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: puertorico internet exchange

[Mehmet Akcin]

I just wanted to share this graph with everyone. We've added a bandwidth
graph to puertoricoix.net  

if you are interested in joining the IX, feel free to join our slack and
discuss! https://join.slack.com/t/puertoricoix
/shared_invite/enQtODcyMTY4ODEzMTI0LTc0NzgzNjIwNjI4MDFkNzY5NzFkNGUyNGY3NDhjOTNkZWM1Mjc4NmEwMTg1NWRkODcyZTY3NmJmOTEwZTA4MTU

let's grow this to be the largest IX in Caribbean together :) Thank you

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 6:04 PM Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

> Hey there
>
> as the first bits started flowing through PRIX, I wanted to give a few
> exciting updates.
>
> Current peer lists can be found https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/2353
>
> One of the major social media companies who have a presence in PR has
> committed to join PRIX.
>
> We have also started a slack channel to have better communication with
> onsite (in PR) people and remote folks to collaborate. You can join the
> slack
> https://join.slack.com/t/puertoricoix/shared_invite/enQtODcyMTY4ODEzMTI0LTc0NzgzNjIwNjI4MDFkNzY5NzFkNGUyNGY3NDhjOTNkZWM1Mjc4NmEwMTg1NWRkODcyZTY3NmJmOTEwZTA4MTU
>
> not much traffic yet but here is an attached traffic exchange graph.
> https://ibb.co/vBS6N30
>
> thanks, everyone for your help
>
> Mehmet
>
>
>

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.

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 04 Jan, 2020

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  789540
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  301183
Deaggregation factor:  2.62
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  387048
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 66639
Prefixes per ASN: 11.85
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   57281
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   24164
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:9358
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:289
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.4
Max AS path length visible:  34
Max AS path prepend of ASN (  8697)  28
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1309
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:  1309
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  30020
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   24708
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  113084
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:28
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:280
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2847467136
Equivalent to 169 /8s, 184 /16s and 230 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   76.9
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   76.9
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.4
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  263851

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   209882
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   61289
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.42
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  203950
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:84701
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   10273
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   19.85
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   2860
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1527
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.5
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   5318
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  767826176
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 196 /16s and 25 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-141625
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:231739
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   107260
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.16
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   229540
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:116329
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18351
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:12.51
ARIN 

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: Requesting /24 from ARIN

[Owen DeLong]

I’ve done it many times. I’ve got my own resources and I’ve also helped many 
clients through the process.

It really isn’t difficult. It can be a little tedious and a little 
time-consuming, especially if you’re needing to provide documentation
for a significant allocation (e.g. an IPv6 /24), but it’s still quite do-able.

Owen


> On Dec 28, 2019, at 10:37 , Kaiser, Erich  wrote:
> 
> Yes been doing it for years but seems to be more in depth now from latest 
> documentation I received, it has never been an easy process IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 12:22 PM Pennington, Scott 
> mailto:scott.penning...@cinbell.com>> wrote:
> This is not a change. You've always had to justify in order to legitimately 
> transfer even from an auction.
> 
> Get Outlook for Android 
> From: NANOG mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org>> on 
> behalf of Kaiser, Erich mailto:er...@gotfusion.net>>
> Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2019 1:13:53 PM
> To: Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>>
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group  >
> Subject: Re: Requesting /24 from ARIN
>  
> They have changed their policies from what I can tell.  It was easier to get 
> IPs when there were none and you were buying from an auction but now that 
> they have them they want you to fill out a bunch of info and recertify 
> everything. 
> 
> 
> Erich Kaiser
> The Fusion Network
> er...@gotfusion.net 
> Office: 815-570-3101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 11:23 AM Darin Steffl  > wrote:
> In the most polite manner possible, RTFM.
> 
> ARIN has all the info on their website on how to request resources. It is not 
> difficult. I've never had to call them before. 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 9:53 AM Seth Mattinen  > wrote:
> On 12/28/19 7:12 AM, Terrance Devor wrote:
> > Thank You Jorge! What is important for us is not to overpay That's 
> > why auctions are really a last resort. Can someone please walk me 
> > through this with a few links? This is my first time going through this 
> > process.
> 
> 
> Ask ARIN. They will help you.

Re: Requesting /24 from ARIN

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 28, 2019, at 06:29 , Matt Hoppes  
> wrote:
> 
> Request it. We just got a /22 direct from ARIN yesterday. 
> 
> There is currently a supply of IPs available from ARIN. 
> 
> Otherwise your option is to buy at auction at a high expense. 

For a /24, there’s also another option… Especially if you are doing a 
greenfield deployment…

Deploy IPv6. If you deploy IPv6, you can get a /24 of IPv4 space from ARIN 
under NRPM section 4.10 to facilitate your IPv6 deployment.

Owen

> 
>> On Dec 28, 2019, at 8:33 AM, Terrance Devor  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Everyone,
>> 
>> I know we are very late in the game however, I need the community's help. As 
>> our company continues to grow and establish long term relationships and 
>> bringing additional customers onto our infrastructure, we find ourselves 
>> desperately needing to reserve a /24.
>> 
>> I understand that IPv4 addresses are getting depleted as of 2015, can 
>> someone on here please guide us on how to best secure /24?
>> 
>> Thank You in Advance,
>> 
>> Terrance 

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
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: power to the internet

[t...@pelican.org]

On Thursday, 2 January, 2020 21:34, "Sabri Berisha"  
said:

> - On Jan 2, 2020, at 1:24 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
> 
>> PS: You also wouldn't believe how cheap the power is.  California's
>> prices are high compared to most of the US, but it's still only about
>> €0.15 per KWh.
> 
> I don't know where you live, but I pay around 38 cents/KWh. Depending
> on your rate, that can go up to 53 cents/KWh during peak times.

Data point for comparison: I'm in the UK, paying ~0.18GBP/KWh (0.21EUR or 
0.24USD) - and that's on a tariff where I'm paying extra to ensure a certain 
amount of the power is sourced from renewables, I could get it cheaper.  We do 
have a standing charge though, irrespective of usage, 0.22GBP/day in my case - 
I don't know if you have that on US electricity bills typically.  It's a rare 
event and a cause of great annoyance if the power goes out.  (Most recent 
events - and I'm talking 2 or 3 in the last decade or more - have been down to 
idiots trying to steal copper from live substations, which doesn't end well for 
anyone).

The last time we had planned blackouts on any kind of scale was the 70s when 
due to the oil crisis and striking miners we couldn't source enough fossil-fuel 
to keep generating.

Obviously completely different climate, geography, and (as I understand it) 
industry set-up - we have the national distribution infrastructure, last mile 
infrastructure, generation, and consumer-facing commercial / billing all as 
distinct entities, which brings its own set of benefits and challenges!

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.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

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 1/Jan/20 16:22, William Allen Simpson wrote:

> This thread has devolved into "Why 5G"?
>
> A lot of folks are missing the bigger picture.
>
> 5G is not for better voice calls.  AFAICT, it won't help voice at all.
>
> 5G is not for better integration with WiFi or IP data.  5G is to
> *replace* WiFi, and FTTH, and ISPs, and WISPs, and bring all data back to
> the telco.  ATT really misses owning the network monopoly.
>
> 5G is also about upstaging Amazon and Google and other data center
> providers.  Read up on "Edge Computing".  The "edge" isn't in your
> network
> or your customers' internal networks.  The edge is a telco data center.
>
> That's what they mean by "reducing latency": moving your data processing
> into a telco data center means it is topologically closer to a cell
> tower.
>
> 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 :-).

Mark.

Re: 5G roadblock: labor

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/Jan/20 08:30, Mark Milhollan wrote:

>  
>
> Actually you went on to say that future innovations shouldn't exist
> because that's just crass consumerism, and that we should be satisfied
> with (in particular) HDMI instead of desiring better -- sorry, people
> will want better, e.g., the realism of 4k, 8k and 16k which the
> devices and networks of today either cannot provide (that HDMI
> flatscreen display probably cannot handle even 4k much less 8k+) or
> would struggle to provide (carrying 25+ Mb/s to dozens or hundreds of
> nodes -- remember even pico cells server multiple nodes).
>
> Video to tablets and phones/phablets are indeed a major use case, for
> the majority not you or I -- you don't want high bandwidth video
> calling yet others might, i.e., Facetime is quite the thing and
> perhaps in 2 years with enough bandwidth available those holographic
> calls would be too.  Even I might change my mind if my customers began
> demanding high-fidelity video conferencing even while mobile.

I don't think anyone argues that advancing the state-of-the-art makes
sense. It's just that the issue is at what cost, particularly if today's
technologies are relatively well deployed, well understood, are up to
the task and are affordable?

Fibre has been around a long time, but it wasn't affordable to run to
the home until technologies such as PON and bi-di optics. Electric
vehicles have been around a long time, but it wasn't affordable to own
one until there were significant advancements in battery storage and
hybrid technology. Studios have had HD video capability for years, but
it's been trickling into the consumer space years later. MPLS has been
around for ages, but it's only in the last 6 or so years that it's been
affordable to run it all the way into the Access.

No one argues that 5G will move the industry forward, but at what cost
if deployed right now? Moreover, 4G/LTE isn't struggling, wi-fi has made
leaps and bounds now with 802.11ax, and there is more fibre into
businesses and homes than when we had 2G and 3G. So while no one argues
that the case for 5G is there, it's just a bit harder to make when you
look at the entire picture as things stand on this 3rd day of 2020.

Mark.