of having your files automatically backed instantly is nice (mind you, should not completely replace airgapped offline backup). Many cloud services also give you unlimited "undo", so if you accidentally overwrite a file from any of your apps, or accidentally delete a photo or important document, you can revert or undelete, with the cloud's file-journalled revision history, since for a file of 1 megabyte on a 50/10 connection, a photo is already backed up to the cloud in approximately 1-2 seconds after your cameraphone's shutter button, and if you accidentally delete the photo afterwards on your phone, it's still possible to logon (two factor) onto the cloud and undelete it, as an example. Same for homework or photo edit, etc. Malware is more common on PCs than on cloud services, so file theft risk is still there even if you don't use cloud services.

You've seen iCloud on television where it replicates photos to all your favourite devices. But iCloud is a bit inflexible. Now instead imagine it being able to do it cross-platform (Mac/PC/iOS/Android). Now imagine it doing it on any filetype, not just Apple-sanctioned ones. Now imagine it with unlimited file history undo/undelete/rollback (file journalling revision control) on all of the devices. Never lose text in an accidentally saved document, or mis-edit of a photo, since each file revision is immediately backed up to the cloud upon saving the file in any of your favourite PC/Mac apps. Now imagine it doing it to anything you do (Word files, PhotoShop files, Visual Studio/Eclipse, saved food recipies, old-fashioned savegame files not synced by Steam, video project, etc) so you can edit a big multi-file project on one computer and resume editing on a different computer just seconds later. Now imagine having no size limits (cloud as big as your biggest hard disk). Now imagine also having selective sync (if you don't want offline access on all devices, e.g. space-starved SSD laptops). Several cloud services now exist that give you all the above benefits simultaneously. If you want just simple, iCloud is easy to understand, but it also goes well beyond that.

One can still continue to use an external HDD. In fact, it can be used to speed up a cloud service. I sometimes use a USB3 thumbdrive SSD to sneakernet my files quickly, and I can even copy it to the same folder the cloud service would normally sync over. The cloud recognizes I've now precopied the files (identical files are recognized, via a hashing technique). This is what I do when I've got many gigabytes of files to transfer from computer A to B, and don't want to wait for the cloud to sync it over. Most cloud services let you manually accelerate syncing that way. And then the external HDD or thumbdrive can be the offline backup, kept in a good safekeeping location rather than at risk of loss in a forgotten backpack (yes, you can use disk encryption to increase safety, but not everyone does).

All sorts of tradeoffs happen -- so it is an individual decision, and it is all about convenience. If the risk or expense is not worth it, don't use it. But it lowers cost and lower overall risk (file loss/security/etc), saves valuable time, and makes life more fun, for my non-work cases.

The cloud is not just for work anymore, the cloud can also sync your mom|dad|friend's "My Documents" and "My Photos" folders so she doesn't have to remember to backup when her laptop breaks, hard disk fails, or gets stolen. And you don't have to play "IT support" as often for new-computer, new-phone, or new-tablet setup. Or when she accidentally overwrote or deleted a Word document and asks you how to go back. Many cloud services have search boxes that lets you find the right file or right missing file. (You know how less experienced people sometimes saves files in the wrong location, too). Now it's just a simple search box on a cloud service to find an old file revision, a couple clicks, and the missing file reappears back on her computer in the right location on her computer -- without needing remote desktop hoop jumping -- and without needing to interrupt my dinner or work to do some emergency IT support. Etc. Everyone happier because files so easy to find and recover. Not everybody in a family is always computer-literate, and a cloud service nicely solves the "race over for some emergency IT" problems for more than half of the situations! A car ride removed from the road (here, I finally stayed on Transportation topic -- ha).

Anyway, back onto topic. I hope Bell considers bringing fiber to Hamilton eventually. Fibe arrived a few years after it did to Toronto.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top