| |
to tpiazrule
Re: When will we see unlimited mobile data?said by tpiazrule:People also used to think the earth was flat--things change. Shannon's limit is something that is rooted in fundamental maths/physics. It isn't something that can be overcome by technology for as long as the current understanding of physics holds true, which it has for 100+ years, give or take a few minor tweaks that haven't had any impact on practical physics. |
· actions · 2017-Dec-28 2:53 pm · (locked) |
| |
said by InvalidError:said by tpiazrule:People also used to think the earth was flat--things change. Shannon's limit is something that is rooted in fundamental maths/physics. It isn't something that can be overcome by technology for as long as the current understanding of physics holds true, which it has for 100+ years, give or take a few minor tweaks that haven't had any impact on practical physics. Again, according to Science, the earth was once flat. As humans we basically know nothing of the universe, space, time or physics. We hypothesize with made up equations we use to "prove" our theories, but nothing is really proven as people come along all the time and disprove centuries old beliefs. Even if we take for granted that Shannon's Limits stands the test of time, that is still not the barrier to providing unlimited data. It is not a technical barrier at all, it is simply that the Incumbents charge exhorbinent amounts for mobile data right now and will never give up that cash cow. Going off on some rant about physics only deflects from what we all know is the true reason. The sky isn't anywhere near falling quite yet chicken little. lol |
· actions · 2017-Dec-28 2:56 pm · (locked) |
| |
said by tpiazrule:Even if we take for granted that Shannon's Limits stands the test of time, that is still not the barrier to providing unlimited data. Yes it is: even if you build a radio capable of operating at Shannon's limit, the amount of bandwidth is still limited by usable available spectrum and the number of people sharing it. No amount of wishful thinking will make that go away. |
· actions · 2017-Dec-28 11:00 pm · (locked) |
| |
to tpiazrule
said by tpiazrule:said by InvalidError:said by tpiazrule:People also used to think the earth was flat--things change. Shannon's limit is something that is rooted in fundamental maths/physics. It isn't something that can be overcome by technology for as long as the current understanding of physics holds true, which it has for 100+ years, give or take a few minor tweaks that haven't had any impact on practical physics. Again, according to Science, the earth was once flat. As humans we basically know nothing of the universe, space, time or physics. We hypothesize with made up equations we use to "prove" our theories, but nothing is really proven as people come along all the time and disprove centuries old beliefs. Even if we take for granted that Shannon's Limits stands the test of time, that is still not the barrier to providing unlimited data. It is not a technical barrier at all, it is simply that the Incumbents charge exhorbinent amounts for mobile data right now and will never give up that cash cow. Going off on some rant about physics only deflects from what we all know is the true reason. The sky isn't anywhere near falling quite yet chicken little. lol Ohhhhhhhh boy. You are 100% wrong. |
· actions · 2017-Dec-29 10:26 am · (locked) |
| |
Vomio
Member
2017-Dec-29 11:21 am
"I cannae change the laws of physics!" - Montgomery Scott
Fiber to every porch, a low power cell/wifi site in every driveway!
Like it or not.
All part of that new improved service agreement that nobody reads.
I'm still waiting for my gravity wave hoverboard. |
· actions · 2017-Dec-29 11:21 am · (locked) |
ings
Premium Member
join:2004-12-22
Toronto, ON |
to InvalidError
A very good biography of Claude Shannon, "A Mind at Play", was published summer 2017. It's quite readable even if you don't have a technical background, and covers how Shannon more-or-less single handedly invented information theory and the real world implications of that theory. |
· actions · 2017-Dec-29 11:34 am · (locked) |
| |
to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by tpiazrule:Even if we take for granted that Shannon's Limits stands the test of time, that is still not the barrier to providing unlimited data. Yes it is: even if you build a radio capable of operating at Shannon's limit, the amount of bandwidth is still limited by usable available spectrum and the number of people sharing it. No amount of wishful thinking will make that go away. Sigh, I never said there was an infinite amount of data available. NOT ONCE. I also don't believe the sky is falling--not even close yet. I said having a limited amount of data is not the barrier to not charging for data. The barrier is monetary solely. The incumbents will never give up their cash cow. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 8:48 am · (locked) |
| |
said by tpiazrule:said by InvalidError:said by tpiazrule:Even if we take for granted that Shannon's Limits stands the test of time, that is still not the barrier to providing unlimited data. Yes it is: even if you build a radio capable of operating at Shannon's limit, the amount of bandwidth is still limited by usable available spectrum and the number of people sharing it. No amount of wishful thinking will make that go away. Sigh, I never said there was an infinite amount of data available. NOT ONCE. I also don't believe the sky is falling--not even close yet. I said having a limited amount of data is not the barrier to not charging for data. The barrier is monetary solely. The incumbents will never give up their cash cow. It's implied. If you provide an unlimited data option, do you think adoption of that plan will go up or down. Now, do you think that the people on that plan will use it more or less, than they did before. So, we have a finite resource, with expanding usage. What do you think will happen when A matches B. Money is simply the filter of who needs it more. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:00 am · (locked) |
| |
said by prairiesky:Money is simply the filter of who needs it more. If money was being used as a filter, then unlimited data would be available as on option would it not?? No, at this point and time, it's not a technical reason for charging so much and not providing the option. It's a monetary reason because they rake in millions of dollars per year solely on mobile data--why would they give that up? It may be a finite resource, but so is water and natural gas. It's not finite as in we're going to run out tomorrow. The sky is NOT falling chicken little. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:15 am · (locked) |
| |
The thing is it's not a finite resource, capacity can be added. You cannot replace the water/NG you consume. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:28 am · (locked) |
| |
said by bobnoxe:The thing is it's not a finite resource, capacity can be added. You cannot replace the water/NG you consume. Oh, but according to these guys it is a finite resource. I don't necessarily agree with them but was just placating them on that point so we could get back on topic. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:30 am · (locked) |
| |
|
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:36 am · (locked) |
| |
to tpiazrule
Spectrum is a finite resource. Supporting higher aggregate bandwidth across the network requires making smaller cells which means more support infrastructure to aggregate and route all that traffic. This in turn requires more equipment, more maintenance, more management, more engineering, more labor and more power.
Incumbent greed aside, there are very real and non-trivial costs associated with increased traffic. Another thing to keep in mind is that as technology creeps closer to physical limits, you get rapidly diminishing returns on the R&D to push it any further, which means costs increase that much more steeply if you want to stay ahead. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:39 am · (locked) |
| |
said by InvalidError:Spectrum is a finite resource. Supporting higher aggregate bandwidth across the network requires making smaller cells which means more support infrastructure to aggregate and route all that traffic. This in turn requires more equipment, more maintenance, more management, more engineering, more labor and more power.
Incumbent greed aside, there are very real and non-trivial costs associated with increased traffic. Another thing to keep in mind is that as technology creeps closer to physical limits, you get rapidly diminishing returns on the R&D to push it any further, which means costs increase that much more steeply if you want to stay ahead. Funny how you purport extremely high costs while the Incumbents report extremely high profits every quarter--in large part due to the millions of dollars of profit being made solely on mobile data.But ya, profit has nothing to do with the decision not to provide unlimited mobile data. /sarcasm |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:44 am · (locked) |
| |
to bobnoxe
Spectrum is a finite resource: if you got a 25MHz license, 25MHz is all you have to work with to accommodate all of your customers in any given area. Once you've already deployed that 25MHz, you have no other way to "deploy more capacity" than making smaller cells, which multiplies your infrastructure costs. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:44 am · (locked) |
|
| |
said by InvalidError:Once you've already deployed that 25MHz, you have no other way to "deploy more capacity" than making smaller cells, which multiplies your infrastructure costs. Again, they're making a bundle, add the capacity, with that brings more customers, which brings more money. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 9:50 am · (locked) |
| |
To maintain profit margins, the amount of money coming in must proportionally keep up with the amount of money going out to support that capacity. If doubling capacity requires roughly doubling the amount of infrastructure and related costs but only brings 30% more revenue, the net margin on that incremental investment is 70% worse. While it may still be a filthy profit margin, it is a 70% narrower one. Rinse and repeat a few times and you quickly reach a point where any further investments are unlikely to yield any meaningful return.
Most people have a finite willingness to pay more and the market itself has a limited number of potential customers. Once everyone has service at the limit of their willingness to pay, there is no more additional revenue to tap into and any additional capacity incumbents may offer will have to come at the expense of their profit margins. None of them are in any hurry to reach that point but it is inevitable. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 12:08 pm · (locked) |
| |
Fair statement, except revenue is not ,imo, correct indicator. The profit from that revenue is what you want to see. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 12:11 pm · (locked) |
| |
to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:To maintain profit margins, the amount of money coming in must proportionally keep up with the amount of money going out to support that capacity. If doubling capacity requires roughly doubling the amount of infrastructure and related costs but only brings 30% more revenue, the net margin on that incremental investment is 70% worse. While it may still be a filthy profit margin, it is a 70% narrower one. Rinse and repeat a few times and you quickly reach a point where any further investments are unlikely to yield any meaningful return.
Most people have a finite willingness to pay more and the market itself has a limited number of potential customers. Once everyone has service at the limit of their willingness to pay, there is no more additional revenue to tap into and any additional capacity incumbents may offer will have to come at the expense of their profit margins. None of them are in any hurry to reach that point but it is inevitable. And again, that is the reason why we will never see unlimited mobile data--money. This is what I have been saying all along. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 12:16 pm · (locked) |
| |
Like a fire code, you cannot fit an unlimited number of people into an existing theatre.
You can think of spectrum allocation as a building. It holds a specific number of people. Yes, if you get permission to build you can build more theatres aka more spectrum allocation but eventually there is no more land (or spectrum) you can build on because every available surface has been covered with theatres. At that point you move into standing room only (slower speeds) etc. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 12:43 pm · (locked) |
| |
At that point the technology should have evolved to handle it.
Take MKV's you can get a 1080p TV show, I've seen encoded up to 3gb,(x264) but at the same time the same thing encoded in HEVC (x265) is under 1gb.
So now I can get the same show faster, uses less space and is the same quality.
It's been decades since m college classes on telecommunications but the tricks they came up with to keep increasing dial up speeds would astound you.
There is no reason similar tricks cannot be implemented on the cell side. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 1:00 pm · (locked) |
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON |
yyzlhr
Member
2018-Jan-2 1:08 pm
Compressing and decompressing data would add in additional costs and is not particularly efficient for web browsing and doesn't help much with fast data connections. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 1:08 pm · (locked) |
|
| |
said by yyzlhr:Compressing and decompressing data would add in additional costs and is not particularly efficient for web browsing I think his point was that as technology evolves, things happen that can/will decrease data usage more than the number of people increase. His example per say only uses 1 third compared to yesterday's tech for the same end product. ON top of that new things come out all of the time, theories get disproven and new inventions come along that propel us to places we'd never thought we would be. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 1:11 pm · (locked) |
| |
to yyzlhr
said by yyzlhr:Compressing and decompressing data would add in additional costs and is not particularly efficient for web browsing You misunderstand, I'm not advocating compressing/decompressing, I'm providing an example of how technology has changed things. And at some point technology could fix the bandwidth issue. I just provided an example of how technology has allowed me to see the same content at up to 1/3 the previous size. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 1:12 pm · (locked) |
| |
to bobnoxe
said by bobnoxe:At that point the technology should have evolved to handle it. Technology cannot evolve beyond the limits imposed by physics. All of the "tricks" telecom companies use still fall within Shannon's theorem. All they do is leverage DSP to improve SNR via finer computational channel partitioning and modeling which allows them to get incrementally closer to Shannon's limit. In its simplest terms, Shannon basically says that for each 6dB of SNR you can spare, you can afford to cram an extra bit/s per hertz of channel bandwidth. This is simple enough to determine intuitively: each time you code an extra bit in a symbol, the distance between symbols gets halved. If you halve that distance so many times that noise now accounts for more than half the distance to neighboring symbols, you lose the ability to reliably distinguish one symbol from its immediate neighbors and your error rate skyrockets. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 2:19 pm · (locked) |
| |
said by InvalidError:said by bobnoxe:At that point the technology should have evolved to handle it. Technology cannot evolve beyond the limits imposed by physics. All of the "tricks" telecom companies use still fall within Shannon's theorem. All they do is leverage DSP to improve SNR via finer computational channel partitioning and modeling which allows them to get incrementally closer to Shannon's limit. In its simplest terms, Shannon basically says that for each 6dB of SNR you can spare, you can afford to cram an extra bit/s per hertz of channel bandwidth. This is simple enough to determine intuitively: each time you code an extra bit in a symbol, the distance between symbols gets halved. If you halve that distance so many times that noise now accounts for more than half the distance to neighboring symbols, you lose the ability to reliably distinguish one symbol from its immediate neighbors and your error rate skyrockets. Yes but if people are consuming less data due to technological advances then your point is moot. This is all theorhetical, however as we've already established the reason why we will never see unlimited mobile data--money. You, yourself even stated as much in a post above. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 2:22 pm · (locked) |
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
to bobnoxe
Ehh. Within certain limitations - at the end of the day the amount of bandwidth available is dictated by the number of users trying to share the same band. The multiplexing is what's slowing you down, not the limits of physics.
It's fine in rural areas where you've got 15 people on a cell, but in a city where the same cell can have 10,000 users? You're going to run into speed problems, and it isn't as simple as just adding more cells - you'll experience slowdowns during cell handoffs, and it's tricky to find the right balance between cell density and users per cell. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 2:22 pm · (locked) |
| |
to tpiazrule
said by tpiazrule:Yes but if people are consuming less data due to technological advances then your point is moot. Who is consuming less data despite "technological advances"? Sandvine, Cisco and others all say data consumption is still increasing by more than 30%/year. |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 2:23 pm · (locked) |
1 edit |
When a 3gb h264 movie is compressed down to 1Gb via h265 encoding for the same/better quality, that consumes a third of the data correct?
Technological advances happen all the time to reduce the amount of data we are consuming. We have no idea where we will be 5 or even 10 years down the road as that is a lifetime in tech years.
Again, how about we stop all this theorhetics and get back to the topic on hand and the real world? |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 2:25 pm · (locked) |
taraf
join:2011-05-07
Ottawa, ON |
to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:Who is consuming less data despite "technological advances"? Sandvine, Cisco and others all say data consumption is still increasing by more than 30%/year. You realize he's talking about using compression to reduce the bandwidth requirements, right? Engineering your way towards using less actual bandwidth... Plus, most of that data consumption is going over fiber. If you really want to get into the limits imposed by physics on that front, we are going to have a very headache-inducing discussion about the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics. I'm game if you are, but the tl;dr version is that it's about 1 petabit per second. said by tpiazrule:When a 3gb h264 movie is compressed down to 1Gb via h265 encoding for the same/better quality, that consumes a third less data correct? No, 2/3 less. 1/3 of the actual data consumed, not 1/3 less.  |
· actions · 2018-Jan-2 2:27 pm · (locked) |
