Talk:Dark fibre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Inaccurate[edit]

In real world application, Dark Fiber refers to a fiber connection that is not repeated and does not have any signal, device, or appliance that induces any electromagnetic radiation on the fiber media in any way. Any fiber section, from a 1 meter patch cable to a 5000 kilometer fiber can be considered dark fiber. There can be splices, connections, or couplers in a length of dark fiber, as long as the resulting attenuation does not degrade the transport ability of the fiber below its intended use. When one end of the dark fiber is directly connected to a fiber transmitting device, the transmitted light signal travels the length of the fiber, unchanged, to the far end of the fiber. The far end may be attached to a receiving device to complete a circuit. There are no framing, formatting, or signaling requirements for the signal. The signal can be anything; from visible light transmitting Morse Code at a nondescript rate to be translated by the naked eye, to a DWDM transponder sending terabits of fluctuating signal marks over multiple segmented electromagnetic energy wavelengths. The encoding and decoding of the signal is established by the sending and receiving devices. Service providers use the term Dark Fiber to describe services they provide that mimic dark fiber. But true dark fiber requires no intermediate intervention by a service provider. Once the physical media is placed, if undisturbed, no further intervention is required. The path the fiber media takes may include leased ducting, municipal utility rights-of-way, etc., that may incur one time or recurring lease or permit fees. The subterranean or aerial path the fiber travels may be wholly owned by the user, or leased. The user may also pay for maintenance on part or all of fiber path including the fiber media in case of physical damage to the signal path. But the fiber itself does not require any additional expense to the owner of the fiber. ricpay 198.147.10.56 (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Odd compromise[edit]

Google to Create a Private Internet Alternative?

This article is U.S.-focused -- it either needs to be retitled something like "U.S. dark fiber market" or else have more stuff about other countries added. --A. B. 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Where else does there exist dark fiber? 68.10.75.60 06:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also in the Netherlands, [[1]]. Mion 03:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Saying that 60% of the costs are the civils doesn't really explain what fraction of the cost is the cost of lighting the fiber, vs what the cost of the fiber itself is. Finding a citation that explains what the cost of the unused fiber itself is might shed some light on why so much unused fiber is installed. --JNW2 07:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the article was created as Dark fibre in 2003, moved without discussion to "Dark fiber" in 2005, "fibre" in May 2007 and then back three days later, and then again to "fibre" in 2009. Certainly best would be to have it discuss the global concept with citations to reliable sources. But I would suggest just stick with one spelling or 'tother. Right now it does not look right that the title uses the British spelling, but body uses the US spelling. W Nowicki (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright?[edit]

It seems that part of this article has been copied verbatim from http://www.bitpipe.com/tlist/Dark-Fiber-Services.html --Tarnjp 03:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fibre vs Fiber[edit]

I've changed fiber to fibre in the body. It was split about 50/50, although the title is fibre. Many of the links (internal and external) use fiber. It is purely an aesthetic thing to have consistent spellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.1.7.171 (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In contrast, I'd like encourage fiber instead of fibre. Many of the issues currently in the article, for example Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier are distinctly US phenomena. I suspect (via some original research) the practice of educational institutions buying up dark fiber is primarily a US phenomenon. I suspect the overdeployment of fiber in the dot-com boom was also primarily a US phenomenon.John85 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

174.59.60.204 has changed fibre->fiber with edit comment: corrected spelling to "fiber" to bring into conformity with Wikpedia master articles on "optical fiber, etc." which reflect the American standard spelling. I have reverted because this is at odds with WP:RETAIN. I am not aware of any policy that advocates consistency beyond individual articles. To change this, I think we'd need to be swayed by John85's WP:TIES argument. I am not and I don't think WP:ENGVAR tweaks have the potential to improve the article enough to be worth our time arguing about it. ~KvnG 15:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that a joke? It's incredibly incongruous and inconsistent, even within the article, to use "fibre". There is literally a picture of a company with "Fiber" in their name, the caption of which uses "fibre". I would say that the fact that every real-world reference within the article uses "fiber" suggests ipso facto national ties, but regardless consistency remains nonexistent thanks to the use of "fibre". It seems to me that Kvng's reasoning is strained to the utmost, to the point that I suspect conclusion prior reasoning. I propose fixing this article to have consistent spelling. 216.252.206.120 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a joke. Please establish a WP:CONSENSUS before changing one acceptable spelling to another. We waste a lot of effort flopping things like this back and forth over the years. It might be best to have the discussion somewhere more centralizes like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing/Computer networking task force. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Education[edit]

The last paragraph in the Market section seems a bit nichy and with big and possibly dubious claims. It is based on two references; One is an unachieved dead link and the other requires a login. I am tempted to delete this paragraph. Let me know if anyone else has thoughts on this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

dark network[edit]

I think someone confused a private "dark" network with unlit fiber. Surely "dark" in this article is just unlit and nothing else. Even "dark fiber network" is dubious if it is actually lit and being used. Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you'd call a Private network a Dark network. I can see that Dark web could potentially be a better redirect target for Dark network. Maybe a disambiguation page is needed here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)