This thread has devolved into "Why 5G"? A lot of folks are missing the bigger picture. 5G is not for better voice calls. AFAICT, it won't help voice at all. 5G is not for better integration with WiFi or IP data. 5G is to *replace* WiFi, and FTTH, and ISPs, and WISPs, and bring all data back to the telco. ATT really misses owning the network monopoly. 5G is also about upstaging Amazon and Google and other data center providers. Read up on "Edge Computing". The "edge" isn't in your network or your customers' internal networks. The edge is a telco data center. That's what they mean by "reducing latency": moving your data processing into a telco data center means it is topologically closer to a cell tower. 5G is mostly about getting more unregulated data-related fees. --- History lesson: When I designed CDMA IS-99 (circa 1993-95), IP data was sent over the Operations and Management (O&M) interface. You could do voice simultaneous with data. Every original CDMA cell tower had an IP router in it. Our initial implementation significantly out-performed ATT's CDPD. I'm also the original author of Mobile IP, and the first implementer. IS-99 gave easy and fast IP roaming between interconnected cell towers. Turns out, the big telcos didn't like this model. In fact, they really didn't like a distributed traffic model at all. They wanted to centralize and monetize access to data, which they viewed as a value-added service, because they could bypass regulators and charge whatever the market could bear. Voice was regulated. Data was not. More money was to be made. Same issues, 25 years later....
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious. Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it? -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of William Allen Simpson Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:23 AM To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor This thread has devolved into "Why 5G"? A lot of folks are missing the bigger picture. 5G is not for better voice calls. AFAICT, it won't help voice at all. 5G is not for better integration with WiFi or IP data. 5G is to *replace* WiFi, and FTTH, and ISPs, and WISPs, and bring all data back to the telco. ATT really misses owning the network monopoly. 5G is also about upstaging Amazon and Google and other data center providers. Read up on "Edge Computing". The "edge" isn't in your network or your customers' internal networks. The edge is a telco data center. That's what they mean by "reducing latency": moving your data processing into a telco data center means it is topologically closer to a cell tower. 5G is mostly about getting more unregulated data-related fees. --- History lesson: When I designed CDMA IS-99 (circa 1993-95), IP data was sent over the Operations and Management (O&M) interface. You could do voice simultaneous with data. Every original CDMA cell tower had an IP router in it. Our initial implementation significantly out-performed ATT's CDPD. I'm also the original author of Mobile IP, and the first implementer. IS-99 gave easy and fast IP roaming between interconnected cell towers. Turns out, the big telcos didn't like this model. In fact, they really didn't like a distributed traffic model at all. They wanted to centralize and monetize access to data, which they viewed as a value-added service, because they could bypass regulators and charge whatever the market could bear. Voice was regulated. Data was not. More money was to be made. Same issues, 25 years later....
On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so little room for new competitors. Here's a project we did exploring some of the ambition https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2019-02-5g-mobile-augmented-reality-bath Previously we avoided the old Telco CDNs by sticking to regular Internet CDNs and building our own but edge compute (mobile CDN but a better name to compete with AWS) is more insidious as you may not be able to get the same result from CDNs out on the net. Either the content providers or the external CDNs they use will have to pay to use the mobile CDN. How they will scale that at all those sites will be interesting to see.
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed. brandon
On 1/1/20 10:35 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so little room for new competitors.
Deployed WiFi '5' (ac) and WiFi '6' (ax) already outperform mobile 5G. If this were actually about performance, the standards would have converged. And there wouldn't need to be so many additional patents. The primary purpose seems to be barriers to entry and competition.
[...]
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
Agreed. In my previous job, having spent considerable time talking to various standards' body participants, "replace" was the word used.
The primary purpose seems to be barriers to entry and competition.
I could have told you that when I started a pirate FM radio station at 10. About limiting reach. There are valid RF safety concerns, but that could be solved via other less draconian regulatory procedures. That said, 10 watts vs 100mw. It’s laughable. 5G/LTE is in another class from WiFi, not so much technically (but yes technically speaking as well) but from a regulatory perspective alone it’s a no brainer. A future hypothetical protocol could solve a lot of WiFi’s roaming capacity dead spot and penetration issues. However the laws of physics will make even 2.4 and especially 5Ghz behave more like light than “radio” we are familiar with from lower frequency transmission. -Ben Cannon CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC ben@6by7.net <mailto:ben@6by7.net>
On Jan 2, 2020, at 2:32 AM, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/1/20 10:35 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so
On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote: little room for new competitors. Deployed WiFi '5' (ac) and WiFi '6' (ax) already outperform mobile 5G.
If this were actually about performance, the standards would have converged. And there wouldn't need to be so many additional patents. The primary purpose seems to be barriers to entry and competition.
[...]
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it? If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed. Agreed. In my previous job, having spent considerable time talking to various standards' body participants, "replace" was the word used.
I know there are a couple companies doing it, but compute at the tower isn't going to go anywhere. It makes very little sense to put it at the tower when you can put it in one location per metro area. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> To: jdambrosia@gmail.com Cc: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:35:15 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so little room for new competitors. Here's a project we did exploring some of the ambition https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2019-02-5g-mobile-augmented-reality-bath Previously we avoided the old Telco CDNs by sticking to regular Internet CDNs and building our own but edge compute (mobile CDN but a better name to compete with AWS) is more insidious as you may not be able to get the same result from CDNs out on the net. Either the content providers or the external CDNs they use will have to pay to use the mobile CDN. How they will scale that at all those sites will be interesting to see.
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed. brandon
I’ve always pondered the difference between compute in the tower over compute in a well-connected metro data center. Yet to find it for any use case except the 5G x86 supporting infrastructure. Justin From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> Date: Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 9:10 AM To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor I know there are a couple companies doing it, but compute at the tower isn't going to go anywhere. It makes very little sense to put it at the tower when you can put it in one location per metro area. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ________________________________ From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> To: jdambrosia@gmail.com Cc: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:35:15 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so little room for new competitors. Here's a project we did exploring some of the ambition https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2019-02-5g-mobile-augmented-reality-bath Previously we avoided the old Telco CDNs by sticking to regular Internet CDNs and building our own but edge compute (mobile CDN but a better name to compete with AWS) is more insidious as you may not be able to get the same result from CDNs out on the net. Either the content providers or the external CDNs they use will have to pay to use the mobile CDN. How they will scale that at all those sites will be interesting to see.
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed. brandon
On 1/2/20 06:09, Mike Hammett wrote:
I know there are a couple companies doing it, but compute at the tower isn't going to go anywhere. It makes very little sense to put it at the tower when you can put it in one location per metro area.
The bottom of a tower is a fantastically expensive piece of real estate to collocate something in. If you're financing the development of such realestate it may sound great, but if you're leasing, it is sort of outlandish, especially if you want .5KW per ru along with it. If you set your latency budget artificially at 1ms, at .7 C photons travel around 210km. If you draw a circle around the base of the tower at 75KM it's quite feasible to achieve that assuming for the sake of argument that it's necessary.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> *To: *jdambrosia@gmail.com *Cc: *"North American Network Operators Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:35:15 AM *Subject: *Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so little room for new competitors.
Here's a project we did exploring some of the ambition https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2019-02-5g-mobile-augmented-reality-bath
Previously we avoided the old Telco CDNs by sticking to regular Internet CDNs and building our own but edge compute (mobile CDN but a better name to compete with AWS) is more insidious as you may not be able to get the same result from CDNs out on the net.
Either the content providers or the external CDNs they use will have to pay to use the mobile CDN. How they will scale that at all those sites will be interesting to see.
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
brandon
On 2/Jan/20 18:41, joel jaeggli wrote:
The bottom of a tower is a fantastically expensive piece of real estate to collocate something in. If you're financing the development of such realestate it may sound great, but if you're leasing, it is sort of outlandish, especially if you want .5KW per ru along with it.
If you set your latency budget artificially at 1ms, at .7 C photons travel around 210km. If you draw a circle around the base of the tower at 75KM it's quite feasible to achieve that assuming for the sake of argument that it's necessary.
Agreed. Especially because when power outages start to hit, base stations are notoriously difficult to keep alive. Even if you're conservative and limit your metro area to 100km, you can maintain 1ms access within the backbone to/from your content. The weak link will be the radio network down to your customers. Mark.
I tend to agree, we’re putting our own compute under 1ms from every cell tower in every metro. What that means is 3 or 6 DCs in a big metro area, but not usually compute in towers. Other edge compute is interesting tho. And the towers themselves are changing. We still have macro sites, but we will more than double the cell site count (400k to 1.2m) in the next 5 years and it will be small cells/DAS mostly. Those aren’t towers in the conventional sense. -Ben. -Ben Cannon CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC ben@6by7.net <mailto:ben@6by7.net>
On Jan 2, 2020, at 6:09 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I know there are a couple companies doing it, but compute at the tower isn't going to go anywhere. It makes very little sense to put it at the tower when you can put it in one location per metro area.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> To: jdambrosia@gmail.com Cc: "North American Network Operators Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:35:15 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious
We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so little room for new competitors.
Here's a project we did exploring some of the ambition https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2019-02-5g-mobile-augmented-reality-bath
Previously we avoided the old Telco CDNs by sticking to regular Internet CDNs and building our own but edge compute (mobile CDN but a better name to compete with AWS) is more insidious as you may not be able to get the same result from CDNs out on the net.
Either the content providers or the external CDNs they use will have to pay to use the mobile CDN. How they will scale that at all those sites will be interesting to see.
Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
brandon
On 1/Jan/20 17:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
The main issue is the artificial concept of "buying data" so you can get online. I don't see any legacy MNO's selling you unlimited access to their radio network. So wi-fi hooked up to some kind of unlimited terrestrial wire (fibre, copper, wireless, e.t.c.) is what will discourage the kids from relying on MNO's to provide all of their connectivity needs, especially in fixed settings such as homes and such. Mark.
Verizon is already offering fixed access 5G service with unlimited data for $50.00/month in five cities. On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 3:56 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 1/Jan/20 17:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
The main issue is the artificial concept of "buying data" so you can get online.
I don't see any legacy MNO's selling you unlimited access to their radio network. So wi-fi hooked up to some kind of unlimited terrestrial wire (fibre, copper, wireless, e.t.c.) is what will discourage the kids from relying on MNO's to provide all of their connectivity needs, especially in fixed settings such as homes and such.
Mark.
On 3/Jan/20 14:11, Shane Ronan wrote:
Verizon is already offering fixed access 5G service with unlimited data for $50.00/month in five cities.
I'd be curious to know how long they can sustain that unlimited service for. A company, over here, called Rain, have just launched their 5G offering in South Africa. Based on how they struggled to maintain an unlimited offering when they rolled out 4G, we are all keen to see how that goes. Mark.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:56 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 1/Jan/20 17:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
The main issue is the artificial concept of "buying data" so you can get online.
I don't see any legacy MNO's selling you unlimited access to their radio network. So wi-fi hooked up to some kind of unlimited terrestrial wire (fibre, copper, wireless, e.t.c.) is what will discourage the kids from relying on MNO's to provide all of their connectivity needs, especially in fixed settings such as homes and such.
Mark, you are oversimplifying the market 1. All wireless networks are capped by spectrum capacity / physica. As a user, you have been on a congested cell site and a congested 802.11 AP. So, as an operator, you have to ration service. That means cap / qos / $ 2. In the USA, Cable / fiber / copper ISPs sometimes do not sell unlimited either https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/424037/googles-stadia-is-abou... Network operators like to set their rates based on some median user profile. They are not being exploitive. Some users tax the network more and drive the upgrade cycle more than others. 3. There are wifi providers, wisps, cable, mno ... they all compete and blur the lines. I think wifi has provided limited benefit to cable operators that have deployed it, but hope for using free spectrum springs enternal https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-garners-its-first-15-...
Mark.
On 3/Jan/20 16:25, Ca By wrote:
Mark, you are oversimplifying the market
Isn't that how the kids see it, though :-).
1. All wireless networks are capped by spectrum capacity / physica. As a user, you have been on a congested cell site and a congested 802.11 AP. So, as an operator, you have to ration service. That means cap / qos / $
Agreed - but the cost of deploying a GSM radio is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of deploying wi-fi (even enterprise-grade wi-fi). Already, customers are doing more than half the work for operators by deploying their own wi-fi into their own homes at their own cost. Folk like Google (with OnHub and Google WiFi) are making the deployment, management and performance of in-home wi-fi a lot easier for users that "feel like the Internet should be simple". This is a good thing for MNO's, especially those already leveraging VoWiFi to control investment in GSM radios without impacting performance. I'm sure MNO's will be less-than-pleased if in-home wi-fi were to suddenly collapse, because all that traffic then shifts back to GSM, e.g., during power outages, ISP outages, e.t.c. Yes, you probably need as many wi-fi AP's as you need 5G radios, but the cost between them is vastly different that you can provide customers with the benefit at a fraction of the cost. Hell, if the MNO's came together to share wi-fi infrastructure and differentiate services by SSID, in the same location, it might actually work :-).
2. In the USA, Cable / fiber / copper ISPs sometimes do not sell unlimited either
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/424037/googles-stadia-is-abou...
Network operators like to set their rates based on some median user profile. They are not being exploitive. Some users tax the network more and drive the upgrade cycle more than others.
Same here in Africa, when FTTH services were initially rolled out. In South Africa, as little as 4 years ago, 90% of all FTTH services were cap-based. Today, while you can still get a cap-based FTTH service, I'd say that number has shifted, and 65% - 70% of all FTTH services are now uncapped. Some are maintaining their capped services but bundling in uncapped elements for popular services such as Netflix, e.t.c. Ultimately, the eco system is showing that the cost of IP Transit is so low (just about US$0 for peering in South Africa on NAPAfrica), to the extent that I can posit all FTTH services in South Africa will be 100% uncapped within the next 2 - 4 years.
3. There are wifi providers, wisps, cable, mno ... they all compete and blur the lines. I think wifi has provided limited benefit to cable operators that have deployed it, but hope for using free spectrum springs enternal
https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-garners-its-first-15-...
So I'm not suggesting that wi-fi be deployed as the sole solution. I'm mainly referring to dense parts of a city, country, e.t.c. In sparsely-populated locations, 2G, 3G, 4G should do just fine (I don't think 5G or anything with a higher frequency makes sense due to the vast spread of eyeballs in these areas). But in densely-packed areas, up until the point where 5G becomes commercially viable to deploy at scale, utilize the fibre that is massively available to create as many pockets as possible of wi-fi in places where customers do not run their own, e.g., malls, stadia, restaurants, bars, clubs, gas stations, schools, e.t.c., to alleviate the pressure on 4G (or even pressure on dense 5G deployment). One could even go a step further and work with private wi-fi owners (regular people running a shop) to allow MNO's to either ride their wi-fi network or replace it with a shared one. Of course, if 5G does become reasonably cheap to deploy in the future, then who cares :-). But judging by the rate of development in the wi-fi space, it seems like it's going to be a race between both camps with each new iteration. And as long as GSM capex continues to remain as costly as it has always been - considering the declining margins for MNO's - wi-fi capex will always look like an alternative. Mark.
On 1/Jan/20 16:29, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious. Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
Wi-fi is only growing. With all the fibre going into homes, businesses, shops and restaurants, wi-fi is up-and-to-the-right. Mark.
Not to mention manufacturers are finally focusing on the in-home WiFi that is usually the worst part of someone's Internet experience due to a lack of adequate coverage, interference, etc. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 2:51:46 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On 1/Jan/20 16:29, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:
Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious. Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it?
Wi-fi is only growing. With all the fibre going into homes, businesses, shops and restaurants, wi-fi is up-and-to-the-right. Mark.
On 3/Jan/20 15:40, Mike Hammett wrote:
Not to mention manufacturers are finally focusing on the in-home WiFi that is usually the worst part of someone's Internet experience due to a lack of adequate coverage, interference, etc.
They had to when folk like Google (OnHub, Google WiFi) appeared to make it brain dead. But you're right; it's only going to get more robust in the home. Mark.
On 1/Jan/20 16:22, William Allen Simpson wrote:
This thread has devolved into "Why 5G"?
A lot of folks are missing the bigger picture.
5G is not for better voice calls. AFAICT, it won't help voice at all.
5G is not for better integration with WiFi or IP data. 5G is to *replace* WiFi, and FTTH, and ISPs, and WISPs, and bring all data back to the telco. ATT really misses owning the network monopoly.
5G is also about upstaging Amazon and Google and other data center providers. Read up on "Edge Computing". The "edge" isn't in your network or your customers' internal networks. The edge is a telco data center.
That's what they mean by "reducing latency": moving your data processing into a telco data center means it is topologically closer to a cell tower.
5G is mostly about getting more unregulated data-related fees.
Well, the kids don't want to pay for data. Heck, neither do I. On that basis alone, Any-G won't kill wi-fi :-). Mark.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 10:53, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
5G is mostly about getting more unregulated data-related fees.
Well, the kids don't want to pay for data. Heck, neither do I.
On that basis alone, Any-G won't kill wi-fi :-).
Williams comment seems somewhat market specific and perhaps even overly negative. Mostly 5G is about better radio performance in dense metro installations, uninteresting metric for many markets. Some markets already do +20GB/month _average_ on 4G subscription with +50Mbps datarates, lower than DSL latency and <20EUR MRC. In these markets many opt not to have any other data connection but 4G, the benefits are compelling, cheaper, faster, lower latency, shorter MTTR and easier to switch to competition compared to DSL. -- ++ytti
On 3/Jan/20 10:58, Saku Ytti wrote:
Williams comment seems somewhat market specific and perhaps even overly negative. Mostly 5G is about better radio performance in dense metro installations, uninteresting metric for many markets. Some markets already do +20GB/month _average_ on 4G subscription with +50Mbps datarates, lower than DSL latency and <20EUR MRC. In these markets many opt not to have any other data connection but 4G, the benefits are compelling, cheaper, faster, lower latency, shorter MTTR and easier to switch to competition compared to DSL.
If your market can offer 50Mbps of 4G for EUR20/month with a 20GB data cap, chances are there is fibre nearby, either for your office, or your home, or both. If there isn't, something is smelling... In Africa, most folk don't buy that much data, never mind for that cheap, even if they'd love it. Many markets on our continent are seeing data sales mostly in the MB's, and not the GB's, and it's still pricier than you might think. I hazard a guess that some specific markets in parts of Europe, Asia-Pac and Latin America might also be similarly affected. I can get 50Mbps easily on 4G/LTE either mobile network that I subscribe to here in South Africa. I get about 2GB/month for about EUR100/month for my personal one, and 20GB/month for about EUR200/month for my work one. I have a 3rd 4G line which I use to connect my car to the Internet, and I pay EUR2/month for 100MB/month. As my Ghanian friend would say, "That is not a steal". I have an unlimited FTTH connection to my home. I don't know how much data my house generates. I have a neighbor who, last year, went from a 50GB/month data cap for his FTTH service to an unlimited option, and his house now generates 1TB of data per month. I asked him, "Why do you even bother counting?" It's the kids... it's Fortnite... it's Instagram... it's Youtube... it's the kids. Mark.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 11:15, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
If your market can offer 50Mbps of 4G for EUR20/month with a 20GB data cap, chances are there is fibre nearby, either for your office, or your home, or both. If there isn't, something is smelling...
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations. -- ++ytti
On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? Mark.
Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> To: "Saku Ytti" <saku@ytti.fi> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? Mark.
In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE to provide adequate service. Shane On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
------------------------------ *From: *"Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> *To: *"Saku Ytti" <saku@ytti.fi> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM *Subject: *Re: 5G roadblock: labor
On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020?
And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
Mark.
Why? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:56:57 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE to provide adequate service. Shane On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Mark Tinka" < mark.tinka@seacom.mu > To: "Saku Ytti" < saku@ytti.fi > Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? Mark.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that it’s become a wavelength problem at this point with 4G in high-density areas. 5Gs shorter but higher in spectrum wavelength will need more nodes per square kilometer but have a much higher limit to its bandwidth ceiling. I believe the numbers I saw were something along the lines of 10k people per square kilometer for 4G, and 1M people per square kilometer for 5G at the 300GHz wavelength. -- Ryland From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:58 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor Why? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ________________________________ From: "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com<mailto:shane@ronan-online.com>> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net<mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> Cc: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu<mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu>>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:56:57 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE to provide adequate service. Shane On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net<mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ________________________________ From: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu<mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu>> To: "Saku Ytti" <saku@ytti.fi<mailto:saku@ytti.fi>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? Mark.
Throughput is (mostly) a function of channel size, modulation, and signal to noise ratio. Coverage is (mostly) a function of frequency, radiated power, obstacles, and signal to noise ratio. Other than in the bowels of large buildings, coverage shouldn't be an issue in most urban areas. The millimeter wave bands do need a lot higher density of sites for similar coverage due to the impact of frequency and obstacles. There's nothing saying that AWS or WCS allocations can't be used for site densification. They would have the side-effect of actually being able to penetrate the buildings they're near instead of just serving the sidewalk and street. It is true that the peak speed in the millimeter bands is much higher than what AWS or WCS can provide, but peak speeds are only interesting for genital-waving speed tests. If I have sufficient allocations such that Mu-MIMO offers the sector capacity that I need, I'm better off because the aforementioned "entering the building" benefits. That is... unless I intend the user to use WiFi once inside and to not use my 5G network anymore. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryland Kremeier" <rkremeier@barryelectric.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 8:05:56 AM Subject: RE: 5G roadblock: labor Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that it’s become a wavelength problem at this point with 4G in high-density areas. 5Gs shorter but higher in spectrum wavelength will need more nodes per square kilometer but have a much higher limit to its bandwidth ceiling. I believe the numbers I saw were something along the lines of 10k people per square kilometer for 4G, and 1M people per square kilometer for 5G at the 300GHz wavelength. -- Ryland From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:58 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor Why? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Ronan" < shane@ronan-online.com > To: "Mike Hammett" < nanog@ics-il.net > Cc: "Mark Tinka" < mark.tinka@seacom.mu >, "North American Network Operators' Group" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:56:57 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE to provide adequate service. Shane On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Mark Tinka" < mark.tinka@seacom.mu > To: "Saku Ytti" < saku@ytti.fi > Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? Mark.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Throughput is (mostly) a function of channel size, modulation, and signal to noise ratio.
Coverage is (mostly) a function of frequency, radiated power, obstacles, and signal to noise ratio.
Other than in the bowels of large buildings, coverage shouldn't be an issue in most urban areas.
Mike, I'd caution your use of: "other than in the bowels of large buildings" there... In office buildings (or residential buildings) which are LEED certified often you get glass coatings which reflect radio emissions (both reflect IN and reflect OUT) so.. in most 'modern' office buildings (which LEED certification, or equivalent) even standing next to a window you may not pick up LTE/3g from outside :( there are internal building deployment things, of course, which can be done... but not every building is equipped :(
Right. I didn't want to spend too much of my time delving into any and all situations where it'll vary. I wonder how much the sub 1 GHz penetrates the buildings anyway if the transmitter is at the street. 5G won't solve the building penetration without entering the building, which 4G could do just as well. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Ryland Kremeier" <rkremeier@barryelectric.com>, "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com>, "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 12:42:39 PM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Throughput is (mostly) a function of channel size, modulation, and signal to noise ratio.
Coverage is (mostly) a function of frequency, radiated power, obstacles, and signal to noise ratio.
Other than in the bowels of large buildings, coverage shouldn't be an issue in most urban areas.
Mike, I'd caution your use of: "other than in the bowels of large buildings" there... In office buildings (or residential buildings) which are LEED certified often you get glass coatings which reflect radio emissions (both reflect IN and reflect OUT) so.. in most 'modern' office buildings (which LEED certification, or equivalent) even standing next to a window you may not pick up LTE/3g from outside :( there are internal building deployment things, of course, which can be done... but not every building is equipped :(
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:21 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Right. I didn't want to spend too much of my time delving into any and all situations where it'll vary.
ok, fair enough :)
I wonder how much the sub 1 GHz penetrates the buildings anyway if the transmitter is at the street.
5G won't solve the building penetration without entering the building, which 4G could do just as well.
the local folk have been pimping the idea that: "hey, just run a 4g/lte/g5 cell service inside your building/business, backhaul over cable-modem/etc and jam on..." of course there's 'someone' who sells the cellular + backhaul kit, this is only workable on <700mhz?> frequencies (maybe 'band 3' ?? or something) and so far hasn't really taken off as near as I can tell. again, it SOUNDS like an interesting business model... :)
On 3/Jan/20 21:49, Christopher Morrow wrote:
the local folk have been pimping the idea that: "hey, just run a 4g/lte/g5 cell service inside your building/business, backhaul over cable-modem/etc and jam on..."
How is this different from just hooking up your wi-fi AP to fibre and offering WiFi Calling, aside from being a little cheaper :-)? Mark.
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 12:26 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 3/Jan/20 21:49, Christopher Morrow wrote:
the local folk have been pimping the idea that: "hey, just run a 4g/lte/g5 cell service inside your building/business, backhaul over cable-modem/etc and jam on..."
How is this different from just hooking up your wi-fi AP to fibre and offering WiFi Calling, aside from being a little cheaper :-)?
it's nor really except that a bunch of the radio/client management is 'easier' in cellular than in wifi. managing roaming COULD be saner as well even, so when you walk out of the shop and off their pico-cell you can transition the running call (or data stream since it's all just voip/ip anyway) to the next network (some gsm/lte/4/5g thing perhaps. The main point, the part I missed I think in this thread bit, was that to make this all work the cost of the chip that does 4g/5g/lte has to be equivalent to the wifi chipset, such that each thing that has wifi also just has cellular. It may not work out that way, who knows :)
On 4/Jan/20 08:37, Christopher Morrow wrote:
it's nor really except that a bunch of the radio/client management is 'easier' in cellular than in wifi. managing roaming COULD be saner as well even, so when you walk out of the shop and off their pico-cell you can transition the running call (or data stream since it's all just voip/ip anyway) to the next network (some gsm/lte/4/5g thing perhaps.
The reason I am not too fussed about seamless call hand-off when on wi-fi is because the kids aren't talking anymore. The closest they'll come to talking to each other is by exchanging WhatsApp voice notes. All the kids do is text, and voice calling is so 1920 :-). You may coax them into WhatsApp calling, but even that is a stretch. The only time I've seen the kids enthusiastic about talking to each other is when they are playing networked Fortnite... "Hey, I'm lagging, I'm lagging". For me, I'm old school; I still prefer to make a voice call from time to time. Providers that offer VoWiFi can't even hand-off properly when the wi-fi has an issue and the phone switches back to GSM. I always get call drops when this happens, so much so that sometimes when I am making calls I can't afford to drop, I just turn off the wi-fi so that I am not using VoWiFi. The reason seamless voice hand-off isn't going to be a big issue - I feel - is because we've, over the years, all been accustomed to call drops, call setup and call clarity problems. What do we do when this happens? We just call the other person again (while taking or dishing blaming about why the call dropped), or walk around like chicken chanting "Can you hear me now". At no time do we hold the MNO's to account about why call management is actually poor, even when you aren't driving through a tunnel or inside a lift. We are just used to it, so I don't think fixing hand-off transition is going to be the killer app. Pure texting or the transmission of voice notes doesn't care about any of that; and just like any ideas about ploughing money into fixing PMTUd, I think investing too much energy into fixing seamless voice hand-off may be a slight waste, based on what the kids are doing now.
The main point, the part I missed I think in this thread bit, was that to make this all work the cost of the chip that does 4g/5g/lte has to be equivalent to the wifi chipset, such that each thing that has wifi also just has cellular. It may not work out that way, who knows :)
Agreed - but for laptops, you've got Bluetooth or USB ports to help tether them to the GSM network via a mobile phone. Does putting a GSM chip in there make sense? Maybe, maybe not. With the cost of energy becoming a real issue, and so-called "IoT" devices destined to be smaller and smaller, does adding yet another wireless radio make sense? Maybe, maybe not. Considering that you can install wi-fi pretty much everywhere for cheap (even with a piss-poor backhaul connection), but the presence of GSM networks being typically backed by $Big_Money, where does one want to spend their limited time and energy? Mark.
On 3/Jan/20 20:42, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Mike, I'd caution your use of: "other than in the bowels of large buildings" there... In office buildings (or residential buildings) which are LEED certified often you get glass coatings which reflect radio emissions (both reflect IN and reflect OUT) so.. in most 'modern' office buildings (which LEED certification, or equivalent) even standing next to a window you may not pick up LTE/3g from outside :(
there are internal building deployment things, of course, which can be done... but not every building is equipped :(
Our office building, in Johannesburg, suffers from this very problem. Eventually, the MNO's deployed little picocells inside our office to help, but ultimately, staff just use wi-fi. Since they support VoWiFi as well, voice calls seem to work just fine, over our internal wi-fi network. While I'm sure the MNO's can see close to no performance from their picocells in our office, they aren't sending anyone out there to fix it because they know they are relying on our wi-fi network to deliver their services to us. Figures. Mark.
On 3/Jan/20 15:56, Shane Ronan wrote:
In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE to provide adequate service.
But doesn't it, then, follow that high-density locations tend to have plenty of wi-fi? Public and private? For me, the risk I see to MNO's is that the kids don't want to pay for data. Data is the limiting factor for kids that don't understand why they should be limited when they are not in their homes, or friends' homes. In my mind, rather than spend more cash on 4G or 5G (in 2020), MNO's might do better to deploy SP Wi-Fi so that they can do two things: * Offload traffic from valuable GSM spectrum and on to wi-fi. * Be in a position to offer unlimited services more effectively, which is what the kids really want. Looking at where things are going right now, the current MNO model is not sustainable, given the amount of capex that is constantly required, the declining margins, the change in the kids' online behaviour and the constant (or even rising) equipment costs from vendors. If the MNO model of pure infrastructure play is how they intend to keep doing business in an age where transformation away from it is forcing networking businesses to re-think the (true) value they offer to customers, SP Wi-Fi seems like the logical way to maintain said business model. Either that or pull an Amazon and go from selling books to... well, you know the rest :-). Mark.
And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first. FWIW, Rogers in Canada are moving to unlimited cellular data, with a monthly threshold, beyond which they reserve the right to throttle (but do not always throttle). Bell probably do something similar. The threshold increases with the number of devices on the account, and any throttling applies to all devices on that account. paul
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 16:38, Paul Nash wrote:
And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first.
Don't know how things work in US, but mobile devices sold here in Europe do prefer wifi over cellular. If a pre-"approved" wifi network exists, and it doesn't have a captive portal, it will be systematically preferred. And here in France we have some networks lile this. they use SIM-EAP.
On Friday, 3 January, 2020 10:53, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <nanog@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 16:38, Paul Nash wrote:
And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first.
Don't know how things work in US, but mobile devices sold here in Europe do prefer wifi over cellular. If a pre-"approved" wifi network exists, and it doesn't have a captive portal, it will be systematically preferred.
And here in France we have some networks lile this. they use SIM-EAP.
How absolutely awful that must be, to always be relegated to slow and insecure childrens band. I turn off childrens band (WiFi) on my phone with extreme prejudice and it stays that way. I have yet to meet a childrens band network (WiFi) that was worth connecting too. Then again I don't play on my phone ... -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On 3/Jan/20 20:35, Keith Medcalf wrote:
How absolutely awful that must be, to always be relegated to slow and insecure childrens band. I turn off childrens band (WiFi) on my phone with extreme prejudice and it stays that way. I have yet to meet a childrens band network (WiFi) that was worth connecting too.
Then again I don't play on my phone ...
I guess the point is that there is an opportunity to improve the quality of dodgy wi-fi deployments because there is a need to serve more eyeballs more quickly, and 5G, while promising, just has too many unanswered questions right now. So since money has to be blown, where do we blow it? Needless to say, at least on my iPhone, (certain) updates and downloads are generally only done on wi-fi networks, because they are trying to protect users from expensive data costs. GSM data currently works today because of the artificial data caps, i.e., folk self-police. Open it up and I doubt it would be any different from poorly-deployed wi-fi. But the problem is the kids don't want to pay for data, and they don't like being limited with artificial data caps, and they are the ones driving what the Internet will look like for their generation. So what gives? Mark.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 19:35, Keith Medcalf wrote:
How absolutely awful that must be, to always be relegated to slow and insecure childrens band. I turn off childrens band (WiFi) on my phone with extreme prejudice and it stays that way. I have yet to meet a childrens band network (WiFi) that was worth connecting too.
Well "childrens" band sometimes has the advantage of being availabe (and working) in places where cellular data isn't (or is as bad as in "not working"). Enabling/disabling wifi is a "sport" you get accustomed with... Same for switching wifi networks...
Then again I don't play on my phone ...
A mobile phone today is much more than voice calling and games.
On 3/Jan/20 17:38, Paul Nash wrote:
They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first.
I don't know about Android-based phones, but my iPhone ALWAYS wants wi-fi, whether it came before or after GSM. At times, the prompting to say, "Hey, there is a wi-fi hot spot right here, do you want to connect to it" can be quite annoying. For example, Diners Club partners with a ton of wi-fi networks around the world, and the moment I am in a location where my phone (and the Diners Club app) detect a wi-fi AP that is in their partner pool, it wants me to connect to it. And it just works...
FWIW, Rogers in Canada are moving to unlimited cellular data, with a monthly threshold, beyond which they reserve the right to throttle (but do not always throttle). Bell probably do something similar.
The threshold increases with the number of devices on the account, and any throttling applies to all devices on that account.
If I'm honest, to me, that just sounds like a marketing ploy... call it unlimited to bring them on, but when things get tight and we need to throttle back (which WILL, not MAY) happen, hey, we told them so. And to be fair, if they get customers on the back of that, more power to them. I'm not one to hate clever business practices :-). Mark.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:37 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense metro installations.
Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020?
There are some folk local to my office who often speak about wifi/cellular and have some fairly decent knowledge about the technology and deployment/management/etc... One thing they've made clear (and our enterprise wireless folk echo this, actually) is that the cellular network technologies of 'today' are far better at client/power/tower control and management. So much so that for dense deployments it sounds, actually, better to have 4G/LTE on the 'tower' and push that chipset into laptop/etc things. This way you can better control client -> tower associations and traffic patterns and power demands. This isn't something that is easily doable in the current (before wifi5 I mean? I dont' really know much about the wifi world beyond 802.11ac gear, sorry) wifi deployments, and client experience suffers often because of these problems. Things like: overloaded basestations chatty clients bw hog clients borked radio/client stacks
And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
What if the world had the capability to offer solid 'cellular' at the cost (free) of 'wifi' in a bunch of these places? if the 'cellular' was offered by local businesses and perhaps not subject to the telco capture problems? (costs to the client) I think that's the world the folk in my local office were pushing for... it seemed nice :) but getting enough 4g/5g vs wifi chipsets into the clients seemed like the really sticky wicket :(
On 3/Jan/20 20:38, Christopher Morrow wrote:
There are some folk local to my office who often speak about wifi/cellular and have some fairly decent knowledge about the technology and deployment/management/etc... One thing they've made clear (and our enterprise wireless folk echo this, actually) is that the cellular network technologies of 'today' are far better at client/power/tower control and management.
So much so that for dense deployments it sounds, actually, better to have 4G/LTE on the 'tower' and push that chipset into laptop/etc things. This way you can better control client -> tower associations and traffic patterns and power demands. This isn't something that is easily doable in the current (before wifi5 I mean? I dont' really know much about the wifi world beyond 802.11ac gear, sorry) wifi deployments, and client experience suffers often because of these problems. Things like: overloaded basestations chatty clients bw hog clients borked radio/client stacks
You mean like when we all thought ATM was the hottest thing and that laptops would have it instead of Ethernet :-). It's kind of like the argument between a PSTN engineer and IP engineer about which network is better. Practically, GSM data works because folk self-police; because there is an artificial barrier called Data (as in $$, not as in bits). Release that artificial dam, and watch GSM data crumble to its knees.
What if the world had the capability to offer solid 'cellular' at the cost (free) of 'wifi' in a bunch of these places? if the 'cellular' was offered by local businesses and perhaps not subject to the telco capture problems? (costs to the client) I think that's the world the folk in my local office were pushing for... it seemed nice :) but getting enough 4g/5g vs wifi chipsets into the clients seemed like the really sticky wicket :(
The problem with consumer solutions is that they need to designed, implemented, built, sold and operated at scale. Ethernet and wi-fi are a lot better at this than SDH and GSM, when it comes to having these components running around in people's hands. I mean, just look at the Internet. Mark.
Mark Tinka писал 2020-01-03 04:36:
And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
Currently /me don't bother switching to wifi in public places bcz LTE provides enough bw for my humble needs. And when the next phone will be released with 4k 120fps camera and 4k display there will be a lot of people (not only kids) who will use it and abuse it all the time for gaming, streaming ,etc. It's not about competition with WiFi, it's just a new thing that is coming. But 5G will take away it's share of fixed users for sure. When first iphone was released it was pretty much useless toy because all apps were bound to Internet and cell networks were you know where at that time with public WiFi only starting to take off. But now we can't live without services which are novadays considered as basic and then were fancy technology break-outs for geeks. Kind regards, Andrey
On 4/Jan/20 00:06, Andrey Kostin wrote:
Currently /me don't bother switching to wifi in public places bcz LTE provides enough bw for my humble needs.
When I'm in South Africa, same for me, because: * Most hotels, restaurants, shops, and airport lounges still use ADSL. So the wi-fi sucks. If I know that any of these establishments is on fibre (likely because my company services them, or services an ISP that services them), I am happy to use their wi-fi. * On my work mobile, I get 30GB of data per month as per contract. I probably only use 2GB - 3GB of that, both for work and other stuff. On the other hand, when I am traveling, I have to use wi-fi, even when it's dodgy, because my provider's GSM roaming requires one to sacrifice their grandmother (and no, that 30GB/month plan does not include roaming). Luckily, the hotels I tend to stay at have had great wi-fi, probably explained by how much they cost to stay at :-).
And when the next phone will be released with 4k 120fps camera and 4k display there will be a lot of people (not only kids) who will use it and abuse it all the time for gaming, streaming ,etc.
Agreed. But I stress "it's the kids" because they don't know or care about how all this works. They just want to stream nonstop, regardless of the cost of data. We, their parents, aren't wired that way because it's us paying for it.
It's not about competition with WiFi, it's just a new thing that is coming. But 5G will take away it's share of fixed users for sure.
I don't think wi-fi and 5G are deliberately in competition - I think that competition is just a natural evolution of where the state-of-the-art is. Kind of like cutting the linear TV cord in favour of a VoD streaming service.
When first iphone was released it was pretty much useless toy because all apps were bound to Internet and cell networks were you know where at that time with public WiFi only starting to take off. But now we can't live without services which are novadays considered as basic and then were fancy technology break-outs for geeks.
Agreed, but also 802.11ac/ax are miles ahead of 802.11a/b/g/n, in a world where premises (commercial and private) have tons more fibre than they did when the iPhone launched in 2007. Mark.
participants (17)
-
Andrey Kostin -
Ben Cannon -
Brandon Butterworth -
Ca By -
Christopher Morrow -
jdambrosia＠gmail.com -
joel jaeggli -
Justin Oeder -
Keith Medcalf -
Mark Tinka -
Mike Hammett -
Paul Nash -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Ryland Kremeier -
Saku Ytti -
Shane Ronan -
William Allen Simpson