Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ben Cannon]

> 
> 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 
b...@6by7.net 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
> 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.

cbrs is the 'overlaps with some navy usage' thing I think.. Oh yes
according to networkworld:
  
https://www.networkworld.com/article/3180615/faq-what-in-the-wireless-world-is-cbrs.html

I think one target for this band was 'in building' LTE network usage.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 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.petre...@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.
> >
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Seth Mattinen]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 16/Jan/20 11:50, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

>
>
> 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.

There could be a ton of bands there, but it doesn't mean they support 5G.

5G isn't just a frequency thing. The phone needs the actual hardware in
there to do it, which is doesn't have.

802.11ax and 802.11a/b/g/n all use 2.4GHz and 5GHz, but they are totally
different bits of hardware in a device.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

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.

Shane

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 11:24 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
> >
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 29/12/2019 à 23:49, Michael Thomas a écrit :


https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/29/big-barrier-trump-5g-america-089883 



An interesting article on the road to 5G that they need to about double 
the size of the workforce to roll it out. I expect that this affects 
some of you directly.


But one of its premises seems a little shaky to me: has the US ever led 
the pack rolling out new network technology? I always thought it was 
Japan and South Korea that were years ahead of us. In silicon valley and 
SF it's still very rare to see FTTH. I'm not sure why we would expect to 
get to 5G any faster than we normally do.


Mike



In France, the situation is the following: it is not clear whether or 
not 5G will be available to lambda end users (Mr "tout le monde") in 2020.


All the data below is from publicly available sources like printed 
press, TV, and the web.


There is a plan by the regulator to allocate the 3500MHz band to various 
 operators, for money (auctions, "enchères").  There is a public 
ambition under the form of a timeline running until end of year, with 
various well identified steps.  One of the key steps is the delivery of 
authorisations to operators in the second trimester (3-month period of 
the year) of 2020.


Arcep mentions that, depending on 'department' (region), the 5G 
frequencies will be available for use in 2020 or in 2021. (remark 
'availability for use' different than 'selling').


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).


SFR operator touted "5G in 2020" by certain TV advertisements in 
December (CNEWS) but it stopped since.  It's important because in the 
past they also touted 4G before all the others, even though they were 
almost the first to deliver.


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


Several 5G trials are listed and centralized on an Arcep site.  They 
have publicly visible specific licenses (pdf documents) which last 
explicitely for about 6 months, to be reviewed.  Warning - some of them 
are not really using 5G freq bands, but other techs.  Some of them are 
internal in buildings, not outdoors.  Only a very few approach to what 
5G is.


Spain and Germany witness similar evolutions.

All these data, dates, timelines, commitments change every few months. 
For example, in a region named 'Saclay' 5G was ambitionned for 
demonstration in 2019 with public announcements.  But it was retired a 
few months before 2019 by a manufacturer.  The retiring of the 
announcement was public, but in silence so to say.  The reasons given 
for the retirement of the 2019 5G ambition are technical.


Alex

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 7/Jan/20 18:49, Andrey Kostin wrote:

>  
>
> 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.

To be specific, I was talking about something like this:

    https://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/wireless/mist/

And more intently, this:

    https://www.mist.com/artificial-intelligence-for-it/

I know, getting into the vendor-sphere is not my intention here, but
just to give the example that goes beyond the regular WLAN controller.


> 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.

Wi-fi is not the application for wide, vast outdoor areas. GSM works
better for that.

Wi-fi is better for dense, particularly (semi)close(d) environments,
e.g., inside hospitals, inside malls, inside homes, inside restaurants,
inside business premises, inside airports, inside train stations, that
sort of thing.

You can address a huge amount of demand in dense cities when people are
around such infrastructure that pools them together in one location,
with wi-fi, and help ease the pressure off GSM networks, while still
maintaining (and perhaps, even improving) the online user experience. At
least until 5G is cheap enough to roll out en masse.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Andrey Kostin]

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 7/Jan/20 01:45, Paul Nash wrote:

>>
>> Depending on what you are after, folk like Ruckus and Cisco have had 
>> centrally-managed enterprise WiFi for many years.

I'm not talking about your garden-variety WLAN Controller.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Paul Nash]

> 
> 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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

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

- On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Michael Thomas m...@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-satellites-hit-400mbps-and-32ms-latency-in-new-test/

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Andrey Kostin ank...@podolsk.ru wrote:

Hi,

> Sabri Berisha писал 2020-01-06 16:21:

>  I predict that your in-flight wifi will become a lot cheaper as a result
> of this.

> 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.

The only reason for it not going cheaper might be monopoly, not cost.
Today, satellite access is expensive, very expensive. Mobility is very
challenging on most geostationary networks, simply because they have
not been designed to support it. 

Once constellations are launched and low earth orbit networks start
competing with each other, prices will come down significantly.

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Michael Thomas m...@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-satellites-hit-400mbps-and-32ms-latency-in-new-test/

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/

I no longer work for a satellite ISP, for the record.

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/Jan/20 23:46, Andrey Kostin wrote:

>
> I'm talking only about last mile access.

As a last mile technology, yes, wireless is fine. We use it today for
4G/LTE; it is a last mile.

But as a backhaul technology, it won't do. You need wire for that, at
least in 2020 anyway.


> 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.

In Africa, most homes use some kind of 3G/4G/LTE router to get broadband
into their homes. This mainly due to a lack of fibre in one's specific
area. But every time fibre shows, up, they switch over, purely because
the performance of the GSM network is unpredictable, and the mobile data
costs are too high for a modern home in 2020.


> 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.

And the cost that goes along with it.


> Regarding comparison WiFi and cellular networks, it's clear that WiFi
> won't be able to compete with mobile in terms of scalability.

We aren't talking about trying to drive an entire nation on wi-fi with
towers. 5G or any other G operating at higher frequencies suffers the
same constraints.

We are talking about using wi-fi for dense locations where 5G also makes
sense technically, but not commercially, yet.


> 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.

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.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/Jan/20 23:04, Michael Thomas wrote:

>  
>
> 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.

There will always be someone that is bringing fibre to the (new)
building. The question is whether it is shared infrastructure like
ducts, where each operator can blow their own piece, or whether it's an
exclusive operator from whom all interested parties need to lease.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Andrey Kostin]

Sabri Berisha писал 2020-01-06 16:21:
- On Jan 5, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu 
wrote:


 I predict that

your in-flight wifi will become a lot cheaper as a result of this.

Thanks,

Sabri


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.


Kind regards,
Andrey

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Andrey Kostin]

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

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. 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.



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

Mike

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

On 1/5/20 10:39 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:


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.



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.





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.


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


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



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.



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.


Mike

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jan 5, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Andrey Kostin]

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

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

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[ouissal porly]

De : NANOG  de la part de Sabri Berisha 

Envoyé : samedi 4 janvier 2020 22:40
À : Mark Tinka 
Cc : nanog 
Objet : Re: 5G roadblock: labor

- On Jan 3, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@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 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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Joe Hamelin]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:18 PM William Herrin  wrote:

>
> 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.
>

If only for that hotspot which I think is IPv4 only.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, +1 (360) 474-7474

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Justin Oeder]

I’ve always pondered the difference between compute in the tower over compute 
in a well-connected metro data center.  Yet to find it for any use case except 
the 5G x86 supporting infrastructure.

Justin

From: NANOG  on behalf of Mike Hammett 

Date: Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 9:10 AM
To: Brandon Butterworth 
Cc: North American Network Operators Group 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor

I know there are a couple companies doing it, but compute at the tower isn't 
going to go anywhere. It makes very little sense to put it at the tower when 
you can put it in one location per metro area.



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

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


From: "Brandon Butterworth" 
To: jdambro...@gmail.com
Cc: "North American Network Operators Group" 
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:35:15 AM
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor

On Wed Jan 01, 2020 at 09:29:20AM -0500, jdambro...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications
> - your statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious

We might think that but it is serious. They want to own it all
and there is a small cabal of operators owning the spectrum so
little room for new competitors.

Here's a project we did exploring some of the ambition
https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2019-02-5g-mobile-augmented-reality-bath

Previously we avoided the old Telco CDNs by sticking to regular
Internet CDNs and building our own but edge compute (mobile CDN
but a better name to compete with AWS) is more insidious as you
may not be able to get the same result from CDNs out on the net.

Either the content providers or the external CDNs they use will
have to pay to use the mobile CDN. How they will scale that at all
those sites will be interesting to see.

> Perhaps preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way
> to look at it?

If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can
control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with
5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than
everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.

brandon

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

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  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
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

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  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
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to
LTE to provide adequate service.

Shane

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably
> priced, 5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500',
> tripling the amount of "towers" you have...  does it matter much if it's
> LTE or NR? You're adding hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Mark Tinka" 
> *To: *"Saku Ytti" 
> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM
> *Subject: *Re: 5G roadblock: labor
>
>
>
> On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does
> > is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense
> > metro installations.
>
> Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense
> cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point
> to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020?
>
> And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
> option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
>
> Mark.
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

Verizon is already offering fixed access 5G service with unlimited data for
$50.00/month in five cities.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 3:56 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/Jan/20 17:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> >
> > If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can
> > control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with
> > 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than
> > everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
>
> The main issue is the artificial concept of "buying data" so you can get
> online.
>
> I don't see any legacy MNO's selling you unlimited access to their radio
> network. So wi-fi hooked up to some kind of unlimited terrestrial wire
> (fibre, copper, wireless, e.t.c.) is what will discourage the kids from
> relying on MNO's to provide all of their connectivity needs, especially
> in fixed settings such as homes and such.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[sronan]

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  wrote:
> 
> devices.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

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  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  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
>>
>>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

Look up VoLTE.


On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 7:39 PM Michael Thomas  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
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

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  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
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Shane Ronan]

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  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" 
> *To: *"Brian J. Murrell" 
> *Cc: *"nanog" 
> *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 br...@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
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Radu-Adrian Feurdean]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 19:35, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> 
> How absolutely awful that must be, to always be relegated to slow and 
> insecure childrens band.  I turn off childrens band (WiFi) on my phone 
> with extreme prejudice and it stays that way.  I have yet to meet a 
> childrens band network (WiFi) that was worth connecting too.

Well "childrens" band sometimes has the advantage of being availabe (and 
working) in places where cellular data isn't (or is as bad as in "not 
working"). Enabling/disabling wifi is a "sport" you get accustomed with... Same 
for switching wifi networks... 

> 
> Then again I don't play on my phone ...
> 
A mobile phone today is much more than voice calling and games. 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.


> 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.

It's quite common in Africa, where copper lines are no longer reliable
or available, and there has been no business case to deploy fibre.

A simple example:

   
https://secure.telkom.co.za/today/shop/home/plan/smartbroadband-wireless-lte-5gb-variation/

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.


>
> That said, in my dreams it will be something like this:
> https://phys.org/news/2019-12-entanglement-long-distance-free-space-quantum.html
>
> 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 :)

That goes beyond the realm of my imagination ;-).

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Michael Thomas]

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jan 5, 2020, at 4:48 AM, John D'Ambrosia jdambro...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

> 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.

> Cost and no need for that sort of bw.

When I was at SuperCompute 19 in Denver last November, some people were
looking for a switch supporting 200G so they could connect their server
to it. The server had Mellanox 200G NICs. There was also an interesting NASA
talk about how high bandwidth allowed them to accelerate their data analysis
of anything from windtunnel results to live spacecraft launch telemetry. 

If I learned anything working with DC guys, it is that you give the
server guys bandwidth, they will find a way to use it.

That said, I agree with you that it will take a while before that'll be
anywhere close to 400G. The last cloud environment I worked with recently
was still in the process of qualifying 25G for their server farms. TORs were
not even considered yet and were still running 10G downstream.

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

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

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[John D'Ambrosia]

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.

When we look at 5g / Wi-Fi / cellular solutions - cost that the consumer will 
tolerate will drive its use for a given application

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 4, 2020, at 5:41 PM, Sabri Berisha  wrote:
> 
> - On Jan 3, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@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 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 
> 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/Jan/20 00:40, Sabri Berisha wrote:

>
> 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.
>  
> Of course they will. But the consumer might not like the price tag :)

I'm curious to see how long they can sustain this for, and how much of
your own home/office connection factors into their capacity planning and
management when they offer these unlimited plans.

I know in Malaysia, this is how 2G/3G plans started out back in 2008. By
2012, any previous unlimited plans would remain in situ, but going
forward, no more unlimited plans were being solid, not even corporate ones.


> 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).

In Africa, there are more mobile phones than landlines. On our
continent, the majority of telecommunications takes place on a mobile
phone. The reasons are as historical as they are commercial.


>
> 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 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.

I think you might be confusing a few things here.

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.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jan 3, 2020, at 9:31 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@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 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 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Jan/20 12:44, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG wrote:

>
> 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.

They are all doing it.

A short while back, Telia announced no more copper in Sweden by (was it)
2020 or 2021... something along those lines. See here:

   
https://www.teliacompany.com/en/news/news-articles/2018/the-fall-of-copper-watch-telia-shift-technologies/

Telkom South Africa are doing the same, albeit a bit more poorly -
removing copper lines without having a real terrestrial alternative
apart from some dodgy wireless in areas with no fibre. The point, they
all see maintaining copper as wasting cash. I'd agree.

But this generally applies to operators that have both land and cellular
services. Most ISP's will only have just the one option, and in most
cases, it will be land.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Jan/20 08:37, Christopher Morrow wrote:

>
> it's nor really except that a bunch of the radio/client management is
> 'easier' in cellular than in wifi. managing roaming COULD be saner as
> well even, so when you walk out of the shop and off their pico-cell
> you can transition the running call (or data stream since it's all
> just voip/ip anyway) to the next network (some gsm/lte/4/5g thing
> perhaps.

The reason I am not too fussed about seamless call hand-off when on
wi-fi is because the kids aren't talking anymore. The closest they'll
come to talking to each other is by exchanging WhatsApp voice notes. All
the kids do is text, and voice calling is so 1920 :-).

You may coax them into WhatsApp calling, but even that is a stretch. The
only time I've seen the kids enthusiastic about talking to each other is
when they are playing networked Fortnite... "Hey, I'm lagging, I'm lagging".

For me, I'm old school; I still prefer to make a voice call from time to
time. Providers that offer VoWiFi can't even hand-off properly when the
wi-fi has an issue and the phone switches back to GSM. I always get call
drops when this happens, so much so that sometimes when I am making
calls I can't afford to drop, I just turn off the wi-fi so that I am not
using VoWiFi.

The reason seamless voice hand-off isn't going to be a big issue - I
feel - is because we've, over the years, all been accustomed to call
drops, call setup and call clarity problems. What do we do when this
happens? We just call the other person again (while taking or dishing
blaming about why the call dropped), or walk around like chicken
chanting "Can you hear me now". At no time do we hold the MNO's to
account about why call management is actually poor, even when you aren't
driving through a tunnel or inside a lift. We are just used to it, so I
don't think fixing hand-off transition is going to be the killer app.
Pure texting or the transmission of voice notes doesn't care about any
of that; and just like any ideas about ploughing money into fixing
PMTUd, I think investing too much energy into fixing seamless voice
hand-off may be a slight waste, based on what the kids are doing now.


>
> The main point, the part I missed I think in this thread bit, was that
> to make this all work the cost of the chip that does 4g/5g/lte has to
> be equivalent to the wifi chipset, such that each thing that has wifi
> also just has cellular. It may not work out that way, who knows :)

Agreed - but for laptops, you've got Bluetooth or USB ports to help
tether them to the GSM network via a mobile phone. Does putting a GSM
chip in there make sense? Maybe, maybe not.

With the cost of energy becoming a real issue, and so-called "IoT"
devices destined to be smaller and smaller, does adding yet another
wireless radio make sense? Maybe, maybe not.

Considering that you can install wi-fi pretty much everywhere for cheap
(even with a piss-poor backhaul connection), but the presence of GSM
networks being typically backed by $Big_Money, where does one want to
spend their limited time and energy?

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG]

Andrey Kostin  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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 12:26 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/Jan/20 21:49, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > the local folk have been pimping the idea that: "hey, just run a
> > 4g/lte/g5 cell service inside your building/business, backhaul over
> > cable-modem/etc and jam on..."
>
> How is this different from just hooking up your wi-fi AP to fibre and
> offering WiFi Calling, aside from being a little cheaper :-)?

it's nor really except that a bunch of the radio/client management is
'easier' in cellular than in wifi. managing roaming COULD be saner as
well even, so when you walk out of the shop and off their pico-cell
you can transition the running call (or data stream since it's all
just voip/ip anyway) to the next network (some gsm/lte/4/5g thing
perhaps.

The main point, the part I missed I think in this thread bit, was that
to make this all work the cost of the chip that does 4g/5g/lte has to
be equivalent to the wifi chipset, such that each thing that has wifi
also just has cellular. It may not work out that way, who knows :)

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 4/Jan/20 00:06, Andrey Kostin wrote:

>
> Currently /me don't bother switching to wifi in public places bcz LTE
> provides enough bw for my humble needs.

When I'm in South Africa, same for me, because:

  * Most hotels, restaurants, shops, and airport lounges still use ADSL.
So the wi-fi sucks. If I know that any of these establishments is on
fibre (likely because my company services them, or services an ISP
that services them), I am happy to use their wi-fi.

  * On my work mobile, I get 30GB of data per month as per contract. I
probably only use 2GB - 3GB of that, both for work and other stuff.

On the other hand, when I am traveling, I have to use wi-fi, even when
it's dodgy, because my provider's GSM roaming requires one to sacrifice
their grandmother (and no, that 30GB/month plan does not include
roaming). Luckily, the hotels I tend to stay at have had great wi-fi,
probably explained by how much they cost to stay at :-).


> And when the next phone will be released with 4k 120fps camera and 4k
> display there will be a lot of people (not only kids) who will use it
> and abuse it all the time for gaming, streaming ,etc.

Agreed.

But I stress "it's the kids" because they don't know or care about how
all this works. They just want to stream nonstop, regardless of the cost
of data. We, their parents, aren't wired that way because it's us paying
for it.


> It's not about competition with WiFi, it's just a new thing that is
> coming. But 5G will take away it's share of fixed users for sure.

I don't think wi-fi and 5G are deliberately in competition - I think
that competition is just a natural evolution of where the
state-of-the-art is. Kind of like cutting the linear TV cord in favour
of a VoD streaming service.

> When first iphone was released it was pretty much useless toy because
> all apps were bound to Internet and cell networks were you know where
> at that time with public WiFi only starting to take off. But now we
> can't live without services which are novadays considered as basic and
> then were fancy technology break-outs for geeks.

Agreed, but also 802.11ac/ax are miles ahead of 802.11a/b/g/n, in a
world where premises (commercial and private) have tons more fibre than
they did when the iPhone launched in 2007.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 21:49, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> the local folk have been pimping the idea that: "hey, just run a
> 4g/lte/g5 cell service inside your building/business, backhaul over
> cable-modem/etc and jam on..."

How is this different from just hooking up your wi-fi AP to fibre and
offering WiFi Calling, aside from being a little cheaper :-)?

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 20:42, Christopher Morrow wrote:

>
> Mike, I'd caution your use of: "other than in the bowels of large
> buildings" there... In office buildings (or residential buildings)
> which are LEED certified often you get glass coatings which reflect
> radio emissions (both reflect IN and reflect OUT) so.. in most
> 'modern' office buildings (which LEED certification, or equivalent)
> even standing next to a window you may not pick up LTE/3g from outside
> :(
>
> there are internal building deployment things, of course, which can be
> done... but not every building is equipped :(

Our office building, in Johannesburg, suffers from this very problem.

Eventually, the MNO's deployed little picocells inside our office to
help, but ultimately, staff just use wi-fi. Since they support VoWiFi as
well, voice calls seem to work just fine, over our internal wi-fi network.

While I'm sure the MNO's can see close to no performance from their
picocells in our office, they aren't sending anyone out there to fix it
because they know they are relying on our wi-fi network to deliver their
services to us. Figures.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 20:38, Christopher Morrow wrote:

>
> There are some folk local to my office who often speak about
> wifi/cellular and have some fairly decent knowledge about the
> technology and deployment/management/etc... One thing they've made
> clear (and our enterprise wireless folk echo this, actually) is that
> the cellular network technologies of 'today' are far better at
> client/power/tower control and management.
>
> So much so that for dense deployments it sounds, actually, better to
> have 4G/LTE on the 'tower' and push that chipset into laptop/etc
> things. This way you can better control client -> tower associations
> and traffic patterns and power demands. This isn't something that is
> easily doable in the current (before wifi5 I mean? I dont' really know
> much about the wifi world beyond 802.11ac gear, sorry) wifi
> deployments, and client experience suffers often because of these
> problems. Things like:
>   overloaded basestations
>   chatty clients
>   bw hog clients
>   borked radio/client stacks

You mean like when we all thought ATM was the hottest thing and that
laptops would have it instead of Ethernet :-). It's kind of like the
argument between a PSTN engineer and IP engineer about which network is
better.

Practically, GSM data works because folk self-police; because there is
an artificial barrier called Data (as in $$, not as in bits). Release
that artificial dam, and watch GSM data crumble to its knees.


> What if the world had the capability to offer solid 'cellular' at the
> cost (free) of 'wifi' in a bunch of these places? if the 'cellular'
> was offered by local businesses and perhaps not subject to the telco
> capture problems? (costs to the client) I think that's the world the
> folk in my local office were pushing for... it seemed nice :) but
> getting enough 4g/5g vs wifi chipsets into the clients seemed like the
> really sticky wicket :(

The problem with consumer solutions is that they need to designed,
implemented, built, sold and operated at scale.

Ethernet and wi-fi are a lot better at this than SDH and GSM, when it
comes to having these components running around in people's hands. I
mean, just look at the Internet.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 20:35, Keith Medcalf wrote:

> How absolutely awful that must be, to always be relegated to slow and 
> insecure childrens band.  I turn off childrens band (WiFi) on my phone with 
> extreme prejudice and it stays that way.  I have yet to meet a childrens band 
> network (WiFi) that was worth connecting too.
>
> Then again I don't play on my phone ...

I guess the point is that there is an opportunity to improve the quality
of dodgy wi-fi deployments because there is a need to serve more
eyeballs more quickly, and 5G, while promising, just has too many
unanswered questions right now.

So since money has to be blown, where do we blow it?

Needless to say, at least on my iPhone, (certain) updates and downloads
are generally only done on wi-fi networks, because they are trying to
protect users from expensive data costs.

GSM data currently works today because of the artificial data caps,
i.e., folk self-police. Open it up and I doubt it would be any different
from poorly-deployed wi-fi. But the problem is the kids don't want to
pay for data, and they don't like being limited with artificial data
caps, and they are the ones driving what the Internet will look like for
their generation. So what gives?

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 17:38, Paul Nash wrote:

> They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first.

I don't know about Android-based phones, but my iPhone ALWAYS wants
wi-fi, whether it came before or after GSM. At times, the prompting to
say, "Hey, there is a wi-fi hot spot right here, do you want to connect
to it" can be quite annoying.

For example, Diners Club partners with a ton of wi-fi networks around
the world, and the moment I am in a location where my phone (and the
Diners Club app) detect a wi-fi AP that is in their partner pool, it
wants me to connect to it. And it just works...


>
> FWIW, Rogers in Canada are moving to unlimited cellular data, with a monthly 
> threshold, beyond which they reserve the right to throttle (but do not always 
> throttle).  Bell probably do something similar.
>
> The threshold increases with the number of devices on the account, and any 
> throttling applies to all devices on that account.

If I'm honest, to me, that just sounds like a marketing ploy... call it
unlimited to bring them on, but when things get tight and we need to
throttle back (which WILL, not MAY) happen, hey, we told them so. And to
be fair, if they get customers on the back of that, more power to them.
I'm not one to hate clever business practices :-).

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 16:25, Ca By wrote:

> Mark, you are oversimplifying the market

Isn't that how the kids see it, though :-).


>
> 1.  All wireless networks are capped by spectrum capacity / physica. 
> As a user, you have been on a congested cell site and a congested
> 802.11 AP.  So, as an operator, you have to ration service. That means
> cap / qos / $

Agreed - but the cost of deploying a GSM radio is orders of magnitude
higher than the cost of deploying wi-fi (even enterprise-grade wi-fi).

Already, customers are doing more than half the work for operators by
deploying their own wi-fi into their own homes at their own cost. Folk
like Google (with OnHub and Google WiFi) are making the deployment,
management and performance of in-home wi-fi a lot easier for users that
"feel like the Internet should be simple". This is a good thing for
MNO's, especially those already leveraging VoWiFi to control investment
in GSM radios without impacting performance. I'm sure MNO's will be
less-than-pleased if in-home wi-fi were to suddenly collapse, because
all that traffic then shifts back to GSM, e.g., during power outages,
ISP outages, e.t.c.

Yes, you probably need as many wi-fi AP's as you need 5G radios, but the
cost between them is vastly different that you can provide customers
with the benefit at a fraction of the cost. Hell, if the MNO's came
together to share wi-fi infrastructure and differentiate services by
SSID, in the same location, it might actually work :-).


>
> 2.  In the USA, Cable / fiber / copper ISPs sometimes do not sell
> unlimited either
>
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/424037/googles-stadia-is-about-to-crash-against-isp-data-caps/amp/
>
> Network operators like to set their rates based on some median user
> profile.  They are not being exploitive. Some users tax the network
> more and drive the upgrade cycle more than others.

Same here in Africa, when FTTH services were initially rolled out.

In South Africa, as little as 4 years ago, 90% of all FTTH services were
cap-based. Today, while you can still get a cap-based FTTH service, I'd
say that number has shifted, and 65% - 70% of all FTTH services are now
uncapped. Some are maintaining their capped services but bundling in
uncapped elements for popular services such as Netflix, e.t.c.

Ultimately, the eco system is showing that the cost of IP Transit is so
low (just about US$0 for peering in South Africa on NAPAfrica), to the
extent that I can posit all FTTH services in South Africa will be 100%
uncapped within the next 2 - 4 years.


>
>
> 3. There are wifi providers, wisps, cable, mno ... they all compete
> and blur the lines. I think wifi has provided limited benefit to cable
> operators that have deployed it, but hope for using free spectrum
> springs enternal
>
> https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-garners-its-first-15-000-subs-and-3m-revenue

So I'm not suggesting that wi-fi be deployed as the sole solution. I'm
mainly referring to dense parts of a city, country, e.t.c.

In sparsely-populated locations, 2G, 3G, 4G should do just fine (I don't
think 5G or anything with a higher frequency makes sense due to the vast
spread of eyeballs in these areas).

But in densely-packed areas, up until the point where 5G becomes
commercially viable to deploy at scale, utilize the fibre that is
massively available to create as many pockets as possible of wi-fi in
places where customers do not run their own, e.g., malls, stadia,
restaurants, bars, clubs, gas stations, schools, e.t.c., to alleviate
the pressure on 4G (or even pressure on dense 5G deployment). One could
even go a step further and work with private wi-fi owners (regular
people running a shop) to allow MNO's to either ride their wi-fi network
or replace it with a shared one.

Of course, if 5G does become reasonably cheap to deploy in the future,
then who cares :-). But judging by the rate of development in the wi-fi
space, it seems like it's going to be a race between both camps with
each new iteration. And as long as GSM capex continues to remain as
costly as it has always been - considering the declining margins for
MNO's - wi-fi capex will always look like an alternative.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 15:56, Shane Ronan wrote:
> In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can
> do to LTE to provide adequate service.

But doesn't it, then, follow that high-density locations tend to have
plenty of wi-fi? Public and private?

For me, the risk I see to MNO's is that the kids don't want to pay for
data. Data is the limiting factor for kids that don't understand why
they should be limited when they are not in their homes, or friends' homes.

In my mind, rather than spend more cash on 4G or 5G (in 2020), MNO's
might do better to deploy SP Wi-Fi so that they can do two things:

  * Offload traffic from valuable GSM spectrum and on to wi-fi.
  * Be in a position to offer unlimited services more effectively, which
is what the kids really want.

Looking at where things are going right now, the current MNO model is
not sustainable, given the amount of capex that is constantly required,
the declining margins, the change in the kids' online behaviour and the
constant (or even rising) equipment costs from vendors.

If the MNO model of pure infrastructure play is how they intend to keep
doing business in an age where transformation away from it is forcing
networking businesses to re-think the (true) value they offer to
customers, SP Wi-Fi seems like the logical way to maintain said business
model. Either that or pull an Amazon and go from selling books to...
well, you know the rest :-).

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 15:40, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Not to mention manufacturers are finally focusing on the in-home WiFi
> that is usually the worst part of someone's Internet experience due to
> a lack of adequate coverage, interference, etc.

They had to when folk like Google (OnHub, Google WiFi) appeared to make
it brain dead.

But you're right; it's only going to get more robust in the home.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 14:11, Shane Ronan wrote:
> Verizon is already offering fixed access 5G service with unlimited
> data for $50.00/month in five cities.

I'd be curious to know how long they can sustain that unlimited service for.

A company, over here, called Rain, have just launched their 5G offering
in South Africa. Based on how they struggled to maintain an unlimited
offering when they rolled out 4G, we are all keen to see how that goes.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ca By]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:17 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:11 PM Ca By  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
> 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
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Andrey Kostin]

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:11 PM Ca By  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 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

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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 1:11 PM Brian J. Murrell  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?

Nobody. But I do need 25mbs and more to the hotspot which also happens
to be part of the electronic multi-tool hanging off my belt.

Ken Olsen was right: nobody wanted a DEC mainframe in their home. His
failure to grasp the nature of what computers would become, what folks
-would- want in their home, was complete.

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.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



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

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ca By]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Sabri Berisha  wrote:

> - On Jan 3, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@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
>
>

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Andrey Kostin]

Mark Tinka писал 2020-01-03 04:36:


And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd 
choose?




Currently /me don't bother switching to wifi in public places bcz LTE 
provides enough bw for my humble needs.
And when the next phone will be released with 4k 120fps camera and 4k 
display there will be a lot of people (not only kids) who will use it 
and abuse it all the time for gaming, streaming ,etc.
It's not about competition with WiFi, it's just a new thing that is 
coming. But 5G will take away it's share of fixed users for sure.
When first iphone was released it was pretty much useless toy because 
all apps were bound to Internet and cell networks were you know where at 
that time with public WiFi only starting to take off. But now we can't 
live without services which are novadays considered as basic and then 
were fancy technology break-outs for geeks.



Kind regards,
Andrey

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Jan 3, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@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.

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:21 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> Right. I didn't want to spend too much of my time delving into any and all 
> situations where it'll vary.
>

ok, fair enough :)

> I wonder how much the sub 1 GHz penetrates the buildings anyway if the 
> transmitter is at the street.
>
>
> 5G won't solve the building penetration without entering the building, which 
> 4G could do just as well.

the local folk have been pimping the idea that: "hey, just run a
4g/lte/g5 cell service inside your building/business, backhaul over
cable-modem/etc and jam on..."
of course there's 'someone' who sells the cellular + backhaul kit,
this is only workable on <700mhz?> frequencies (maybe 'band 3' ?? or
something) and so far hasn't really taken off as near as I can tell.

again, it SOUNDS like an interesting business model... :)

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

Right. I didn't want to spend too much of my time delving into any and all 
situations where it'll vary. 


I wonder how much the sub 1 GHz penetrates the buildings anyway if the 
transmitter is at the street. 




5G won't solve the building penetration without entering the building, which 4G 
could do just as well. 










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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Christopher Morrow"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Ryland Kremeier" , "Shane Ronan" 
, "North American Network Operators' Group" 
 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 12:42:39 PM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> 
> Throughput is (mostly) a function of channel size, modulation, and signal to 
> noise ratio. 
> 
> Coverage is (mostly) a function of frequency, radiated power, obstacles, and 
> signal to noise ratio. 
> 
> 
> Other than in the bowels of large buildings, coverage shouldn't be an issue 
> in most urban areas. 

Mike, I'd caution your use of: "other than in the bowels of large 
buildings" there... In office buildings (or residential buildings) 
which are LEED certified often you get glass coatings which reflect 
radio emissions (both reflect IN and reflect OUT) so.. in most 
'modern' office buildings (which LEED certification, or equivalent) 
even standing next to a window you may not pick up LTE/3g from outside 
:( 

there are internal building deployment things, of course, which can be 
done... but not every building is equipped :( 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 9:28 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> Throughput is (mostly) a function of channel size, modulation, and signal to 
> noise ratio.
>
> Coverage is (mostly) a function of frequency, radiated power, obstacles, and 
> signal to noise ratio.
>
>
> Other than in the bowels of large buildings, coverage shouldn't be an issue 
> in most urban areas.

Mike, I'd caution your use of: "other than in the bowels of large
buildings" there... In office buildings (or residential buildings)
which are LEED certified often you get glass coatings which reflect
radio emissions (both reflect IN and reflect OUT) so.. in most
'modern' office buildings (which LEED certification, or equivalent)
even standing next to a window you may not pick up LTE/3g from outside
:(

there are internal building deployment things, of course, which can be
done... but not every building is equipped :(

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:37 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does
> > is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense
> > metro installations.
>
> Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense
> cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point
> to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020?

There are some folk local to my office who often speak about
wifi/cellular and have some fairly decent knowledge about the
technology and deployment/management/etc... One thing they've made
clear (and our enterprise wireless folk echo this, actually) is that
the cellular network technologies of 'today' are far better at
client/power/tower control and management.

So much so that for dense deployments it sounds, actually, better to
have 4G/LTE on the 'tower' and push that chipset into laptop/etc
things. This way you can better control client -> tower associations
and traffic patterns and power demands. This isn't something that is
easily doable in the current (before wifi5 I mean? I dont' really know
much about the wifi world beyond 802.11ac gear, sorry) wifi
deployments, and client experience suffers often because of these
problems. Things like:
  overloaded basestations
  chatty clients
  bw hog clients
  borked radio/client stacks

> And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
> option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?

What if the world had the capability to offer solid 'cellular' at the
cost (free) of 'wifi' in a bunch of these places? if the 'cellular'
was offered by local businesses and perhaps not subject to the telco
capture problems? (costs to the client) I think that's the world the
folk in my local office were pushing for... it seemed nice :) but
getting enough 4g/5g vs wifi chipsets into the clients seemed like the
really sticky wicket :(

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[Keith Medcalf]

On Friday, 3 January, 2020 10:53, Radu-Adrian Feurdean 
 wrote:

>On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 16:38, Paul Nash wrote:

>>> And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
>>> option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd
>>> choose?

>> They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first.

> Don't know how things work in US, but mobile devices sold here in Europe
> do prefer wifi over cellular. If a pre-"approved" wifi network exists,
> and it doesn't have a captive portal, it will be systematically
> preferred.

> And here in France we have some networks lile this. they use SIM-EAP.

How absolutely awful that must be, to always be relegated to slow and insecure 
childrens band.  I turn off childrens band (WiFi) on my phone with extreme 
prejudice and it stays that way.  I have yet to meet a childrens band network 
(WiFi) that was worth connecting too.

Then again I don't play on my phone ...

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Radu-Adrian Feurdean]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 16:38, Paul Nash wrote:
> > And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
> > option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?
> 
> They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first.

Don't know how things work in US, but mobile devices sold here in Europe do 
prefer wifi over cellular. If a pre-"approved" wifi network exists, and it 
doesn't have a captive portal, it will be systematically preferred.

And here in France we have some networks lile this. they use SIM-EAP.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Paul Nash]

> And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
> option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?

They’d probably choose whichever popped un onto the device first.

FWIW, Rogers in Canada are moving to unlimited cellular data, with a monthly 
threshold, beyond which they reserve the right to throttle (but do not always 
throttle).  Bell probably do something similar.

The threshold increases with the number of devices on the account, and any 
throttling applies to all devices on that account.

paul

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

Throughput is (mostly) a function of channel size, modulation, and signal to 
noise ratio. 


Coverage is (mostly) a function of frequency, radiated power, obstacles, and 
signal to noise ratio. 


Other than in the bowels of large buildings, coverage shouldn't be an issue in 
most urban areas. 


The millimeter wave bands do need a lot higher density of sites for similar 
coverage due to the impact of frequency and obstacles. 


There's nothing saying that AWS or WCS allocations can't be used for site 
densification. They would have the side-effect of actually being able to 
penetrate the buildings they're near instead of just serving the sidewalk and 
street. 


It is true that the peak speed in the millimeter bands is much higher than what 
AWS or WCS can provide, but peak speeds are only interesting for genital-waving 
speed tests. If I have sufficient allocations such that Mu-MIMO offers the 
sector capacity that I need, I'm better off because the aforementioned 
"entering the building" benefits. That is... unless I intend the user to use 
WiFi once inside and to not use my 5G network anymore. 







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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Ryland Kremeier"  
To: "Mike Hammett" , "Shane Ronan"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 8:05:56 AM 
Subject: RE: 5G roadblock: labor 



Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that it’s become a wavelength problem at 
this point with 4G in high-density areas. 5Gs shorter but higher in spectrum 
wavelength will need more nodes per square kilometer but have a much higher 
limit to its bandwidth ceiling. I believe the numbers I saw were something 
along the lines of 10k people per square kilometer for 4G, and 1M people per 
square kilometer for 5G at the 300GHz wavelength. 

-- Ryland 


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:58 AM 
To: Shane Ronan  
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group  
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

Why? 



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

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

- Original Message -


From: "Shane Ronan" < sh...@ronan-online.com > 
To: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > 
Cc: "Mark Tinka" < mark.ti...@seacom.mu >, "North American Network Operators' 
Group" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:56:57 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 

In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE 
to provide adequate service. 



Shane 



On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 
5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount 
of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding 
hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. 





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

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




From: "Mark Tinka" < mark.ti...@seacom.mu > 
To: "Saku Ytti" < s...@ytti.fi > 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 



On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote: 

> 
> Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does 
> is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense 
> metro installations. 

Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense 
cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point 
to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? 

And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the 
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? 

Mark. 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ca By]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 12:56 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/Jan/20 17:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> >
> > If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can
> > control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with
> > 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than
> > everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.
>
> The main issue is the artificial concept of "buying data" so you can get
> online.
>
> I don't see any legacy MNO's selling you unlimited access to their radio
> network. So wi-fi hooked up to some kind of unlimited terrestrial wire
> (fibre, copper, wireless, e.t.c.) is what will discourage the kids from
> relying on MNO's to provide all of their connectivity needs, especially
> in fixed settings such as homes and such.
>

Mark, you are oversimplifying the market

1.  All wireless networks are capped by spectrum capacity / physica.  As a
user, you have been on a congested cell site and a congested 802.11 AP.
So, as an operator, you have to ration service. That means cap / qos / $

2.  In the USA, Cable / fiber / copper ISPs sometimes do not sell unlimited
either

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/424037/googles-stadia-is-about-to-crash-against-isp-data-caps/amp/

Network operators like to set their rates based on some median user
profile.  They are not being exploitive. Some users tax the network more
and drive the upgrade cycle more than others.


3. There are wifi providers, wisps, cable, mno ... they all compete and
blur the lines. I think wifi has provided limited benefit to cable
operators that have deployed it, but hope for using free spectrum springs
enternal

https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/altice-mobile-garners-its-first-15-000-subs-and-3m-revenue





> Mark.
>

RE: 5G roadblock: labor

[Ryland Kremeier]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that it’s become a wavelength problem at 
this point with 4G in high-density areas. 5Gs shorter but higher in spectrum 
wavelength will need more nodes per square kilometer but have a much higher 
limit to its bandwidth ceiling. I believe the numbers I saw were something 
along the lines of 10k people per square kilometer for 4G, and 1M people per 
square kilometer for 5G at the 300GHz wavelength.

-- Ryland
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:58 AM
To: Shane Ronan 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor

Why?


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

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


From: "Shane Ronan" mailto:sh...@ronan-online.com>>
To: "Mike Hammett" mailto:na...@ics-il.net>>
Cc: "Mark Tinka" mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu>>, "North 
American Network Operators' Group" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:56:57 AM
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor
In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE 
to provide adequate service.

Shane

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett 
mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 
5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount 
of "towers" you have...  does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding 
hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE.



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

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


From: "Mark Tinka" mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu>>
To: "Saku Ytti" mailto:s...@ytti.fi>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor



On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:

>
> Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does
> is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense
> metro installations.

Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense
cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point
to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020?

And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

Why? 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Shane Ronan"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Mark Tinka" , "North American Network Operators' 
Group"  
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 7:56:57 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 


In locations with high population densities, there is nothing you can do to LTE 
to provide adequate service. 


Shane 


On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 8:46 AM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 
5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount 
of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding 
hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. 




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

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



From: "Mark Tinka" < mark.ti...@seacom.mu > 
To: "Saku Ytti" < s...@ytti.fi > 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 



On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote: 

> 
> Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does 
> is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense 
> metro installations. 

Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense 
cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point 
to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? 

And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the 
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? 

Mark. 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

Obviously if the technology is available, works well, and is reasonably priced, 
5G it up. However, if you're adding small cells every 500', tripling the amount 
of "towers" you have... does it matter much if it's LTE or NR? You're adding 
hundreds of megs if not gigs of capacity with LTE. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: "Saku Ytti"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:36:52 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 



On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote: 

> 
> Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does 
> is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense 
> metro installations. 

Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense 
cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point 
to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020? 

And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the 
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose? 

Mark. 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mike Hammett]

Not to mention manufacturers are finally focusing on the in-home WiFi that is 
usually the worst part of someone's Internet experience due to a lack of 
adequate coverage, interference, etc. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 2:51:46 AM 
Subject: Re: 5G roadblock: labor 



On 1/Jan/20 16:29, jdambro...@gmail.com wrote: 
> Given the deployment of Wi-Fi into so many different applications - your 
> statement that 5G is to "replace" WiFi seems overly ambitious. Perhaps 
> preventing WiFi from further penetration is a better way to look at it? 

Wi-fi is only growing. 

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

Mark. 

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 11:25, Saku Ytti wrote:

>
> Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does
> is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense
> metro installations.

Which brings us full circle - what's the cost of hooking those dense
cities up to 5G in 2020 vs. running fibre to an 802.11ac|ax access point
to serve its residents and visitors, in 2020?

And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd choose?

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Saku Ytti]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 11:15, Mark Tinka  wrote:

> If your market can offer 50Mbps of 4G for EUR20/month with a 20GB data
> cap, chances are there is fibre nearby, either for your office, or your
> home, or both. If there isn't, something is smelling...

Yes markets differ, and this is not 4G/5G question, only thing 5G does
is help markets which struggle to provide sufficient service in dense
metro installations.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/Jan/20 10:58, Saku Ytti wrote:

>
> Williams comment seems somewhat market specific and perhaps even
> overly negative. Mostly 5G is about better radio performance in dense
> metro installations, uninteresting metric for many markets. Some
> markets already do +20GB/month _average_ on 4G subscription with
> +50Mbps datarates, lower than DSL latency and <20EUR MRC. In these
> markets many opt not to have any other data connection but 4G, the
> benefits are compelling, cheaper, faster, lower latency, shorter MTTR
> and easier to switch to competition compared to DSL.

If your market can offer 50Mbps of 4G for EUR20/month with a 20GB data
cap, chances are there is fibre nearby, either for your office, or your
home, or both. If there isn't, something is smelling...

In Africa, most folk don't buy that much data, never mind for that
cheap, even if they'd love it. Many markets on our continent are seeing
data sales mostly in the MB's, and not the GB's, and it's still pricier
than you might think. I hazard a guess that some specific markets in
parts of Europe, Asia-Pac and Latin America might also be similarly
affected.

I can get 50Mbps easily on 4G/LTE either mobile network that I subscribe
to here in South Africa. I get about 2GB/month for about EUR100/month
for my personal one, and 20GB/month for about EUR200/month for my work
one. I have a 3rd 4G line which I use to connect my car to the Internet,
and I pay EUR2/month for 100MB/month. As my Ghanian friend would say,
"That is not a steal".

I have an unlimited FTTH connection to my home. I don't know how much
data my house generates. I have a neighbor who, last year, went from a
50GB/month data cap for his FTTH service to an unlimited option, and his
house now generates 1TB of data per month. I asked him, "Why do you even
bother counting?"

It's the kids... it's Fortnite... it's Instagram... it's Youtube... it's
the kids.

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Saku Ytti]

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 10:53, Mark Tinka  wrote:

> > 5G is mostly about getting more unregulated data-related fees.
>
> Well, the kids don't want to pay for data. Heck, neither do I.
>
> On that basis alone, Any-G won't kill wi-fi :-).

Williams comment seems somewhat market specific and perhaps even
overly negative. Mostly 5G is about better radio performance in dense
metro installations, uninteresting metric for many markets. Some
markets already do +20GB/month _average_ on 4G subscription with
+50Mbps datarates, lower than DSL latency and <20EUR MRC. In these
markets many opt not to have any other data connection but 4G, the
benefits are compelling, cheaper, faster, lower latency, shorter MTTR
and easier to switch to competition compared to DSL.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 2/Jan/20 18:41, joel jaeggli wrote:

>
> The bottom of a tower is a fantastically expensive piece of real estate
> to collocate something in. If you're financing the development of such
> realestate it may sound great, but if you're leasing, it is sort of
> outlandish, especially if you want .5KW per ru along with it.
>
> If you set your latency budget artificially at 1ms, at .7 C photons
> travel around 210km. If you draw a circle around the base of the tower
> at 75KM it's quite feasible to achieve that assuming for the sake of
> argument that it's necessary.

Agreed. Especially because when power outages start to hit, base
stations are notoriously difficult to keep alive.

Even if you're conservative and limit your metro area to 100km, you can
maintain 1ms access within the backbone to/from your content. The weak
link will be the radio network down to your customers.

Mark.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/Jan/20 17:35, Brandon Butterworth wrote:

>
> If the mobile companies are providing the WiFi routers they can
> control it (see LTE WiFi attempt) and one day replace it with
> 5G or 6G in all the things. If they make a better job of it than
> everyones devices fighting for 5GHz then they may succeed.

The main issue is the artificial concept of "buying data" so you can get
online.

I don't see any legacy MNO's selling you unlimited access to their radio
network. So wi-fi hooked up to some kind of unlimited terrestrial wire
(fibre, copper, wireless, e.t.c.) is what will discourage the kids from
relying on MNO's to provide all of their connectivity needs, especially
in fixed settings such as homes and such.

Mark.