Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then sell plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100 megs, you'll be robbing even more of the downstream for the upstream. Why would you do that? So that you're relatively capable of providing what you're selling. The alternative is gross oversubscription.
Cable will have to reassign their DOCSIS channels similarly (and whatever equipment swaps are needed in the plant to accomplish that).
VDSL-type services are kind of stuck as I'm not aware of any mechanisms to accomplish that.
and why?
Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to get higher speeds. I'm just against raising the bar until what's under the bar has been taken care of.
Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to get higher speeds. I'm just against raising the bar until what's under the bar has been taken care of.
From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:18:58 AM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:18:58 AM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <lists@packetflux.com> wrote:
I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.See the following product as an example:14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO. This is able to talk, in the same channel, at the same time, to up to 7 endpoints using both vertical and horizontal polarities at the same time. Total throughput per 40Mhz channel: 1.2Gb/s per AP.Because of the TDMA synchronization, you can actually hang two of these on the same tower front to back using the same channel. So 2.4Gb/s per Frequency. And there are dozens of channels available at this point.
But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per frequency, why are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?!
Regards,
Baldur