I believe FiOS already covers a good portion of their existing (urban) 
coverage area.

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



On 10/27/2011 11:44 AM, Sam Tetherow wrote:
> Didn't Verizon announce FIOS is pretty much dead at this point.  I
> thought I read they are fulfilling their current obligations, but
> planned no new rollouts in the forseeable future.
>
> On 10/27/11 11:20 AM, Daniel White wrote:
>> Charles,
>>
>> I think you should rephrase your statement - Cellular networks (especially
>> in metropolitan areas) WERE built for coverage.  With 4G services, they are
>> built for capacity.  I doubt the coverage metric will change in rural areas
>> though.
>>
>> There is also a major question on backhaul.  Microwave backhaul may be equal
>> for 2G/3G networks, but as 4G proliferates it will have a higher dependency
>> on Fiber or 60GHz/80GHz short range high capacity backhaul.  Most rural
>> sites will only support 11GHz/6GHz for backhaul and therefore lower "found"
>> capacity they could deliver via fixed wireless.
>>
>> On the other hand, WISP's can be nimble to all of these demands, at a much
>> lower equipment cost.
>>
>> FTTH of course is a different metric altogether.  Verizon wireline loves to
>> plow fiber now.
>>
>> Anyways, my 2 cents.  I could certainly be wrong :-)
>>
>> Daniel White
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Charles Wu
>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:31 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
>>
>> I have a dissenting opinion...
>>
>>> It all comes down to a simple economics in the end.  Who can most cost
>>> effectively provide broadband.
>> A cellular network is built for coverage
>>
>> Additionally, large companies, from a scale and operations perspective, will
>> tend to put the same equipment everywhere
>>
>> What that means is in order to offer the nationwide network, that the tower
>> in the rural area that's required to cover that stretch of highway where
>> there's only a town of 1,000 people will have the same equipment and
>> capacity as the tower in downtown Chicago that has 1,000 simultaneous users
>>
>> So in rural areas, where the costs of the tower, backhaul and base station
>> have already been amortized and paid for to fulfill their coverage
>> requirements, but many of these towers are sitting at 5-10% capacity
>>
>> In their mind, to add another 100 or so fixed wireless users off an AP and
>> putting them in a lower QoS bucket (so the primary mobile customers aren't
>> affected when fixed customers start slamming Netflix) is "found money" --
>> self installs are quite nice when putting out +60 dBi EIRP at the tower with
>> 700 MHz on licensed spectrum with zero noise floor
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:06 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon wants a piece of our pie
>>
>> At the end of the day when a WISP puts
>> up a 'cell' site it is probably costing them 1/100th of what it costs the
>> cellco to do so.  The equipment used is most likely 1/100th the cost at the
>> 'AP' and 1/10th at the CPE and the spectrum that the cellco uses is not
>> free.
>>
>> Even when you take into account that the cellco operates on a much longer
>> ROI and they can get some economy of scale on certain things I don't see how
>> they can overcome the price difference to be able to effectively compete
>> against a WISP, especially given their lack of spectrum.  Sure you get a
>> much better noise floor, but they have fewer channels to deal with.  And
>> from a cost perspective it is a lot harder to justify putting up micropops
>> as a cellco.  I know plenty of WISPs that can afford to put a micro-pop up
>> for 3 customers.  I do see how a cellco could afford to do that for eveny 20
>> times that number.
>>
>> Deep pockets only last so long when you are losing money.
>>
>> On 10/26/11 11:07 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>>> At 10/26/2011 11:42 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
>>>> The "LIVE" network here does 26Mb x 22Mb with<70ms latency.
>>> The VZW network isn't such bad competition for a WISP for two reasons.
>>>
>>> One -- those numbers you see are on the brand-new, unloaded network.
>>> The've just started selling LTE gear this year, so the cells are
>>> nowhere near full capacity.  As they get busier, average capacity per
>>> subscriber will go down, especially during busy hours.  At some point
>>> they will add cells, but I'm suspecting it's at a much lower
>>> performance point than you're seeing now.
>>>
>>> Two -- their per-cell costs are much higher, and thus they have to
>>> charge more for bulk usage.  They have caps on their plans, and
>>> additional usage is very costly.  So while LTE is okay for the
>>> vacation traveler looking to check email and read a few favorite web
>>> sites, or the light home user, it's not going to appeal to even
>>> moderate users.  Even Sprint is starting to cap its plans, after
>>> running a huge "unlimited" (uh, for the rest of the month?)
>>> advertising campaign.
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      Fred Goldstein    k1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>>>      ionary Consulting              http://www.ionary.com/
>>>      +1 617 795 2701
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to