IP over copper

Hi All,

I came across a customer who was using "IP over copper". Used
four loops (pairs) and gave 6 MB up and down synchronous. At
first I thought it was a T1.

Charter is available in the area at 105 MB down and 16 MB up.

Why would you want to use a more expensive IP over Copper?
Am I missing something?

-T

On 03/06/2019 23:53, T wrote:



Am I missing something?



Yes you are missing to realise that you are a known rogue trader who is
defrauding unsuspecting customers. In my country, I would have reported
you to our trading standards officer who would have revoked your license
to trade.


--
With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

T wrote:

I came across a customer who was using "IP over copper". Used
four loops (pairs) and gave 6 MB up and down synchronous. At
first I thought it was a T1.

Charter is available in the area at 105 MB down and 16 MB up.

Why would you want to use a more expensive IP over Copper?
Am I missing something?

I didn't know what you meant by "IP over copper". Should've been
"Ethernet over copper"; however, wires are used with Ethernet and those
wires are usually copper (unless fiber is used), so I was confused by
the redundancy in the naming. Turns out it should be named "Ethernet
first mile, then twisted pair." Then I read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_copper

Yuck! Is this customer way out in the boonies where DSL or cable are
not available, so they're stuck sharing an Ethernet hub that then goes
over old POTS lines? It has the same disadvantages as DSL that also
uses the old POTS twisted pair (except EoC usually has the twisted pair
run underground instead of across telephone poles). The farther the
customer is from the central office (CO), the slower the connection.

If the customer is paying a higher price for a business-class service
tier over EoC, the customer should be complaining to the ISP for not
getting what they pay for. They might also check what that ISP cites
for effective bandwidth at different distances from the ISP's CO. The
customer might be at the limit for distance, or worse, and won't ever
get the advertised bandwidth for an endpoint close to the CO.

EoC twisted pair has double the number of wires for the old POTS lines:
8 instead of 4. How many wires are bonded dictates the bandwidth. A
single pair should deliver 5 MB/s (near the CO). Up to all 8 of the
pairs can be bonded for a max of 40 MB/s (again near the CO). EoC has a
range of only a few miles, with decreasing bandwidth as the distance
increases. Because of the short serviceable distance, EoC is sometimes
call Metro Ethernet: it isn't usable very far.

First find out how many EoC twisted pair are bonded. If only 1 pair,
the reported 6 MB/s is very close to the 5 MB/s per bond. The
customer's ISP should know how many wires are bonded per the service
level the customer is paying that ISP. "Bonding" is not some soldering
or splicing of TP wires together. The scheme sounds familiar to the
number of channels in a cable modem dictating the total overal bandwidth
to the customer. With cable, provisioning it decides how many channels
are available (and why users had to move to DOCSIS 3.x modems to get
more channels for higher overall bandwidth). I suspect the bonding of
TP is performed at the EoC modem. As with cable modem that get
provisioned to bond channels together up to the speed tier the customer
paid for, the EoC modem is probably where the bonding is perform of the
TP wires (5MB/s per bond). Have the customer call his ISP, report the
problem (if he really is paying for more than 5 MB/s) and, if the
customer deserves more bandwidth, have the ISP re-provision the EoC
modem.

If the customer bought his own EoC modem, he'll still have to get his
ISP to provision that modem as to how many TP are bonded logically
together to up the bandwidth. I've never played with EoC modems to know
if the user can change the number of TP bonds. Can't do it with cable
modems (well, maybe you can but the ISP will only use how many you paid
for), so probably can't do it at the customer end for EoC modems,
either.

T wrote:

Hi All,

I came across a customer who was using "IP over copper". Used
four loops (pairs) and gave 6 MB up and down synchronous. At
first I thought it was a T1.

Charter is available in the area at 105 MB down and 16 MB up.

Why would you want to use a more expensive IP over Copper?
Am I missing something?

-T

T,

About 15 years ago I had a client who had 2 T-1's bound together to

provide ~3Mb/s up/down. The T-1's were around $800 a piece per month.

The cable provider in the area started offering 25/5 service for around

$300 per month.

The client refused the new service!

His reasons? The internet access provided was not "Business" class.

He felt the technology was not mature enough and did not feel confident

that the "Uptime" would be consistent.

So he continued to pay $1600 a month for several years.

I don't know the reasons your client is sticking with the ethernet over

copper option but he may have some outdated prejudices about newer

technology.

Have you asked them their reasons?


JT

--

On 6/3/19 6:08 PM, JT wrote:
Have you asked them their reasons?

Did not ask. I did notice that they bought their
VoIP phones service from the same guy that provided
the IP over Copper.

On 6/3/19 5:53 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
T wrote:

I came across a customer who was using "IP over copper". Used
four loops (pairs) and gave 6 MB up and down synchronous. At
first I thought it was a T1.

Charter is available in the area at 105 MB down and 16 MB up.

Why would you want to use a more expensive IP over Copper?
Am I missing something?

I didn't know what you meant by "IP over copper". Should've been
"Ethernet over copper"; however, wires are used with Ethernet and those
wires are usually copper (unless fiber is used), so I was confused by
the redundancy in the naming. Turns out it should be named "Ethernet
first mile, then twisted pair." Then I read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_copper

Checking my notes, it is "Ethernet over Copper". My bad


Yuck! Is this customer way out in the boonies where DSL or cable are
not available, so they're stuck sharing an Ethernet hub that then goes
over old POTS lines? It has the same disadvantages as DSL that also
uses the old POTS twisted pair (except EoC usually has the twisted pair
run underground instead of across telephone poles). The farther the
customer is from the central office (CO), the slower the connection.

If the customer is paying a higher price for a business-class service
tier over EoC, the customer should be complaining to the ISP for not
getting what they pay for. They might also check what that ISP cites
for effective bandwidth at different distances from the ISP's CO. The
customer might be at the limit for distance, or worse, and won't ever
get the advertised bandwidth for an endpoint close to the CO.

EoC twisted pair has double the number of wires for the old POTS lines:
8 instead of 4. How many wires are bonded dictates the bandwidth. A
single pair should deliver 5 MB/s (near the CO). Up to all 8 of the
pairs can be bonded for a max of 40 MB/s (again near the CO). EoC has a
range of only a few miles, with decreasing bandwidth as the distance
increases. Because of the short serviceable distance, EoC is sometimes
call Metro Ethernet: it isn't usable very far.

First find out how many EoC twisted pair are bonded.

Four loops

If only 1 pair,
the reported 6 MB/s is very close to the 5 MB/s per bond. The
customer's ISP should know how many wires are bonded per the service
level the customer is paying that ISP. "Bonding" is not some soldering
or splicing of TP wires together. The scheme sounds familiar to the
number of channels in a cable modem dictating the total overal bandwidth
to the customer. With cable, provisioning it decides how many channels
are available (and why users had to move to DOCSIS 3.x modems to get
more channels for higher overall bandwidth). I suspect the bonding of
TP is performed at the EoC modem. As with cable modem that get
provisioned to bond channels together up to the speed tier the customer
paid for, the EoC modem is probably where the bonding is perform of the
TP wires (5MB/s per bond). Have the customer call his ISP, report the
problem (if he really is paying for more than 5 MB/s) and, if the
customer deserves more bandwidth, have the ISP re-provision the EoC
modem.

If the customer bought his own EoC modem,

It is rented

he'll still have to get his
ISP to provision that modem as to how many TP are bonded logically
together to up the bandwidth. I've never played with EoC modems to know
if the user can change the number of TP bonds. Can't do it with cable
modems (well, maybe you can but the ISP will only use how many you paid
for), so probably can't do it at the customer end for EoC modems,
either.


When I get to know them a bit better, I will ask why
they just don't switch to Charter, especially
since it is already in their building.

And there goes the mystery about EoC. It is not serving
a special purpose for them.

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 15:53:29 -0700, T wrote:

Hi All,

I came across a customer who was using "IP over copper". Used
four loops (pairs) and gave 6 MB up and down synchronous. At
first I thought it was a T1.

Charter is available in the area at 105 MB down and 16 MB up.

Why would you want to use a more expensive IP over Copper?
Am I missing something?

That customer was living in, The Twilight Zone.

-T

T schreef op 04-06-2019
in :
Hi All,

I came across a customer who was using "IP over copper". Used
four loops (pairs) and gave 6 MB up and down synchronous. At
first I thought it was a T1.

Charter is available in the area at 105 MB down and 16 MB up.

Why would you want to use a more expensive IP over Copper?
Am I missing something?

VDSL Bonding?
A way to keep use the existing old infra instead of investing in fiber.

--
MdW.

On 6/4/19 1:27 AM, Machiel de Wit wrote:
T schreef op 04-06-2019
in :
Hi All,

I came across a customer who was using "IP over copper".Â* Used
four loops (pairs) and gave 6 MB up and down synchronous.Â* At
first I thought it was a T1.

Charter is available in the area at 105 MB down and 16 MB up.

Why would you want to use a more expensive IP over Copper?
Am I missing something?

VDSL Bonding?
A way to keep use the existing old infra instead of investing in fiber.


I goofed the description. It is Ethernet over Copper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_copper

T wrote:

I goofed the description.Â* It is Ethernet over Copper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_copper

The usual name for it over here is EFM (ethernet in the first mile)
they're generally very reliable circuits and tend to be used for
dedicated VoIP connections, if using multiple pairs then if one goes
faulty the speed goes down, rather than losing connectivity altogether.

On 6/4/19 10:50 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
T wrote:

I goofed the description.Â* It is Ethernet over Copper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethernet_over_copper

The usual name for it over here is EFM (ethernet in the first mile)
they're generally very reliable circuits and tend to be used for
dedicated VoIP connections, if using multiple pairs then if one goes
faulty the speed goes down, rather than losing connectivity altogether.

That explains it. Thank you!