Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:45:27 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

The companies manufacturing broadband equipment pointed out that anything
installed now would be obsolete next week so don't bother. Most work on
VDSL in the UK is winding down and whether it's WiMax, satellite, laser or
whatever, a wireless solution will dominate broadband provision in due
course.


Really?, What makes you think that then....


I don't think that there's huge value in satellite unless you are
doing bulk downloads or spanning large continents like Russia where
satellite is used for backup. For interactive use it's poor.

Wireless local loop is pretty good. I've had such a service for
about 5 years on the 3.6-4.2GHz band and it works pretty well.
I can have an ADSL equivalent at lowish cost, or 512k, 1Mb or 2Mb
asymmetrical or symmetrical contended at 50, 15 or 5 to 1.
At the moment, I'm using 1Mb symmetrical, 5:1 and from measurements it
does deliver that.

However, the equipment isn't cheap so the connection cost is
relatively high now - wasn't when I got it.

From the SP's point of view, the coverage works well. In my area,
there are base stations about every 5-8km and they can cover line of
sight - generally about 8km or a bit more.

I don't think that it's a solution for every situation, but it's
better than ADSL and cable modem.

Not to mention that I don't see how it relates to how you wire your
house up if you want to network a number of PCs. It's still either
cheaper or faster to use cat5 (or cat6) and if you make that wiring
permanent part P will (apparently) apply.

How you get the connection from your ISP doesn't really come into it
does it unless every PC has its own wireless connection to something
outside the house.

--
Chris Green

On 30 Nov 2004 09:24:50 GMT, wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:45:27 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

The companies manufacturing broadband equipment pointed out that anything
installed now would be obsolete next week so don't bother. Most work on
VDSL in the UK is winding down and whether it's WiMax, satellite, laser or
whatever, a wireless solution will dominate broadband provision in due
course.


Really?, What makes you think that then....


I don't think that there's huge value in satellite unless you are
doing bulk downloads or spanning large continents like Russia where
satellite is used for backup. For interactive use it's poor.

Wireless local loop is pretty good. I've had such a service for
about 5 years on the 3.6-4.2GHz band and it works pretty well.
I can have an ADSL equivalent at lowish cost, or 512k, 1Mb or 2Mb
asymmetrical or symmetrical contended at 50, 15 or 5 to 1.
At the moment, I'm using 1Mb symmetrical, 5:1 and from measurements it
does deliver that.

However, the equipment isn't cheap so the connection cost is
relatively high now - wasn't when I got it.

From the SP's point of view, the coverage works well. In my area,
there are base stations about every 5-8km and they can cover line of
sight - generally about 8km or a bit more.

I don't think that it's a solution for every situation, but it's
better than ADSL and cable modem.

Not to mention that I don't see how it relates to how you wire your
house up if you want to network a number of PCs. It's still either
cheaper or faster to use cat5 (or cat6) and if you make that wiring
permanent part P will (apparently) apply.

How you get the connection from your ISP doesn't really come into it
does it unless every PC has its own wireless connection to something
outside the house.


This was really a comment to part Q - mandatory broadband.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:46:36 +0000, Andy Hall wrote:




This was really a comment to part Q - mandatory broadband.

I would have thought mandatory shareable ducting would be the way to go.

At my last flat, we could not get cable TV because the management agents
would not allow the paving to be dug up. Couldn't have satellite dishes
either.

ADSL saved the day for me as BT already had their cables there (and
their own ducting should they ever need to re-lay).

Unfortunately no-one else was allowed to use spare space the BT ducts. So
big chunky ducts owned by the landlord would be an answer.

Cheap on new builds. No need to predict the technology of tomorrow. Just
stuff the wires/fibres through when required.

My 2p's worth.

Timbo

--
Tim Southerwood
Website: http://www.dionic.net/

Mike wrote:


......., a wireless solution will dominate broadband provision in due
course.

Really?, What makes you think that then....

I'm a consultant for many of those companies.

Ah, an independent voice, then ;-)

Dinosaur-like, I just don't see it. RF spectrum is limited - Messrs
Nyquist, Fourier, and Shannon are tediously difficult to bamboozle,
whatever the IPO spreadsheet says :-) For the large urban areas, wired
wins in cost terms, readily so if you can re-use existing wire (hence
xDSL and cable-TV-piggyback schemes), pretty readily if you can re-use
existing ducting and wayleaves. If you have to dig new trenches, there's
a one-off capital cost, but final equipment cost is cheaper for both
operator and subscriber. That's where your business model affects the
investment decision - if you want to go after the better-off early
adopters and have the infrastructure cost scale quite closely with the
numbe of users, the Wireless Way is attractive; if you expect to build
to a mass market quickly, the pain of the initial investment is
outweighed by future revenues. Admittedly, that argument's easier to
make when the finance houses are falling over themselves to pump money
into anything with "interweb" in the name than now ;-)

Stefek

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:


......., a wireless solution will dominate broadband provision in due
course.

Really?, What makes you think that then....

I'm a consultant for many of those companies.

Ah, an independent voice, then ;-)

Never claimed to be :-) But having helped design the current ADSL system I
think I have a reasonable grasp of what works and what doesn't.


Dinosaur-like, I just don't see it. RF spectrum is limited - Messrs
Nyquist, Fourier, and Shannon are tediously difficult to bamboozle,
whatever the IPO spreadsheet says :-)

Totally agree. But the average number of bits downloaded by most people is
really small - they just want the same data with less latency.


For the large urban areas, wired
wins in cost terms, readily so if you can re-use existing wire (hence
xDSL and cable-TV-piggyback schemes), pretty readily if you can re-use
existing ducting and wayleaves.

I worked on the VDSL standards and have designed suitable equipment to
install, but unless the service providers want to use that service, no
operator is going to install it. As for cable TV systems - forget it. When
they were given their licences they were required to install fibre which
would have created the fibre to the house (FTTH) system we really need now,
but once the licences were awarded they asked for and got optouts from this
requirement because "fibre is too expensive".


If you have to dig new trenches, there's a one-off capital cost,

Which will bankrupt you, as it did with most cable companies in the 80s/90s.


but final equipment cost is cheaper for both operator and subscriber.

Not really. Once you are in high volume the cost of most pure electronic
items becomes remarkable similar. It's things like mechanicals or displays
that vary the price.

That's where your business model affects the
investment decision - if you want to go after the better-off early
adopters and have the infrastructure cost scale quite closely with the
numbe of users, the Wireless Way is attractive; if you expect to build
to a mass market quickly, the pain of the initial investment is
outweighed by future revenues. Admittedly, that argument's easier to
make when the finance houses are falling over themselves to pump money
into anything with "interweb" in the name than now ;-)

Oh if only they were. Raising finance at the moment is grim.

However, the equipment isn't cheap so the connection cost is
relatively high now - wasn't when I got it.

From the SP's point of view, the coverage works well. In my area,
there are base stations about every 5-8km and they can cover line of
sight - generally about 8km or a bit more.

I don't think that it's a solution for every situation, but it's
better than ADSL and cable modem.



You say that, but when the "local" exchange gets ADSL enabled the
connections to the wireless networks start to drop off;(
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Mike
writes

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
The companies manufacturing broadband equipment pointed out that anything
installed now would be obsolete next week so don't bother. Most work on
VDSL in the UK is winding down and whether it's WiMax, satellite, laser
or
whatever, a wireless solution will dominate broadband provision in due
course.


Really?, What makes you think that then....

I'm a consultant for many of those companies.

And "insultant" eh?, I'm one of they, but I try to keep it quiet

If WiMax gets the top end of the analogue TV bands as it will in the US and
some other places then it's a fairly done deal, otherwise laser solutions
could still succeed.

Well if they can afford it, from the government who of course are well
up for flogging off the radio spectrum. Course there is the small
problem of provisioning the service nation-wide at an affordable
price...

And there is a round trip problem with satellite, it
is the best way to deliver huge amounts of data to lots of people.

Nope don't see that at all . Sat is good for "broadcasting" but not for
one to one comms..

In
theory every non-video/music page on the Internet could be regularly
delivered to one's own private 'google' if you had a large enough hard
drive.

Yes it could, but somehow don't see that.

I reckon that they'll be a variety of connection method's for a long
time to come as yet, the cheapest delivery will win out in the end....
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:34:37 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named Tim
S randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I would have thought mandatory shareable ducting would be the way to go.

Cheap on new builds. No need to predict the technology of tomorrow. Just
stuff the wires/fibres through when required.

Effectively that's what was (is) proposed.

The remit of the Building Regulations is for the health, safety and
welfare of people in and around buildings. The provision of ducting
for communication cables seems to be going way beyond the definition
of 'welfare'. It's the kind of thing that should be left to market
forces.
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants
a piece of this, just how far from the pack have you strayed?"'

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:53:08 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

However, the equipment isn't cheap so the connection cost is
relatively high now - wasn't when I got it.

From the SP's point of view, the coverage works well. In my area,
there are base stations about every 5-8km and they can cover line of
sight - generally about 8km or a bit more.

I don't think that it's a solution for every situation, but it's
better than ADSL and cable modem.



You say that, but when the "local" exchange gets ADSL enabled the
connections to the wireless networks start to drop off;(

True. Mainly because some of the original operators like Tele2
attempted to reach the consumer market with low cost entry packages
for consumers. The equipment and installation costs exceeded the
short term revenues and the economy of scale wasn't there to compete
with BT, and so these original operators fell by the wayside.
Nowadays, AIUI, the majority of WLL customers are businesses willing
to pay more.

THis fills a gap in the market between consumer "boadband" (not real
broadband) and 2Mb leased line.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

If WiMax gets the top end of the analogue TV bands as it will in the US
and
some other places then it's a fairly done deal, otherwise laser solutions
could still succeed.

Well if they can afford it, from the government who of course are well
up for flogging off the radio spectrum. Course there is the small
problem of provisioning the service nation-wide at an affordable
price...

If the bandwidth is free, as it will be in US, Canada, middle East, Italy
and a few others so far, then rollout cost is remarkably low - there's a
complete set of local transmitter aerials covering the country already to
get things started. These would obviously gradually be replaced by lower
power directional units as the need arises.


And there is a round trip problem with satellite, it
is the best way to deliver huge amounts of data to lots of people.

Nope don't see that at all . Sat is good for "broadcasting" but not for
one to one comms..

How much one to one comms do you do ? For example every Usenet page could
be transmitted as it is written and updated every few minutes for new
logons. Same with BBC News and all the other high use sites. The potential
satallite bandwidth is very high.




I reckon that they'll be a variety of connection method's for a long
time to come as yet, the cheapest delivery will win out in the end....

We agree on that one. At least provide the regulator or government don't
interfere.

"Hugo Nebula" abuse@localhost wrote in message
...
The remit of the Building Regulations is for the health, safety and
welfare of people in and around buildings. The provision of ducting
for communication cables seems to be going way beyond the definition
of 'welfare'. It's the kind of thing that should be left to market
forces.

What do you expect from a government where social engineering seems to be so
high on the agenda. Wouldn't want the poor not to have broadband, would we
? They can do without food, sanitation and so on provided they've got the
Internet. Oh dear ........