dslreports logo
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-01-27 17:31:20: Anybody who warns of an unavoidable capacity crisis on wireline or wireless networks is lying in order to sell you something. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next

jcremin

join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:3
reply to sonicmerlin

Re: Stop hd video or stop all video.

said by sonicmerlin:

Uh no, spectrum within a cell tower radius is finite. You can add as many cells as you want, and string up fiber to those cells as needed.

While that is true to an extent, most of the cell antennas are 200 to 400 feet above ground so one tower might overlap a dozen other towers over a 20 (or more) mile radius in terms of self-interference, even though the useful range to a cell phone might only be 5 miles.

So even though it seems like it would be an easy fix to just throw up a ton of towers, the reality is that it creates a nightmare of RF to deal with, and all of those towers are quite expensive.

I run into the same problems with my WISP. I have some areas with no service, and have had offers from landowners to build a tower to fill the gaps, but because all of my spectrum is already in use on surrounding towers, I can't put anything else up, even if I can afford the tower.

One option is to run fiber down a highway and put up a ton of small "towers" which are only 30 or 50 feet tall and sheltered by the surrounding trees or buildings, limiting the interaction with other towers. But then the problem becomes that every little hill, patch of trees, or cluster of buildings ends up creating dead zones all over the place. So while we end up with a high capacity system, the coverage ends up much more limited than fewer tall towers.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

there already is a problem

We are already running short on spectrum. Yes, LTE will help, but it is more reactive than proactive at this point, as a lot of urban networks are already over-saturated.

What we need is not more spectrum, but better management of the spectrum we have, with a huge re-alignment to give carriers a more even set of spectrum.

The other issue is that AT&T and Verizon need significantly more data revenue, as they are going to have to add many more urban sites to handle the capacity in the next few years, and that's going to cost big money, both in terms of capEX and opEX.


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16

kapacity krisis

"The reality is that the evolution of wireless and wireline networks has been an amazing act of engineering, one that quietly and consistently keeps pace with demand. "

not to mention the handsets and those still in development ?


koira
Keep Fighting Michael
Premium
join:2004-02-16
reply to Chucks Truck

Re: Canada prices wireless like everyone is a multimillionaire

sure that why i buy lottery tickets so i can live the dream of net speed
Expand your moderator at work

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·ooma
·Verizon FiOS
reply to DataRiker

Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders

said by DataRiker:

Of the Exaflood myth.

Verizon's wireless is catching up fast. Consumers seem addicted to keeping POSTPAID accounts at any price. Millions of consumers now pay higher rates than wired networks for DATA which essentially is internet & ip newtwork access. In major metro areas.. they really don't have to because there are tons of wireless wifi spots they could use locally-- even for free VOIP over an android/ios tablet... even an unactivated smart phone with wifi capability-- and you have free 911 incase of a real emergency. There are more free hotspots than payphones around.. so if you can rollback your lifestyle to 15 years ago you can have free or dirt cheap data, internet AND voice calling without the cost of 15 years ago.


norbert26
Premium
join:2010-08-10
Warwick, RI
said by tmc8080:

said by DataRiker:

Of the Exaflood myth.

Verizon's wireless is catching up fast. Consumers seem addicted to keeping POSTPAID accounts at any price. Millions of consumers now pay higher rates than wired networks for DATA which essentially is internet & ip newtwork access. In major metro areas.. they really don't have to because there are tons of wireless wifi spots they could use locally-- even for free VOIP over an android/ios tablet... even an unactivated smart phone with wifi capability-- and you have free 911 incase of a real emergency. There are more free hotspots than payphones around.. so if you can rollback your lifestyle to 15 years ago you can have free or dirt cheap data, internet AND voice calling without the cost of 15 years ago.

Before i got my iPhone 4 with grandfathered Verizon unlimited Data i tried using an iPod Touch. The free hotspots were NOT dependable . Some of them required an agreement page to be checked which the iPod touch did not support. Other "hot spots" were simply locked and required a password. For further laughs a Dunkin Donuts had a sign in the window Free WIFI with just below it NO LOITERING !!!! In other cases i could log onto the "free WIFI" however it was so congested it was NOT usable. Needless to say the "free WIFI experiment" i conducted FAILED and it was onto the iPhone for me.
Expand your moderator at work

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·ooma
·Verizon FiOS
reply to norbert26

Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders

I can't really go more than a 1/2 mile in NYC without finding an open free wifi hotspot. Maybe things are different in Rhode Island. YMMV (your mileage may vary) caveats apply.

There's no reason why some muni wireless coudln't fill in the gaps (MICRO REGIONAL WIRELESS ISP'S) left behind by Verizon, for example in West Virginia! Why should Verizon or AT&T be the only ones to put predatory pricing in place for wireless without competition? These things will have to happen at the state level, since the federal government is only interested in being manipulated by 3 industries: war, banks and oil-- regardless of party. It's just that the republicans will sell out the country's national interests for less than democrats will (at least that's current perception).


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

so, Karl... when are you going to offer unlimited broadband

Wired or wireless is fine. I'll pay you $10/mo for it. Ready... GO!
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2
reply to jcremin

Re: Stop hd video or stop all video.

a perfect example of femto cell RF hell are appartment blocks. Take a look at how well Wifi works. 10's if not hundreds of AP's visible. Tons of interference. It simply doesn't work.


trparky
Android... get back here
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:4
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to BiggA

Re: there already is a problem

Verizon Wireless has more than enough capacity, especially in those areas already upgraded to LTE. I can pull down nearly 7 to 10 Mbps on my Droid Charge. Good enough for mobile Internet.

Can't wait to see what they'll be able to do with LTE-Advanced and the supposed frequency bonding tech.

Verizon has always been ahead of the game and have kept pace with network upgrades. AT&T on the other hand... completely useless.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Droid Charge TweakStock by dwitherell

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to elray

Re: Spectrum is finite

said by elray:

Just exacly how many HD-video-streaming connections do the enlightened folks here think a cell site can handle in a 12 Mhz block?

The most popular HD streams will be viewed by millions. Isn't it ironic that the pure greed of the CTIA and others suggests taking away the spectrum from an existing broadcast system that is far more efficient at handling popular HD content. BTW before someone says that only a small proportion of TV viewers use an antenna it should be pointed out the there is still a significant number of cable headends and satellite points of presence that also receive local TV stations over the air.


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·FirstLight Fiber
·Hollis Hosting
·G4 Communications

1 recommendation

reply to 59677028

Re: ipv4 vs 6

Could you explain how the conversion from IVv4 to IPv6 is a windfall for the US government.

Leaving wasted IPv4 addresses aside the 32-bit address field limits IPv4 to around 4 billion addresses. The worlds population is currently 7 billion. Most folks in the industrialized world now have more the one IP based device.

Should be obvious the address limitation of IPv4 is a severe problem.

/tom

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to jcremin

Re: Stop hd video or stop all video.

said by jcremin:

said by sonicmerlin:

Uh no, spectrum within a cell tower radius is finite. You can add as many cells as you want, and string up fiber to those cells as needed.

While that is true to an extent, most of the cell antennas are 200 to 400 feet above ground so one tower might overlap a dozen other towers over a 20 (or more) mile radius in terms of self-interference, even though the useful range to a cell phone might only be 5 miles. ends up much more limited than fewer tall towers.

Yes and the lower the frequency the greater the problem. There is significantly more self-interference at 700 MHZ than at 1.9 GHz and lower frequencies than 700 MHz are worse. The cell companies really need government agencies (the worst spectrum hoarders) to eventually give up underutilized spectrum between 1 and 2 GHz.

Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
reply to BiggA

Re: there already is a problem

said by BiggA:

We are already running short on spectrum. Yes, LTE will help, but it is more reactive than proactive at this point, as a lot of urban networks are already over-saturated.

Even if that is true the spectrum below 700 MHz is the worst spectrum (due to self-interference) for crowded urban areas but that is the the spectrum the CTIA, lobbyists, and many politicians are calling "beachfront". If there really is a spectrum problem then most of the new cellular spectrum should come from above 1 but under 2 GHz.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
You need building penetration.

Also, trparky, it depends on the area. AT&T in NYC is pretty bad. AT&T all over the Hartford-New Haven market is great. However, no one knows how Verizon's LTE will hold up when the next 10 or 20 or 50 million customers go on it.


trparky
Android... get back here
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:4
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
Verizon is already talking about LTE-Advanced that will make their network even more capable of handling the future. Plus, going from LTE to LTE-Advanced isn't that expensive and complicated to do so. Some hardware vendors have said that all it would take is some minor changes to the base stations.

Verizon already has enough bandwidth going to each tower so they have that covered, it's then just a matter of upgrading some software at each cell site. Verizon is projecting that in 2013 that LTE-Advanced will be deployed and that most likely new phones will be available way before then to take advantage of future network upgrades.

LTE-Advanced is backwards compatible with LTE so even those with just LTE devices still have connectivity on LTE-Advanced towers.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Droid Charge TweakStock by dwitherell

djcrazy
Premium
join:2009-08-05
Minneapolis, MN
Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
reply to tmc8080

Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders

said by tmc8080:

....These things will have to happen at the state level, since the federal government is only interested in being manipulated by 3 industries: war, banks and oil-- regardless of party..

You forgot another big one. Hollywood with the likes of the MPAA, RIAA, etc. So make that 4.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to mix

Re: Dark Fiber

AT&T has to use scare tactics with little or no merit to advance their agenda. The facts are not on their side and they know it. AT&T never quite got over the monopoly entitlement mentality. They actually believe that they can do whatever they want if they simply say it loud enough and consistently enough. Oh and pay congress off.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to battleop

Re: Spectrum crunch: not a problem today, but eventually

said by battleop:

That can be done but equipment, towers, and engineers are not cheap.

Us customers are in fact giving these companies tons of money. In the old days companies use to take profit and reinvest it to grow the company. Today that seems to be a dirty word.

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
reply to trparky

Re: there already is a problem

Even with LTE-advanced, no one knows how the network will hold up. The data consumption just keeps going up and up and up... Probably better than EVDO, but still... even with LTE, all the carriers are going to have to add a ton of sites, as well as DAS systems, to keep up with capacity demand.


trparky
Android... get back here
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:4
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
Data growth isn't going up as fast as some people would like you to believe. The whole Exabyte Boogieman was scare tactics to make you think that your usage needs to be capped.

There was an article that was posted on this very site's front page that said that even with modest network upgrades there would be enough capacity to go around.
--
Tom
Boycott AT&T uVerse! | Tom's Android Blog | Droid Charge TweakStock by dwitherell

BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH
They are growing massively. The numbers don't lie. Unless growth is going to magically just stop tomorrow? I think a lot of the numbers actually underestimate it, as audio streaming is catching on among smartphone users, and that is an exponential jump above web, email, and pictures.


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
reply to N3OGH

Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders

said by N3OGH:

Given the national data backbone is upgradable by switching out the gear at either end of the fiber runs

That is an oversimplification.

Changing out even just the interface cards is really, really....REALLY expensive.

Say you are a service provider with 5 or 6 40G links between two cities. Your capacity has filled up because of stuff like over the top video and cloud access that you make no money on - you didn't get new customers and you don't have a new product line to generate revenue - but you still have to upgrade your backbone because you have to provide a consistent level of service so you decide to upgrade the links to a have 100G capacity...so 5 or 6 100G transponders at each end at around $100k and you just spent about $1.2 million!...

But wait, that's not all!...

Those runs are too long to not have ILAs or Regens and you have to upgrade their interfaces too....let's call it an even $5million at this point to make the math simple....and that's just one leg...if you are a backbone provider you probably have dozens of those to upgrade at the same time.

Great business to be in where you have to spend millions just to satisfy the existing revenue you are pulling in and there isn't any new money to pay for it.

I am not suggesting that caps or price increases are something I want as a user but to not recognize that their is a very real economic challenge to overcome here is naive and one sided


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to JohnInSJ

Re: so, Karl... when are you going to offer unlimited broadband

I used to pay 26 dollars for unlimited cable internet from COX.

Capacity is much cheaper today and much more plentiful yet now the price is 45+ dollars for the same connection with caps.

Nelson469

join:2009-11-20
Palmer, AK

Bandwidth Crisis? LOL

Sometime ago, I used to have DSL. It was speedy for what I was paying for and the location I was in (Alaska). I did a lot of online gaming and noticed I was running into serious lag and unable to connect to a server in Oregon.

I fired up Visual Route to see where the problem was and who's problem was it. The DSL provider was a cheap ass and had their POP (point of presence) in some little town in Connecticut, not in Seattle where it should have been. Next indicator of a low grade pipe was how the connection was bounced across the United States 2-3 times before reaching it's destination. A nice feature in VR is being able to poll a suspect router for ownership, point of contact phone number and email address. The POP router was owned by AT&T and I promptly contacted them for an explanation. It seemed my local provider was over selling their service and didn't bother to upgrade the pipe to keep up with demand. The local provider kept throwing the excuse of "we'll put a trouble ticket in". I called my local provider again to give them a chance to upgrade and got the same excuse. I told the local provider that I talked with their long haul data provider and told them they were bullsh*itting with the trouble ticket excuse. There was a long pause, then I told the local provider the next action would be a long letter and printouts of evidence to back up my claims to the public utilities commission. It took them a week to get this challenge rectified.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply to tschmidt

Re: ipv4 vs 6

Obvious? That depends. Unless all of those devices need to accept unsolicited inbound communications, PAT enables 192.168.1.1 to be used by billions of devices. In fact, I'll bet with most routers default setup using the 192.168 class-b, there are already many millions if not billions of devices completely unaware of the address crunch.

I'm certainly pro IPV6 and there are real challenges with IPV4 but I don't think multiplying the world's population by n devices is the best way to convince folks of why IPV6 is important.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply to bbeesley

Re: Comcast and ATT worst offenders

You do these things to keep customers and retain the margin you have. Just because an ISP has built a network doesn't mean they can just sit around and print money.

I wish I could convince my employer that since I've completed what I consider enough projects that they now owe me a liftetime salary.

If anyone has a job like this or runs a business like this, please enlighten me.

I was flipping channels the other night and paused on the Weather Channel (mainly because the reporter was someone who I find very attractive). It was a program about a new kind of "sand bag" that uses (I think) the same moisture absorbing stuff that's in feminine hygiene products and diapers. When they get wet, they expand to many times their former size. Hundreds of bags can quickly be deployed without any back-breaking labor. You can either wait for the rising water to expand the bags or take a garden hose and "activate" the bags. I was dumbfounded how simple the idea is and how effective it is to enable folks to easily buy, transport and RAPIDLY deploy flood barriers. Someone is pure genius.

They also showed large tubes much like the ones that corral oil on water except the tubes were filled with water. Instant dam.

These are examples of why we just can't sit on our rears and print money. Things change and it's natural to invest in your business to make sure it keeps pace with what your customers demand. Isn't this business 101?

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
reply to tmc8080
Try using WiFi at 80mph on an Interstate Highway, 60 mph on your local parkway, or even 40 mph on city streets. You cannot do it yet. That is one reason we pay extra for cellular data plans, so we can really get information on the go.