Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 5/Jan/20 00:40, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > I'm not sure if you know how that plan works, but domestic I have unlimited > data at a fair speed (10s of Mbit/s). My foreign data is also unlimited > but throttled at 256kbps. Which is good enough for me. > > Of course they will. But the consumer might not like the price tag :) I'm curious to see how long they can sustain this for, and how much of your own home/office connection factors into their capacity planning and management when they offer these unlimited plans. I know in Malaysia, this is how 2G/3G plans started out back in 2008. By 2012, any previous unlimited plans would remain in situ, but going forward, no more unlimited plans were being solid, not even corporate ones. > By the time I had my own place, I did not need a landline. I had cellular, > thanks to being on-call paid for by the ISP I was working for at the time. > > In fact, I never had a landline as my primary phone number. (note: I did > have landlines going into my house for DSL purposes). In Africa, there are more mobile phones than landlines. On our continent, the majority of telecommunications takes place on a mobile phone. The reasons are as historical as they are commercial. > > My prediction is that a similar thing will happen to data. We live in an > era where competing wireless data technologies are being developed. > Cellular, wi-fi, ptp microwave, and geostationary satellite are here > today. Low earth orbit satellite is upcoming, and cellular technology is > evolving to a point where I think my daughter (who is now 8) may never > need cable or dsl. My Roku uses wifi, her Roku will simply have a > softsim, just like those Amazon Kindles that came with AT&T wireless. > > The (far) future is wireless for consumers. Fiber (or whatever is next) > will only be needed for aggregation, datacenter and dc2dc. > > Until then, 5G is merely an intermediate technology. Just like 100BaseT > was a precursor to the 400G that's being deployed right now. I think you might be confusing a few things here. I think we can all agree that the future is wireless access for everything (phones, tablets, laptops, domestic appliances, e.t.c.). The question isn't about whether the kids will be using wire or wireless... we know they will be using wireless. The question is what that wireless will be. Something has to drive the wireless, so the wire (mostly high-bandwidth fibre) is not going anywhere. It is the distribution, particularly in consumer applications, that will be wireless. I just think that it will be more wi-fi than GSM data, simply because of the cost of scaling out GSM data vs. the cost of running fibre to a site and distributing connectivity via wi-fi. Because you can pack wi-fi AP's a lot more densely for cheaper compared to GSM radios, I think allocating newer frequencies toward wi-fi in addition to the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz makes a lot more sense to me, and partially resolves the never-ending issues MNO's have of a lack of spectrum. Mark.
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
Sabri At the very end you note 100base-t as a precursor to 400g. 100baset really found its success as an access solution - computer connections. 400GbE will be an aggregation / core solution. It will be some time if ever where 400GbE is used as an access solution - perhaps some hpc applications. Why? Cost and no need for that sort of bw. When we look at 5g / Wi-Fi / cellular solutions - cost that the consumer will tolerate will drive its use for a given application Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 4, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > - On Jan 3, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: > > Hi, > >>> I don't know about you, but I rarely use those. My T-Mobile plan has >>> unlimited data and coverage is adequate for me. It even works abroad, so >>> unless I need high speed data I'm fine with the included 256kbps. >>> Surprisingly, that's good enough for facetime. >> >> Hell, if an unlimited plan is 256Kbps, sign the whole world up :-). I >> think any MNO selling 4G @ 256Kbps unlimited can manage that. > > I'm not sure if you know how that plan works, but domestic I have unlimited > data at a fair speed (10s of Mbit/s). My foreign data is also unlimited > but throttled at 256kbps. Which is good enough for me. > >> I'm not sure they are willing to sell 4G @ 50Mbps unlimited. > > Of course they will. But the consumer might not like the price tag :) > >>> I predict that there will be a time where, just like POTS lines were >>> exchanged for cellular phones, people will disconnect their cable internet >>> and rely on 6g or 7g alone. And probably still with IPv4 addresses. >> >> I don't think so, not unless GSM receivers are cheaper to install in all >> fixed and mobile devices than wi-fi and Ethernet, and not unless MNO's >> are going to offer unlimited data service at high bandwidth. >> >> It's the kids, Sabri, and judging from your daughter's online behaviour, >> you can see it too :-). > > Lots of if and unlesses. But consider this: in the 90s, when I was making > may way into this industry, cellphones were becoming a mainstream thing. > My parents, and every other grownup for that matter, had a POTS landline > to the house. I'm sure you'll remember calling to the home of your crush > hoping that s/he'd pick up and not a parent. > > By the time I had my own place, I did not need a landline. I had cellular, > thanks to being on-call paid for by the ISP I was working for at the time. > > In fact, I never had a landline as my primary phone number. (note: I did > have landlines going into my house for DSL purposes). > > My prediction is that a similar thing will happen to data. We live in an > era where competing wireless data technologies are being developed. > Cellular, wi-fi, ptp microwave, and geostationary satellite are here > today. Low earth orbit satellite is upcoming, and cellular technology is > evolving to a point where I think my daughter (who is now 8) may never > need cable or dsl. My Roku uses wifi, her Roku will simply have a > softsim, just like those Amazon Kindles that came with AT&T wireless. > > The (far) future is wireless for consumers. Fiber (or whatever is next) > will only be needed for aggregation, datacenter and dc2dc. > > Until then, 5G is merely an intermediate technology. Just like 100BaseT > was a precursor to the 400G that's being deployed right now. > > Thanks, > > Sabri >
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 5/Jan/20 14:48, John D'Ambrosia wrote: > Sabri > At the very end you note 100base-t as a precursor to 400g. 100baset really > found its success as an access solution - computer connections. 400GbE will > be an aggregation / core solution. It will be some time if ever where 400GbE > is used as an access solution - perhaps some hpc applications. > > Why? > > Cost and no need for that sort of bw. And in those days, you'd be lucky if you can sustain 2Mbps on wi-fi. Today, I can do several-hundred Mbps on all my 802.11ac devices in my house (up to 867Mbps to my laptop and wireless-USB-adapter-equipped desktop). Even if we had to compromise this somewhat for massive, dense deployment in crowded locations within busy cities, the utility would still be miles ahead of what we got from Fast-E 25 years ago. Mark.
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
- On Jan 5, 2020, at 3:21 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: Hi, > The question isn't about whether the kids will be using wire or > wireless... we know they will be using wireless. The question is what > that wireless will be. Something has to drive the wireless, so the wire > (mostly high-bandwidth fibre) is not going anywhere. It is the > distribution, particularly in consumer applications, that will be wireless. That we totally agree on. > I just think that it will be more wi-fi than GSM data, simply because of > the cost of scaling out GSM data vs. the cost of running fibre to a site > and distributing connectivity via wi-fi. My instinct tells me it will be some form of low earth orbit satellites. In the past I worked for a GEO satellite ISP and while that technology has its drawbacks, those are mostly resolved with transponders in LEO. That said, in my dreams it will be something like this: https://phys.org/news/2019-12-entanglement-long-distance-free-space-quantum.html Imagine a world where you have one half of a quantum entangled particle in your device, with the other half being on the ISP premises. Instant wireless communication. I do apologize for the highly off-topic sci-fi here :) Thanks, Sabri
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
- On Jan 5, 2020, at 4:48 AM, John D'Ambrosia jdambro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, > At the very end you note 100base-t as a precursor to 400g. 100baset really > found its success as an access solution - computer connections. 400GbE will > be > an aggregation / core solution. It will be some time if ever where 400GbE is > used as an access solution - perhaps some hpc applications. > Cost and no need for that sort of bw. When I was at SuperCompute 19 in Denver last November, some people were looking for a switch supporting 200G so they could connect their server to it. The server had Mellanox 200G NICs. There was also an interesting NASA talk about how high bandwidth allowed them to accelerate their data analysis of anything from windtunnel results to live spacecraft launch telemetry. If I learned anything working with DC guys, it is that you give the server guys bandwidth, they will find a way to use it. That said, I agree with you that it will take a while before that'll be anywhere close to 400G. The last cloud environment I worked with recently was still in the process of qualifying 25G for their server farms. TORs were not even considered yet and were still running 10G downstream. Thanks, Sabri
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 1/5/20 3:21 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: I think we can all agree that the future is wireless access for everything (phones, tablets, laptops, domestic appliances, e.t.c.). The question isn't about whether the kids will be using wire or wireless... we know they will be using wireless. The question is what that wireless will be. Something has to drive the wireless, so the wire (mostly high-bandwidth fibre) is not going anywhere. It is the distribution, particularly in consumer applications, that will be wireless. I just think that it will be more wi-fi than GSM data, simply because of the cost of scaling out GSM data vs. the cost of running fibre to a site and distributing connectivity via wi-fi. Because you can pack wi-fi AP's a lot more densely for cheaper compared to GSM radios, I think allocating newer frequencies toward wi-fi in addition to the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz makes a lot more sense to me, and partially resolves the never-ending issues MNO's have of a lack of spectrum. It occurs to me that what we're really quibbling about here is where fiber ends. Is it at every street corner, or is it directly into my house? It seems to me ftth is the long term win economically because not everybody cares about each upgrade to wifi and are happy to wait until they do care -- if ever. Carriers, on the other hand, have to forklift in the new equipment at every G+1. That costs a lot of money which they have to recoup through higher fees. And they have to buy spectrum which is expensive. And they have to buy/rent real estate which is expensive. But people say ftth is expensive. But expensive to all of the stuff that wireless carriers need to deploy? Color me extremely dubious. It's not like rent seeking is exactly a secret with carriers, and that's what this smells like to me. The only advantage they have is that they can do handoffs which while useful, is not a deal breaker in a *lot* of situations. Other than that, I really don't want to use their air bits. Mike
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 1/5/20 1:05 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: This may be the case for single family homes, but bringing ftth into MDUs can be very ezpensive, as building want to charge entry fees, etc. Same goes for commercial buildings. 5G fixed wireless allows wireless to be used for the last mile, with the user still taking advantage of WiFi indoors. And it's the same infrastructure that supports the mobile use cases. Aren't commercial and MDU just terminating the fiber at the building and sending ethernet where it's needed? I mean, I've never heard of anybody using 4G as the last mile solution, so they obviously have a solution to those problems today. Mike
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 5/Jan/20 22:37, Sabri Berisha wrote: > > My instinct tells me it will be some form of low earth orbit satellites. In > the past I worked for a GEO satellite ISP and while that technology has its > drawbacks, those are mostly resolved with transponders in LEO. As a method to reach the 03b + under-served remote areas, perhaps. But the economics and technical performance don't make sense for LEO to be a last mile technology in a major metropolis. > > That said, in my dreams it will be something like this: > https://phys.org/news/2019-12-entanglement-long-distance-free-space-quantum.html > > Imagine a world where you have one half of a quantum entangled particle in > your device, with the other half being on the ISP premises. Instant > wireless communication. I do apologize for the highly off-topic sci-fi here :) That goes beyond the realm of my imagination ;-). Mark.
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 5/Jan/20 22:56, Michael Thomas wrote: > It occurs to me that what we're really quibbling about here is where > fiber ends. Indeed. The notion that wireless will replace fibre is misplaced. Wireless is just so prevalent because folk don't want to be hooked up to some kind of wire. It limits mobility. But make no mistake; at the front of that wireless mobility is a wire carrying bits, and going forward, it's mainly going to be fibre. > Is it at every street corner, or is it directly into my house? This will vary by market (both at a national and international level). But everyone is working toward fibre. Whether it be up to the curb + copper to your house, or all the way to your house, it will drive significant bandwidth that any kind of wireless can never support as a backhaul medium. > It seems to me ftth is the long term win economically because not > everybody cares about each upgrade to wifi and are happy to wait until > they do care -- if ever. Agreed. Until about 4 years ago, I ran your usual crappy wi-fi AP's around my house whose software you can only upgrade with a full hardware replacement. Those had some kind of 802.11a/b/g/n hooked up to a 768Kbps up/1Mbps down ADSL service I had. 1 year later, FTTH came to my house and I was tired of getting locked into silly CPE vendor habits. So I bought 2 Google OnHub AP's (802.11ac) + a Mikrotik CPE + home Ethernet switches. I can do 100's of Mbps of bandwidth over-the-air, and my 100Mbps FTTH service more than caters for my and my family's needs. I have no interest in 802.11ax for the foreseeable future, in my domestic setting at least. > Carriers, on the other hand, have to forklift in the new equipment at > every G+1. That costs a lot of money which they have to recoup through > higher fees. And they have to buy spectrum which is expensive. And > they have to buy/rent real estate which is expensive. All true! And deploying fibre + wi-fi costs far less than this if you are looking to minimize latency + massively increase bandwidth toward a large set of end users on a long-term basis, where you can sustain ongoing improvements in performance as technology develops, without having to flip your skin inside-out. > But people say ftth is expensive. But expensive to all of the stuff > that wireless carriers need to deploy? Color me extremely dubious. > It's not like rent seeking is exactly a secret with carriers, and > that's what this smells like to me. FTTH being expensive depends on the unique dynamics of the environment the market is in; and I'm sure this group knows those dynamics quite well. I've given this issue a lot of thought over the last couple of years, and I can't come up with any other way that we can ensure widespread FTTH deployment to as much of a country as possible without some kind of government involvement. And we have done this before, as governments anyway, i.e., when electrification, road construction, water systems and POTS services were all done with public funds for the delivery of what was considered basic services. Some will argue about whether the Internet should be considered a basic service. However, if we are looking to diffuse it to folk like we did water, power, road transportation and a simple copper voice line, we can't rely on private businesses whose sole incentive is profiteering. A great example that has always impressed me is the Stokab, which is owned by the City of Stockholm: https://www.stokab.se/Welcome-to-Stokab/ Stokab have deployed dark fibre to each and every square foot of Stockholm, as well as surrounding municipalities, and offers an open access network to all operators on the same commercial terms. Despite Ericsson being a Swedish company, I am not overly confident that Stockholm residents are going to be battling about whether they perform most of their Internet activities over 5G or fibre + wi-fi. > The only advantage they have is that they can do handoffs which while > useful, is not a deal breaker in a *lot* of situations. Other than > that, I really don't want to use their air bits. Like I said before, I personally don't think seamless hand-off is the killer app. The kids don't call each other; it's uncool. Already, VoWiFi hand-off to GSM doesn't work. And when the call breaks, we are all just used to taking the hit and re-dialing. So if the MNO's are trying to make seamless hand-off a selling point, they are better off spending their time doing other things. Mark.
Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 5/Jan/20 23:10, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > Aren't commercial and MDU just terminating the fiber at the building > and sending ethernet where it's needed? Shane is right - some commercial buildings can make your life difficult when trying to bring in fibre. I've typically found this to be the case where during the development of the building project, deals are done behind the scene where an operator locks themselves in with the developer to be the exclusive network provider, thereby blocking others from coming in. So if you want access into that building, you have pay the exclusive operator to use their network at the building site, which can - in most cases - be too costly to make sense. Such practices can be fixed by regulation, and the policing of such regulation. > I mean, I've never heard of anybody using 4G as the last mile > solution, so they obviously have a solution to those problems today. It's quite common in Africa, where copper lines are no longer reliable or available, and there has been no business case to deploy fibre. A simple example: https://secure.telkom.co.za/today/shop/home/plan/smartbroadband-wireless-lte-5gb-variation/ Mark.
