  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | *COUGH*caps*COUGH* what's the point? | |
|
 | | | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* Unless you are steaming movies or music all day long over their network (not wifi), why is 5GB not enough? It's not meant to be a replacement for wireline broadband. | |
|
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* with caps like this in place yea of course it isn't meant to replace it. but why couldn't it replace it? | |
|
| | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* Lack of infrastructure and capacity to support landline replacement? | |
|
| | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* Smaller cell sizes could help with that. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* The capacity piece probably, but that increases the infrastructure piece. | |
|
| | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* Yeah, so? | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* So, I identified two things that likely prevent wireless networks from replacing wired connections. You suggested smaller cells are the answer, to which I responded that strategy helps one of the two limiting factors, but actually worsens the other. | |
|
| | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* If you have a dense network of cell sites, there's less distance between each one. Which means that higher-bandwidth backhauls can be used over wireless (you can do gigabit pencil-beam links over wireless these days). Sure, more sites cost more than less, but adding capacity this way has decreasing marginal costs on multiple fronts. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* said by iansltx:If you have a dense network of cell sites, there's less distance between each one. Which means that higher-bandwidth backhauls can be used over wireless (you can do gigabit pencil-beam links over wireless these days). Sure, more sites cost more than less, but adding capacity this way has decreasing marginal costs on multiple fronts.
Denser sites also increase interference, so you have to decrease signal strength, which then decreases penetration ... there is no silver bullet.
It's not the backhaul that is (rather, will be) the problem, it's the amount of spectrum that is allocated to each cell site. You can't have two cell sites sitting beside each other broadcasting on the same frequency. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* Highly directional antennas (6x60 degree clusters on each site) can help in alleviating this issue. Also, if you've got dense cell coverage anyway it doesn't matter much if you've got a signal at -60 dbm from a site a mile away or 500 yards away, even if you end up at -75 dbm after going through an obstruction. The nice thing about 700MHz (where both AT&T and Verizon are deploying LTE for the moment) is that obstructions aren't as much of an issue...you increase/decrease cell site power to balance service radius and capacity without having to worry as much about obstructions within that radius.
Plus, AT&T HAS additional spectrum. They just don't want to use it because it is either already in use for 2G/3G (850MHz...they have 25MHz in many areas on that band...or 1900MHz where they may have 10-20 MHz) or because it doesn't have amazing propagation characteristics like 700 (AT&T's AWS holdings come to mind). | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | said by iansltx:If you have a dense network of cell sites, there's less distance between each one. That's great, but then you have cell-sites stepping on each other and creating a mess of the spectrum they paid a lot of money for.
And try convincing people that cell towers should be allowed every mile. Regardless of the cost it just isn't practical. And considering the cost to deploy super high-bandwidth services meant to replace landlines, the investment is probably much better put into deploying fiber. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* The capacity issues AT&T has with their network are in urban areas, where in-building cell sites work excellently. Add 20 feet of height to a five story building and you're at an optimum location for a cell site. You don't need a 200' tower to serve a city; smaller, shorter cell site locations also decrease the sites' ability to self-interfere with other sites farther away.
As for fiber, if it was cheap AT&T would be doing it. It isn't...and AT&T's wireless footprint goes beyond where they're an ILEC anyway. Compare the costs vs. revenues for fiber vs. wireless and you'll see why:
1. Wireless services are generally sold at one device (maybe more) per person. Prices vary but for an add-a-line plus a data plan you're looking at $35 per month minimum, with an actual ARPU of around $50. Compare this to a household-based fiber service; you've got a potential market size at-most one-third of what you'd get on the wireless side, even if you're able to deliver a higher ARPU.
2. Wireless requires bringing fiber (expensive) or wireless backhaul (expensive...$35k for a gigabit link) to a cell tower. FTTH requires bringing fiber to...you guessed it...every customer premise. Subsidies for aircards don't come anywhere near FTTH buildout costs. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | said by jcremin:said by iansltx:If you have a dense network of cell sites, there's less distance between each one. That's great, but then you have cell-sites stepping on each other and creating a mess of the spectrum they paid a lot of money for. And try convincing people that cell towers should be allowed every mile. Regardless of the cost it just isn't practical. And considering the cost to deploy super high-bandwidth services meant to replace landlines, the investment is probably much better put into deploying fiber. AT&T will have 65-70% of its traffic covered by fiber by the end of 2011: »www.dslprime.com/a-wireless-clou···-in-2011
And a huge amount of its spectrum capacity is unused- up to 90%: »www.dslprime.com/a-wireless-clou···y-unused
There's no real defense for AT&T's LTE speeds. They're always underachieving. If it weren't for buying out competitors and the iPhone exclusivity they'd have gone bankrupt long ago. | |
|
| | | | | | said by openbox9:Lack of investment in infrastructure and capacity to support landline replacement?
| |
|
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* I really, really dislike the tactic of people assuming that they can correct statements that I made, as if I made errors in my responses.
Anyway, telecoms invest billions in infrastructure expansion and upgrades every year. | |
|
| | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* said by openbox9:I really, really dislike the tactic of people assuming that they can correct statements that I made, as if I made errors in my responses. Agreed. Many people on this site refuse (or are simply unable) to grasp the concept that their opinion might not be the only opinion and that they are no more right than someone else.
The reality is almost everyone these days is cheap and lazy and wants more for less, regardless of the cost to whom provides it. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* said by jcremin:said by openbox9:I really, really dislike the tactic of people assuming that they can correct statements that I made, as if I made errors in my responses. Agreed. Many people on this site refuse (or are simply unable) to grasp the concept that their opinion might not be the only opinion and that they are no more right than someone else. The reality is almost everyone these days is cheap and lazy and wants more for less, regardless of the cost to whom provides it. Wow, you're insane. People want more for less? Do you understand that European carriers have 5 times as many base stations as AT&T in the same area with the same population densities?
AT&T's own executives admitted to ignoring their engineers and underinvesting in their network to pump up their bottom line and stock prices.
Yet here you are blaming people for being "cheap and lazy"? Americans pay some of the highest prices in the developed world for wireless service while receiving some of the worst quality reception and speeds. And yet you insult consumers?
How bizarrely out of touch can you be? | |
|
| | | | | | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* said by sonicmerlin:AT&T's own executives admitted to ignoring their engineers and underinvesting in their network to pump up their bottom line and stock prices.
Link please with quotes where AT&T execs said they ignored their own engineers.
--
»www.rickperry.org/ | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* said by Linklist:said by sonicmerlin:AT&T's own executives admitted to ignoring their engineers and underinvesting in their network to pump up their bottom line and stock prices.
Link please with quotes where AT&T execs said they ignored their own engineers. I think almost every ISP does this. | |
|
| | | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | And you're an asshole.
Please don't bother to reply to my posts in the future since all you ever do is insult me by calling me names. I'm more than willing to discuss things with anyone, even if they don't agree with my opinion. But once they respond like an arrogant prick (like you typically do) I don't have the time of day for them anymore. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* C-C-C-C-Combo Breaker !!!!
Seriously chill out guys. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* I know, I know... It has been a long day and I'm probably over-reacting. I just get tired of the childish name-calling by a few certain people here, it get's old really fast and usually doesn't add anything to what otherwise is usually an interesting debate. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* Forget it and go to bed.
You need sleep. | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by openbox9:I really, really dislike the tactic of people assuming that they can correct statements that I made, as if I made errors in my responses.
Anyway, telecoms invest billions in infrastructure expansion and upgrades every year.
AT&T's own executives admitted to shareholders their capacity problems were due to their own underinvestment. Investing "billions" means nothing when you're AT&T's size. There's a certain amount engineers will recommend the company invest to maintain network integrity, and AT&T's execs were more interested in pumping up stock prices than network quality. | |
|
| | | | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* You're right, AT&T should be investing trillions.
I'd suggest that AT&T's execs are more interested in creating/increasing shareholder value than they are in "pumping" stock prices. You can argue semantics, but there is a difference.
As for the proper level of (re)investment, management and engineering teams are often at odds. Hindsight conveniently makes armchair financial forecasting easy. AT&T has its shortcomings and has committed plenty of blunders over the last few years. Has AT&T done everything right? Absolutely not. Has it done everything wrong? Not in the least. | |
|
| | | | | | | said by rebel :said by openbox9:Lack of investment in infrastructure and capacity to support landline replacement?
+1 | |
|
| | | | | | said by openbox9:Lack of infrastructure and capacity to support landline replacement?
AT&T will have 65% of its traffic covered by fiber by the end of the year: »www.dslprime.com/a-wireless-clou···-in-2011
Now that you've been proven wrong, will you retract your statement? | |
|
| | | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: *COUGH*caps*COUGH* Proven wrong? So you reference a quote clearly identifying lack of capacity to support the exponential growth in wireless networking and you claim that I'm wrong? I stand by my statement. | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by JasonOD :Unless you are steaming movies or music all day long over their network (not wifi), why is 5GB not enough? It's not meant to be a replacement for wireline broadband.
Really that's not what the government is saying. They're looking at 4G to give rural people broadband internet.
but to your point if as you say you're going to use 5 GB or less per month what do you need 12 Mbps speeds for? | |
|
| | |
See 10 replies to this post |
| | Slower than T-Mobile HSPA+ How pathetic, lets hope its an actual fast network when it launches and not slower than what I get on my Samsung Galaxy S 4G on T-Mobile
| |
|
|
See 21 replies to this post |
|
baygins
join:2002-06-18
Arlington, VA | better how? and how is this better than HSPA+ speeds? | |
|
| | How does this compete? With all the hype about how LTE is going to take over the landline business, how is 16/2 better than many wireline connections?
And while we're talking about it, what is the jitter, packet loss, response time, and consistency like with LTE? I can't imagine it is any better than a hard wire connection, but I don't pretend to know for sure. Many applications are sensitive to all of these factors, DL/UL speeds are not the only consideration. | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: How does this compete? said by MyName :With all the hype about how LTE is going to take over the landline business Who hyped that? Mobile is still a additive to fixed line internet access for a vast majority of consumers and businesses. | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | For voice, yes, mobile (LTE or otherwise) can supplant landline service.
For data, nope. With a cost of $10 per GB it isn't gonna happen. | |
|
| | | It doesn't compete with wireline but for all the factors you mention(packet loss, jitter, etc) it is generally a lot better than 3g. | |
|
 mmay149qPremium
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX
kudos:48 | About on par with Verizon
Download/upload Verizon 4G LTE |
Either way it's still a improvement over what they currently have, but like others have said 5GB cap as the highest is a little ridiculous, they should have a 10GB option as well.
Matt
--
I am no longer an AT&T Employee. Check out my kudos! »/profile/1626573
Have U-verse questions? Please email uversecare@att.com and they will assist you!!  | |
|
| | Looks like at&t took the uverse route of lte If its not slow and ancient its not att... | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
| | Capacity Capacity would be the problem, one example is lollapalooza for example in Chicago. Before the Eminem concert started my GF tried to use he ATT Iphone. Guess what, no coverage! LOL my Verizon Droid x was working fine and I still got around 3 Megs down. Att just wants your money. I pay the same as my GF does for my bill and her coverage and service just sucks. | |
|
|
|
