Tuesday Morning Links → Re: AT&T: Our 5G network is ready for 2880x1600 VR and 5ms latency games

And you think the deployment of thousands of mmWave antennas, their associated equipment, and all the fiber required for those sites will be any cheaper?

You crack me up!

What cracks me up are people that can't do simple math and actually think FTTH with sub 50% penetration is cheaper to deploy than wireless. What is even more amusing are all of those DSLR users crying for FTTH for that last 13 years thinking it will ever come to them. If only they wouldn't do 5G, then I could have my ultra x-treme interwebz 1000 and post those fat speed test results to my buddies. Yeah. You go on believing that, sport. Keep that hope alive!

IF they actually deploy 5G over wide areas, I think it will be good for FTTH. When 5G is not the success they are claiming it will be (nothing lives up to this much hype) the fiber (in those areas) will be close enough that it MAY be cost effective enough for them to actually deploy FTTH.

Actually it can't fail, even if it's not the greatest of all time for home access, it will be an amazing update to 4 LTE phone services, which more and more people seem satisfied to use as their ONLY connection. an interesting statement, slightly out of ordereveryone is on a quest to bring fiber closer to the home but FTTH is going to remain a premium as that drop is a custom item that places a lot of expensive equipment on/inside the Demarc wall a little suprized we don't see fttp with ethernet drops for those that MUST have wired, and short range wireless for the rest

The problem is that you aren't going to see 5G anywhere where it is legitimately an upgrade. I don't even understand why people are hyping it, besides the fact that yes, some people only have a cell phone, or only care about it and other mobile devices.

But the thing is, those cell phones and mobile devices already have access to high speed wifi often in the places where 5G will come into existence. It's a pointless technology upgrade for areas that don't need it.

Keep in mind that mmwave frequencies do not penetrate well (as well as limited range). This means that the high bandwidth that they keep hyping will NOT be available indoors(will require external antenna). Since the only real (non mmwave) difference between 5g and 4g is the latency (greatly reduced), how is it going to be this huge upgrade?

4G LTE-A can do gigabit fixed internet today. No carrier offers it purely due to low profit margins. i.e. for rural internet.

latency is among the highest complaints about cellular as an ONLY so a big improvement for many cell users can likely sell/use MOST of the new bandwidth to that group even if fixed point isn't a big hit, loosing some of the newfound latentcy to a indoor/outdoor repeater/router/AP shouldn't be a huge expense not more that an OTA roof antenna/small dish of the last century
NOT harder then FTTH/ONT/INDOOR ROUTER at a much lower cost to reach the house with out the current EVERY neighboorhood, street, home the current ILEC network requires
If it serves cellular an external plastic cabinet with and cell phone like device could feed ethernet into the house , A wireless ONT, of sorts

ATT is trenching FTTH across my city. Your 5G network powered with unicorn farts is nowhere to be seen.

Funny how you never actually show the work behind your "simple math."

Wow, that was easy.

40% penetration for FiOS
»www.fiercetelecom.com/te ··· ion-mark

Cheaper to deploy

quote:

---

5G-FWA IS ALMOST 50% CHEAPER THAN FIBER TO DEPLOY

5G-FWA can provide a viable alternative to fiber because the deployment costs are much lower than for FTTP (see Figure 2). There are several deployment combinations of FWA. For the last mile, this can include indoor CPE (cust prem equip), outdoor CPE, multidwelling units, and individual households. Specifically, the capex of FWA mmWave (28GHz) deployment in urban areas for antennae and
backhaul can be as low as 50% of the cost of implementing FTTP. Even when considering that 5G-FWA CPE costs almost twice that of fiber, the capex of deploying 5G-FWA is 30% lower than the capex of deploying FTTP.

---

»www.threemediacentre.co. ··· olds.pdf

It doesn't matter if FTTP is cheaper to RUN when you look out 10 or 20 years, because there isn't the CAPEX to deploy it in the first place and you get near immediate return on your CAPEX with wireless. The up front cost is the barrier, the only barrier. If FTTP was dirt cheap to deploy, of course they would do that now instead. But, in the real world it isn't. 5G-FWA is not only cheaper to deploy, it is WAY cheaper to deploy.

It is like wanting an electric car. It doesn't matter if it is cheaper to run long term if you can't afford the $40K buy-in in the first place. So your choice is walk or find an alternative to an EV. A hybrid might not be cheaper to run long term (buy-in/CAPEX + operating cost/OPEX), but you can get it now for $25K and leverage it to sell other services (which the study doesn't include, leveraging early deployment for other revenue sources that would generate revenues the entire time you are waiting on $$$ to fund FTTP deployment).

That is where telecom is. They don't have the CAPEX for the slow roll of FTTH especially with the low adoption rates and aggressive MSO competition.

Again, for those who have so much trouble following along. The barrier for deployment is the upfront cost of doing it and competition making a high ROI, difficult (MSOs engage in predatory pricing, we all know that). So a telco is not going to spend 2X the money and take 2X as long just to save 4 percent overall 10 year cost (CAPEX including cust equp+OPEX), which might be negated in part or whole by leveraging the new connection to sell other services (bundle with mobile, etc) during that same 10 year period. There is a much larger picture and external factors at play.

They can deploy 5G-FWA now, generate revenue now along with whatever revenues they can muster by bundling with their other services, now. Conversely taking longer to deploy only cedes that business to MSO competitors, giving them revenues now, allowing them to bundle, now and then use those revenues to continuously build their networks, vertically and horizontally integrate and other activities that ultimately harm your competitiveness.

The choice you end up with is 5G competition for MSOs or NO competition for MSOs. It is that simple. 5G-FWA competition is better than no competition and anyone claiming the contrary is a moron. And if after getting this dose of real-world you still want to live in a fantasy where everyone will get FTTP sooner rather than later, more power to ya. I have my FTTP, but only because I moved to a place that has it. Otherwise I would still be with VDSL waiting with all of your for an AT&T FTTP deployment that will never happen.

3, a UK cellular telco with no fixed line network, says wireless solution is better than everything else. Stop the presses.

Meanwhile both BT and Vodafone (you know, the UK's incumbent telco and one of the world's biggest cellular operators, respectively) are both happily investing in wireline networks alongside any 5G efforts.

I wonder whose backhaul 3 UK intend to use for their 5G network. I'd be willing to bet that both BT and Vodafone will happily sell access to theirs!

Again, go ahead at wait for FTTP that will never happen.

It is not the home antenna expense that will be the issue, it will be the mmwave radio (and associated electronics). It would be probably be more cost effective to use wifi within the house rather than mmwave. mmwave will have problems with the interior walls too(far worse than wifi).

so the external antenna package sends and recievces MM wave outside and maybe relays/repeats to neighbors and does wi-fi for the WLAN .
once in mass production these will be dirt cheap SoC if you home or farm needs more than one, it will be reasonable to add another on a small tower (HAM style cable guyed tower in the worse case, top of barn/house/silo/ tree what ever fits YOU

Except that you have the range issue with mmwave. The real world applications have shown a sub 600 foot range. So any real rural use of mmwave is several magnitudes of order from being of any use.

Strike #1. co.uk is hint.

Strike #2. You're not supposed to admit fiber is cheaper because it defeats your own argument.

Strike #3. You are upset that you had to sell your place to get fiber. Get over it.

Show me on the doll where the fiber touched you.

Are they *really* going to generate revenue with it? Or is it, rather, that they are going to retire 3G and 4G in areas where 5G exists? In essence, moving numbers around as opposed to making larger ones?

They're going to expend more capital to install this technology, lose subscribers on their wired and wireless systems (if, as you say, 5G is so amazing) and eventually push everyone who can get it onto 5G...which will still have to remain somewhat competitive with alternatives.

...are they really going to generate revenue with it? or is it simply a hyped up piece of technology that isn't necessary where it will be available?

here's my prediction: 5G is like the apple iphone. people will have it for the status symbol and nothing else, because fiber and cable in the city, the only place where 5G will be available, will still be a superior service, and the vast majority of the population doesn't really need more than 25mbps on their cell phone.

I'll wager that the telecoms are hyping 5G because they want people to buy their stock. Not because it's going to be a successful technology. It's *just another cellular tech upgrade* and it's not going to increase subscriber counts nor increase revenue beyond what it already is.

Troll harder.

BZZZZ Wrong. Costs are the costs and the modeling doesn't change betweek the UK and the US other than the US has aggressive MSO competition that engages in predatory pricing.

BZZZZ Wrong. What part of deployment of 5G-FWA is cheaper than FTTP are you having trouble following? What part of 'deployment is the barrier' not OPEX, escapes you?

BZZZZ Wrong. I split time between the US and Japan and when picking a place to allow me to leave the US for longer periods, chose one that had AT&T fiber in addition to all the other stuff I wanted. Meanwhile, everyone else wanting fiber will have to sell their place as well. Thanks for proving my point yet again.

It must be frustrating for you, being so wrong all the time.

600' radius reaches well out to the burbs and don't forget the relay effect that can cover the small but vital spots as needed.
it should have lots of room to grow...you want competition right?

A lot of blocks are 400 feet or longer, so how does that reach well out into the burbs?

let's see
an access point every other block vs the many homes per acre in the city

your figure for "mm works well" was 600 ft radius. (industry experiments show much better results with beamforming and other "tricks" they intend to use)
Which is about 26 acres(Acres = π * radius_in_feet² / 43560), with typical suburban lots of .2 acres (5 per acre) (Zillow) gives us 130 lots covered from a single antenna.
or 30 or so "Horse acres" (which rarely are) or 10 2.5 acre lots or 5-5 acre lots (getting fairly far out their now in most states)
or every square foot of a large centeral-irrogator pivot farm.
»www.expertgps.com/tutori ··· ator.asp which is probably well beyond the size likely to by covered by an ISP build out with too few homes per miles to be financially viable without HEAVY initial capitial cost subsidy. if the farmer could find other backhaul a pivot mounted array would give more than enough bandwidth for high density instrumentation on every ear of corn.

Take a look at the real world examples posted earlier this week(front page). It shows that even V is having to have them at about 600 ft intervals. There is a difference between what works in the lab or under ideal conditions vs what works in the real world.

yup real world is harder But my examples used the 600 ft placement cover 26 acres PER breakout and would cut the cost of the local individual/cutomized drops AND antenna to antenna PtP links can spread the joy further from the mainline/hwy in mesh like fashion = far less cost/commitment/time to deploy then FTTH in similar distances.
like every other LIKELY solution no single magic bullet will cover EVERYONE, but any possible technology that can work should be used for those it does fit now.

So far I have not seen ANY of the 5G using a mesh solution. It really does not work when the backbone (mesh in this case) capacity does not VASTLY exceed the client speed.

It took you four edits to say absolutely nothing. Try again.

Grant access to poles and ROW for more fiber.
Block franchise agreements.
Allow muni fiber.

You do want competition right?

Done! pole access requires a certain "NEEDS" classification*, a bond (ability to pay X over y cycles) to pay the pole OWNER
RoW require finance to pay for rights/land purchase to pay the land owner. Que?
This is what you are buying, EXCLUSIVE rights, which is NON-competition.
no reason not to allow muni to compete,
residents/rate payers/ tax payers get to vote on the honest INVESTMENT required and the NEED to do so, vs private fee for service. but you don't get FREE RoW, or FREE franchise responsibilities, or FREE poles/holes or conduit
Competition is NN/ level field/ subsidy free/equal value/desired service.
MOST munis have been dishonest about the RISK cost vs the value return Potential/actual/likely//worse case