3 ms·

> Also keep in mind that any 1980s fibre network would have been totally antiquated now. G.652 was developed in 1984 and is still in use today (with newer revi

> Also keep in mind that any 1980s fibre network would have been totally antiquated now. G.652 was developed in 1984 and is still in use today (with newer revisions improving performance): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.652 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.652 * https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.652 https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.652 * https://community.fs.com/blog/single-mode-fiber-comparison-g-652-vs-g-655.html https://community.fs.com/blog/single-mode-fiber-comparison-g... There's no reason why the fibre couldn't continue to be used today with updated equipment on both ends. Further even if it would be antiquated today, it would still have given many decades' worth of value, and we'd be replacing it with new fibre—as opposed to the lacklustre, half-hearted FTTN and other non-sense that seems to be going on today.

martinald 5y ago
I don't mean the physical fibre. I mean the network layout. Common layout today is (X)GPON with a splitter with 32 nodes off it. I imagine a 1980s network would be much closer to a DOCSIS style RFoG layout, but with far less node density than cable because of the much better reach of fibre. You'd probably have (tens?) of thousands of homes connected to one segment - primarily for TV. This would have completely collapsed in the 2000s as bandwidth use exploded, and would have required enormous work to split it into smaller higher capacity networks (this is exactly what happened with coax cable internet).