On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:17 PM Dick Roy via Nnagain < [email protected]> wrote:
> Has anyone done an analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in > bits/sec/Hz/km^3)???? I am suspicious that the capacity falls way short of > that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as the FWA networks > get loaded, performance is going to degrade dramatically ultimately > resulting in churn back to the cable guys. It's very expensive to compete > with already sunk FTTH or even FTTC. > I have done this, and blogged on it. What I have not done fully, and what ignites the FWA-vs-fiber argument re BEAD, is add one more term to that string of divisors. The term is $. WISPA’s argument, for example, is not that fiber is cheaper per bit over 30 years, but that FWA is cheaper *now*. If you build planning for a useful life of 7 years, you are reasonably safe today if you include enough overhead for annual growth of 20%, or so history would lead us to believe. If your technology allows average of 10 megabits per user at peak busy hour (generous today), you need approximately 200% headroom to survive without compression, assuming no new technologies radically change user behavior. Risky gamble. Jeremy Austin >
_______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
