Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | reply to iansltx
Re: Here's the thing 5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. The FCC will NEVER adopt what Free Press wants. |
|
|
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Which makes it odd that cable is opposing it. The ads practically write themselves (assuming they'd be willing to offer something like 12/5 instead of 12/2 as their flagship service)
--
"Religion allows people who would otherwise be arguing about whether the Death Star could beat a Borg Cube to have a place of respect within society." |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to Romney2012
WImax can do like 5-7 up »www.howardforums.com/showthread.···=1&pp=15
and like 16 down.
»www.howardforums.com/showthread.···=5&pp=15 |
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | generally this would only be used for fixed wimax (if at all). the reason speeds are being offered like that is because people are slow on the uptake for the product. its just left over spectral bandwidth. once those channels become congested, you won't see those speeds.
why do you think that most of the wimax companies have defined "typical" and "peak" bandwidths?
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Yeah but it can do them, it may only be 3 or so m when everyone gets one is, but when everyone is not something close to like 5-ish may be possible. Plus there is a reason the ISPs say "up to". |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by me1212:Yeah but it can do them, it may only be 3 or so m when everyone gets one is, but when everyone is not something close to like 5-ish may be possible. Plus there is a reason the ISPs say "up to". its all about cya.
additionally, wimax has yet to prove itself if it will be the panacea for our bandwidth needs. sure, they've deployed in 14 markets (with the additional "go-lives" today), but most have been in urban or slightly suburban markets (wichita falls, tx i believe has a population of ~100k). the issue with wimax (or any wireless protocol) is that you have to have the adequate backhaul to support your user base. in the rural locales, this means running t1s to the pop or (in rare instances if there is a fiber ring around) tapping the existing fiber plant and running a ds3 or something similar. a lot of the urban markets have the ability for microwave backhaul - but in rural, mountainous areas (such as where i grew up), there are only one or two paths for microwave backhauls and most of them are pretty used up.
as much as anyone wants to say that wimax/lte will solve the nation's bandwidth problem in the last mile, i am incredibly skeptical. you can provide the spectrum to the user over that last "wireless mile", but can you effectively manage the demand and oversubscription ratios to effectively plan for the backhaul?
long story short, i'm less than confident....
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to Romney2012
Some wireless can do 5 Mbps up...it's just a bit spendy. Nothing compared with fiber though. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to tubbynet
Even 8xT1s aren't going to give you enough bandwidth to run a high-quality WiMAX setup. You either need fiber or wireless backhauls. Which won't be practical for awhile in some situations, which in turn means that we won't see WiMAX from Clear in those locations.
WiMAX isn't a panacea but as a consumer electronics "4G" solution and as a fixed solution in markets that are a notch above out-in-the-sticks rural, it's promising. |
|
| reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. Hi, I'm VDSL. Nice to meet you. |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:Even 8xT1s aren't going to give you enough bandwidth to run a high-quality WiMAX setup. You either need fiber or wireless backhauls. Which won't be practical for awhile in some situations, which in turn means that we won't see WiMAX from Clear in those locations. WiMAX isn't a panacea but as a consumer electronics "4G" solution and as a fixed solution in markets that are a notch above out-in-the-sticks rural, it's promising. it helps. there is no doubt. but then you run into the issue of who is going to deploy this?
if you need a high speed quality backhaul, who is going to give it to you at that price? the ilecs have indie-access pricing and because of the access-rules, a clec's price is going to include the markup that the ilec charges them.
as much as i absolutely hate SuperWISP  's constant shilling, i understand his plight. i feel that he is exaggerating numbers to make his situation seem worse than it really is, but there are some serious gaps in our broadband policies. we have allowed the ilecs to effectively dictate what will be installed where. sure, they have built out the network, but when you receive a gift of the last mile from the government, you are able to spend your incoming revenues in other places. indie providers don't have this luxury. as such, whether or not an ilec is deploying the next-gen technology, they still dictate what goes where.
even if you try to use a well placed microwave downlink in a metro area into a carrier-neutral meet-me facility where the cost per megabit is marginal when you downlink the traffic, you still have to worry about the microwave backhaul getting it there. have you priced that gear lately? from there, you have the tower rental, microwave installation, and then spectrum licenses in each of the municipalities that you plan on running to. its cost prohibitive.
finally, if we leave out the "very rural" areas, who is going to be fixing them up?
i grew up in a *very* rural part of arizona in one of the poorest counties in the country (mostly because of the percentage of native american reservation within our county). frontier brought dsl there in 2001, but a full citywide deployment wasn't finalized until 2003. the highest speed you can get is 1/128 over copper that is mostly 40-60 years old. without a serious push and revamp, these areas will continue to be left behind.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Remember, cablecos are rooting for Clear. So they'll help with Clear bandwidth.
Also, SuperWISP isn't exaggerating as far as I can tell. Things get expensive when you're buying bandwidth from the only game in town.
Lastly, if you can get 3G in an area, you can get 4G in that area. Just takes a bit of doing... |
|
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ | said by iansltx:Remember, cablecos are rooting for Clear. So they'll help with Clear bandwidth. only if you are in a market served by timewarner, comcast, or brighthouse. additionally, there are some locations within the footprint that *aren't* served by those providers. my office is one. smack dab in the middle of a cox neighborhood. all we could get is a set of t1s from qwest. granted, the msos could front the connectivity and wire the premise up, but thats a large cost.
is this to say that you will only find clear in an area where those companies are located? takes out a rather large chunk of the country.
Also, SuperWISP isn't exaggerating as far as I can tell. Things get expensive when you're buying bandwidth from the only game in town.
i'm not doubting the cost of what he is purchasing. this is why i am for reforming some of our carrier access laws and would like to see some investigation into wholesale pricing of bandwidth outside of metro areas. i do think that he is stretching the truth when it comes to customer pricing, as any good isp will know how to effectively estimate and manage oversubscription ratios in the customer base. some of his posts are a little sensationalistic, in my opinion. however, that is neither here nor there.
Lastly, if you can get 3G in an area, you can get 4G in that area. Just takes a bit of doing...
i find that to be a stretch. as i said, i grew up in a very rural area. vzw and sprint both have a (marginal) 3g signal in that location. however, i know where the towers are that they are broadcasting from, and you *aren't* getting fiber there without a hell of a cost. if you want to backhaul it over microwave, you've got to forge a new path and then pay for the gear. again, 4g has to be effectively fed with bandwidth for it to really be 4g. otherwise, its 3g under a different name and more false promises.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| About the coverage deal, I think that cablecos would be more friendly to Clear than to, say, Verizon or AT&T's LTE backhaul projects. But you're right...the fact that Clear is already is in a lot of Suddenlink markets is an interesting one.
Also, since we're talking about wireless here Clear can put a tower within a cableco's coverage area, or on one within their coverage area, and serve places that can't get cable. |
|
| WTH is this? A reasonable, rational conversation with sensationalistic partisan pandering and angry retorts?
This is not allowed!
Heh. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to Corydon
said by Corydon:Which makes it odd that cable is opposing it. The ads practically write themselves (assuming they'd be willing to offer something like 12/5 instead of 12/2 as their flagship service) If you check the specs again, even if they offer 12/5 they do not meet the specs. The specs are 5/5 to EACH CUSTOMER 24/7. IOW: You can only have 5 customers per cable node since the specs are asking for DEDICATED Bandwidth and a DOCSIS 2 modem can only handle 5 Full-Speed users per node at 7/5 (the cap is 38/27). |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Romney2012
I noticed that a lot of places don't call it broadband--- they say "High Speed Internet Service" etc
Personally, I'd love symmetrical 5/5. I don't see it happening.
I do think though that we should push for more upstream. I'm thinking 1.5/1.5 and up would be a decent standard to set.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| reply to Romney2012
said by Romney2012:5 mbps upstream would make DSL and all wireless unable to be called broadband. So be it. If they can't deliver the defined speed, then they shouldn't be allowed to call it broadband. Just call it internet connection and let it be what it is. However, that does not mean we should define it so that we can say we are x% broadband covered.
I like the definition the telco's came up with over a decade ago. 45 symmetrical with the ability to carry high quality two way video communications. Let's keep that as the standard to define broadband and come up with a new definition for anything less. Like maybe mediocreband or duopolyband or extortionband. |
|
