dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4562
share rss forum feed


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit
reply to nunya

Re: [HSI] Coax vs Fiber -- What's in the futre

said by nunya:


Wireless just doesn't have the capacity for true broadband.

Why? Because you say so?

I think your confusing max speed with capacity.

There is no way given today's wireless spectrum you could offload even a fraction of wired data to wireless.


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

No. I'm not confused at all. I have a pretty thorough understanding of the big picture.
Carriers today (remember the guys I said to "forget" in my first post?) use the spectrum in a very inefficient manor in order to utilize mobile client equipment nationwide.
Now we are talking fixed PTMP. The box on the side of someones house won't be traveling. That means that you can re-use that "chunk" of frequency in another site only a few miles away. EG, do more with less.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



cablegeek01

join:2003-05-13
USA
kudos:1

While more efficient use of the available spectrum is happening, I don't think it can compensate for the insane increase in bandwidth demand that has been trending over the last few years.
If it keeps going at this rate, 300Mbps won't even make people think twice in 3 years time.
Unless there are some new advances in OFDM/LDCP or similar modulation and FEC schemes, wireless will hit the proverbial brick wall, just like DSL is.


prairiesky

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

said by nunya:

The box on the side of someones house won't be traveling. That means that you can re-use that "chunk" of frequency in another site only a few miles away. EG, do more with less.

no, no it doesn't.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to cablegeek01

Given the prices I have seen for 100mb/s, and faster, I don't see a lot of people going there in the next decade; unless the economy turns around, or the price for the speed comes down to $20 per month.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
reply to prairiesky

Yes it does.



alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

No. I'm not confused at all. I have a pretty thorough understanding of the big picture.
Carriers today (remember the guys I said to "forget" in my first post?) use the spectrum in a very inefficient manor in order to utilize mobile client equipment nationwide.
Now we are talking fixed PTMP. The box on the side of someones house won't be traveling. That means that you can re-use that "chunk" of frequency in another site only a few miles away. EG, do more with less.

Okay, this is what I envision for the future, and you guys decide the Pipe into our homes. Providers like TWC, Red Box, Netflix, Amazon, and the like. Will have massive Servers and store Movies, Games, Software, and Data. The most recent Movies will be in 4k, then 8k, and 16k and who knows. Movie Theaters, Homes, and Business will be able to access Stream or Download this Data. So what Pipe has the biggest reliable consistent Bandwidth? The answer could only be Fiber! For today's Average Person that only uses their iPhone or iPad, Wireless seems sufficient, but for the Home Theater of Today and the Future, Fiber is the only way to go!

prairiesky

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

care to explain how? The micro cell tech only works so far. IE, look at an apartment block with wifi.

Don't worry, you can use big words and complex arguments. I understand the wireless industry



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12

I already explained why. Pretty clearly.


prairiesky

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

ah, then you clearly don't understand wireless. if you do some more reading, you'll start to understand where the wireless model fails in comparison to other techs such as fiber.

Wireless clearly has the upper hand in mobility, but after that, it lags far behind.



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

Ahh. But I do have a very clear understanding of wireless. Trying to demean me adds no validity to your argument. You can sit here and post "black" to my "white" all day long just because you don't like me. That doesn't prove anything. As I already said a "wired" connection will be superior. I'm not arguing that wireless is better, I'm arguing that it's "good enough".
The problem with fiber, or more specifically FTTP is the lack of deployment.
FTTP is like teenage sex. Everyone is talking about it, but almost no one is actually doing it.
The MSOs and ILECs have made it very clear that they have no real desire to deploy fiber into the last mile. Both have differing reasons. The ILECs have made it clear - they are going wireless.
MSOs aren't going to bother because they have coax for the last mile. They are in the cat-bird-seat for the next 5-10 years.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

I don't understand your reasoning.

So you think people will start using less? Wireless doesn't even meet a fraction of the bandwidth used TODAY, let alone tomorrow.



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

No they won't. And you know that. And saying "Wireless doesn't even meet a fraction of the bandwidth used TODAY" is absolutely ridiculous. Of course it does.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to DataRiker

said by DataRiker:

I don't understand your reasoning.

So you think people will start using less? Wireless doesn't even meet a fraction of the bandwidth used TODAY, let alone tomorrow.

All Nunya is saying, is that the Average Person could care less or doesn't even know what's Bandwidth. That's why Verizon stopped deployment of their FiOS, no one was buying it and when they did the bottom tier was plenty. Here in my Community of 5000 Homes, Verizon installed FiOS 5 years ago and we don't even have 25% Penetration. The Average Person believes Wireless is the Future, clean, out of site, and it runs their Laptops, iPhones, and iPads. So what else is needed, not much, the Average Person is happy. The only problem I see, is when more Bandwidth is needed and wanted it might be too late. So the Average Person will be scrambling around and blaming everyone. Bottom line don't be Average, stick to your guns and stay with Fiber.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

And saying "Wireless doesn't even meet a fraction of the bandwidth used TODAY" is absolutely ridiculous. Of course it does.

It's a matter of simple physics. Transmitting over the air is extremely inefficient.

Largely due to the fact that you can't transmit large amounts of similar frequencies near each other, combined with the small amount available and you have a failure in the making.

Saying that you can replace existing usage with cellular is simply fantasy. It would immediately fail.


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

Transmitting over the air is extremely efficient compared to placing new OSP.
Transmitting in "small cells" allows you to decrease the power and re-use spectrum at closer intervals without interference.
The "spectrum crunch" is a big lie: »www.fool.com/investing/general/2···lie.aspx
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


prairiesky

join:2008-12-08
canada
kudos:2

I in no way insulted you, mearly suggested that your understanding of the situation isn't quite there. That's okay, we can help out.

and like i've said, that only works so far. A prime example of that are cell site in large urban centers. They are maxing out the densities.

As you're probably aware, cable net is expanding it's bandwidth by bonding or adding more channels. The same thing is used by the wireless gear. The channel that the wireless gear uses gets larger. For example to get wifi to "300 mbps" you need 40 or even 80 mhz channel widths. Now as I've mentioned before, you need to maintain a certain SNR ratio. That implies that the circles as shown in your article have to be a certain size (due to receivers abilities to "hear" down to certain noise level). Now as you get higher modulation rates (ie data through everytime the radio talks) you need a higher SNR. This means either a quieter noise floor or a louder radio. Both which imply the circles CANNOT overlap each other. Now with the increase bandwidth (mhz) each radio is using, and your number of channels in a certain range (900-2100mhz), is limited. Combine that with the fact the the lower range can't transmit as much data simply because of the frequency, and you can now see why there actually is a bandwidth limitation. There is a limited amount of spectrum that can be used and reused. Once it's full, it's full.

Does that help?



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting

No. Because with fixed wireless and lower wattage radios, you can still re-use that bandwidth more frequently in any given vicinity. Also, there are a lot of common sense measures that are coming together. Just like the "use it or lose it" on oil wells, the same thing will have to be done with wireless (look at the IFTS/EBS scenario). Even ass hats like AT&T, NAB, and Verizon are on board with it because they don't want the expense of dealing with spectrum squatters. These are the groups who buy government policy.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



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

said by nunya:

Transmitting over the air is extremely efficient

Perhaps in an investor / slash / dole out tiny amounts of bandwidth sub type of way.

Mathematically, no.

prairiesky

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

Fixed wireless doesnt nessecarily have lower wattage radios. They have more directionalized antennae, meaning the antenna gain is higher meaning the power from the radio itself may be lower, but the physics still apply. Transmit power plus antenna 1 gain plus antenna 2 gain minus free space loss and other applicable losses (trees, etc) has to be a certain amount above the background noise or radio recieve sensativity. No matter how you slice it, there are real physical limits.



DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Generally the noise is a killer especially when you pack subs together.

Thats why fixed wireless works well in rural settings, but not nearly as well in cities.