On 30/Dec/19 09:12, Christopher Morrow wrote:

Huh, you mean since you have to deploy a tower/unit every ~100 meters to get 5g to actually work at reasonable speeds (with nothing in the line of sight) you're going to need a bunch more people to put up these new things-ma-bobs?

In my neighborhood, I've been noticing scanty investment in expanding 4G from my mobile provider in the last 2 years or, ever since they launched VoWiFi. Even though I live in a reasonably well-to-do suburb, anytime I am off the wi-fi at home, but in the hood, 4G performance is not that great, and I sometimes get downgraded to 3G or even EDGE, depending on which side of the house I am. Performance is significantly better if I am around commercial buildings/neighborhoods, though. My theory is that due to the growth of FTTH in the last 2 - 3 years in major South African cities, mobile carriers (well, mine, anyway) are relying on VoWiFi to deliver their (voice and SMS) services to you in their home, where they are using your FTTH service for the workload, getting you to push data off their network, and spending more of their cash elsewhere (or not at all). You should see what happens when the neighborhood has a power outage. You still get 75% - 100% radio quality with 4G, but 80% packet loss when you try to connect to the Internet. At least in residential areas, I think my mobile provider is offloading their costs to home owners' FTTH services, while still milking us of decent wedge. This does not give me any hope of them spending real time and effort on 5G. To be fair, I wouldn't blame them either. Mark.

Ultimately this will come down to market demand. Having led two efforts in IEEE to develop a next speed of Ethernet - I have heard the argument about needing the next speed of Ethernet. Ultimately, market demand showed that it was necessary and we had done the right thing developing the next speed. So given the cost of deployment - will the business case to deploy 5G happen? Had lots of conversations with people on this. Would like to better understand this as we start to look beyond 400GbE - as bandwidth related to 5G is frequently brought up. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 9:24 AM To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will build it with their broadband connection? With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be within. Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the home? Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?

On 30/Dec/19 16:40, jdambrosia@gmail.com wrote:

Ultimately this will come down to market demand.

I think this will largely be driven by the business case as the MNO's see it. If there is anyone complaining about 4G/LTE, please raise your hand. Mark.

Verizon has already proven in 5 cities that you can run fiber to the node and provide 1G fixed wireless service to both single and multi family homes. This reduces the fiber cost and the headache of dealing with landlords in MDU's. Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time living without it. On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:24 AM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will build it with their broadband connection?

With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be within. Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the home? Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?

If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing out on many of the other benefits. And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G. Shane On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 3:00 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

On 30/Dec/19 16:50, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time living without it.

Which you can certainly achieve over wi-fi without hassle. I posit that in many locations where abundant bandwidth to your phone is required, a vast majority of suitable wi-fi options exist, and you (and others) use one or more of them.

Wi-fi will beat 5G, over the long term.

Mark.

Again, you are looking only at today, how much bandwidth will you need in 10 years? Other 5G benefits: Beam forming, network slicing, reduced latency and support for UE desification, just to name a few. On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 3:12 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

What are the other benefits of 5G? My 4G/LTE works when I go behind things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device.

On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing out on many of the other benefits.

And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.

Shane

Lord willing about a tenth of what I’m using now; aka retirement. LQM3

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+quincy.marshall=reged.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 3:14 PM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor

Again, you are looking only at today, how much bandwidth will you need in 10 years?

Other 5G benefits: Beam forming, network slicing, reduced latency and support for UE desification, just to name a few.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 3:12 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net<mailto:mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote: What are the other benefits of 5G? My 4G/LTE works when I go behind things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device.

On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing out on many of the other benefits.

And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.

Shane

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean it's inevitable that 5G replaces 4G. It just comes down to the spectrum the given carrier uses that dictates speed and range. In the US, AT&T and Verizon are deploying in the millimeter bands. They'll do a gig at a few hundred feet. T-Mobile is using 600 MHz, so it'll probably only do 100 megabit (based on the small channels they have), but it'll go 10+ miles through nearly anything. Sprint is in the middle. They'll be able to do hundreds of megs at miles of range. Lower latency is another advantage of 5G. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Hoppes" <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> To: "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com>, "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 2:12:13 PM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor What are the other benefits of 5G? My 4G/LTE works when I go behind things, miles from the tower, and delivers between 5 and 20 megabits which is more than enough for anything I'm doing on a mobile device. On 12/30/19 3:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:

If you are looking at speed as the only benefit to 5G, you are missing out on many of the other benefits.

And as far as WiFi goes, let me know when we have seamless national WiFi roaming and handoffs, because only at that point will it beat 5G.

Shane

On 12/30/19 12:36 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I mean it's inevitable that 5G replaces 4G. It just comes down to the spectrum the given carrier uses that dictates speed and range. In the US, AT&T and Verizon are deploying in the millimeter bands. They'll do a gig at a few hundred feet. T-Mobile is using 600 MHz, so it'll probably only do 100 megabit (based on the small channels they have), but it'll go 10+ miles through nearly anything. Sprint is in the middle. They'll be able to do hundreds of megs at miles of range.

Lower latency is another advantage of 5G.

The latency argument is what interests me. Supposedly 4G's latency and jitter are tough on voip. If that improves there is just no reason for TDM to phones which is a significant development because cell phones are probably the largest deployment of old style PSTN stuff these days as landlines wither and die. I would think that carriers would embrace that since it would be a cost-down, but I'm sure I'm wrong since that would be admit defeat to IP. Mike

On 12/30/19 1:35 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

On 12/30/19 4:14 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

...

The latency argument is what interests me. Supposedly 4G's latency and jitter are tough on voip. If that improves there is just no reason for TDM to phones which is a significant development because cell phones are probably the largest deployment of old style PSTN stuff these days as landlines wither and die. I would think that carriers would embrace that since it would be a cost-down, but I'm sure I'm wrong since that would be admit defeat to IP.

VoLTE is already essentially VoIP, including packet switched media, with some MAC layer QoS guarantees as I understand it. Now, maybe those MAC layer guarantees essentially amount to a dedicated OFDMA sub-carrier during a voice call.  That I cannot speak to as I'm not intimately familiar with the LTE/LTE-A air interface.

I can say that plain ol' best-effort LTE data services are generally sufficient for VoIP in my experience if you have "good coverage".  That means what I'd generally consider "toll-grade" quality in terms of latency and, more inmportantly, jitter.  SSH is similarly quite usable generally.  If you're on the fringe of a cell or have a cell that's overloaded, YMMV.

Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte? Mostly what I want in the future is a dollop of EF QoS bits and let me determine how to use them... Mike

On 12/30/19 2:46 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

On 12/30/19 5:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

...

Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?

My understanding is that VoLTE is signaled using SIP.  I don't know how the media moves.  I think they tried to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Most of the "phone" guys are slinging a lot of inter-network calls via IP these days, anyway.

Yeah, maybe it really is RTP because iirc, VoLTE can use different codecs. That would make some sense since a lot of those voice bits are going to end up as RTP at some point. I can understand the wifi hack since they may not have had the ability to directly deal with customer facing RTP from the phones 5 years ago. Maybe my google-foo is really bad, but it's not been easy to get an overview of what's going on under the hood for these. And I'd prefer to avoid the 3GPP tar pit. Mike

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:09 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

...

On 12/30/19 2:46 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

...

On 12/30/19 5:42 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

...

Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte? My understanding is that VoLTE is signaled using SIP. I don't know how the media moves. I think they tried to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Most of the "phone" guys are slinging a lot of inter-network calls via IP these days, anyway.

Yeah, maybe it really is RTP because iirc, VoLTE can use different codecs. That would make some sense since a lot of those voice bits are going to end up as RTP at some point. I can understand the wifi hack since they may not have had the ability to directly deal with customer facing RTP from the phones 5 years ago.

Maybe my google-foo is really bad, but it's not been easy to get an overview of what's going on under the hood for these. And I'd prefer to avoid the 3GPP tar pit.

I had thought the 'benefit' of LTE (specific to Voice) was a SIP UA was implemented at the handset for all 'voice' over the LTE network. (voice calls through your carrier - VoLTE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_LTE I finally found something and it is indeed SIP/RTP over a LTE with some extra qos secret sauce. I have no idea what's going on differently in

On 12/30/19 3:34 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: the MAC. So we're definitely almost there. And that's a good thing. Mike

On 31/Dec/19 00:42, Michael Thomas wrote:

Oh, I didn't know that. Seems like it's a relatively new thing. Seems like they went to a lot of trouble to essentially do what voip does. Or maybe not? I've been poking around trying figure out what's going on under the hood with wifi calling, and it seems like they're just tunneling PSTN bits over the internet. If true, that's certainly a quick and dirty hack. Maybe they're doing something similar for volte?

As you connect to a wi-fi network, your mobile provider would have some kind of 3GPP AAA implementation that authenticates your SIM card (which could also support non-SIM devices), and then applies the policies for your service profile. Mark.

Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to cell tower handoffs when moving. It's fine when you're stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping and re-establishing connections with a new endpoint IP address every time. If we solve the issue of endpoint identity on a connection independent of the transport, so that your video stream of the game doesn't have to stop and restart every time you shift from one access point to the next, I could definitely see wi-Fi beating 5G. Otherwise, I think 5G will win, in terms of better user experience when non-stationary. Matt On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:04 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:

On 30/Dec/19 16:50, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 25mbits to your phone, but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time living without it.

Which you can certainly achieve over wi-fi without hassle. I posit that in many locations where abundant bandwidth to your phone is required, a vast majority of suitable wi-fi options exist, and you (and others) use one or more of them.

Wi-fi will beat 5G, over the long term.

Mark.

On Monday, 30 December, 2019 13:24, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:

Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to cell tower handoffs when moving. It's fine when you're stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping and re-establishing connections with a new endpoint IP address every time.

So the primary benefit of 5G is that it will allow for an increase in asshats not watching where they are going because they are busy staring at their phones? I suppose there is the advantage then of more dead asshats. At least they will only walk in front of a speeding lorry once and then be dead, thus solving the problem. Maybe 5G *is* a good thing as it will inherently encourage clean-up of the gene pool. Now if only we could figure out a way to reliably get them out of the gene pool before they reached breading age ... -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

On 30/Dec/19 23:39, Brandon Martin wrote:

In theory, this is what "Hotspot 2.0" is designed to solve.  You authenticate to the ESSID using your mobile carrier credentials, and the resulting connection backhauls over an Internet tunnel to your carrier who can handle the hand-off/roaming transparently for you.

It also includes some provisions for settlement so that Wi-Fi operator can get a kickback from the mobile carrier for offloading their traffic.  I'm sure that will be lucrative for mom and pop coffee shops...

Of course, this is also what Mobile IP was intended to solve, and we all know how widely that's deployed.

Two of our mobile carriers in South Africa offer Wi-Fi Calling Roaming when you travel. As long as you can get wi-fi, all calls and SMS's work as though they are on the home network, including pricing. The only issues I've had is in some countries, SMS notifications can fail. So you need to turn off the wi-fi and/or switch to another roaming GSM partner to get it to work again. This is an issue if you are doing some banking and need to confirm OTP's via SMS while on the road. Mark.

On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

but I'd bet that now you'd have a hard time living without it.

I already live without it (by a long shot) and am not sure what I'd do with it if I had it except rack up huge overage bills a week into the month. Well, not really but that's because I honestly have no use for that kind of speed to my phone. What am I supposed to do with that? Go to the park and watch Netflix in 4K on my 2K phone screen? The irony of such speeds in North America (Canada in particular) are ludicrous usage limits that we have and how quickly we'd use up our minuscule data alottemnt with such speeds. But then again, overage fees are what are paying the bills over at the mobile companies. b.

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 9:24 AM Matt Hoppes < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

...

We saw this with Femtocells. Why build the network when the end user will build it with their broadband connection?

With 5G - if I need fiber to the pole already and the pole has to be within. Few hundred feet of the end user, why not just deploy fiber to the home? Do I really need a gigabit per second on my mobile device?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell <brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of shane's point, actually) 4G/LTE: o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a single bearer (well, IP anyway). o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User' and "thing on the network" 5G: o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?) o simplifies management? (maybe?) keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet circles', where 4G is 'miles'. (yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...) It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the vendors! -chris

The reason IoT comes into play with 5G is desification. A 4G base station can support X number of UE (User Equipment - phones, mifis, CatM IoT modems, etc) based on the LTE protocol. 5G allows X times N number of UE's per base station, which will allows the network to support the planned proliferation of IoT devices OUTSIDE of the home or office. Think every parking meter, street light, etc independently addressable via 5G. In home devices are not the real target. On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 5:49 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 12/30/19 2:39 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

...

It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the vendors!

You know that there is a massive amount of hype going on when they tie IoT to why it's definitely most certainly needed the mostest. I mean, your average IoT gadget is going to consume exactly how much bandwidth? And why on earth would I want to deploy using cellular when my router can have a zigby port and send it using my home connection?

Mike

Why on earth would I want to send it anywhere at all over the Internet?

One already has to disassemble and inspect very closely almost all electronic gadgets so that the internal embeded spyware microphone and camera and wireless can be removed with pliers. This is just another thing to inspect for and forcibly disable.

You realize that eventually your neighbors houses will all be wired and they’ll be able to get yours by differentiating the signals. I’m not even half kidding. -Ben Cannon CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC ben@6by7.net <mailto:ben@6by7.net>

Oh good :) someone coaxed cameron out of the holiday keg :) On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 6:32 PM Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:41 PM Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell <brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:

...

On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of shane's point, actually)

4G/LTE: o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a single bearer (well, IP anyway). o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User' and "thing on the network"

5G: o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?)

Latency to what? Latency between your handset and a front-end web server at Google or AWS is likely unchanged. Physic did not change for 5G.

good question... I think for any IP flow in previous deployments the point where my ip packet went from 'radio' to 'ip networking' could have been a fair distance away (super cell in 2g/3g worlds) from my, bending my IP path significantly from me to the thing I'm talking to. (introducing latency and other pokery from the carrier side swapping around from radio/3gpp/etc to "ip on ethernet"). In the LTE world it's POSSIBLE that that transition could happen at the tower base (unlikely, but possible, theoretically). So, given some regional network and aggregation / etc my IP packet's path COULD be 'better'. That should enable better latency/jitter/etc. In practice the 3g ~300ms to send a packet from 'reston virginia' to 'ashburn virginia' has become ~20-40ms. Note, I'm not super interested in point-to-point measurements, but the general path being 'better' for user packets.

Just random samples of what people post online....

Vzw 5g 19 ms

https://twitter.com/donnymac/status/1164491035503976448

19ms from 'georgetown' to <unknown> so I can't really tell what the uplift on a straight ping from (for example) georgetown university campus -> <thing> might be. either way... maybe it's 12-14 ms (since the test seems to talk about Annapolis which ought not be more than 3-4 ms from DC proper on fiber) that's not so bad really.

Att 5ge 34ms https://twitter.com/joelouis77/status/1196651360185462784

yea.... no endpoints specified so: "testing that the internet is on fire" :(

Sprint , this guy shows 27ms on LTE vs 34ms on 5g https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/1202705075535257600

i'm guessing he means: "north arlington virginia" to "washington dc"... 34ms is 'long' :( much more uplift on that than I'd expect.

...

o simplifies management? (maybe?)

Hahahaha. No. Because 5g does not replace anything. It is yet another thing.

:) "long term, when you decom 3g and 4g for 5g! you know, when 6g arrives..." :) It's amazing to me that there's not a unified management system to offer network management across radio technologies? and some requirement from the carriers to push the vendors to provide a standards based interface to keep that management system in play long term? Maybe there is and it's running YANG/OpenConfig/etc ? Maybe it's silly to want that though because the radio world is 'so very different' from the plain-jim IP world? and/or there's enough difference between 3/4/5g that using a single management system just isn't practical?

...

keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet circles', where 4G is 'miles'. (yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...)

This is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band. Tmobile is big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR.

oh sure, who gets the 'right' spectrum is going to drive what each carrier can 'do' with the 5g. but generally speaking, particular carriers aside... "5g is beneficial to users because?" (again, aside from speed increases). "Lower cost, because more people on less equipment and lower management costs" (pass that on to the users, right?) "more reach into places where cell coverage is spotty?" "new tech options over the network provided?"

There is an relation between the available spectrum bandwidth and the mhz. Meaning, there is only little 600mhz but there is a lot of 28ghz mmwave. That said, 600mhz can drive for miles, while 28ghz needs line of sight.

Horses for courses. No silver bullet. All the best mid-band spectrum , balanced volume and propagation, got deployed in the 90s as pcs / gsm, and re-deployed in the 10s as umts and LTE. Low band is great for penetration and coverage with a few cells, mmwave is great with line of sight... midband is the sweet spot in the middle.

The future requires all tools available.

...

It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the vendors!

-chris

NR does operationalize more spectrum and allows bigger aggregate pools (like LACP) The new mmwave spectrum is the last to come to market because it’s value is limited in the general case.

thanks! -chris

...

On 31/Dec/19 02:55, Ca By wrote:

Vendors are not interested in reducing costs to network operators, in general. They may have replaced NPUs with x86 to reduce their own costs....

I was just talking to some friends about this today, over a beer and some meat. We suffer the same problem in the IP world... revenues fall, data traffic explodes, margins decline; but capex costs remain the same, or even escalate. The ground is ripe for the young kids who can cobble together a mobile core based on merchant silicon, white boxes and community-driven code. If the vendors aren't going to follow what's happening with the operators, they'll have to be taken out. We already see how much Ericsson have downsized and re-focused. At some point, no one is going to want to pay for data access on their mobile, but they'll still need the connectivity to use their 2 favourite apps out of the 100's they barely touch on their phone. Garden-variety MNO operations have their days very numbered. Mark.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=5G+NR ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Martin" <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 6:19:06 PM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On 12/30/19 6:31 PM, Ca By wrote:

is is still a physics thing. Most purest will says 5G = new radio (NR). NR can run in any band. And, the distance is a function of the band. Tmobile is big on 600mhz NR, Sprint is big on 2500mhz NR and VZW has 28ghz NR.

Is/are there defined standard(s) for this NR? I was of the impression that we were basically just tweaking the LTE-A MAC and OFDM[A] PHY for wider bandwidth (mid-band and mmwave) or newly available low-band (600MHz) spectrum deployments. AFAIK, there's no new PHY tricks going on for "5G" that aren't already being used for "4G" LTE-A deployments on existing mainstream spectrum. Aside from the new bands, what's the burden on the handset vs. base? A lot of tricks (beamforming, multi-site MIMO, etc.) can be done without real changes to the handset, and we can thankfully mostly upgrade the OFDM PHY to support e.g. denser modulation constellations in a somewhat incremental manner. I already see lots of outdoor small cells on fiber in dense retail, academic, business, etc. areas even in suburbs. I assume they're quite common in urban areas, though I don't get to do much work in those environments. Deployment of these started well before any 5G hype I was aware of even on the network operator side (think 6+ years ago). All that is to say, what's the magic secret sauce that makes "5G" any real different from "modern 4G"? I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP document hole... -- Brandon Martin

Look up VoLTE. On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:39 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 12/30/19 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

...

I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP document hole...

Yeah, no kidding. It's like acronym soup. I've been trying all afternoon to figure out vowifi and am now pretty certain that it's just SIP signaling over IP. But it's been really frustrating because I still haven't managed to find "RTP" explicitly. I would assume that if you use SIP you're probably going be shipping RTP packets for media, but it's amazing how hard this has been to confirm, and I've tried to find this out more than once. I even stumped Dave Oran...

Mike

VoWIFI from your cell phone is essentially the same thing, except your phone has to build a tunnel to the providers EPC via an SGW because of the untrusted connectivity. On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:45 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 12/30/19 4:41 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:

Look up VoLTE.

Yeah I did, and confirmed it's just SIP+RTP over IP. Which is why it's so frustratingly hard to find the same simple diagram or whatever for vowifi.

Mike

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:39 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

...

On 12/30/19 4:19 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:

...

I really don't want to go diving down the 3GPP document hole...

Yeah, no kidding. It's like acronym soup. I've been trying all afternoon to figure out vowifi and am now pretty certain that it's just SIP signaling over IP. But it's been really frustrating because I still haven't managed to find "RTP" explicitly. I would assume that if you use SIP you're probably going be shipping RTP packets for media, but it's amazing how hard this has been to confirm, and I've tried to find this out more than once. I even stumped Dave Oran...

Mike

Oh, for sure it's driven by equipment manufacturers. ----- 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: "Brian J. Murrell" <brian@interlinx.bc.ca> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 4:39:23 PM Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:11 PM Brian J. Murrell <brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 09:50 -0500, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want or need 25mbits to your phone,

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

this is the wrong argument to make... or at the least it distracts from the conversation about: "Why 5g?" because everyone can come up with a reason for/against N mbps to Xthing. (I think this is sort of shane's point, actually) 4G/LTE: o started the migration/consolidation of voice/video/data to a single bearer (well, IP anyway). o moved the (ideally) IP endpoint closer to the tower base o removed some latency, jitter, intermediaries between 'End-User' and "thing on the network" 5G: o supposedly reduces latency 'more' (brings more of the IP connection and routing closer to the tower/radio?) o simplifies management? (maybe?) keeping speed out of the conversation, the footprint for MANY 5g deploymetns in the US (and elsewhere) is likely 'hundreds of feet circles', where 4G is 'miles'. (yes you can beam-form and make ovals and such...) It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of deployment, changes in handset/radio gear / etc... more $ to the vendors! -chris

On Mon, 2019-12-30 at 16:52 -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:

Who needs more than 640Kb of memory?

We don't know what the future holds. This is an interesting read, featuring 5g to perform a "hologram" phone call: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45009458

While I appreciate that this is just "an example" of why I might need more than "640Kb of memory" (or more pertinently, more than just a few MBits/s of phone bandwidth), it's not a realistic/relevant example. Holographic phone calls? I barely ever use even video calling of any sort. The "picture" portion of the call almost always adds zero value -- helping my mom load paper in her printer using Duo to actually see and navigate the physical restrictions of her printer from 300KM away, aside. But really, these are still all just weak excuses (and to be clear, not reasons) for why we "need more" of what is already sufficient. Consumerism as it's worst[1]. I'm not saying that maybe one day we won't need 25Mb/s to a hand-held device, but hologram telephone calling, Netflixing and even video calling, are not the use-cases, IMHO. To head way O/T: [1] I chuckled a this article: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-chromecast-cheap-streaming-device-old... Any TV which you can plug a Chromecast into, which is by any definition a TV with HDMI, which is by just about any definition any "flat screen" TV is not "old", IMHO. Call me an old fuddy-duddy but an "old" TV is that 13" B/W with 13 (was it?) VHF channels that my parents used to have in the living room. The very idea that any flat-screen/HDMI TV is "old" is just more evidence of the rampant replace-anything-older-than-two-years-old consumerism that grips North American society and is filling our (or third-world countries') landfills. North Americans need to learn to be happy with what they have and buy (and pay for) the kind of quality that lasts (i.e. press-board furniture need not apply). b.

On 2/Jan/20 21:02, Sabri Berisha wrote:

Maybe you're just dating yourself here :) I use video calling on an almost daily basis with my family living in another country, 9 timezones away. My daughter can spend hours in her ipad "playing" with grandpa, live on video.

True, but how often are you and daughter "spending hours" on this over GSM vs. over wi-fi? Mark.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> wrote:

----- On Jan 3, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Mark Tinka mark.tinka@seacom.mu wrote:

...

On 2/Jan/20 21:02, Sabri Berisha wrote:

...

Maybe you're just dating yourself here :) I use video calling on an

almost

...

daily basis with my family living in another country, 9 timezones away. My daughter can spend hours in her ipad "playing" with grandpa, live on video.

True, but how often are you and daughter "spending hours" on this over GSM vs. over wi-fi?

That depends on where we are. Most of the time it is at home, over wi-fi. However, sometimes they chat while my daughter is walking to school. At some point, I worked in SoCal while the family still lived in the Bay Area. Very often, grandpa kept her entertained in the back of the car while the misses focused on the road ahead of her in the central valley.

But the point was that while some never use video calling, others do so very often.

You also wrote:

...

With all the fibre going into homes, businesses, shops and restaurants, wi-fi is up-and-to-the-right.

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.

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.

You are not using ipv4 today. The scenario you describe, using facetime (iOS) on T-Mobile US, you are not using ipv4 on the device. T-Mobile does not assign ipv4 addresses to iOS or Android devices in default scenarios, has not for years. If the far end of your facetime call is v4-only, you may need nat64 in the cloud.... but otherwise no v4 in the flow, and no v4 on the device. CB

Thanks,

Sabri

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:17 PM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

...

You are not using ipv4 today.

The scenario you describe, using facetime (iOS) on T-Mobile US, you are not using ipv4 on the device. T-Mobile does not assign ipv4 addresses to iOS or Android devices in default scenarios, has not for years.

If the far end of your facetime call is v4-only, you may need nat64 in

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:11 PM Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote: the cloud.... but otherwise no v4 in the flow, and no v4 on the device.

AFAIK, that's not correct. T-Mobile does provide IPv4 *on the device* but translates it to IPv6 (464xlat) before the packets leave the device for the network.

Regards, Bill Herrin

Eh. True. Semantics, to a degree. T-Mobile does not assign an ipv4 address to the handset. That said, T-Mobile assigns a v6 to the handset, the handset then does 464xlat as you said, assigning itself a special v4 address to v4->v6 nat on handset. And, Bob is your uncle, as they say.

-- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/

Sabri Berisha писал 2020-01-03 16:53:

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.

Could be true very soon. When supporting cable infrastructure will become too expensive they will cut it in lieu of mobile, like many railways were decomissioned earlier. Must be a local tipping point in each area but it shouldn't be long to wait. Kind regards, Andrey

Mark Tinka писал 2020-01-04 00:43:

On 4/Jan/20 00:26, Andrey Kostin wrote:

...

Could be true very soon. When supporting cable infrastructure will become too expensive they will cut it in lieu of mobile, like many railways were decomissioned earlier. Must be a local tipping point in each area but it shouldn't be long to wait.

Ummh, and what technology do you think is running the base stations that are transmitting at 6G, 7G?

Mark.

I'm talking only about last mile access. Wireless is going the same path as fixed access before: from big central facilities to end-user as much close as provided services bring enough revenue to cover upgrade costs and create some profit. With copper phone lines the situation has already turned backward because revenue from services isn't sufficient. We all know physics and Shennon/Kotelnikov theorema. To get more speed more spectrum is needed but more spectrum is available in higher frequencies, that have shorter coverage. Where it's going to stop - I don't know, 6G or 7G or XG ;) Only making enough money is needed to go to the next G. Regarding comparison WiFi and cellular networks, it's clear that WiFi won't be able to compete with mobile in terms of scalability. Building WiFi in public places like stadiums is already became a job specialization, but every such implementation has it's limit. On the other hand, 5G as I can see is a big step in this direction in terms of spectrum and subscribers management. Mobile networks are developed for central control of all the components on all layers, that's why mobile standards contain thousands pages. WiFi is a technology for local access and to make it more scalable means to go through the same development process as mobile networks did. Something can probably be improved but even if it succeed it won't be cheap anymore. Currently WiFi is only describes single layer of connectivity, and this is why it's cheap, but on the next layer (i.e. IPv6 implementation) we can see incompatibility between "standardised" WiFi devices. Compatibility on many layers is necessary to orchestrate all of them, so not going to happen. Yes, WiFi and mobile can be compared in radio, but not in anything else. Kind regards, Andrey

There are some wi-fi vendors who I know (and am currently testing) that have developed very cool centralized management tools for their wi-fi AP's, that include very interesting AI logic. It is pricier than a simple standalone enterprise-grade AP, or an AP you'll get from down the store. But it's still way cheaper than dense 5G deployment.

Depending on what you are after, folk like Ruckus and Cisco have had centrally-managed enterprise WiFi for many years. I manage a Ruckus installation for an apartment building where there is one SSID from about 150 APs, users have a unique password per apartment, which lands them onto that apartment’s VLAN, regardless of where they are in the building. Works really well. I have seen Ruckus installations like this on university campuses, where users get access to different VLANs depending on who they are (but all use the same SSID). Cisco have also been doing this for a long, long time (at far higher cost). Not sure about Cisco, but the Ruckus stuff is also used widely in hotels and caravan parks where folk can buy a “day pass” — a shareable password that is valid for a pre-determined amount of time and will get them onto the wifi anywhere in the facility. I’ve mostly seen Cisco in hospitals and banks. In theory this could easily be spread through an entire suburb using outdoor APs. paul

Paul Nash писал 2020-01-06 18:45:

Depending on what you are after, folk like Ruckus and Cisco have had centrally-managed enterprise WiFi for many years. I manage a Ruckus installation for an apartment building where there is one SSID from about 150 APs, users have a unique password per apartment, which lands them onto that apartment’s VLAN, regardless of where they are in the building.

Works really well.

I'm had some aquintance with this technology and participated once in WiFi network rollout on a relatively big stadium. All these wifi controllers have their limits that in my understanding are significantly lower than mobile networks. You can cover one building or campus, but how about the next building on the street? It it's owner has a different system it may be difficult to connect them even aside of bureaucratic reasons. The main asset of wireless networks is their infrastructure and coverage that they were building from 90-s. If you have the network that covers a large area you can deploy any technology that fits in it. Definitely people from mobile networks have their own way of thinking as well as transport and telephony engineers but if wifi could satisfy all the requirements they would probably be deploying it. Do you remember Wimax? At that time it was better for data then mobile networks but probably demand for data services wasn't big enough at that time and then new specs were developed that partially used existing mobile technologies. I'm not a protagonist of mobile networks as I'm working in fixed networks field, but you can't ignore the fact that at the moment they have widest coverage, not the best everywhere but the most unversal service, non-elastic demand and the best prospective for future growth. Kind regards, Andrey

Andrey Kostin <ankost@podolsk.ru> writes:

Could be true very soon. When supporting cable infrastructure will become too expensive they will cut it in lieu of mobile, like many railways were decomissioned earlier. Must be a local tipping point in each area but it shouldn't be long to wait.

It's happening where I live, now. My ISP recently announced that all the POTS lines, and any network connectivity over them, would be decommissioned shortly, and affected subscribers moved to cellular instead. It's happening all over the country, as the company that owns the POTS infrastructure has decided it's too expensive to keep maintaining it. -tih -- Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance of Lisp. Lisp is the most important idea in computer science. --Alan Kay

On 3/Jan/20 23:53, Sabri Berisha wrote:

That depends on where we are. Most of the time it is at home, over wi-fi. However, sometimes they chat while my daughter is walking to school. At some point, I worked in SoCal while the family still lived in the Bay Area. Very often, grandpa kept her entertained in the back of the car while the misses focused on the road ahead of her in the central valley.

But the point was that while some never use video calling, others do so very often.

Which was my point - you and the family are on those devices most of the time when on wi-fi (more bandwidth, no data caps, less cost). The ride/walk between home and school when your daughter is online with grandpa is short enough that it doesn't cost much to have that over the GSM network for the duration. Now, if the ride/walk was 24hrs, that'd be another story.

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 they are willing to sell 4G @ 50Mbps unlimited.

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 :-). Mark.

________________________________ De : NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> de la part de Sabri Berisha <sabri@cluecentral.net> Envoyé : samedi 4 janvier 2020 22:40 À : Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Cc : nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Objet : Re: 5G roadblock: labor ----- On Jan 3, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Mark Tinka mark.tinka@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

----- On Jan 5, 2020, at 3:21 AM, Mark Tinka mark.tinka@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.... 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

----- On Jan 5, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Mark Tinka mark.tinka@seacom.mu wrote: Hi,

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.

It's actually the other way around. Geostationary satellites are exactly that: fixed in one location. Your dish always points to the same point in the sky. On the satellite side, transponders cover a specific geographic region at all times. Low Earth Orbit satellites do not have a fixed position and move in a low orbit. This means that in order to serve a particular region, one must deploy a constellation of satellites in order to ensure that at least one transponder is always covering the region. That means that as soon as your satellite is out of range for that region, it may cover an other region. A small number of companies (SpaceX, Amazon) are working on launching their own constellations consisting of a few thousand satellites. This should be enough to basically cover most of the inhabitable parts of the planet. In this case, it makes sense to offer satellite services even in an urban environment because the satellite is idling anyway. There are some costs associated with that: you'll need a ground station and the necessary infrastructure from/to the ground station, but I'm sure that will be economically viable, otherwise companies would not do it. I predict that your in-flight wifi will become a lot cheaper as a result of this. Thanks, Sabri

On 6/Jan/20 23:44, Michael Thomas wrote:

But at what cost to latency? Sounds like gamers would probably hate it.

If the average consumer is the target market, we really might as well terraform Mars :-). Mark.

On 1/6/20 2:42 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:

----- On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Michael Thomas mike@mtcc.com wrote:

Hi,

...

On 1/6/20 1:21 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:

...

Low Earth Orbit satellites do not have a fixed position and move in a low orbit. But at what cost to latency? Sounds like gamers would probably hate it. Oneweb claims 32ms average. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/onewebs-low-earth-sat...

This is one of the main advantages of LEO over geostationary. LEO is around 1,200 miles above the earth, GEO is around 22,000 miles above the earth. That's a big difference in latency. Remember that radio travels at the speed of light.

That translates to ~118ms for GEO, and 6.4ms for LEO (one way trip). That means that the round-trip latency without any transponder latency equals 12.8ms for a low earth orbit signal, compared to 236ms for a GEO signal. Big difference.

This is a good read perhaps: https://www.iridium.com/blog/2018/09/11/satellites-101-leo-vs-geo/

Yeah, I know the difference. GEO sucks mightily. But doesn't this have a lot to do with what your closest base station is, or is that insignificant in the face of 2400 miles up and down?  I just checked with my provider and it's about 20ms first hop, which seems pretty high to me. And I wonder about jitter too since it's moving and handing off. Mike

On 6/Jan/20 23:51, Andrey Kostin wrote:

On Lufthansa flights unlimited Internet access is 12 Euro, and 3 Euro is for "checking email". Don't think it's going to be cheaper, but higher speed - yes, definitely.

There is a certain joy that comes with being disconnected from the world, even if for just a few hours on a flight. On a recent QF flight a few months ago, I really did need to push out an e-mail as we took off, and after years of successfully avoiding the inflight wi-fi trap, I caved in and paid the US$20 for 100MB. It didn't work. That's 4 bottles of really good South African Merlot I'll never get back. So now, back to being disconnected from the world when in flight. Fool me once :-)... Mark.

On 6/Jan/20 23:21, Sabri Berisha wrote:

It's actually the other way around. Geostationary satellites are exactly that: fixed in one location. Your dish always points to the same point in the sky. On the satellite side, transponders cover a specific geographic region at all times.

Low Earth Orbit satellites do not have a fixed position and move in a low orbit. This means that in order to serve a particular region, one must deploy a constellation of satellites in order to ensure that at least one transponder is always covering the region. That means that as soon as your satellite is out of range for that region, it may cover an other region. A small number of companies (SpaceX, Amazon) are working on launching their own constellations consisting of a few thousand satellites. This should be enough to basically cover most of the inhabitable parts of the planet. In this case, it makes sense to offer satellite services even in an urban environment because the satellite is idling anyway. There are some costs associated with that: you'll need a ground station and the necessary infrastructure from/to the ground station, but I'm sure that will be economically viable, otherwise companies would not do it. I predict that your in-flight wifi will become a lot cheaper as a result of this.

For very specific use-cases, such as inflight or marine vessel applications, sure. Maybe even military or contract work, yes. Emergency situations for some government agencies, perhaps. I'm not certain there is enough of a use-case to support millions of customers that only want to post empty plates at the end of dinner, to Instagram, and aren't interested in paying the data costs associated with doing that. Mark.

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. On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 3:57 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

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

That's if you can get your fiber into the building. Due to commercial agreements many residential MDUs don't allow competitive carriers. 4G didn't have the bandwidth, but with 5G, they can compete. On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 4:10 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

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

On 1/5/20 10:45 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:

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.

Seems to me that should be a pretty big consideration before signing a lease. But what I was really getting at is fiber to the building, with distribution unspecified. At least here in California -- the land of a million suburbs -- it's just a matter of the will to get the job done. And unlike wireless, the tin foil hat types and nimby's probably don't have a big problem with laying fiber. If wireless operators think they can complete, by all means bring it. But I do agree with your other comment of needing some sort of governmental prodding. It's clearly not happening organically. Mike

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.

On 6/Jan/20 23:32, Michael Thomas wrote:

Or not. It has always amazed me at how backward the bay area is wrt networking. The only one installing ftth in San Francisco is a small company called Sonic (that I'm aware of). And it's taking them years and years and years. The local telco's don't seem to be in any hurry, and the cable folks don't seem to have much motivation.

As an old boss used to tell me, "Mark, it's not a problem; it's an opportunity."

It sounds like your kids would take extreme exception to it not being a basic service. :)

We've taught our kids some manners, but it's not uncommon for their visitors to arrive at ours and without greeting, the first thing they utter is, "What's the wi-fi password?"

Seriously though, does anybody even remember how we used to figure stuff out anymore before the internet?

My neighbor's wife (then about 25 years my senior) and I were responsible for the various VHS movies our respective homes watched throughout each weekend - including any messages my folks wanted passed to her and her husband when they couldn't be asked to stand up and rotary-dial each other on the landline. It was a nice little 5-minute trek behind the lawns that connected 3 separate houses across some 100m of nature. The good ol' days.

It's rather ironic that one of the hardest technical problems that carriers solved was handoffs. I was involved with trying to do the same thing over IP instead of L2 and I can tell you that it gives a huge amount of appreciation for what those folks pulled off in the '70's. But now it's not a very big deal. It's kind of niche need. A useful niche and glad to have, but it probably would not have been engineered if we had high speed internet then.

My Swedish friend and I are constantly arguing about IP vs. TDM; strict rules vs. flexible innovation. Even though he does really appreciate having a regular laugh with his girlfriend 6,000km away with no fuss, via video, on his laptop :-). Mark.

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.

John D'Ambrosia писал 2020-01-05 07:48:

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.

I used to work in the company that used to be a one of ISP pioneers in Russia. There was an anecdotic situation back in 1993 when they brought up a new E3 link to Finland but didn't change reverse DNS records for IPs. When a customer called support and asked "Why do I see hops with 'dialup' in the path, are you connecting to Internet by dialup connection?", support replied: "May be it's our future to have 34Mbps on dialup connection". So, who knows ;) Kind regards, Andrey

Phones aren't the only devices supported by mobile networks. There are many other devices. My laptop for example has a 4G SIM card, as does my MiFi. Sometimes my phone needs to be used as a hotspot to support multiple devices. All of these are based on current use cases, ignoring use cases that will become available in the future based on the ability to support higher bandwidths. Shane On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 8:56 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

I figured someone would bring that likely misquote out at some point. I say likely misquote because there is no evidence that he actually said it.

Now... now very, very few have any "need" for 25 megabit/s via mobile service to their phone. You would be hard-pressed to find an actual need for more than 5 megabit/s to a phone and yet in most areas, you can get well into double-digits on your phone with existing technology and infrastructure. Hell, I can often get over 100 megabit/s on my phone. Seems to work for me.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------ *From: *"Sabri Berisha" <sabri@cluecentral.net> *To: *"Brian J. Murrell" <brian@interlinx.bc.ca> *Cc: *"nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Monday, December 30, 2019 6:52:55 PM *Subject: *Re: 5G roadblock: labor

----- On Dec 30, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brian J. Murrell brian@interlinx.bc.ca wrote:

...

Who needs 25mbits to their phone?

Who needs more than 640Kb of memory?

We don't know what the future holds. This is an interesting read, featuring 5g to perform a "hologram" phone call: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45009458

Thanks,

Sabri

I think you are overestimating the existing network in most cases. And I say this based on first hand experience at $dayjob MNO. Shane

On Dec 31, 2019, at 9:10 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

devices.

On Tue Dec 31, 2019 at 08:10:20AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:

I would still find it hard to believe you would need that kind of speed, today, in any reasonable situation.

Who said it's all for you? Marketing may tell you it is to get you to buy but it's really for everyone else. In some places 4G is quite congested, a lack of enough low spectrum leads to congestion and the expensive clearance and recycling of 700Mhz from TV to mobile (UK currently doing this) Moving as many as possible to 5G gets operators out of a hole, equipment manufacturers are doing dual 4/5G kit to make dynamic use of the limited low spectrum So you don't need it but they need you to believe you do.

Also, today's infrastructure can more than handle that in most places

Rural for lack of anything better is being sold (in UK) LTE home routers and VOD is popular so the sooner they can move low (they will never get high) spectrum to 5G the better. We do still have a lot of rural without 2G though so it's not clear what they will do there There is also a 5G land grab of other uses making it out as good for lots of things (IoT, factories, rural access), I presume that is the same elsewhere?

I'm not saying what we have will work for us forever, but it will solve no current problems. There is no need to rush like the network is on fire.

It is in places, they predict it will be elsewhere if they get the customer base they are aiming for. So they do want it to put out the fires they are starting plus with equimpment cycles their best hope it to get as many to upgrade with the newness hype otherwise they will join the long tail and be difficult to move later once they find it wasn't necessary. brandon

On 31/Dec/19 16:10, Mike Hammett wrote:

I would still find it hard to believe you would need that kind of speed, today, in any reasonable situation. Also, today's infrastructure can more than handle that in most places. Where it can't, 5G isn't going to be there for a very long time or some other method would fix it first (such as improved backhaul or site densification with existing technologies).

In South Africa, I average between 30Mbps - 50Mbps on my phones (two different carriers, each doing 4G and LTE). The only time I use that kind of bandwidth is when I'm in the country, but neither at home nor the office, e.g., tethering my laptop at at the car wash, the barber shop, in a hotel, at a coffee shop, e.t.c. It is more reliable than trying to ask some establishment for their wi-fi access. The only time I rely more heavily on wi-fi (even for my phone) is when I am outside the country, because data roaming is colossally expensive and painfully slow, since MNO's like tunneling stuff back home for billing. Ultimately, what I'm saying is that - at least on my end - I routinely can achieve way more than 25Mbps on my phone, but unless I'm spending 5 minutes watching a Youtube clip, I'm certain I'm not using more than 2Mbps - 5Mbps on average. Trying to catch up on Netflix on my phone is not a plan, since MNO's are so tucked in with their concept of "selling data". Mark.

On 4/Jan/20 00:12, William Herrin wrote:

The day is coming when your "phone" records and streams 360 degree panoramic high-resolution video to the cloud all the time unless you intentionally turn it off. An so does everyone else's around you. It probably isn't as far away as you think. And that's just one of the more obvious things.

There is a reason pre- and post-paid GSM data customers are always in argument about where all the data they loaded went to, or why the costs on the bill are shocking! Mark.

Le 16/01/2020 à 06:37, Mark Tinka a écrit :

On 15/Jan/20 12:20, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

...

Arcep (the regulator) today mentions 5G in 2020 will be mostly an improved 4G, not the full plain 5G.  (makes think of 4G+ which is already widely available since some months).

This is an important point.

...

iphone 11 is sold since September, with a feature list including codecs and frequencies which make think of 5G.

The iPhone certainly doesn't support 5G, but it does support 802.11ax.

This is the list of features:

Cellular and Wireless

Model A2111*

FDD‑LTE (Bands 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 66, 71) TD‑LTE (Bands 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 48) CDMA EV‑DO Rev. A (800, 1900 MHz) UMTS/HSPA+/DC‑HSDPA (850, 900, 1700/2100, 1900, 2100 MHz) GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)

All models

Gigabit-class LTE with 2x2 MIMO and LAA4 802.11ax Wi‑Fi 6 with 2x2 MIMO Bluetooth 5.0 wireless technology Ultra Wideband chip for spatial awareness5 NFC with reader mode Express Cards with power reserve

The list of bands seems long, much longer than what my eye is used to. It is an expression of new chips extremely parametrable and generic. The band 71 seems to have inside some specifics to 5G, somewhere in the UHF (hundreds of megahertz). The bands 42 and 48 are in the 3.5GHz area. The 3.5GHz are is where it is likely that some bands are to be allocated for 5G in France. (other likely 5G frequencies are in the UHF, in 20-something GHz, 60-something and 70-something). It is for these reasons I believe iphone 11 is ready for 5G. Alex

Mark.

On 16/Jan/20 19:23, Shane Ronan wrote:

The iPhone 11 does not have a 5G (NR) capable modem. The 3.5Ghz freq support is for the CBRS bands in the US.

Support for 5G is not just a freq band support, it requires a chipset/modem capable of support the NR protocol.

Yes, exactly. Word is Apple should start shipping Qualcomm's 5G modems in 2H'20, and its own in 2021. Personally, I'm not in any rush to buy a phone with 5G on it. Wi-fi or existing 4G/LTE is fine for me. I'm due to upgrade my iPhones this year. I'll take whatever they come with. Mark.

On 1/17/20 02:13, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

From the web: the band 48 (3550-3700MHz) is for CBRS in US (Citizens' band broadband service; I suppose something like voice between trucks)

CBRS (and the soon to be former NN band) doesn't have anything to do with CB radios.

You refer to a certain NR protocol. (NR - New Radio). It is possible to check in 3GPP specs what precisely does it mean an 'NR protocol'. The questions to answer when searching would be something like: is it TDD or FDD? Is it SC-FDMA? And then compare these terms to what the iphone 11 does in these frequency bands. Maybe iphone 11 does TDD in band 48 but does not do SC-FDMA (or something like that).

I am not sure we can say that 'NR protocol' is like a message exchange like I know in DHCP for example.

5G NR the layer 1 radio access specification, just like LTE, GSM, etc. It is defined in 3GPP spec series 38. https://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/38-series.htm On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:34 PM Alexandre Petrescu < alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

Mark, Shane,

I do agree that listing a 3.5 GHz band of frequencies does not necessarily mean it's 5G.

Bu I would like to further clarify, if you permit:

1. From the web: The band 71 (UHF range) seems to be for 4G _and_ 5G. Some descriptions on the web say so.

From the web: the band 42 (3400–3600MHz) is for CBRS in EU and Japan.

From the web: the band 48 (3550-3700MHz) is for CBRS in US (Citizens' band broadband service; I suppose something like voice between trucks)

It is possible to check in 3GPP specs, ETSI specs and ARCEP public ambitions, whether or not the bands intended for 5G (and up for auction) fall within these frequency bands 71, 42 and 48. My gut feeling is that the answer is yes.

2. You refer to a certain NR protocol. (NR - New Radio). It is possible to check in 3GPP specs what precisely does it mean an 'NR protocol'. The questions to answer when searching would be something like: is it TDD or FDD? Is it SC-FDMA? And then compare these terms to what the iphone 11 does in these frequency bands. Maybe iphone 11 does TDD in band 48 but does not do SC-FDMA (or something like that).

I am not sure we can say that 'NR protocol' is like a message exchange like I know in DHCP for example.

3. you refer to a potential Qualcomm 5G modem in second half of year 2020. I wonder whether there are public announcements for them? Or will it be sufficient to firmware upgrade the iphone to make it carry a 5G label? (like Teslas are updated to software to make them self-driving or so; or like with software SIM cards).

4. I wonder whether some existing smartphone on the market (not an iphone, maybe a samsung or so) already features an entry in its table with a feature that makes it a '5G' smartphone.

Alex

Le 17/01/2020 à 06:05, Mark Tinka a écrit :

...

On 16/Jan/20 19:23, Shane Ronan wrote:

...

The iPhone 11 does not have a 5G (NR) capable modem. The 3.5Ghz freq support is for the CBRS bands in the US.

Support for 5G is not just a freq band support, it requires a chipset/modem capable of support the NR protocol.

Yes, exactly.

Word is Apple should start shipping Qualcomm's 5G modems in 2H'20, and its own in 2021.

Personally, I'm not in any rush to buy a phone with 5G on it. Wi-fi or existing 4G/LTE is fine for me.

I'm due to upgrade my iPhones this year. I'll take whatever they come

with.

...

Mark.

Le 18/01/2020 à 09:33, Mark Tinka a écrit :

On 17/Jan/20 12:13, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

...

3. you refer to a potential Qualcomm 5G modem in second half of year 2020.  I wonder whether there are public announcements for them?  Or will it be sufficient to firmware upgrade the iphone to make it carry a 5G label? (like Teslas are updated to software to make them self-driving or so; or like with software SIM cards).

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=does+the+iphone+11+support+5g

...

4. I wonder whether some existing smartphone on the market (not an iphone, maybe a samsung or so) already features an entry in its table with a feature that makes it a '5G' smartphone.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=smartphones+with+5g+support

IT is funny how animated gifs say go do a google search. I will do a google search and come back when I know better about 5G. Alex

Mark.