dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1016
share rss forum feed


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

1 recommendation

not surprising

I predicted this a paper I wrote on wireless technologies for my Master's four years ago.

The cost of getting a drop to the home is one of the significant hurdles to any company wishing to deliver services.

Given the potential capabilities of LTE, there isn't any reason why you can't deliver multi-megabit services to the end user if investment in the development of the technology continues and there is little reason to believe it won't

That is why AT&T and Verizon capped their U-Verse and FIoS expansions, to focus on LTE. It gives them a real competitive ability against HFC without the need for expensive wholesale network expansions.

Add into this that we are becoming increasingly mobile with our data and entertainment and a technology like LTE - or whatever comes next - makes more sense than continuing to build fixed infrastructure to homes.

The future is one of high speeds, anywhere, anytime, on any device.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
Please. This is a really bad joke at best. LTE is not a real alternative to wireline services at all with those insane caps and ridiculous pricing. But even if they did offer something reasonable the performance of the network would go to shit once it is loaded down with that many users. This wouldn't even remotely compete with HFC, not even close.


banditws6
Shrinking Time and Distance
Premium
join:2001-08-18
Frisco, TX
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

The future is one of high speeds, anywhere, anytime, on any device.

I'd like to agree, but I'm sorry: at $60 for a 10 GB maximum per month, that future is a total non-starter.
--
"The counsel of fools is all the more dangerous the more of them there are." -Ólafr Höskuldsson

decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1
said by banditws6:

said by bbeesley:

The future is one of high speeds, anywhere, anytime, on any device.

I'd like to agree, but I'm sorry: at $60 for a 10 GB maximum per month, that future is a total non-starter.

I agree, someone with a degree or false degree made it look good on paper. But in reality with everything becoming data intensive 10 gigs is just a joke.. Specially with the $15 per gig over rape fee. Hell, my daughters Nabi2 constantly streams something when connected to the wifi... Its rediculas!

sides14

join:2007-11-29
Glendale, AZ
reply to bbeesley
I would have to disagree. There are existing easements in which providers can easily upgrade service to the home. Wireless coverage will improve, but what is the greatest hurdle in expanding wireless service? It isn't the shortage of spectrum, but it is the "not in my back yard" attitude regarding the construction of new cell sites. You cannot add a significant number of new wireless devices without decreasing the cell footprint and increasing cell sites. You can add all of the spectrum that you want, but higher cell density would be the only way that this can be successful.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to 34764170
The point isn't to compete with HFC though. UVerse proper can't e en do that right now. The point is to serve customers who don't have cable plant access.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by iansltx:

The point isn't to compete with HFC though. UVerse proper can't e en do that right now. The point is to serve customers who don't have cable plant access.

The person I was replying to specifically mentioned competing with HFC. U-Verse can't at the moment but with their upgrades it will be able to. I know what it is intended to do but it is still a complete joke.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to bbeesley
LTE to the home is a move made for purely profit.

First of all they can try to sell it to the public as a replacement for their aging dsl lines in areas they don't want to upgrade because they aren't profitable enough and they can stop maintaining the dsl lines.

Second for the few people who don't have access to cable they can make big profits over LTE with very low caps and overages.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
reply to 34764170
By the time UVerse gets upgraded, cable will have upstream bonding turned on, and the arms race begins again.


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

Please. This is a really bad joke at best. LTE is not a real alternative to wireline services at all with those insane caps and ridiculous pricing.

Caps and pricing have nothing to do with the capabilities of the technology

As the market continues to evolve and adoption and use increases, price will come down as it did with DSL and Cable.


bbeesley
VIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5
reply to sides14
said by sides14:

You cannot add a significant number of new wireless devices without decreasing the cell footprint and increasing cell sites.

This is being addressed by the increased use of micro, pico and femto-cells

we will continue to see more small cell deployments as a mechanism to fill in the gaps


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to decifal
said by decifal:

said by banditws6:

said by bbeesley:

The future is one of high speeds, anywhere, anytime, on any device.

I'd like to agree, but I'm sorry: at $60 for a 10 GB maximum per month, that future is a total non-starter.

I agree, someone with a degree or false degree made it look good on paper. But in reality with everything becoming data intensive 10 gigs is just a joke.. Specially with the $15 per gig over rape fee. Hell, my daughters Nabi2 constantly streams something when connected to the wifi... Its rediculas!

Actually it's $10 per GB overage with HomeFusion. At least get your facts correct.

sides14

join:2007-11-29
Glendale, AZ
reply to bbeesley
Correct, but they they still need backhaul. Even if it is a femto, it still requires residential broadband to support. How many customers are going to want to use their broadband connection with enforced caps when the usage still goes against the subscribers allowable wireless usage. Not many.

Cobra11M

join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX
reply to bbeesley
LTE - Advanced is what they should of went with but then again they wouldn't be able to say they got congestion issues! lol

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:

By the time UVerse gets upgraded, cable will have upstream bonding turned on, and the arms race begins again.

Cable with upstream channel bonding isn't really competing on the upstream side.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

said by 34764170:

Please. This is a really bad joke at best. LTE is not a real alternative to wireline services at all with those insane caps and ridiculous pricing.

Caps and pricing have nothing to do with the capabilities of the technology

As the market continues to evolve and adoption and use increases, price will come down as it did with DSL and Cable.

I never said it did. That is pretty obvious.

But no one is going to take it seriously with the caps and rates they're trying to push these services with.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to 34764170
???

The standard cable service with no channel bonding on the upstream side is 5 Mbps up (top end) at this point. With US channel bonding (e.g. Comcast) the number goes up to around 20 Mbps.

Now if you're saying "isn't really competing on the DOWNSTREAM" side, I'd agree. However let me know when AT&T offers 100 Mbps to a sizable population on U-Verse. I predict that cable will offer 150 Mbps at that point (8 downstream channels bonded).


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to bbeesley
You are absolutely correct. The cost of owning and maintaining OSP is a major factor in the telecom industry.
Everybody thought FTTP or FTTN would be the "panacea" of broadband.
It's looking more and more like wireless will be the eventual king. FTTT (fiber to the tower) will be the nom du jour. Cable will have it's "golden days" for the next 5-10 years (if that). Cable companies without a wireless infrastructure will vaporize.

When you try to explain this to people, they incorrectly presume you are insinuating that wireless is better than wired. We all know that simply isn't true and probably will never be true. Wired networks will still have their place.
Nobody is saying wireless is better. What is being said is that wireless can do the job - cheaper. And to clarify "cheaper", cheaper to the operator, and not necessarily the consumer. Skipping the "last mile" is a major revenue savings.

The youth of today have been raised on wireless. They are willing to accept it's shortcomings. The days of Ma Bell's "five nines" expectations are long gone.

Also, wireless doesn't necessarily have to be cellular operators as we know them today. I fully believe that "better" wireless operators will eventually move in to compete.

"Micro managing" spectrum, rather than trying to smear it nationwide, will mean the same spectrum can be "re-used" over, and over, and over...
There is not, and probably will never be, a spectrum crunch.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:

???

The standard cable service with no channel bonding on the upstream side is 5 Mbps up (top end) at this point. With US channel bonding (e.g. Comcast) the number goes up to around 20 Mbps.

Now if you're saying "isn't really competing on the DOWNSTREAM" side, I'd agree. However let me know when AT&T offers 100 Mbps to a sizable population on U-Verse. I predict that cable will offer 150 Mbps at that point (8 downstream channels bonded).

No, I said upstream. VDSL2 has cable beat on the upstream side. Cable can "offer" 150 Mbps but then only do so to a very tiny portion of the users on each node otherwise its congestion city. Cable cannot offer those speeds to a sizeable portion of their user base.

decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

Actually it's $10 per GB overage with HomeFusion. At least get your facts correct.

Pathetic BF69.. Everyone use's the $15 overages for cells, and with ATT being a different company they might go with the 15 for their fixed lte just to be slightly different..

The whole sentence analyzing crap doesn't fix the fact that the caps are low and the overages are overly exaggerated..

Surely you can come up with something better to say than that $h!T

public

join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

The cost of owning and maintaining OSP is a major factor in the telecom industry.
Everybody thought FTTP or FTTN would be the "panacea" of broadband.

And it is. Wireless does not have enough bandwidth to be a primary access medium.
Just look at industrial cities with 100M/10M service for $50 and that includes voice and streaming TV.
Funded by bonds, not by ATT like crooks.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

It's looking more and more like wireless will be the eventual king.

Nobody is saying wireless is better. What is being said is that wireless can do the job - cheaper. And to clarify "cheaper", cheaper to the operator, and not necessarily the consumer.

The youth of today have been raised on wireless. They are willing to accept it's shortcomings.

With the caps and rates it sure as hell won't be king any time soon or at all.

Exactly cheaper for the carrier so their profit margins go up even more but considerably more expensive for the consumer and a shittier offering.

The youth of today would have no interest in this service.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to public

And it is. Wireless does not have enough bandwidth to be a primary access medium.


On what grounds? Because you said so? Wireless certainly can meet the needs of most if deployed properly. You need to re-read my post from start to finish before quoting snippets.

Municipalities running BB networks is an absolute joke. I can't think of one that has been successful. The private sector always does it better.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to 34764170
Last I checked, upstream on VDSL2 is VERY distance-sensitive, more so than cable. CenturyLink, who is the only large provider that offers uploads of more than 5 Mbps over DSL in the US, has 20 Mbps up (the same as Comcast), but only offers it 1500 feet or less from the VRAD. Most customers can't get that kind of speed. Heck, many customers can't even get their 5 Mbps up VDSL2 tier. Sure, bonding two 40x20 tiers would get you 80x40, however you can push 40 Mbps up on HFC via current 8x4 modems without issue, assuming the proper plant improvements have been made...and you can do it anywhere on the plant rather than a short distance from the node.

As for congestion on higher tiers, the advantage with DSL is mitigated by the fact that 'net usage is still relatively bursty by nature, particularly above 5 Mbps (you could argue 12 Mbps, with Netflix's new offerings, but it's still far below 100 Mbps). Dedicated infrastructure is cool and all, but if you have eight downstream channels available on a HFC system, you're talking about 300 Mbps of downstream capacity, and when you run the numbers, it's hard to get enough people on a 100-subscriber node pulling bandwidth at the same time to ensure that even a 150 Mbps customer won't get their full share.

Also, you're just moving the bottleneck inward on the network when you use DSL instead of HFC. Last I checked, VRADs run on gigabit uplinks. If you're serving 3x more customers from a VRAD than your competitor is serving from a cable mode, you're going to need 3x the peak capacity, all else equal (it ends up being less than this due to the fact that people still don't use their connections much, but I digress).

You may be speaking from your experience with overloaded cable networks with no upstream bonding, competing with Bell VDSL that has 7 Mbps uploads. The situation is a bit different in the US; DSL providers come up woefully short compared to cable companies when it comes to serving subscribers in a consistent manner (speed-wise).

public

join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

Municipalities running BB networks is an absolute joke. I can't think of one that has been successful. The private sector always does it better.

Yes, and on your planet ATT is the living proof.
Really sad...
Pull your head out of your behind, and look around. You will be amazed.
»amsterdamsmartcity.com/partners/···abel/KPN

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010···s-fiber/

»Amsterdam Tests Residential 1Gbps Fiber

public

join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA
reply to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

said by 34764170:

Please. This is a really bad joke at best. LTE is not a real alternative to wireline services at all with those insane caps and ridiculous pricing.

Caps and pricing have nothing to do with the capabilities of the technology

As the market continues to evolve and adoption and use increases, price will come down as it did with DSL and Cable.

Yes just like WiMax, which was supposed to do all this already.
And the price of dsl and cable is really falling too..
Well maybe in your mind.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit
reply to bbeesley
said by bbeesley:

Given the potential capabilities of LTE, there isn't any reason why you can't deliver multi-megabit services to the end user if investment in the development of the technology continues and there is little reason to believe it won't

Perhaps you should have spent some time in the physics lab...

The inherent problem with wireless is that what ever part of spectrum your neighbors are using is gone for your own use.

Cell phones, with their usage and movement patterns, are one thing, but trying to deploy fixed wireless on even an intermediate level is a disaster.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to public
Uh - What crack are you smoking? IMO, AT&T is a horrid company. Their customer service is abominable. Their wireless service is crazy overpriced. U-Verse is a total joke. They've made one bad decision after another for the last 15 years (going back to SBC days).

Speaking of jokes, let's talk about Amsterdam. It's not the wild and crazy success you allege. It's totally propped up by taxpayer dollars.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
reply to DataRiker
Instead of deploying spectrum in huge wasteful swaths (typical of today's existing mobile providers), it's broken up into smaller cells.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

Wireless certainly can meet the needs of most if deployed properly.

But theory doesn't do any good in the real world. No one does it properly.