 axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC | Nice! 42 up 5 down with low latency... that's approaching FIOS quality. It's in licensed spectrum, right? In that case the only competitors would be other technologies... | |
|
 |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Nice! said by axus:42 up 5 down with low latency... that's approaching FIOS quality. It's in licensed spectrum, right? In that case the only competitors would be other technologies... That's peak speed on a vacant network. -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | Re: Nice! Exactly.
requirements: - Good signal - LOTS of backhaul (50Mbps/sector?) = 150Mbps / site - few / no users | |
|
 |
 |  bentand IngaPremium join:2004-10-04 Loveland, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Figures said by megatron266:The speed would be so low. I get 3-4 megs down on AT&T 7.2 network now. LTE is obviously capable of faster speeds but I think the limiting factor here is Verizon's limited knowledge in LTE and an incompatible backhaul system that would need to be upgraded. Once the latter is completed then the speeds will increase. I think this is why AT&T is working on the backhaul system now. The limiting factor is the US B-school model of "if you aren't required to by law or one-uping a competitor, don't dare do it." -- Greedy Old Pigs v. The Donkey Show | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Figures LOL Totally agree on that point. | |
|
 |  |  |  Simba7I Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT | Re: Figures Same here.
"Oh.. We don't *HAVE* to upgrade our network? Lets *NOT* do it then."
I swear, with the mentality of most CEOs and CIOs, I'm surprised we even have broadband. If it was up to them, we'd still be on dialup. | |
|
 |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | then Explain VZW and ATT rolling out LTE. Or TMO rolling out HSPA+ as we speak? | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Figures One upping = taking one small step slightly above your closest competitor to make it appear you are competing and are superior in some way.
Did you not get that part? | |
|
 |  |  |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Figures said by Skippy25:One upping = taking one small step slightly above your closest competitor to make it appear you are competing and are superior in some way. Did you not get that part? And you're saying that HSPA+ isn't better than HSDPA? Or that LTE isn't better than WiMax?
What's not to get? -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, KaseyPremium,VIP join:2002-02-02 Stewartstown, PA kudos:13 | Re: Figures said by tiger72:said by Skippy25:One upping = taking one small step slightly above your closest competitor to make it appear you are competing and are superior in some way. Did you not get that part? And you're saying that HSPA+ isn't better than HSDPA? Or that LTE isn't better than WiMax? What's not to get? The point is corporations deploy these techs in areas to one up their competition. In areas where there is little to no competition, they don't bother. Why are they deploying all these new techs in areas that already have many other broadband choices? Why aren't any of these techs being deployed to under served areas with little to no broadband options? -- RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Figures said by tim_k:said by tiger72:said by Skippy25:One upping = taking one small step slightly above your closest competitor to make it appear you are competing and are superior in some way. Did you not get that part? And you're saying that HSPA+ isn't better than HSDPA? Or that LTE isn't better than WiMax? What's not to get? The point is corporations deploy these techs in areas to one up their competition. In areas where there is little to no competition, they don't bother. Why are they deploying all these new techs in areas that already have many other broadband choices? Why aren't any of these techs being deployed to under served areas with little to no broadband options? Because they want a return on their investment. If you had $50,000 to invest on upgrading a tower to HSPA+, would you spend that in Bolivar, Tennessee or Boston, Massachusetts? You'd spend it on Boston because you want to *surprise* turn a profit.
All of these rollouts happen in cities because that's where it's more likely to turn a profit sooner. This isn't a revelation - it's actually how every single business on the planet makes its decisions. -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tim_kButtons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, KaseyPremium,VIP join:2002-02-02 Stewartstown, PA kudos:13 | Re: Figures said by tiger72:Because they want a return on their investment. If you had $50,000 to invest on upgrading a tower to HSPA+, would you spend that in Bolivar, Tennessee or Boston, Massachusetts? You'd spend it on Boston because you want to *surprise* turn a profit. All of these rollouts happen in cities because that's where it's more likely to turn a profit sooner. This isn't a revelation - it's actually how every single business on the planet makes its decisions. With so much competiton between techs and other ISPs, do they really make as much profit as they could by serving an area with no broadband coverage, but with with lower population dencity? -- RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09 | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| Re: Figures said by tim_k:said by tiger72:Because they want a return on their investment. If you had $50,000 to invest on upgrading a tower to HSPA+, would you spend that in Bolivar, Tennessee or Boston, Massachusetts? You'd spend it on Boston because you want to *surprise* turn a profit. All of these rollouts happen in cities because that's where it's more likely to turn a profit sooner. This isn't a revelation - it's actually how every single business on the planet makes its decisions. With so much competiton between techs and other ISPs, do they really make as much profit as they could by serving an area with no broadband coverage, but with with lower population dencity? According to the industry - yes. I believe that if T-Mobile or Sprint found out otherwise, they'd be more than happy to change the status quo if it benefited them at the expense of ATT and VZW. Apparently the status quo works better. -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | said by bent:The limiting factor is the US B-school model of "if you aren't required to by law or one-uping a competitor, don't dare do it." It's all about getting fiber to the right places (also known as the last mile) and that's something U. S. providers are reluctant to spend enough money on. | |
|
 1 edit | Sigh Naturally the US will remain a generation of technology behind the rest of the developed world.
This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Infrastructure should be a net zero project. Companies making profit by selling infrastructure services are just draining the country of money. | |
|
 |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: Sigh said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Infrastructure should be a net zero project. Companies making profit by selling infrastructure services are just draining the country of money. Where are they draining it to?
Aren't they making money for investors, and buying materials from vendors, and hiring people to do jobs? Or would you prefer that they just cater to your every wish and whim? | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Sigh said by jester121:Where are they draining it to? Aren't they making money for investors, and buying materials from vendors, and hiring people to do jobs? Or would you prefer that they just cater to your every wish and whim? Making money for investors is not a goal that helps when providing infrastructure service, which inherently has huge barriers of entry.
All the other things you mentioned would be accomplished by a national agency that built the infrastructure and licensed it out to ISPs who wanted to provide service over it, all at lower cost due to the net zero expense goal.
Or would you prefer that these corps suck the life out of the US economy for the next 50 years? | |
|
 |  |  |  jester121Premium join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: Sigh said by sonicmerlin:Making money for investors is not a goal that helps when providing infrastructure service, which inherently has huge barriers of entry. All the other things you mentioned would be accomplished by a national agency that built the infrastructure and licensed it out to ISPs who wanted to provide service over it, all at lower cost due to the net zero expense goal. Or would you prefer that these corps suck the life out of the US economy for the next 50 years? I'll pass on your bifurcation and leave wondering how on earth you think LTE wireless internet access is going to ruin the economy (while the government, naturally, would make us whole).  | |
|
 |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. We used to have something like that. The FCC and state utility commissions practically guaranteed Ma Bell a big profit as long as it built out a world class telecommunications infrastructure. That all ended by 1984. | |
|
 |  |  WhatNowPremium join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC | Re: Sigh You can thank the Regan Republicans buddies they all wanted to get rich running a Telco company but they found out it was a lot of work even when you leased most of you plant from the real telco companies. Almost everyone of them have failed. It also stoppped the baby bells from being proactive because if the put a manhole run in all the extra ducts were up for grabs at below cost.
If you cut the pie into too many pieces no one makes any money. I don't support an uncaring monopoly but if some one wants to compete let them build and pay for a network. Google has goobs of money they have a backbone system let them build the last mile or their own wireless system. | |
|
 |  |  |  Sammer join:2005-12-22 Canonsburg, PA | Re: Sigh said by WhatNow:You can thank the Regan Republicans buddies they all wanted to get rich running a Telco company but they found out it was a lot of work even when you leased most of you plant from the real telco companies. Almost everyone of them have failed. The antitrust suit against the old Ma Bell was started before President Reagan was in office and the Clinton Democrat buddies were pretty good at selling out the American Public to their corporate "friends" too. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Sigh said by Sammer:said by WhatNow:You can thank the Regan Republicans buddies they all wanted to get rich running a Telco company but they found out it was a lot of work even when you leased most of you plant from the real telco companies. Almost everyone of them have failed. The antitrust suit against the old Ma Bell was started before President Reagan was in office and the Clinton Democrat buddies were pretty good at selling out the American Public to their corporate "friends" too. The breakup of Ma Bell was a godsend to the public. | |
|
 |  | | Though logically I would agree with you. In real world there is no way this would work because then these immoral anticonsumer profit is everything companies only have one source to "pursuade" to get their way. | |
|
 |  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA | said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Oh yeah, that'd fix everything. More government, this time to dictate telecommunications. I guess everyone is really happy with the way FCC is using what little power they have, right? We should give them more power and control of everything? Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that! | |
|
 |  |  | | Re: Sigh said by joebarnhart:said by sonicmerlin:This is why we need one national agency that oversees all telecommunications infrastructure development. Oh yeah, that'd fix everything. More government, this time to dictate telecommunications. I guess everyone is really happy with the way FCC is using what little power they have, right? We should give them more power and control of everything? Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that! Why yes, I believe everyone who doesn't worship at the alter of a corporate, fascist government is indeed happy with the way the FCC has used its little power thus far to pressure the incumbents.
A lack of government oversight means oligopoly control of our infrastructure, draining wealth from our nation year after year. How many billions were drained by Verizon and AT&T over the last decade alone? | |
|
 |  |  |  joebarnhartPaxio evangelist join:2005-12-15 Santa Clara, CA | Re: Sigh said by sonicmerlin:A lack of government oversight means oligopoly control of our infrastructure, draining wealth from our nation year after year. How many billions were drained by Verizon and AT&T over the last decade alone? You omitted the fact that the reason the oligopoly even EXISTS is because of government meddling. The answer to government meddling is more government meddling? I reject that.
Governments do not create markets. They do not improve markets. They do not create goods and services. They regulate and distort markets. They erode competition.
Sometimes government meddling is needed. I wonder if distribution networks should be allowed to vertically integrate and be content owners too. I question if companies who refine crude oil into gasoline should be allowed to own the network of stations that sell the product. It creates bastions of non-competitiveness that form barriers to entry for a market and gives the company too much power to price their combined product at monopolistic prices.
But government control of a communications monopoly?!? If AT&T had not been broken up, the internet as it exists today would never have happened. VOIP would never have happened. We'd all be sitting around our 9600 baud modems dialing Compuserve from our overpriced POTS line. | |
|
 drkaps join:2008-09-19 Burlingame, CA | It all depends on the spectrum used Spectrum depth will likely be the biggest factor affecting DL speeds for US deployments. Verizon is probably going to only be able to do 5 MHz or 10 MHz channels at best. And nobody knows yet how much interference and other issues will keep speeds down (especially if everyone has an Apple tablet and keeps it on all the time).
But to Karl's point -- it will probably also be expensive, so maybe VZN will use a high price to keep its network from being saturated. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·ViaTalk
·Verizon Broadban..
| Re: It all depends on the spectrum used said by drkaps:Spectrum depth will likely be the biggest factor affecting DL speeds for US deployments. Verizon is probably going to only be able to do 5 MHz or 10 MHz channels at best. And nobody knows yet how much interference and other issues will keep speeds down (especially if everyone has an Apple tablet and keeps it on all the time). But to Karl's point -- it will probably also be expensive, so maybe VZN will use a high price to keep its network from being saturated. Verizon has dedicated 700mhz licensed spectrum for LTE, they can do much more than 10mhz channels with their 700mhz which is now a free band and different from the cell and PCS bands. -- I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid! | |
|
 BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Doesn't matter How fast it is if they insist on 5 GB monthly caps and $50 per GB overage fees. | |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | Verizon has stated... Rogers production HSPA+ network | |  Clear's WiMax network | |
Verizon has stated that initial downstream speeds will be dialed in somewhere between 5 and 12 Mbps That means LTE should be expecting initial rollout speeds that are identical to, or worse than both WiMax and 21mbps HSPA+. -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 | | What about the cap? With this increase in speed are they maybe also looking into raising the monthly bandwidth cap? If so in some areas for light users they could potentially become a competitor for cable or even their own DSL lines.
That of course depends on the price though. | |
|
 |  | | Re: What about the cap? WiMax doesn't have a cap. Presumably they would match Clearwire. | |
|
 decifal join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| same IT will start off without caps, but once people start using it and get into the service, they will start implimenting some sorta restrictions.. They always do, and I can promise you at first 4g and such will all say "hey look no caps!" but once the majority get on it... It'll change to " oh god you folks use too much bandwidth.. so we are going to just nerf the heck outta your usuage to a fair 5 gig a month".
No company has impressed me with innovation in the past few years.. It all starts off promising just to end up being another politician.... SSDD
And we will not see speeds of 40Mbps here in america for YEARS!! Even possibly Decades at the current expansion.. And even then to use it, you will be billed by the gigabyte at 1000 above cost...
I used to like technology... I really did...
LTE will not even get the time of day from me until its a proven and regulated service.. Neither will be accomplished so the end... | |
|
 ricep5Premium join:2000-08-07 Jacksonville, FL | Lots of dead batteries & no backhaul Any smartphone using LTE as a data source supporting a 42/5 will have a dead battery in minutes. The juice required to support that much I/O, especially TCP packet processing, data I/O to a flash card or other internal memory will overwhelm the current small battery technology.
Clearly some kind of stepped speeds will have to be implemented to maintain device battery life.
If they are skimping on infrastructure spend today, do you really think they are going to shell out to upgrade the backhaul to support multiple users at 42/5. Hardly!
I anticipate phased rollouts of speeds until the mobile devices catch up with batteries and the backhaul can support the user counts. | |
|
 | | Does LTE have a greater distance range than 3g? Will LTE cover more map than current 3g signal?
I hate living on the fringe of 3g service and having a so-so experience. | |
|
 |
|