Bell Labs Looks Inside Wireless Networks And finds simple e-mail to be a bigger resource hog than previously thought... Tipped by DrTCP 
DrTCP submits an Associated Press report on Alcatel-Lucent's new " 9900 Wireless Network Guardian," a device that gives wireless carriers unprecedented insight into the workings of their networks. "This news is interesting because mobile operators think that full Internet data access puts more strain on their network so it should be priced more. But the analysis of data by this box is suggesting that mobile data network access might be more efficient than the operators are pricing it." That's because the strains data subscribers place on the wireless network don't match the amount of data they download, Schabel said. The new device will tell carriers that some types of traffic, like e-mail and instant messaging, consume up to 1,000 times as much air time as file downloads. "If I look at mobile e-mail, one megabyte takes two hours of air time," he said, because the mobile network needs to repeatedly set up and tear down the connection. In contrast, a 1-megabyte file from a peer-to-peer file-sharing network takes about 30 seconds to download, he estimated. Previous network and radio-frequency monitoring tools didn't allow carriers to understand their networks as exhaustively. The new Bell Labs device allows them to understand how customer use of a various applications consumes airtime instead of simply monitoring the overall packet load. Last we checked, pricing in the wireless industry often couldn't care less about the realities of the network, and it's doubtful greater network insight will change that. What this device will change is the amount of traffic shaping on 3G & 4G networks, for better or worse.
|
  jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | satallite link DOn't normally hear about wireless data in this route unless satellite data. | |
|  | RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Re: satallite link Someone got a decoder ring for that post? 
Wireless (cellular) network pricing is all about perceived value and add-on trinkets not the cost to provide. Ever since the modern cell phone emerged from the primordial AMPS ooze the costs have plummeted. Back then 39 cents per minute local and $1-$3 per minute while roaming was the norm and minute packages were absurdly expensive if available at all. Cell phones were a business product and they worked well.
Today it's a consumer-driven product which works just well enough to keep your typical teenager yapping and texting and sending pictures to each other that their parents would die over if they saw the contents.
I see this equipment being used to boot off "abusers" more than to adjust pricing. Why should the wireless carriers lower the cost of their data plans just because it doesn't cost them nearly as much as voice or "email" (isn't that still data?) does if the kids are willing to pay out the nose for it?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 |  SMS
| |
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Technical Harassment InformationWeek did a similar story: »www.informationweek.com/story/sh···06902952
Either I'm grossly missing the point that they're trying to convey, or this is just bull-pucky. Someone, please explain.
Meanwhile, the only thing that I see as broken is their billing model. Charging "by the minute" made sense in an analog world. It is a model proven broken in the digital world -- voice-calls included.
My reply:
funchords
commented on Mar 11, 2008 5:04:32 PM
---QUOTE---In the wired world, Schabel points out, "a bit is a bit," but on wireless networks different kinds of data have far different impacts on the management and the performance of the overall system.
For example, a high-bandwidth peer-to-peer file-sharing application transferring 1 megabyte of data would take up 30 seconds of radio-frequency airtime, Schabel said. But 1 MB of data from a mobile e-mail device, which must continually check in with the server for new e-mails, could consume two hours of airtime. ---ENDQUOTE---
I've been using POP3 and IMAP over EDVO and 1xRTT for several years. The example quoted fails to illuminate the claim they are making.
Wired or wireless, the e-mail technology is no different and P2P is no different. Air-time has nothing to do with it, as the far end is not like a bank of PSTN modems that remains equally occupied and unavailable regardless of the traffic generated by the user.
If this explanation stands as the position of the wireless providers, then it appears to me to be a case of "technical harassment." They're trying to fool a gullible regulatory environment that a technology that stands to allow ISPs to pick-and-choose its traffic is sorely needed. Don't even try that -- it won't fly.
I read this article hoping to find out why wireless carriers might legitimately need DPI -- instead, I get that? I'm offended.
Are today's wireless networks truly allergic to some protocols currently in use? If so, explain that! Are whether today's wireless networks are capable of keeping up with current demand? If not, do we need to exempt carriers from any Network Neutrality expectation for a 1-2 year catch-up program? How will the wireless carrier ensure that its own "V-Cast"-style offerings are not given preference over the offerings of competitors?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. | |
|
| |
|
|
