  bbeesleyVIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5 | 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. | |
|
 | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 edit | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: not surprising By the time UVerse gets upgraded, cable will have upstream bonding turned on, and the arms race begins again. | |
|
| | | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: not surprising ???
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). | |
|
| | | | | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: not surprising 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). | |
|
| | | | | | |  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | Shaw is already offering cable at 250 megs down, 15 megs up. They freed up enough spectrum to do this by completing their analog migration and ending analog transmission.
Of course, they may be the only major cableco in North America to have done that. It cost them $100 million to do it (it took 16 months, starting in August 2011).
To put this in perspective, Shaw has 3.4 million customers in total, and 1.8 million cable internet subscribers. I don't believe they include their 900k satellite television subscribers in this total (they list Shaw Direct separately).
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org | |
|
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: not surprising $55 per customer doesn't sound too bad, when you consider that doing FTTN is a multiple of that. | |
|
| | bbeesleyVIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5 | said by brad: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. | |
|
| | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: not surprising said by bbeesley:said by brad: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. | |
|
| | | public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA | said by bbeesley:said by brad: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. | |
|
|  banditws6Shrinking Time and DistancePremium
join:2001-08-18
Frisco, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: not surprising 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! | |
|
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | | | decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: not surprising said by BF69: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 | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | bbeesleyVIP
join:2003-08-07
Richardson, TX
kudos:5 | Re: not surprising 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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| |
| | | LTE - Advanced is what they should of went with but then again they wouldn't be able to say they got congestion issues! lol | |
|
|  nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
 ·voip.ms
| 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. | |
|
| | public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA | Re: not surprising said by nunya: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.
Did you read any of the articles?
The fiber was funded by long term bonds, which private investors deemed worthy to buy.
The fiber is owned by a partnership, and any isp can offer any service to users in the city interested and willing to pay. | |
|
| | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | 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. | |
|
| | | | | nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8 | Re: not surprising There are many WISPs doing it right now with very limited spectrum (WIFI, no less).
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't. | |
|
| | | | | | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: not surprising said by nunya:There are many WISPs doing it right now with very limited spectrum (WIFI, no less).
Other than business class service can't say as I've been impressed with consumer grade WISP service, not my idea of doing it properly. | |
|
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | 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. | |
|
|
1 edit | 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. | |
|
| | nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8 | Re: not surprising 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. | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: not surprising said by nunya:Instead of deploying spectrum in huge wasteful swaths (typical of today's existing mobile providers), it's broken up into smaller cells.
So in other words deploy another last mile. Makes perfect sense.......
People don't understand that microcells require network attachments, power, and lease agreements. (along with all the maintenance, both physical and clerical)
So.......I guess one day you will explain how this is supposed to work right? | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Follow suit quote:
The end goal is to "extend (U-Verse) from 75 percent of the footprint to 99 percent of the footprint [and] we're going to be using LTE for some of that broadband
Now only if Verizon did the same with FiOS. Melt down the costly copper and get all their customers outve the 19th century. When they finally did this, and realized that long-term profits are a GOOD THING, they can even bleed out of their current geographic bounderies into non-VZ wireline areas.
Ah, its nice to dream. | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Follow suit You've heard of HomeFusion, right? | |
|
| | | | Re: Follow suit Yea, and? what | |
|
| | |  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22 | Re: Follow suit Expensive to say the least. Not practical for many folks without paying a fortune for the data. | |
|
| | | I still have no doubt Verizon will expand their FiOS eventually. But they are not going to do it before they feel they do not have a choice. | |
|
| | AT&T are copycats They just be copying Verizon's HOMEFUSION.
and i'm sure it would be outrageously priced (as if Verizon's wasn't already)..... | |
|
| | | Re: AT&T are copycats Actually ATT was the first wireless provider to roll out a fixed wireless solution. It was call project Angel in which you had a pizza sized box on your home for internet and phone. Your home phone also served as your wireless phone when you left your home area. | |
|
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL | To At&t and Verizon.. You people must nuts!! No way, I'm going to pay that much.
Get the price down to a one dollar per Gigabyte, only then will you have a product worth purchasing. | |
|
ssavoyPremium
join:2007-08-16
Dallas, PA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Wireless Pricing Fixed LTE should only be used as a dial-up or satellite replacement. I heard a Verizon sales rep at my local mall trying to talk someone into HomeFusion and I couldn't understand why. It's not a viable option for most people in suburban areas anyway. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Wireless Pricing said by ssavoy:Fixed LTE should only be used as a dial-up or satellite replacement. That's who the main competition will be. No one that has access to wired internet would take this over cable. | |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
·Comcast
| Doubt this will fly My guess is that the places where this will be most capable already have solid CableTV infrastructure. Thus, it won't be competitive. And the places where people would consider this (outside of major areas) won't have the cellular density or network bandwidth to support it being any better than what is already there.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Doubt this will fly you do realize Verizon has already been doing this for a year now. | |
|
| | | said by dnoyeB:My guess is that the places where this will be most capable already have solid CableTV infrastructure. Thus, it won't be competitive. And the places where people would consider this (outside of major areas) won't have the cellular density or network bandwidth to support it being any better than what is already there.
Between Sat and This people will chose the better option.. lets face it Sat isn't as reliable as it should be but not to say it hasn't gotten better in the last few years. LTE for those people would prob be better than sat (both of which has low caps anyways but surprisingly the caps are getting better slowly) Cable on the other hand wont go to rural areas unless theirs a certain amount of people their and if its profitable.. that is why you don't see Cable trying..
In any case I hate it just as much as the next person but hey LTE is a better option (SAT companies will lower because of it) | |
|
| | brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Re: Doubt this will fly They're going to have to try harder and not saying they can't. Sat service is better than what they're currently offering for LTE based on cap and price. | |
|
Tobester
join:2000-11-14
San Francisco, CA |  Wireless Bandwidth question
is there enough wireless bandwidth available to meet the demand? | |
|
| | | Re: Wireless Bandwidth question I don't think there's enough backbone bandwidth to accommodate what they want. They don't care about oversubscribing the system though. The telco's want to abandon their copper infrastructure for obvious reasons but don't want to pay the money to upgrade the entire footprint to fiber. If everything was fiber based, their maintenance costs would be significantly lower and they could have a network capable of so much more. But today it's all about making money for their investors and they don't want to invest ANYTHING into their network that doesn't have huge profit margins | |
|
| | Really This is a cruel joke right ??? | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The Caps make it rediculous $60 a month for 10 GB on the primary home connection. What a joke.
I guess the future for most of the United States is to be a complete third world country when it comes to Internet with luxury pricing. As long as short term profits and $$$ run the country this is the way it will be forever.
Of course, the collapse caused by the love of money will come far sooner, however.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| slippery slope use wireless as the mode of transport and AT&T will figure out ways to price gouge for the service.. the only way to keep their commitment is to force them to deploy fiber to the premise or give up bell south for renegging on their commitments in the merger. given the state of the economy I'm sure they'd just throw overboard the entire southern footprint than spend the money.. however, the main downside of that is they'd be forced to divest all of cingular.. putting up a major roadblock to competing with verizon wireless... boo hoo, let me break out the violins. | |
|
| | ping? Does anyone know what's the average latency on LTE network? | |
|
| | HOMEFUSION warning Just to let you know I have the Homefusion service and its great when it works and horrible when it doesn't. The problem is it seems to be plagued by constant disconnects for some amount of users (me including).
Check out this post on Verizon's own forums for some more info:
»community.verizonwireless.com/message/900324
Bottom line is its not ready for prime time and I would caution anybody from getting hooked up with a 2 year contract and getting stuck in a beta test you pay for. To make it even worse, unless you pay for the insurance plan you also have to pay $150 for anytime they have to come out and "fix" it.
So Karl, any interest in digging into this and posting some findings to see if this a story or not? | |
|
|
|
·
