Thanks Jacob and Alex.
Appreciate your reply. On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Jacob Broussard < shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com> wrote: > While I can't provide an average, I can say we generally have anywhere > from 2-5 microwaves on most sites (with a few exceptions that only have 1, > and a few that have more.) Our MWs go up to 1.6gbps. The sites aren't > provisioned a set amount of bandwidth, they can use as much as they want > (up to the capacity of the aggregate of their links), which almost never > puts our BH anywhere near capacity, unless the ring gets cut near the pop > and we have to move lots of data through just a couple of sites. (Sorry for > the crappy formatting, small and barely usable phone screen.) > > Thanks! > -Jacob > On Mar 28, 2012 1:45 AM, "Anurag Bhatia" <m...@anuragbhatia.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Nice discussion. Just a small question here - how much backhaul at >> present >> 2G, 3G and LTE based towers have? Just curious to hear an average number. >> I >> agree it would be a significant difference from busy street in New York >> to >> less crowded area say in Michigan but what sort of bandwidth telcos >> provision per tower? >> >> On fiber - I can imagine virtually unlimited bandwidth with incremental >> cost of optical instruments but how much to wireless backhaul based sites? >> Do they put Gigabit microwave everywhere? >> >> If not then say 100Mbps? If so then how end users on Verizon LTE people >> individual users get 10Mbps and so on? Is that operated at high >> contention? >> >> Thanks! >> >> (Sent from my mobile device) >> >> Anurag Bhatia >> http://anuragbhatia.com >> On Mar 27, 2012 10:26 PM, "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrow...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:45 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Jacob Broussard >> > > <shadowedstrangerli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > Who knows what technology will be like in 5-10 years? That's the >> whole >> > > > point of what he was trying to say. Maybe wireless carriers will >> use >> > > > visible wavelength lasers to recievers on top of customer's houses >> for >> > > all >> > > > we know. 10 years is a LONG time for tech, and anything can happen. >> > > >> > > >> > Regarding lasers. I agree that modulating a laser beam to carry >> information >> > is a great idea. Perhaps, though, we could direct the beam down some >> sort >> > of optical pipe or waveguide to spare ourselves the refractive losses >> and >> > keep the pigeons and rain and whatnot out of the Fresnel zone. We might >> > call it an "optical wire" or "optical fibre" or something. no, it'll >> never >> > catch on... >> > >> > Hi Jacob, >> > > >> > > The scientists doing the basic research now know. It's referred to as >> > > the "technology pipeline." When someone says, "that's in the pipeline" >> > > they mean that the basic science has been discovered to make something >> > > possible and now engineers are in the process of figuring out how to >> > > make it _viable_. The pipeline tends to be 5 to 10 years long, so >> > > basic science researchers are making the discoveries *now* which will >> > > be reflected in deployed technologies 10 years from now. >> > > >> > >> > >> > I recall an Agilent Technologies presentation from a couple of years >> back >> > that demonstrated that historically, the great majority of incremental >> > capacity on cellular networks was accounted for by cell subdivision. >> Better >> > air interfaces help, more spectrum helps, but as the maximum system >> > throughput is roughly defined by (spectral efficiency * spectrum)* >> number >> > of cells (assuming an even traffic distribution and no intercell >> > interference or re-use overhead, for the sake of a finger exercise), >> > nothing beats more cells. >> > >> > >> > As a result, the Wireless Pony will only save you if you can find a >> 10GigE >> > Backhaul Pony to service the extra cells. After a certain degree of >> > density, you'd need almost as much fibre (and more to the point, trench >> > mileage) to service a couple of small cells per street as you would to >> > *pass the houses in the street with fibre*. >> > >> > >> > One of the great things FTTH gets you is a really awesome backhaul >> network >> > for us cell heads. One of the reasons we were able to roll out 3G in the >> > first place was that DSL got deployed and you could provision on two or >> a >> > dozen DSL lines for a cell site. >> > >> > >> > You can't have wireless without backhaul (barring implausible >> discoveries >> > in fundamental mesh network theory). Most wireless capacity comes from >> cell >> > subdivision. Subdivision demands more backhaul. >> > >> > >> > > There is *nothing* promising in the pipeline for wireless tech that >> > > has any real chance of leading to a wide scale replacement for fiber >> > > optic cable. *Nothing.* Which means that in 10 years, wireless will be >> > > better, faster and cheaper but it won't have made significant inroads >> > > replacing fiber to the home and business. >> > > >> > > 20 years is a long time. 10 years, not so much. Even for the long >> > > times, we can find the future by examining the past. The duration of >> > > use of the predecessor technology (twisted pair) was about 50 years >> > > ubiquitously deployed to homes. From that we can make an educated >> > > guess about the current one (fiber). Fiber to the home started about >> > > 10 years ago leaving about 40 more before something better might >> > > replace it. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Bill Herrin >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com >> b...@herrin.us >> > > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> >> > > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2600:3c01:e000:1::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com