dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2361

Waimea
join:2010-06-30
Toronto, ON

Waimea

Member

With these LTE speeds is wired broadband obsolete?

Click for full size
Speeds measured now on the telus cell network, indoors.

It got me thinking whether indie isps can circumvent the locked and prohibitively expensive last mile buildout altogether and just go wireless.

The question remains if it would be cost effective or even technically feasible to build the backhaul necessary for any substantial number of customers.

Any thoughts?

GreenEnvy22
join:2011-08-04
St Catharines, ON

GreenEnvy22

Member

Backhaul isn't so much the issue, the airwaves just can only hold so much data in a set frequency. Wireless congestion will be an issue much faster than backhaul,

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck to Waimea

Member

to Waimea
if latency is of no concern than i suppose, but it's worse than wifi and wifi isn't enough for heavy usage.

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS to Waimea

Member

to Waimea
Not to mention the ubsurd data caps, even if frequencies could be better used to avoid congestion what good is 6 ~ 20GB caps.

Even Wind's unlimited caps out at 5 or 10GB and then you're throttled down to 256Kbps.

Waimea
join:2010-06-30
Toronto, ON

Waimea

Member

i may have used backhaul incorrectly here. I meant to say whatever infrastructure needed to provide the capacity to serve millions of former wired broadband users.

And setting aside wireless data caps (it remains to be determined whether it's not manufactured scarcity;) isn't data transported along the wire using essentially the same laws of physics as wireless. They both use some sort of frequency modulation via electromagnetic force essentially. The only difference is the medium. Photons for wireless, electrons for wired.

I think what stops us from doing that is just plain old business inertia and skittish capital.

Am I missing something here?
arahman56
join:2011-08-11
Etobicoke, ON

arahman56

Member

Wireless has a bunch of reliability issues (physical barriers, congestion, distance from towers) that wired internet doesn't have. Also, deploying wired internet, especially LTE, is pricier than deploying cable internet, especially fiber.

v6movement
@pppoe.ca

v6movement to Waimea

Anon

to Waimea
said by Waimea:

It got me thinking whether indie isps can circumvent the locked and prohibitively expensive last mile buildout altogether and just go wireless.

So they can deal with locked and considerably more prohibitively expensive wireless networks. That doesn't make any sense. That is a worse situation and provides inferior service.

Then there is the laughable caps. Not even a consideration.

How does it make any sense to pay easily double what I am paying now for a connection that is not even usable?

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to Waimea

MVM

to Waimea
Problems with LTE:

1) The spectrum is hideously expensive. We're talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions.

2) It's a shared medium. The reasons carriers have such tiny caps is because there isn't all that much throughput to go around, and it wouldn't take many people using it to replace wireline broadband to saturate the networks. Increasing tower density can let it scale almost infinitely, but the cost also increases exponentially.

It's unlikely that wireless will ever replace wireline broadband. You can fit far more bandwidth than the entire radio spectrum into a single fibre optic cable, and you can run as many fibre optic cables as you want. You've only got one radio spectrum to go around.

Unkle Bob
@videotron.ca

Unkle Bob

Anon

said by Guspaz:

1) The spectrum is hideously expensive. We're talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions.

Don't you worry, Bell hideously over-provisioned it's LTE capacity years ago and is sitting on lots of extra spectrum and backhaul that is doing nothing. Why do you think they were giving Mobile-TV away for practically nothing? Do you honestly think they are restrained in some way?

»www.lightreading.com/ana ··· d/712025

Don't worry yourself about the "billions of dollars" you are speaking of, and whatever other false thinking they have you believing.

v6movement
@pppoe.ca

v6movement

Anon

said by Unkle Bob :

Don't you worry, Bell hideously over-provisioned it's LTE capacity years ago and is sitting on lots of extra spectrum and backhaul that is doing nothing. Why do you think they were giving Mobile-TV away for practically nothing? Do you honestly think they are restrained in some way?

Still doesn't allow their LTE network to be used as a substitute for a wired broadband network. Being completely deluded doesn't change reality.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to Waimea

Member

to Waimea
said by Waimea:

The only difference is the medium. Photons for wireless, electrons for wired.

Available bandwidth, attenuation vs distance and noise floor are also drastically different.

On wireless, bandwidth is limited by the spectrum licenses you can get your hands on, absorption through air and obstacles, reflections, refraction and a dozen other factors. On fiber, coax or even twisted pairs, most of those factors are considerably less troublesome, more predictable and controllable.

Also keep in mind that LTE is a shared medium like cable. If neighborhoods are still having local congestion issues with Rogers using 24 channels (~960Mbps) per node, imagine what would happen if the majority of those subscribers were forced to switch to LTE which only goes up to 300Mbps.

vitesse
join:2002-12-17
Saint-Philippe, QC

vitesse to Waimea

Member

to Waimea
said by Waimea:

The only difference is the medium. Photons for wireless, electrons for wired.

Both medium use electron to deliver the information. FiberOptic cable do use photon.

From Band 0 to Band U fiberoptic have a bandwidth of 58ghz, put 10 fiber strand inside a cable and yo get 580ghz of capacity.

The entire spectrum really usable for radio communication is around 10ghz and it's include television, radio, plane, hamradio, police, wifi, cellular, etc, etc

So yes LTE have a finite capacity, far lower than by fiberoptic or wired cable. Frequency used by wireless tansmission are re-used for other purpose on a cable. on a cable you maybe able to use around 1ghz of bandwidth before it became terribly hard to send it cheap on a far distance. (Atenuation become a probleme as you go higher on a cable.)

MacGyver

join:2001-10-14
Vancouver, BC

MacGyver to Waimea

to Waimea
Speedtests like the one you posted are great marketing material for LTE. Are they like that 24/7? No.
HELLFIRE
MVM
join:2009-11-25

HELLFIRE to Waimea

MVM

to Waimea
said by Waimea:

With these LTE speeds is wired broadband obsolete?

With wired speeds pushing up to 40GBit / 100Gbit speeds? And Cat5e / 6 doing 1Gbit for, what, like the last decade? I don't think so...

Trick, as pointed out by other posters, is getting these speeds to endusers. Me personally, I subscribe to the saying "you want speed and reliability, go wired. you want convenience, go wireless."

My 00000010bits

Regards

Waimea
join:2010-06-30
Toronto, ON

3 edits

Waimea

Member

My point in this was to get a feel for how a wireless buildout from scratch for an indie ISP would compare to having to dig through the streets and wire homes that are currently only served by the incumbents' lines.

Ideally, the last mile infrastructure (paid for by generous governmental subsidies) should be a neutral entity like many places in Erurope. But that's never going to happen here.

So I thought why not ditch this entire wired business and focus on wireless. The current government already sets aside spectrum for new entrants and is actually more amenable to competition in this sector.

Independent ISPs like Teksavvy, Start, eBox etc already have peering and plenty of infrascture in place. How hard would it be for them to cooperate via CNOC to buy spectrum, build towers and then circumvent the wholesale wired business altogether.

I do recall that Bell & Telus doing the same to get their HSPA+ going about 5 or 6 years ago. They shared the capital risk for the buildout and have equal access to the towers.

Yes, wireless has its technical limitations, yes there are some significant costs, but compared to digging dirt and laying wires, let alone the fact that you just don't have access to the last mile at all, is it really that bad of an alternative?

Sarum
join:2015-01-21
Whitby, ON

Sarum to Waimea

Member

to Waimea
I was at a media seminar in Las Vegas in 2008 or so
one of the topics was TV/Internet etc.. and how the peak of Satellite had been reached and would be in decline. much the same as wired Home Phones have been in decline for years
an interesting part was the transition to cellular wireless cell sites over the next 10 to 15 years..
several talked on this subject, and foresaw wires eventually going the way of the dodo.. and a purely wireless network of TV, Internet was going to be mainstream..

i believe its coming, but not yet.. we have a few years to go before we see this.. maybe several.. but its eventually going to go that way

jmck
formerly 'shaded'
join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON

jmck

Member

a few years? yes wireless will be "fine" for the facebookers and those that simply don't consume any real content.

Waimea
join:2010-06-30
Toronto, ON

Waimea

Member

Click for full size
Click for full size
Couple more speed tests from today for those wondering if it was a fluke. That's faster than my home line at 45/4 with Teksavvy, albeit with a paltry 5Gb cap.

Sarum
join:2015-01-21
Whitby, ON

Sarum to jmck

Member

to jmck
said by jmck:

a few years? yes wireless will be "fine" for the facebookers and those that simply don't consume any real content.

ya i know.. but using their time frame.. 2018-2022 so a few years off..
they were very right so far.. 2008 satellite was at its highest ever recorded subscriber base.. since then it has plummeted..
this should be the norm for everyone with huge bandwidth.
cell sites are everywhere.. and can/will be used for all kinds of things

wires will be a thing of the past.. but not for another 10 plus years in my opinion
HELLFIRE
MVM
join:2009-11-25

HELLFIRE to Waimea

MVM

to Waimea
said by Waimea:

Yes, wireless has its limitations, yes there are some significant costs, but compared to digging dirt and laying wires, let alone the fact that you just don't have access to the last mile at all, is it really that impossible?

...know of anyone who's doing this outside of the established duopolies? Anyone?

*chirping crickets*

Thought not.

My sarcasm aside, the technical side you'll want to brush up on your RF physics or do your CWNA to see what kind of issues you're
going to run into trying to deploy this -- gawd, Fresnel zone and link budget drove me positively BONKERS!

The rest is the capital and the will...

My 00000010bits

Regards
lowping
join:2013-08-04

lowping to Waimea

Member

to Waimea
Not with these low CAPS.
Expand your moderator at work
58391701 (banned)
join:2014-06-30
New Westminster, BC
Actiontec T1200H
Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X
Netgear R7000

58391701 (banned) to Waimea

Member

to Waimea

Re: With these LTE speeds is wired broadband obsolete?

rogers LTE on iphone 6, the 115 is from gastown vancouver i believe the other test is from whistler village






spock8
join:2012-07-08

1 edit

spock8

Member

Have you guys actually seen how much data those speedtests use. I ran one speedtest it deducted 22megs from my 300meg plan in one test.

There is no way LTE will replace landline. What good is 100Mb/s on your cell when it will eat up your 300MB usage in 24 seconds if it ran flat out........

Ok lets say you have more money than me which is most likely 99% of everyone LOL and you had a 2 gig package. In less than 160 seconds you would have depleted your 2 Gig limit.

Waimea
join:2010-06-30
Toronto, ON

Waimea

Member

said by spock8:

... you had a 2 gig package...

My package is bigger than yours Spock!
.
.
.
.
.
I'll see myself out

sm5w2
Premium Member
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON

1 edit

sm5w2 to Waimea

Premium Member

to Waimea
I think what the OP is trying to get at is this:

We're talking about LTE as an alternative to the WIRED LAND LINE. Which means internet access to your stationary house, appartment, what-ever. So we're talking about setting up an antenna (nowhere near as obtrusive as a satellite antenna, but still something up there attached to your chimney) with a cable running down to where your current demarc is and then you go from there to an LTE modem.

Given these speeds - is LTE a viable way to supply homes with internet? Obviously we are not talking about pathetic caps here - because LTE-to-the-home has to compete with existing wired internet services.

And just to add:

I've always thought that beyond FTTN (given the current buildout bell has been doing in Ontario regarding the 7330 cabinets poping up everywhere) -> those cabinets would make a great place to locate LTE tranceivers to make wireless LTE connections to homes that either (a) want something faster than 50/10 (or what-ever is currently available) or (b) to homes that are too far away from even the closest 7330 cabinet to get ADSL2 speeds.

In other words - if your home isn't already wired for fiber, then let's be realistic - it ain't ever gonna be. So some form of wireless internet is probably in your future once FTTN becomes depreciated as "too slow".

pnjunction
Teksavvy Extreme
Premium Member
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON

pnjunction to Waimea

Premium Member

to Waimea
said by Waimea:

The only difference is the medium. Photons for wireless, electrons for wired.

Am I missing something here?

Yes, wireless signals interfere with each other limiting the reuse of the spectrum. Wires contain the electromagnetic propagation within them so that the entire spectrum can be reused in every wire (typically 1+ GHz is used in cable systems today) without paying for any license. In cable the wires are still shared among many users, but node-splitting is straightforward: split the one cable with X users into 2 cables with X/2 users, the wires are isolated and you are done.

With wireless it's a whole different game, you pay huge for 5-20 MHz chunks and you can't just cut all the air in half and reuse the same frequencies right next to each other, and techniques that challenge this limitation (directional phased antenna arrays) are much more complicated than just splitting a cable node.

tl;dr Wired cable has GHz of bandwidth on tap for every line that you run, wireless has a few MHz that you buy for billions and they are shared among everyone in an area.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to Waimea

MVM

to Waimea
Or put more simply:

Useful wireless spectrum available for everybody to share: ~3 GHz
Available spectrum in a bundle of 100 coax cables: ~100 GHz
Available spectrum in a bundle of 100 fibre cables: ~15,000,000 GHz

If you need more bandwidth, you can always run another cable. But everybody has to share the one wireless spectrum, there's only one of them.

sm5w2
Premium Member
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON

sm5w2

Premium Member

> Useful wireless spectrum available for everybody to share: ~3 GHz

Now imagine 3 ghz with an effective radius of 500 or 750 meters. Now pepper an urban area with circles of that radius, with a mini low-power LTE node at the center of each one.
prairiesky
join:2008-12-08
canada

prairiesky

Member

said by sm5w2:

> Useful wireless spectrum available for everybody to share: ~3 GHz

Now imagine 3 ghz with an effective radius of 500 or 750 meters. Now pepper an urban area with circles of that radius, with a mini low-power LTE node at the center of each one.

Doesn't quite work that way. The signals continue on after. This creates background noise requiring more signal. It's a balancing act.

You also have to feed those nodes most likely with cable anyways. So now there's very little left to go right to the home