Latencies will get better imho. It's fiber people! Latency inside Lebanon should not theoretically surpass 10ms!
Fernand wroteLatencies will get better imho. It's fiber people! Latency inside Lebanon should not theoretically surpass 10ms!
As far as we know there's only Fiber connections between "Centrales", and for latency to decrease we need fiber connections between centrales and the users(the very least is that Fiber-to-the-Node or Fiber-to-the-Curb be implemented), however I feel like one obstacle(which shouldn't be a problem but in Lebanon it really will be) is if FTTN or FTTC is implemented, the machine that converts the fiber light to electrical data(DSLAM?) needs electricity to work, which means without backup batteries(and its own generator) at that site, every time the power goes off, the internet for the users will be down, and that will be a really messy situation! (do correct me if I'm wrong)

I just hope when the new packages come I can get more than 2mbit(considering I'm 1.7Km away from the Centrale)
Raficoo wrote
Fernand wroteLatencies will get better imho. It's fiber people! Latency inside Lebanon should not theoretically surpass 10ms!
As far as we know there's only Fiber connections between "Centrales", and for latency to decrease we need fiber connections between centrales and the users(the very least is that Fiber-to-the-Node or Fiber-to-the-Curb be implemented), however I feel like one obstacle(which shouldn't be a problem but in Lebanon it really will be) is if FTTN or FTTC is implemented, the machine that converts the fiber light to electrical data(DSLAM?) needs electricity to work, which means without backup batteries(and its own generator) at that site, every time the power goes off, the internet for the users will be down, and that will be a really messy situation! (do correct me if I'm wrong)

I just hope when the new packages come I can get more than 2mbit(considering I'm 1.7Km away from the Centrale)
What kind of speed are you getting at 1.7km away from the CO? Do you live in a rural or urban area?
It's funny how young men who have no relation to the lebanese telecommunications probably know more about the subject than the minister himself.
Fernand wroteWhat kind of speed are you getting at 1.7km away from the CO? Do you live in a rural or urban area?
I live in an urban area, and I'm subscribed to 1Mbit/s, I used to get just exact 1Mbit/s about a year ago, but now it's more or less 0.85Mbit/s(this happened after I fixed my line after Ogero accidentally messed it up), I feel like my line could support 2mbit/s but I'm thinking about getting 4mbit/s and see what happens, oh well Friday can't come soon enough it seems lol
How will you feel if we get this one day in lebanon

https://fiber.google.com/about/

Try the simulator in the website to see the difference in speed when downloading a movie for example , its epic !

What's that? :o
If I'm downloading a file it will be done before it's saved to the computer. I mean hell, this is the latency i get if I'm on my local server.
I bet it costs a fortune.
How much bandwidth from Emewe do we have again? 200gbps? We will need 100 times that!
NuclearVision wroteWhat's that? :o
If I'm downloading a file it will be done before it's saved to the computer. I mean hell, this is the latency i get if I'm on my local server.
I bet it costs a fortune.
How much bandwidth from Emewe do we have again? 200gbps? We will need 100 times that!
https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/plans/

$70/month :)
Just checking the packages and they can get free 5mbps internet for 300$ 1 time payment (can be payed in installations). We have to pay like 70 dollars for 4mbps speeds.
Raficoo wrote
Fernand wroteLatencies will get better imho. It's fiber people! Latency inside Lebanon should not theoretically surpass 10ms!
As far as we know there's only Fiber connections between "Centrales", and for latency to decrease we need fiber connections between centrales and the users(the very least is that Fiber-to-the-Node or Fiber-to-the-Curb be implemented), however I feel like one obstacle(which shouldn't be a problem but in Lebanon it really will be) is if FTTN or FTTC is implemented, the machine that converts the fiber light to electrical data(DSLAM?) needs electricity to work, which means without backup batteries(and its own generator) at that site, every time the power goes off, the internet for the users will be down, and that will be a really messy situation! (do correct me if I'm wrong)

I just hope when the new packages come I can get more than 2mbit(considering I'm 1.7Km away from the Centrale)
You're kidding right? man they will run power cables to run the switches not batteries and such things!
not only in lebanon, but anywhere in the world, telecommuncation infrastructure must always be on and have its own power supply
m_zeid wrote
You're kidding right? man they will run power cables to run the switches not batteries and such things!
not only in lebanon, but anywhere in the world, telecommunication infrastructure must always be on and have its own power supply
Well you see in my city at every traffic light intersection, when power goes off they turn off and wait a few seconds later to turn back on by another power source, and as far as I know if they intend to use Fiber-To-The-Node, you're gonna need a switch to convert fiber light data to electrical data that goes later to the user via copper, I took the traffic light scenario and applied it to the switch, which I guess is wrong. I think in other countries they just hook up a nearby power wire to the switch since the power normally won't go out, but in our case the power has to come from somewhere that will never go out, which I'm supposing is the centrale.. correct?
Raficoo wrote
m_zeid wrote
your kidding right? man they will run power cables to run the switches not batteries and such things!
not only in lebanon, but anywhere in the world, telecommuncation infrastructure must always be on and have its own power supply
Well you see in my city at every traffic light intersection, when power goes off they turn off and wait a few seconds later to turn back on by another power source, and as far as I know if they intend to use Fiber-To-The-Node, you're gonna need a switch to convert fiber light data to electrical data that goes later to the user via copper, I took the traffic light scenario and applied it to the switch, which I guess is wrong. I think in other countries they just hook up a nearby power wire to the switch since the power normally won't go out, but in our case the power has to come from somewhere that will never go out, which I'm supposing is the centrale.. correct?
you are absolutely right.

If they intend to install either FTTN/ FTTC they will need to install active cabinets that will convert light waves to electrical signals. however this option is not feasible since it requires power and since the only power source is the power grid, they would have to install generators (like cell towers).

FTTB/ FTTH do not require active cabinets to convert the light waves to electrical signals, since the line goes from the CO directly to the subscriber where it is converted at the subscriber home.

FTTB/ FTTH are the better option overall, they support higher bandwidth and lower latency, however such projects require way more time than FTTN/ FTTC solutions.
how to know how far i live from the central?
sailor wrotehow to know how far i live from the central?
Try google earth!
Well you see in my city at every traffic light intersection, when power goes off they turn off and wait a few seconds later to turn back on by another power source, and as far as I know if they intend to use Fiber-To-The-Node, you're gonna need a switch to convert fiber light data to electrical data that goes later to the user via copper, I took the traffic light scenario and applied it to the switch, which I guess is wrong. I think in other countries they just hook up a nearby power wire to the switch since the power normally won't go out, but in our case the power has to come from somewhere that will never go out, which I'm supposing is the centrale.. correct?
During wars or emergency situations, everything can go down. But at least one thing should still up and running which is the communication infrastructure.
Really it's not logical to run wires from the neighborhood to the switch.

I don't think they are that dumm to install fibers that cost huge and from regular clients to big companies rely on this connection, how these customers will agree on this?!
It's not hard to run power cables to the switches, these devices don't use a lot of power so the cost shouldn't be big
Or a drive by car since cables are under the asphalt. Use main roads.
Fernand drive by car to where? how to know what is the closest central which i use it
Some CO serve as post offices.
Give me 1Mbps with a decent latency and i'm a happy man .
The cloud is evil !!!
Tomorrow's announcement should not effect latency whatsoever. The fiber backbone should be finalized and utilized.
Current ISPs still rely on E1 connection to link them to MoT (2.048 Mbps link), still using copper. when the fiber optic backbone becomes operational ISPs will switch to STM-1, a fiber link that will deliver 155.52 Mbps. Aside from significantly higher bandwidth it will deliver better latency to end users.
haidcar wroteTomorrow's announcement should not effect latency whatsoever. The fiber backbone should be finalized and utilized.
Current ISPs still rely on E1 connection to link them to MoT (2.048 Mbps link), still using copper. when the fiber optic backbone becomes operational ISPs will switch to STM-1, a fiber link that will deliver 155.52 Mbps. Aside from significantly higher bandwidth it will deliver better latency to end users.
Will people who receive, let's say 400K instead of 1M in remote villages, get higher speeds when the switch is flipped?
I read today about interesting topic which is "Propagation velocity: Copper Vs. Fiber", in Short, i concluded that we will not see any difference in Latency after deployment of Fiber Network because propagation velocity in copper is faster than in fiber by a little or let's say it is the same.

So what is your opinion guys ??
amkahal wroteI read today about interesting topic which is "Propagation velocity: Copper Vs. Fiber", in Short, i concluded that we will not see any difference in Latency after deployment of Fiber Network because propagation velocity in copper is faster than in fiber by a little or let's say it is the same.

So what is your opinion guys ??
fiber optics is immune to EMI and crosstalk. Fiber optics is considered one of the most highly secure transmission methods available.

Fibre Channel transceivers can also be driven with true differential pair twinaxial signaling with 150-ohm impedance between conductors. A true twinaxial connector interface ensures signal integrity thereby minimizing jitter and data rate errors that will inevitably degrade the high-speed digital signal.

With fibre between COs your latency should drop between 10-50 ms .
Tarek wrote
amkahal wroteI read today about interesting topic which is "Propagation velocity: Copper Vs. Fiber", in Short, i concluded that we will not see any difference in Latency after deployment of Fiber Network because propagation velocity in copper is faster than in fiber by a little or let's say it is the same.

So what is your opinion guys ??
fiber optics is immune to EMI and crosstalk. Fiber optics is considered one of the most highly secure transmission methods available.

Fibre Channel transceivers can also be driven with true differential pair twinaxial signaling with 150-ohm impedance between conductors. A true twinaxial connector interface ensures signal integrity thereby minimizing jitter and data rate errors that will inevitably degrade the high-speed digital signal.

With fibre between COs your latency should drop between 10-50 ms .
the fibers between COs are they now active or still?
m_zeid wrote
Tarek wrote
amkahal wroteI read today about interesting topic which is "Propagation velocity: Copper Vs. Fiber", in Short, i concluded that we will not see any difference in Latency after deployment of Fiber Network because propagation velocity in copper is faster than in fiber by a little or let's say it is the same.

So what is your opinion guys ??
fiber optics is immune to EMI and crosstalk. Fiber optics is considered one of the most highly secure transmission methods available.

Fibre Channel transceivers can also be driven with true differential pair twinaxial signaling with 150-ohm impedance between conductors. A true twinaxial connector interface ensures signal integrity thereby minimizing jitter and data rate errors that will inevitably degrade the high-speed digital signal.

With fibre between COs your latency should drop between 10-50 ms .
the fibers between COs are they now active or still?
Not yet
Tarek wrote
m_zeid wrote
Tarek wrote
fiber optics is immune to EMI and crosstalk. Fiber optics is considered one of the most highly secure transmission methods available.

Fibre Channel transceivers can also be driven with true differential pair twinaxial signaling with 150-ohm impedance between conductors. A true twinaxial connector interface ensures signal integrity thereby minimizing jitter and data rate errors that will inevitably degrade the high-speed digital signal.

With fibre between COs your latency should drop between 10-50 ms .
the fibers between COs are they now active or still?
Not yet
Tarek, will people who receive, let's say 400K instead of 1M in remote villages, get higher speeds when the fiber network is turned on? 800K out of 2M for instance?
Well fiber is installed between the "Centrals" ,but as an example, my friend wanted to upgrade from 1m to 2m,ISP told him that his phone line doesn't handle that speed.
That's the real problem , he lives in Mansourieh and even some copper lines to Ain-Najem and other nearby area can only handle <256k
Fernand wrote
haidcar wroteTomorrow's announcement should not effect latency whatsoever. The fiber backbone should be finalized and utilized.
Current ISPs still rely on E1 connection to link them to MoT (2.048 Mbps link), still using copper. when the fiber optic backbone becomes operational ISPs will switch to STM-1, a fiber link that will deliver 155.52 Mbps. Aside from significantly higher bandwidth it will deliver better latency to end users.
Will people who receive, let's say 400K instead of 1M in remote villages, get higher speeds when the switch is flipped?
Yes when the fiber optic backbone becomes operational you should see speed improvements. there are other variables such as the Distance from the CO to subscriber but you should be okay if the distance less than 4KM.

btw, ADSL2+ supports higher speeds over longer distances than the current ADSL1. Most CO do support ADSL2+ but for some reason it is not active, it doesn't need FTTX, its uses 2 downstream channels on the same copper line instead of 1 used in the current ADSL. ADSL2+ suports up 24mbps

new
I personally live 1 km away from my CO and my line attenuation is 26.5 db. I keep asking IDM if i can apply for the 6-8 mbps and they tell me that my line can't handle more than 4192/512.

The normal db loss of the worst possible copper wire over 1 km is 13.5 by "international standards".

So either our lines are bad or the equipment in the COs are old, or even a combination of both!

I am pessimistic about any changes in speed or latency. The only thing to be happy about is the increased bandwidth and the reduction in price.
I personally live 1 km away from my CO and my line attenuation is 26.5 db. I keep asking IDM if i can apply for the 6-8 mbps and they tell me that my line can't handle more than 4192/512.

The normal db loss of the worst possible copper wire over 1 km is 13.5 by "international standards".

So either our lines are bad or the equipment in the COs are old, or even a combination of both!

I am pessimistic about any changes in speed or latency. The only thing to be happy about is the increased bandwidth and the reduction in price.
It's Friday, Please can anybody post a live feed of minister's Decisions here, because both Twitter and Facebook are blocked at my work :(
amkahal wroteIt's Friday, Please can anybody post a live feed of minister's Decisions here, because both Twitter and Facebook are blocked at my work :(
use a proxy
rtp wrote
amkahal wroteIt's Friday, Please can anybody post a live feed of minister's Decisions here, because both Twitter and Facebook are blocked at my work :(
use a proxy
it's not that easy :) , we have a fortigate UTM here.
1.Navigate to Ublocked Websites Proxy or Truly Unblock . These proxies unblock filters originating from filtering platforms such as a Fortinet firewall. Your anonymity is also secure with these proxies because they hide your IP address behind their server.


2.Enter the Web address that is being blocked by Fortinet in the URL bar you'll find on the middle or bottom region of the page, depending on the proxy you chose to visit.


3.Click the "Surf" or "Go" tab showcased beside the URL bar. The website Fortinet was blocking will now be unblocked through the proxy's server. Your IP address will also be masked to keep your browsing anonymous.
Tarek wrote1.Navigate to Ublocked Websites Proxy or Truly Unblock . These proxies unblock filters originating from filtering platforms such as a Fortinet firewall. Your anonymity is also secure with these proxies because they hide your IP address behind their server.


2.Enter the Web address that is being blocked by Fortinet in the URL bar you'll find on the middle or bottom region of the page, depending on the proxy you chose to visit.


3.Click the "Surf" or "Go" tab showcased beside the URL bar. The website Fortinet was blocking will now be unblocked through the proxy's server. Your IP address will also be masked to keep your browsing anonymous.
you cannot access such sites, all are blocked.