I don't think you understand the gravity of the in-home interference issue. Unfortunately, neither does the IEEE. It doesn't need to be in lock-step, but if a significant number of homes have issues getting over 100 megabit wirelessly, I'm not sure we need to be concerned about 10 gigabit to the home. I am well aware of the wireless world and Ubiquiti. I've been using Ubiquiti (among other brands) for over 10 years and have been a hardware beta tester for several of them. The 640 kb of RAM statements, computers in home statements, 56 kbps days statements... are all tangential at best. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Greco" <jgreco@ns.sol.net> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 11:11:29 AM Subject: Re: Proving Gig Speed On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:47:45AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
We already supply far, far greater than the actual consumer usage (versus want or demand).
Consumers are moving away from wired connections in the home for wireless connections (for obvious mobility and ease of setup where there isn't existing wired infrastructure).
Consumers are moving away from power desktops and laptops to phones, tablets, and purpose-built appliances.
My in-laws have a Comcast service that's >100 megabit/s. The 2.4 and 5 GHz noise floors are so high (-50 to -75 dB, depending on channel and location within the house) that unless you're in the same room, you're not getting more than 10 megabit/s on wireless. On a wire, Comcast delivers full data rate. Speed tests from wire to wireless mirror the wireless to Internet performance.
If it can't be delivered within the home, delivering it to the home is pointless.
And yet if we had had those attitudes back in the days of 56kbps, ... Your argument is flawed because it implies that this is not an issue that can be addressed. Populating a house with more than a single crap-grade built-into-the-CPE radio is certainly possible, and tech people have been using gear such as Ubiquiti to do so for years now, but more recently mesh systems have become readily available as well and are even sold at Best Buy and other electronics stores. There is no need for ISP speeds to be in exact lock-step with wifi speeds. Advances in one will drive advances in the other. Eventually. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On 17 July 2018 at 17:18, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I don't think you understand the gravity of the in-home interference issue. Unfortunately, neither does the IEEE.
It doesn't need to be in lock-step, but if a significant number of homes have issues getting over 100 megabit wirelessly, I'm not sure we need to be concerned about 10 gigabit to the home.
Maybe leaky feeder cables will become the norm, running along the walls/ceilings of all new build homes? But assuming a wired connection within the premises for a moment, and that we get 1Gbps over that wired connection, because we all have FTTH: For the question of "does it make any difference (1Gbps/10Gbps instead of 100Mbps)": If I download a 4K movie to watch it should take an order of magnitude less time at 1Gbps than 100Mbps. Or even when streaming, my player will fetch a video chunk/segment that is typically in the 3-10 seconds range, I would fetch each chunk much quicker, and so my ISPs connection spends more time idle, which means their backbone carries a higher volume of traffic for a smaller period of time. There is some benefit to be had in the balance of a user consuming X Mbps across the backbone for Y seconds or X^2 Mbps but for Y/10 seconds. It expect it would affect oversubscription and content ratios. Cheers, James.
On 7/17/2018 10:18 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I don't think you understand the gravity of the in-home interference issue. Unfortunately, neither does the IEEE.
It doesn't need to be in lock-step, but if a significant number of homes have issues getting over 100 megabit wirelessly, I'm not sure we need to be concerned about 10 gigabit to the home.
I am well aware of the wireless world and Ubiquiti. I've been using Ubiquiti (among other brands) for over 10 years and have been a hardware beta tester for several of them.
Customers are still harping on me about going wireless on all of their desktops. Since most of our customers are CAD/Design/Building companies, during planning, we insist on at least two drops to each workstation, preferably 3 or more. But, every time we go to do an upgrade... "Why can't we just use wireless?" Even though 20 minutes prior they're complaining at how slow it is for their laptops to open up large files over the network over wifi. "If you want faster speeds, you'll need to go from AC-Lites to AC-HDs with Wave 2. They're $350 or so each, and since your brand new building likes to absorb wifi, you'll need 5-8 of them to cover every possible location in the building. Oh, and you'll need to replace your laptops with Wave 2 capable ones, plus Wave 2 PCIe cards for every desktop... Except for the cheap $200 AMD APU desktops you bought against our recommendations that don't have expansion slots and no USB 3..." I long for the day when we can get 100mbit throughout a building or house reliably. (I'm a Ubnt hardware tester too, 99% of my customer setups are a mix of EdgeRouter, EdgeSwitch, and Unifi Switch and AP setups). -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
On 18/Jul/18 17:35, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Customers are still harping on me about going wireless on all of their desktops. Since most of our customers are CAD/Design/Building companies, during planning, we insist on at least two drops to each workstation, preferably 3 or more.
But, every time we go to do an upgrade...
"Why can't we just use wireless?"
Even though 20 minutes prior they're complaining at how slow it is for their laptops to open up large files over the network over wifi.
"If you want faster speeds, you'll need to go from AC-Lites to AC-HDs with Wave 2. They're $350 or so each, and since your brand new building likes to absorb wifi, you'll need 5-8 of them to cover every possible location in the building. Oh, and you'll need to replace your laptops with Wave 2 capable ones, plus Wave 2 PCIe cards for every desktop... Except for the cheap $200 AMD APU desktops you bought against our recommendations that don't have expansion slots and no USB 3..."
I long for the day when we can get 100mbit throughout a building or house reliably.
(I'm a Ubnt hardware tester too, 99% of my customer setups are a mix of EdgeRouter, EdgeSwitch, and Unifi Switch and AP setups).
I have a 100Mbps FTTH service to my house, sitting on 802.11ac (Google OnHub units, pretty dope, had them for almost 2 years now). With my 802.11ac client devices, I can do well over 600Mbps within my walls, easily, over the air. But that's because only one of my neighbors that is closest to me has wi-fi (in 2.4GHz, thank God). The rest are too far for my thick walls. It's a totally different story in the office where (fair point, we're still on 802.11n, but...) the wi-fi is simply useless, because of all the competing radios from adjacent companies in all bands and on all channels. And despite having several AP's all over the place + using a controller to manage the radio network, fundamentally, I prefer wiring up when I'm in my office, and only use the wi-fi for my phones or when I need to go to another office or boardroom with my laptop. But the point is you and I get this phenomenon. Users don't, regardless of whether they are sending a 2KB e-mail or rendering a multi-gigabit CAD file. Mark.
participants (4)
-
Brielle Bruns -
James Bensley -
Mark Tinka -
Mike Hammett