Wimax?

geordief

I heard that Wimax was coming closer.(might be something to do with developing chip technology) Does anyone have an idea of how long it would take to roll out.Would it have a range of 5 miles as the crow flies in the country and would the lie of the land come into it?

djmarkus

i hope that it has a range of more than 5 miles, ordinary wireless has a range better than that

aidan_walsh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimax

Wikipedia wrote:

IEEE 802.16 provides up to 50 km (31 miles) of linear service area range and allows connectivity between users without a direct line of sight. Note that this should not be taken to mean that users 50 km (31 miles) away without line of sight will have connectivity. Practical limits from real world tests seem to be around "3 to 5 miles" (5 to 8 kilometers). The technology has been claimed to provide shared data rates up to 70 Mbit/s, which, according to WiMAX proponents, is enough bandwidth to simultaneously support more than 60 businesses with T1-type connectivity and well over a thousand homes at 1Mbit/s DSL-level connectivity. Real world tests, however, show practical maximum data rates between 500kbit/s and 2 Mbit/s, depending on conditions at a given site.

Villain

Intel Ireland are testing wimax at the moment, optimal range is 4-6 miles, but it can cover up to 30 miles.

bk

irish1 wrote:

Intel Ireland are testing wimax at the moment, optimal range is 4-6 miles, but it can cover up to 30 miles.

Is the 4-6 miles non-line of sight (good) or line of sight (not good).

The technology Digiweb is using for Metro seems to be 15 miles line of sight and seems to offer higher speeds.

The one advantage of a standard like wimax is that lots of different companies will make gear for it, driving down prices.

Villain

I believe its non-line of sight.

watty

It is an excuse for Intel to sell chips.

Other standards the chips are available from companies with track record designing RF chips.

Wimax LOS or not depends on the band. On the 6GHz to 10Ghz bands it performs no different to Digiweb Metro with similar outdoor aerial and range.

It may perfom slightly less LOS on 3.5GHz, but then the system Digiweb is using would too (and is avaibable for that band), but AFAIK, Eircom has most of the licence for 3.5GHz and Digiweb hasn't.

The Wimax integrated to Notebooks or on PCMCIA cards may perform better than Wifi, but won't break the laws of Physics either, it would compter with the IBB indoor plastic box product, assuming anyone gets suitable spectrum licence.

The more I study Wimax I feel it is over sold. It won't solve Ireland's BB access problems on its own. Unless Eircom mysteriously decides to use it on 3.5GHz and sell 2Mb at 20Euro a month with 100 Euro install. But they could do that without Wimax too.

useruser

watty wrote:

It may perfom slightly less LOS on 3.5GHz, but then the system Digiweb is using would too (and is avaibable for that band), but AFAIK, Eircom has most of the licence for 3.5GHz and Digiweb hasn't.

The more I study Wimax I feel it is over sold. It won't solve Ireland's BB access problems on its own. Unless Eircom mysteriously decides to use it on 3.5GHz and sell 2Mb at 20Euro a month with 100 Euro install. But they could do that without Wimax too.

You're right on the money watty, Wimax is just an improvement on the currently available fixed wireless technologies (no mobile Wimax available yet). Whether it can cover 30miles+ or not is irrelevant, plenty of stuff can do that but it would be a big waste of spectrum except in completely rural areas (where operators probably aren't going to have the population density to bother).

Ireland has a big imbalance in the % of wireless broadband users because DSL is expensive here. If/when the wireline prices come down or we see more cable penetration then wireless will be forgotten. Fixed wireless is expensive to roll out and is always capacity constrained by availability of spectrum.

Villain

watty wrote:

It is an excuse for Intel to sell chips.

Well I hope it works and helps create a another few thousand jobs in Ireland.

DonegalMan

useruser wrote:

Ireland has a big imbalance in the % of wireless broadband users because DSL is expensive here.

Probably more to do with the lack of availability rather than price.

useruser

DonegalMan wrote:

Probably more to do with the lack of availability rather than price.

Don't think so - the wireless operators are (in the main) targeting the same areas as the wireline guys, rural users are left out in the cold by both technologies.

watty

The wireless operators go for the denser areas first then start adding lower denmsity that the cable / adsl won't do.

Fixed Wimax has same range as the services you can buy today.

Intel releasing mobile wimax maybe this autumn, but don't expect any BB on it in Ireland except in city centres/ Wifi hotspot type locations.

useruser

watty wrote:

The wireless operators go for the denser areas first then start adding lower denmsity that the cable / adsl won't do.

Fixed Wimax has same range as the services you can buy today.

Intel releasing mobile wimax maybe this autumn, but don't expect any BB on it in Ireland except in city centres/ Wifi hotspot type locations.

Wireless operators here have no incentive to move into lower density areas (DSL is at a high enough price that it is possible to compete with it using fixed wireless - I think we are unique in Europe in this regard?). In other countries wireless is confined to lower density areas that are not well served by DSL & cable.

If/when naked DSL reaches €9.99/month I can't see Wimax being able to compete.

bk

With the exception of Ripwave, which you can hardly call bb, most wireless is more expensive then DSL or cable. Therefore the success of wireless in Irish urban areas, isn't based on price, rather it is based on the lack of wireline BB availabilty in urban areas.

Interestingly another I believe another reason for wireless success in Ireland is Eircom!! Let me explain, Eircom stopped the introduction of residential bb in Ireland for many years. In other countries like the UK, BB DSL went mainstrem years ago, when wireless BB technology wasn't mature and know it is much harder for wireless to gain marketshare in those mature markets. But since BB is only going mainstream in Ireland now and wireless tech is mature, then it has a much better chance to hain a significant niche in the Irish BB market.

However as wireline BB increases in availability and continues to drop in price, you are correct, wireless companies will be pushed into less dense rural areas not served by wireline BB.

On the other hand with the support of companies like Intel I could easily see wireless BB become as ubiqutous as mobile phones, people increasingly want good BB on the move anywhere at afordable prices. Neither WiFi nor 3G can really give us that, but Wimax might just do it. I believe wireless BB will become incredibly important over the next few years and will be everywhere in 5. It is ironic that Cablelabs (Cablt TV and BB standards body) is currently frantically developing standards for wireless BB for the cable industry!

useruser

bk wrote:

With the exception of Ripwave, which you can hardly call bb, most wireless is more expensive then DSL or cable. Therefore the success of wireless in Irish urban areas, isn't based on price, rather it is based on the lack of wireline BB availabilty in urban areas.

You missed the point - the wireless operators are competing head to head against DSL because DSL is so expensive. In other countries this is not possible, DSL is too cheap for wireless to compete.

Interestingly another I believe another reason for wireless success in Ireland is Eircom!! Let me explain, Eircom stopped the introduction of residential bb in Ireland for many years. In other countries like the UK, BB DSL went mainstrem years ago, when wireless BB technology wasn't mature and know it is much harder for wireless to gain marketshare in those mature markets. But since BB is only going mainstream in Ireland now and wireless tech is mature, then it has a much better chance to hain a significant niche in the Irish BB market.

This would make sense if wireless was being provided (predominately) to areas that aren't served by wired operators. Of course Eircom is ultimately responsible for the delay in broadband roll-out but wireless is not helping availability (much).

"Mature?" Navini's Ripwave (and Clearwire's Nextnet) are state of the art for NLOS - do you really think those are mature technologies? Wimax can't touch either of these products at the moment for NLOS performance. I just don't see the demand for mobile broadband (> 3G anyway). It might be nice to have but with DSL and WiFi and 3G(coverage) becoming ubiquitous what applications are there for Wimax?

However as wireline BB increases in availability and continues to drop in price, you are correct, wireless companies will be pushed into less dense rural areas not served by wireline BB.

Or, more likely will disappear altogether as their profits dwindle to nothing. They don't want to have to sell broadband to low density areas any more than the DSL guys.

On the other hand with the support of companies like Intel I could easily see wireless BB become as ubiqutous as mobile phones, people increasingly want good BB on the move anywhere at afordable prices. Neither WiFi nor 3G can really give us that, but Wimax might just do it. I believe wireless BB will become incredibly important over the next few years and will be everywhere in 5. It is ironic that Cablelabs (Cablt TV and BB standards body) is currently frantically developing standards for wireless BB for the cable industry!

I expect wireless to peter out when we start seeing DSL VoD and IPTV - something that Wireless cannot deliver. Just my opinion of course - I'm very interested to hear an alternate point of view, particularly where you see the demand for this product.

watty

No, Wireless is here to stay and can in less dense rural areas deleiver same performance as aDSL in urband areas.

I'm skeptical about mobile Wimax.

I'm very skeptical about true VOD. Fake VOD where many videos are downloaded in background via broadcast to HardDrive (usually hidden cache) and then instantly available will always deliver a better experience, cost less and better quality. The catalogue you browse is in reality disk content, not network content.

IPTV is always going to be much inferior to DVB formats or the "fake VOD" described above. Again Wireless can actually do IPTV and VOD as well as aDSl and of course more efficently do background broadcast for fake VOD, or "foreground" true DVB standards.

I'm actually designing a Wireless system that does background broadcast to cache for VOD, foreground DVB and also side by side TCP/IP TCP/UDP traffic.

Digiweb Metro is actually DOCSIS cable via microwave and supports phone thus is cheaper than aDSL as you can save on phone line rental. It can support VOD, IPTV, fake VOD (better IMO) and in theory Broadcast HDTV.

A Wireless cell/base unit in a rural area can cover upto 30km diameter, thus as econimical as a Wireless base in a city centre area. For most of Ireland, too, outside of city the LOS required for 10GHz Wireless is easier to obtain.

The 3.5KHz will manage limited non-LOS and it is very sad the under utilisation of it. Using DOCSIS over wireless a 60km diameter cell for very sparse area will work for 3.5GHz, with typically 2M download and 512K upload. Very much better than the Eircom FWA.

Wimax is an interesting option, but at fixed system offers no advantage to existing systems and mobile is only a bit better than Ripwave, depending on band (frequency) used and environment. Unless it can get into 400MHz to 900MHz band then mobile will be poorer than exsiting and planned technologies for those frequencies. Unless Eircom adopts it, it can't be used on 3.5GHz.

I suppose if we turned off MMDS that would free up 100MHz at 2.5MHz

watty

I think may 40% or more households of Ireland is unlikely to ever see cabled aDSL. Don't for get even if a 100% of exchanges have aDSL many lines are outside the operational distance and many lines close enough will fail. So Eircom's percentages are not percent of households.

bk

useruser wrote:

This would make sense if wireless was being provided (predominately) to areas that aren't served by wired operators. Of course Eircom is ultimately responsible for the delay in broadband roll-out but wireless is not helping availability (much).

Did you actually bother to read what I said? What I said is Because Eircom has been holding back DSL BB for years, instead of dominating the BB market like BT did in the UK years ago, they have left the door open for mature wireless BB technologies like Digiwebs Metro to gain a foothold, they have no one but themselves to blame.

useruser wrote:

"Mature?" Navini's Ripwave (and Clearwire's Nextnet) are state of the art for NLOS - do you really think those are mature technologies? Wimax can't touch either of these products at the moment for NLOS performance.

Where did I say anything about NLOS wireless, I was talking about LOS wireless technology like Digiweb Metro which is very mature.

useruser wrote:

I just don't see the demand for mobile broadband (> 3G anyway). It might be nice to have but with DSL and WiFi and 3G(coverage) becoming ubiquitous what applications are there for Wimax?

3G is already recognised in the industry as a failure, too expensive and too slow. Wimax is considered a 4G technology, it is likely to be pushed by companies like teclos and cablecos and wirelesscos who don't have a mobile arm and therefore don't have anything to lose by pushing Wimax over 3G.

Wimax will be sold as significantly faster then 3G, but more importantly it will be sold as an all you can eat BB product compared to the very expensive per kb plans for 3G from the cellcos. There is a great opportunity for Wimax to eat into the 3G market.

useruser wrote:

Or, more likely will disappear altogether as their profits dwindle to nothing. They don't want to have to sell broadband to low density areas any more than the DSL guys.

Very unlikely and not true, wireless can easily be sold to low density areas, the capital costs are far lower then wireline BB and therefore it can be supported by much lower density areas. The wireless companies do want to sell it to these areas, just look at the fierce competition last year for the wireless licenses that were snapped up by Digiweb and Clearwire all over the country.

Yes, the wireless companies will rollout to the higher density areas first, but over time they will also rollout to lower density areas. Just look at Digiweb, after successfully rolling out Metro to the major Urban areas, they are now rolling it out to another 20 areas outside the urban areas.

useruser wrote:

I expect wireless to peter out when we start seeing DSL VoD and IPTV - something that Wireless cannot deliver. Just my opinion of course - I'm very interested to hear an alternate point of view, particularly where you see the demand for this product.

DSL just doesn't have the bandwidth to do VoD or IPTV to the quality that people expect, specially with HD coming. Cable and fibre, yes, they can do it, but not DSL.

Once DSL and cable are widely available (still a long way away) and cheap (if ever with the jokers at Eircom) then there are three likely markets for wireless:

1) The obvious one is to deliver BB to rural areas not served by wireline BB. The cost of rolling out wireless BB isn't that expensive (only a fraction of the cost of wireline BB) and it can be supported by very low density population areas as long as the wireless can reach far.

2) People in urban areas who can't get DSL (too far from the exchange are bad quality line). Many such people still exist and will continue to exist.

3) As a faster, cheaper alternative to 3G for mobile BB on the go, anytime, anywhere. There really is a strong growing demand for this kind of service, with more and more people buying laptops. WiFi just doesn't do it, it is too limited in distances, too complicated for people to get working and often expensive (look at o2's prices).

I can see that in the future many people might have two BB accounts, a wireline fibre or cable BB for very high speed services like IPTV at home and a second account for the laptop and tablet PC for on the go BB.

Possible killer applications for wireless BB is hand-held gaming like the DS and PSP, which are currently WiFi, but future versions are likely to be Wimax. Also tablet PC devices are likely to take off in the future (when they come down to €500 and 12 hour battery's) which allow you to watch shows and browse the web while commuting.

Look why else would the cablecos in the US be spending millions of dollars buying up wireless spectrum and developing wireless technology, after all they have one of the highest speed wireline BB networks in the US, unless they thought there was a market for it.

Blaster99

ADSL is cheap in Ireland. BT does 3Mbps for an effective €25 a month, Smart for an effective (give or take) €20. Even with line rental included, both of them are cheaper than the vast majority of wireless competition and works let's say a million times better. My expectation is for FWA to die once the superior alternatives are widely available.

watty

Metro 3Mbps is 42 Euro. Subtract 26 Euro Eircom line rental= 16Euro per month equivelant.

$25 Euro isn't that cheap internationally. $9 per month in India

bk

watty wrote:

Metro 3Mbps is 42 Euro. Subtract 26 Euro Eircom line rental= 16Euro per month equivelant.

$25 Euro isn't that cheap internationally. $9 per month in India

And how much does the average person in India get paid?

With the exception of the line rental, BB really is about average with the rest of Europe nowadays, as long as you are willing to shop around.

zuma

bk wrote:

With the exception of the line rental, BB really is about average with the rest of Europe nowadays, as long as you are willing to shop around.

Not in terms of connection speed as ADSL2+ is almost a standard throughout a lot of Europe....France has been using it as standard for years now!
We still use ADSL here....if we can actually get connected over our "vintage" telco network!

useruser

bk wrote:

Did you actually bother to read what I said? What I said is Because Eircom has been holding back DSL BB for years, instead of dominating the BB market like BT did in the UK years ago, they have left the door open for mature wireless BB technologies like Digiwebs Metro to gain a foothold, they have no one but themselves to blame.

I did bother to read it, I just disagree with you, that's all! Don't be so touchy.
I think I could summarise your position as "Wireless broadband is unusually successful in Ireland because of lack of availability of DSL." My position is that wireless broadband is unusually successful in Ireland because DSL is over-priced and when the price inevitably drops wireless operators will be unable to compete head to head with wireline products.

Where did I say anything about NLOS wireless, I was talking about LOS wireless technology like Digiweb Metro which is very mature.

You didn't mention NLOS wireless, but fixed wireless hasn't a hope in hell of competing on price with DSL so self-install NLOS products are the only ones that have a chance. The truck-roll alone is more expensive than the per-port charge to the operator for DSL.

3G is already recognised in the industry as a failure, too expensive and too slow. Wimax is considered a 4G technology, it is likely to be pushed by companies like teclos and cablecos and wirelesscos who don't have a mobile arm and therefore don't have anything to lose by pushing Wimax over 3G.
Wimax will be sold as significantly faster then 3G, but more importantly it will be sold as an all you can eat BB product compared to the very expensive per kb plans for 3G from the cellcos. There is a great opportunity for Wimax to eat into the 3G market.

Hmmm. HSDPA? 1xEVDO? Mobile Wimax doesn't exist yet, UMTS will provide 300-400kbps today, where are the multi-megabit mobile applications? There are already flat-rate HSDPA packages available from Cingular.

Very unlikely and not true, wireless can easily be sold to low density areas, the capital costs are far lower then wireline BB and therefore it can be supported by much lower density areas. The wireless companies do want to sell it to these areas, just look at the fierce competition last year for the wireless licenses that were snapped up by Digiweb and Clearwire all over the country.

Fixed wireless is not far less expensive to deploy than DSL (unless you are including the cost of running the copper!). Obviously there are subscribers that cannot be reached by DSL in which case wireless may be the answer.

DSL just doesn't have the bandwidth to do VoD or IPTV to the quality that people expect, specially with HD coming. Cable and fibre, yes, they can do it, but not DSL.

Nonsense, I can think of 4 companies off the top of my head with 1m+ (combined) IPTV subscribers (PCCW, Free, Neuf, Fastweb). Why do you think it's not possible?

Once DSL and cable are widely available (still a long way away) and cheap (if ever with the jokers at Eircom) then there are three likely markets for wireless:

DSL is already widely available (not widely enough obviously!).

1) The obvious one is to deliver BB to rural areas not served by wireline BB. The cost of rolling out wireless BB isn't that expensive (only a fraction of the cost of wireline BB) and it can be supported by very low density population areas as long as the wireless can reach far.

I bet all the wireless operators just can't wait to get into this lucrative market - there must be tens of thousands of euro in it.

2) People in urban areas who can't get DSL (too far from the exchange are bad quality line). Many such people still exist and will continue to exist.

Another great market, that will pay for the CEOs' lunches.

3) As a faster, cheaper alternative to 3G for mobile BB on the go, anytime, anywhere. There really is a strong growing demand for this kind of service, with more and more people buying laptops. WiFi just doesn't do it, it is too limited in distances, too complicated for people to get working and often expensive (look at o2's prices).

And all of those people who just have to have broadband when they're on the go - they must number in the thousands! Must draw up a business plan, there's money to be made!

So, once the DSL prices come down (9.99 for naked DSL in France at the moment) and the services come along (TV, VoD, VoIP) where does that leave the wireless operator?

I can see that in the future many people might have two BB accounts, a wireline fibre or cable BB for very high speed services like IPTV at home and a second account for the laptop and tablet PC for on the go BB.

Or, more likely, most people will have one fixed triple-play provider and there will be a small market for mobile high-speed broadband.

Possible killer applications for wireless BB is hand-held gaming like the DS and PSP, which are currently WiFi, but future versions are likely to be Wimax. Also tablet PC devices are likely to take off in the future (when they come down to €500 and 12 hour battery's) which allow you to watch shows and browse the web while commuting.

I'm sure these will all be possible, I just reckon that they will more likely be HSDPA or WiFi applications. Wimax will of course cut that 12 hour battery life to 25 minutes ;-)

Look why else would the cablecos in the US be spending millions of dollars buying up wireless spectrum and developing wireless technology, after all they have one of the highest speed wireline BB networks in the US, unless they thought there was a market for it.

Beats me, infill? I am sure they're not betting the farm on wireless however.

useruser

watty wrote:

No, Wireless is here to stay and can in less dense rural areas deleiver same performance as aDSL in urband areas.

Agreed, it just doesn't belong in densely populated areas.

I'm skeptical about mobile Wimax.
I'm very skeptical about true VOD. Fake VOD where many videos are downloaded in background via broadcast to HardDrive (usually hidden cache) and then instantly available will always deliver a better experience, cost less and better quality. The catalogue you browse is in reality disk content, not network content.

I reckon "always" is a bit strong - I'm guessing that "true" VoD isn't too far off - perhaps some kind of hybrid is likely with popular movies etc cached?

IPTV is always going to be much inferior to DVB formats or the "fake VOD" described above. Again Wireless can actually do IPTV and VOD as well as aDSl and of course more efficently do background broadcast for fake VOD, or "foreground" true DVB standards.

Hmm., I wouldn't say "always," again, I'm betting that VoD is not far off at all.

I'm actually designing a Wireless system that does background broadcast to cache for VOD, foreground DVB and also side by side TCP/IP TCP/UDP traffic.

Sounds very interesting, are you developing it for a particular operator? Can you tell us some more about the system?

Digiweb Metro is actually DOCSIS cable via microwave and supports phone thus is cheaper than aDSL as you can save on phone line rental. It can support VOD, IPTV, fake VOD (better IMO) and in theory Broadcast HDTV.

Realistically, how many subs can be served with IPTV in (for example) 2x3.5MHz?

A Wireless cell/base unit in a rural area can cover upto 30km diameter, thus as econimical as a Wireless base in a city centre area. For most of Ireland, too, outside of city the LOS required for 10GHz Wireless is easier to obtain.

10GHz? You'll hardly get 30km that high up (rain fade)? The equipment is mega money too - did you mean to say 3.5GHz? I'm sure the technology can provide the coverage, I just question the economic viability.

The 3.5KHz will manage limited non-LOS and it is very sad the under utilisation of it. Using DOCSIS over wireless a 60km diameter cell for very sparse area will work for 3.5GHz, with typically 2M download and 512K upload. Very much better than the Eircom FWA.

I doubt very much that 60km is possible at 3.5GHz - the power levels would be huge (certainly well over the regulators' limits.)

Wimax is an interesting option, but at fixed system offers no advantage to existing systems and mobile is only a bit better than Ripwave, depending on band (frequency) used and environment. Unless it can get into 400MHz to 900MHz band then mobile will be poorer than exsiting and planned technologies for those frequencies. Unless Eircom adopts it, it can't be used on 3.5GHz.

That's an interesting possibility - obviously there is much less bandwidth available (kbps rather than Hz!) at 400 or 900 but it would be very interesting to see a decent lump of spectrum available in that range. 900MHz is used quite extensively in the US for FWA and the NLOS performance is impressive.

Is anyone developing anything in that range that looks interesting?

watty

60km diameter = 30km radius. Easily done with a few watts and sectored aerials at base. 100mW 2.4GHz goes 8km on a pair of MMDS dishes. 1.6W about 30km on a pair of MMDS dishes at 2.4GHz. Same size aerial (dish or flat array has a bit more gain at 3.5 than 2.4).

I've done the sums on VOD. Storage always wins.
1980 Storage = 5MByte, speed 1.2k bps wireless or copper
2006 Storage 400,000MByte, speed 3000kbps
Terabyte drives are comming

80,000 increase in storage, which isn't stopping.
2,500 increase in connection speed, which is likely to stop at that for many though some get 200M bps.

With 100k shared BROADCAST for 10,000 people (terrestrial, or 100M by Satellite) you can add 50 films a month to a cache that could store 300 Films. The BB bandwidth would need be to be 6Mbps uncontended 1:1 (PER PERSON) on top of existing BB. Who wants to lose download speed because someone else is watching TV?

The economics and performance of cached VOD is always going to beat real time VOD/IPTV.

Broadcast TV (DVB IP broadcast) will always beat per person IPTV for live TV.

This is why all the 3G operators world wide are going to DVB-h and similar to deliver video. Using 3G (IPTV) isn't economic or efficent.

10Ghz Wireless does 15km (30km dimater). About 10W to/from ISS does 50 to 200 mile diameter patch on ground at 430MHz.

is anyone developing anything in that range that looks interesting?

Watch this space and see who Comreg ALREADY gave licences to.

Nobody will say till it is launched.

useruser

watty wrote:

60km diameter = 30km radius. Easily done with a few watts and sectored aerials at base. 100mW 2.4GHz goes 8km on a pair of MMDS dishes. 1.6W about 30km on a pair of MMDS dishes at 2.4GHz. Same size aerial (dish or flat array has a bit more gain at 3.5 than 2.4).

doh! misread diameter as radius - you're right of course. Pushing it though!

I've done the sums on VOD. Storage always wins.
1980 Storage = 5MByte, speed 1.2k bps wireless or copper
2006 Storage 400,000MByte, speed 3000kbps
Terabyte drives are comming
80,000 increase in storage, which isn't stopping.
2,500 increase in connection speed, which is likely to stop at that for many though some get 200M bps.

Very interesting, I'd still bet on VoD 5 years from now though - I see the STB getting dumber & cheaper, not smarter.

With 100k shared BROADCAST for 10,000 people (terrestrial, or 100M by Satellite) you can add 50 films a month to a cache that could store 300 Films. The BB bandwidth would need be to be 6Mbps uncontended 1:1 (PER PERSON) on top of existing BB. Who wants to lose download speed because someone else is watching TV?
The economics and performance of cached VOD is always going to beat real time VOD/IPTV.

BB bandwidth uncontended of 6mb is no problem, multicast all of your broadcast channels and run say 10:1 on VoD - all plausible.

Broadcast TV (DVB IP broadcast) will always beat per person IPTV for live TV.

I don't understand this comment, why is DVB "better" for broadcast?

10Ghz Wireless does 15km (30km dimater). About 10W to/from ISS does 50 to 200 mile diameter patch on ground at 430MHz.

15km at 10GHz is really pushing it in my experience - heavy fog may knock you out - I would have said 11kms.

200miles at 430MHz - just goes to show what could be done.

Watch this space and see who Comreg ALREADY gave licences to.

Nobody will say till it is launched.

A man of mystery! Go on, tell us more!

Blaster99

useruser wrote:

I bet all the wireless operators just can't wait to get into this lucrative market - there must be tens of thousands of euro in it.

I'm too tired to wade through the sarcasm, but I think you'll find that about 40% of the population can't get broadband, so there might be a bit more than tens of thousand of euro in it. Granted, this 40% is shrinking by the day and ADSL will always be a better choice than FWA so it's perhaps not a particularly strong business case. But then again, the country side is littered with small wireless outfits tapping into this market.

useruser wrote:

The truck-roll alone is more expensive than the per-port charge to the operator for DSL.

Funny how NTL doesn't go bankrupt seeing as they insist on sending out a field guy to do all customer installs.

useruser wrote:

You didn't mention NLOS wireless, but fixed wireless hasn't a hope in hell of competing on price with DSL so self-install NLOS products are the only ones that have a chance.

Even funnier perhaps is that Clearwire has an NLOS product, but still finds the time and money to send out a rep to install it. I'm not sure if they have a chance for a variety of reasons, but I doubt it's down to the installation method.

But they're all a bunch of idiots who haven't done the math, I guess.

useruser

Blaster99 wrote:

I'm too tired to wade through the sarcasm, but I think you'll find that about 40% of the population can't get broadband, so there might be a bit more than tens of thousand of euro in it. Granted, this 40% is shrinking by the day and ADSL will always be a better choice than FWA so it's perhaps not a particularly strong business case. But then again, the country side is littered with small wireless outfits tapping into this market.

Apologies for the sarcasm, lowest form of wit I know. You're correct - there is plenty of scope for small wireless operators to provide broadband and good luck to them, they provide a service in areas that the big guys don't want to address. My argument is that this is the natural place for wireless broadband operators - small niches.

Funny how NTL doesn't go bankrupt seeing as they insist on sending out a field guy to do all customer installs

How many installs can a broadband cable installer manage (10 per day?) - how many fixed wireless (2 or 3 tops?).

Even funnier perhaps is that Clearwire has an NLOS product, but still finds the time and money to send out a rep to install it. I'm not sure if they have a chance for a variety of reasons, but I doubt it's down to the installation method.

But don't you think that this just emphasises my point - wireless is only viable because DSL is so expensive? I am amazed that Clearwire can afford to do that, what are the chances of them sending out an installer when prices reach €15 and less?

But they're all a bunch of idiots who haven't done the math, I guess.

Hehe, it may be the lowest form of wit but it's always funny!

Blaster99

I'm surprised both NTL and Clearwire bother with field technicians, but particularly the latter as it requires absolutely nothing to install. I suppose both have that nice cushion known as eircom line rental and I suspect that is what keeps the FWA guys in business too.

What's the unit price difference between a DSLAM port + ADSL modem and FWA CPE? The IBB installers claim that their CPE is worth €700, which to me seems like a staggering customer acquisition price.

useruser

Blaster99 wrote:

What's the unit price difference between a DSLAM port + ADSL modem and FWA CPE? The IBB installers claim that their CPE is worth €700, which to me seems like a staggering customer acquisition price.

ADSL DSLAM port + modem is in the $30-$70 range depending on volume, I would say that a Fixed Wimax CPE could easily reach $400 plus $200 for the base station (assuming a reasonable occupancy). I'm guessing the NLOS stuff (Nextnet/Navini/Flarion) is $20k or so for the base station and maybe $200 for the CPE. Wireless is an expensive business, I think the biggest killer is that once you have a big install base you cannot upgrade them without more spectrum - which is not available. DSL operators can move individual lines over to ADSL2+ or VDSL or X/Y/ZDSL as new tech becomes available, wireless is stuck. What value will wireless networks have in 5 years?

Edit: Forgot to add, what happens when you fill all of the available spectrum? Where do you go? Do you just turn away customers or do you hope for the best and keep on filling up base stations? (I'll leave the answer as an exercise to the reader.)

bk

zuma wrote:

Not in terms of connection speed as ADSL2+ is almost a standard throughout a lot of Europe....France has been using it as standard for years now!
We still use ADSL here....if we can actually get connected over our "vintage" telco network!

Not really, France and the Nordic countries yes, but most of national telcos in Europe are still on ADSL, just look at BT and Deutsche Telecom.

We really aren't that far behind on tech anymore, just pricing and availabilty. And proper LLU would sort that.