dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-04-30 08:33:51: With the launch of six new markets last week (Flint, Michigan, Kokomo, Indiana, Morgantown, West Virginia, Petersburg, Virginia, Shelbyville, Kentucky and Springfield, Missouri), AT&T says that the company now offers faster LTE service in a total of .. ..


Gilitar
join:2012-02-01
Mobile, AL

Gilitar

Member

That's great....

Now how about spending a few dollars on the wired side and upgrading the fiber to the curb systems left over from Bellsouth.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium Member
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA

Mizzat

Premium Member

Why would you when LTE has the capability to do over 500 Mbps? Aggregate your capacity to smaller areas (like cable does), but cheaper to deploy to the last mile. Work on latency and capacity, and there isn't even a reason to do wireline anymore.

It's all about spectrum at this point.

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight

Member

~500 Theoretical Mbps over wireless...
or
~1000 Real-world Mbps over fiber...

decisions, decisions...

(You're not wrong, but practicality is a factor too).

trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH

trparky to Gilitar

Premium Member

to Gilitar
Ain't going to happen. Haven't you heard? AT&T is a wireless company. They are focusing on wireless and basically to hell with wireline.
kshusker
join:2009-10-12

kshusker

Member

Shelbyville AND Springfield?!

THat's great, but what about North Haverbrook??

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet to PapaMidnight

MVM

to PapaMidnight

Re: That's great....

said by PapaMidnight:

~500 Theoretical Mbps over wireless...
or
~1000 Real-world Mbps over fiber...

decisions, decisions...

(You're not wrong, but practicality is a factor too).

then lets take into considerations the cost per port to deliver 1000mbps to every customer on the loop.

q.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to kshusker

Member

to kshusker

Re: Shelbyville AND Springfield?!

Does that mean Bart Simpson has LTE

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

PapaMidnight to tubbynet

Member

to tubbynet

Re: That's great....

Likewise, let's take into consideration the equipment cost to manufacture, produce, and power equipment capable of broadcasting at 500Mbps with enough power capable of providing to all persons in a regional service area; and then make sure that the signal penetrates buildings far enough to provide service - then top it off with as low latency as technologically possible while attempting to mitigate as much packet loss as possible (as it is wireless).

Again, practicality.
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103

Member

Lets see...

FTTN/VDSL (current AT&T tech) - doesn't deliver +100Mbps/node, but can use existing tech for short range (few of blocks). Low cost to upgrade from POTS. Maintenance costs can eat up profits. Upgrades (VDSL, CPE) can cost. Only feasible in Urban/Suburban markets. Not all users are 'equal'

FTTH - Installation isn't cheap. Feasible in urban and some suburban markets. Relatively low maintenance costs (compared to FTTN/VDSL).

Wireless - Range = good, Deployment methods = good/relatively quick. Cost = mostly on spectrum licensing. Current bandwidth = limited. 2.6GHz may be needed for 'fixed wireless'. Low cost of maintenance compared to FTTN/FTTH. Wireless barriers cause users in no-man's land to not have decent service.

VDSL biggest downfall = EOL technology (POTS lines)
FTTH biggest downfall = Cost of deployment
Wireless biggest downfall = capacity
Acarney
join:2003-01-27
Richland, WA

Acarney to tubbynet

Member

to tubbynet
Anytime they do run new fiber they should install small cells along the way and leech some of the fiber capacity to roll LTE out at the same time. It wouldn't be ideal big capacity locations but you might be able to take a huge strain off a few localized towers by instead connecting to a small cell that just handles a few dozen users at once. Blazing fast speeds for those guys as well. Would consolidate the costs too if they're running above ground fiber & already have permits to install on poles...

thender
Screen tycoon
Premium Member
join:2009-01-01
Brooklyn, NY

thender to PapaMidnight

Premium Member

to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

with enough power capable of providing to all persons in a regional service area;

It doesn't have to cover everyone. It can cover most people, but advertise they cover everyone anyway. Or, advertise amazing coverage with an asterisk next to amazing that leads to font size 4 text on the bottom of the TV commercial saying "covers most people only."
said by PapaMidnight:

then top it off with as low latency as technologically possible while attempting to mitigate as much packet loss as possible (as it is wireless).

Wired internet provides benefits over wireless, such as superior latency - on average, and less chance for packet loss. However, as is evident with our current broadband options, people are used to being crapped on when it comes to latency. My time warner business class cable for $179/mo often has 250 ms ping times to Google that my Android phone could beat.

It costs a lot to provide "proper" service each way. Wireless is practical when you consider

a) The lack of competition

b) Low consumer expectations of broadband service

c) The ability to ADVERTISE a higher mbps number - which is what most people will care about.

It's not the RIGHT thing... but it is practical, when you consider the marketplace.

Mizzat
Will post for thumbs
Premium Member
join:2003-05-03
Atlanta, GA

Mizzat to PapaMidnight

Premium Member

to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

~500 Theoretical Mbps over wireless...
or
~1000 Real-world Mbps over fiber...

decisions, decisions...

(You're not wrong, but practicality is a factor too).

Hey, I agree, 1Gbps would be nice and wireless would be hard pressed to get the latency of fiber, but if we're talking about practicality, from the practicality of a business standpoint, wireless just makes more sense.

From a consumer view, I'd love to have a insanely fast connection for the very times I'd use it just at home, but having an Internet connection I can take anywhere sounds nice too. Currently my phone does faster speeds than my 6Mbps DSL, so I can open that up and I'm essentially paying for two connections. Once latency and speed come closer to wireline (for me the speed is already there, however the congestion is too), it makes sense to just nix wireline.

I can see cable/DSL being the POTS of today in the not too distant future.
Mizzat

Mizzat to PapaMidnight

Premium Member

to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:

Likewise, let's take into consideration the equipment cost to manufacture, produce, and power equipment capable of broadcasting at 500Mbps with enough power capable of providing to all persons in a regional service area; and then make sure that the signal penetrates buildings far enough to provide service - then top it off with as low latency as technologically possible while attempting to mitigate as much packet loss as possible (as it is wireless).

Again, practicality.

A lot easier than trenching or hanging fiber! The equipment to light all that stuff up isn't cheap!

tigerpaw509
join:2011-01-19

tigerpaw509 to en103

Member

to en103

Re: Shelbyville AND Springfield?!

Or are they claiming 3g with 4g like speeds as Lte ?

Crom
@comcast.net

Crom

Anon

Pointless

Come on guys. Even if AT&T can cover America 100% and then some, they are still going to impose caps at even high rates. Their rates/caps make home LTE internet unpractical as a land line alternative. 65 dollar monthly LTE caped at 10GB or DSL 3mb/s caped at 150GB? What's your flavor of pain?

tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
MVM
join:2008-01-16
Gilbert, AZ

tubbynet to PapaMidnight

MVM

to PapaMidnight

Re: That's great....

said by PapaMidnight:

Likewise, let's take into consideration the equipment cost to manufacture, produce, and power equipment capable of broadcasting at 500Mbps with enough

sooo -- cell towers with new equipment?

yes -- there is a finite throughput in each cell spectrum -- but you can't compare a theoretical max on a cell tower to something that the isp will never provide from a cable end of things.

i'm not saying my comparison was 100% realistic -- but lets look at it this way (at least from what i see).

my $54.99 cable service is just as fast as my lte service from att (in the phoenix area).
excluding the caps -- they provide the same service. from this perspective -- it only makes sense to do wireless.

q.

RR Conductor
Ridin' the rails
Premium Member
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
ARRIS SB6183
Netgear R7000

RR Conductor

Premium Member

Waiting on AT&T LTE in Mendocino and Lake Counties, CA.

Okay AT&T, push it north from Healdsburg into Mendocino and Lake Counties! We have LTE from Verizon, U.S. Cellular and Metro PCS now, we're just waiting on AT&T (HSPA and HSPA+ w/EB here), and of course T-Mobile (who is mostly EDGE here, with just a TINY bit of 3G/4G in Fort Bragg).