Marlon,
6 gig per month or 6 gig per day?
Jason
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
We have always had a per bit plan in place.
Our speeds are as high as 10 meg on wireless and 100 on fiber.
Yet our average user is down at 3 megs. Well, really below that as my
tracking mechanism counts the servers and high end business users and it
really shouldn't do that.
We're still growing nicely and have lost very few customers due to usage
issues over the years. Usually they are the ones that I really didn't want
anyway. Sell one account and they build their own system that covers the
entire neighborhood, watch TV online etc.
I really feel for my competitors. We've certainly run off more than a few
potential new customers because of our 6 gig limit. I'd love to see the bw
and gig numbers for some of the other wisps in my area. I'll bet it's
amazingly different.
laters,
marlon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew Lentz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information
The point that I was getting at when this thread started about 24 hours
ago
was about having an all you can eat type service. As it stands right now,
how many ISPs are offering plans of 768k or 1Mbps or 3 Mbps? This is not
going to cut it in the future. This is not going to cut it next year.
I wasn't trying to say "well hell just buy more radios in the same
frequency
space and put them up on the towers" .. What I am getting at is that
opening
these subs up and supplying the bandwidth they need is going to have to
become a reality at some point. If the networks that are in place today
cannot satisfy that need, there will be other networks in the future that
WILL be there.
For what they have done with the physics side of it (i.e. Modulation
schemes, channel reuse, beam forming, etc.) technologies exist or are
being
worked on to milk everything out of that valuable spectrum that we all try
and operate in.
The cars on the bike trail is a perfect example .. Luckily whether its
3.65
or TVWS or the 700 MHz auctions, that spectrum is becoming available. The
hope is that the operators that are around today see this and position or
align themselves (because yes Charles, the cold reality does hit you
pretty
quiickly!) to take advantage of this as soon as they can. And that doesn't
mean just for the distribution side of their network. The backhaul, the
routing, the switching, all have to be in place for this to operate
properly. All too often have a seen pieced together WISPS fail due to bad
switching equipment .. "well heck, this Netgear switch is only $59!!"
Jack, I truly appreciate your perspective on this and I completely
understand the side of it you are coming from. True, the amount of
unlicensed space that is out there currently will not hold a network that
supports as you said "high-throughput, high-reliability, moderate-cost,
non-interfering networks" .. But that is today. With innovation in
communications, as it has been proven time and again, where there's a will
there's a way. Maybe the 5GHz spectrum can't hold what it needs to on its
own, maybe there isnt a modulation scheme for stuffing more bits per hertz
available today .. But that does not mean that multi-frequency equipment
or
innovation will not exist in the future.
-drew
On 11/25/08 1:01 AM, "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Drew,
As I've mentioned before - wireless "physics" does not allow you to
simply and affordably "build your network" for tomorrow but you do not
yet understand this point. No matter what the customer wants (or
demands) and no matter how much the WISP wants to build a
high-throughput network at a reasonable price, wireless "physics"
(specifically the lack of available spectrum) prevents this. With
limited spectrum (which is what we have today in spite of the arguments
that we have "WiMAX" in 3650 and future "White Space" and "opportunities
to partner with licensed carriers) WISPs can not build high-throughput,
high-reliability, moderate-cost, non-interfering networks that serve a
lot of customers without having access to more spectrum. As you point
out, watching bandwidth needs so you can "know what's coming" and plan
accordingly is important but you can not make physics (that's what
happens in the REAL world) bend to your business and marketing models.
The exact opposite happens - marketing plans fail because the technology
(the real-world PHYSICAL behavior) does not obey the marketing plan.
There's nothing personal here - the PHYSICAL reality calls the shots and
it always wins. For example, it doesn't matter that I want (and General
Motors marketing plan may call for) a safe, five-passenger car that goes
200 MPH all day and gets 100 MPG up and down an unpaved bicycle trail
through the Colorado Rockies along with 100 other cars simultaneously
and costs only $3000 to buy. You and I both recognize that in spite of
the marketing plan, it just is not going to physically work. No company
could build such a car for $3000 and if someone did, it would run off
the trail within 30 seconds as it accelerated, especially if there were
100 other similar 200 MPH cars on the same bicycle trail. The bike trail
just can't support that kind of traffic even if the car could be built
for $3000. Wireless channel needs are the same. To support a lot of
traffic simultaneously needs a very wide road - a very wide, unshared
channel.
Now I'm going to explain why I keep emphasizing this point - because it
needs to be understood so that the focus is placed in the proper area to
solve the problem - more spectrum. Yes - some wireless vendors aren't
delivering innovative products and some WISP owners aren't planning and
deploying properly but even when vendors do innovate and WISP owners
plan properly, SPECTRUM IS STILL NEEDED or the wireless physics won't
work and the wireless throughput still won't be delivered.
Again, this isn't personal. I just refuse to allow this discussion to be
thrown off-track because the wireless physical foundation is not
understood. If we go off-track then the problem won't be properly
addressed and it can't be properly solved. I appreciate your good
business analysis but I will keep trying to the best of my ability to
address the underlying issue so WISPs stand a chance of being successful
now and into the future as end-user throughput needs continue to
increase.
Respectfully,
jack
Drew Lentz wrote:
This is the statement that got me:
One argument that I have had people tell me, is that the ISP should
know
this is coming and should have planned for it.
Whether it is through watching the amount of bandwidth used over periods
of
time as a trend or doing market research to find out what is coming down
the
line in technology, this statement holds pretty strong. Best practices
tell
you to build your network for your needs tomorrow, not for today, not
for
yesterday.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
|
