ah, the beauty of Twitter is that people watching a particular proceeding are able to quickly share news and information with one another without the filter of traditional news media, high profile blogs and government PR offices.
Gotta love it folks.
I say all that to share the waaaay over 140 characters response that @BroadBandEngr gave me in response to our Tweet convo s/he, @ColoComLwyr and @MicahSchwalb and I were having about our feelings about the caliber and characteristics of the projects that were announced yesterday for funding. In particular, the discussion flowed over whether terrestrial fiber projects or wireless WiMax, microwave and other sexier technologies like hybrid systems would do a better job of solving the problem at hand - lack of broadband access for rural and remote communities.
In any event, I asked about hybrid systems combining wireless, wireline and satellite transmission modes as a middle mile solution and this is the response I got in the wee hours of the morning when no creature should be stirring other than the anxious insomniatic 97.5% of the applicants still waiting on word that their project has been funded.
From @BroadBandEngr:
Gotta love it folks.
I say all that to share the waaaay over 140 characters response that @BroadBandEngr gave me in response to our Tweet convo s/he, @ColoComLwyr and @MicahSchwalb and I were having about our feelings about the caliber and characteristics of the projects that were announced yesterday for funding. In particular, the discussion flowed over whether terrestrial fiber projects or wireless WiMax, microwave and other sexier technologies like hybrid systems would do a better job of solving the problem at hand - lack of broadband access for rural and remote communities.
In any event, I asked about hybrid systems combining wireless, wireline and satellite transmission modes as a middle mile solution and this is the response I got in the wee hours of the morning when no creature should be stirring other than the anxious insomniatic 97.5% of the applicants still waiting on word that their project has been funded.
From @BroadBandEngr:
Today, most networks are a hybrid of different transmission media, with the most common being copper, fiber and wireless. A DSL circuit feeds into a DSLAM shelf, which is often connected by fiber to some higher capacity network. It is common for a wireless ISP to use a leased T1 (copper) to feed the base station. Even highspeed cable often uses a combination: coax (copper) at the home, fiber from the neighborhood to the headend. These copper, fiber and terrestrial wireless systems typically have low latency (time to travel from one node to another is very short). Any satellite link will have a higher latency due to the time necessary to send the signal to space and wait for the return.Introducing a satellite link into the picture means that you are willing to accept the higher latency. This is annoying to the user for any rapid response application. Satellite links have also historically been slower links (lower throughput speeds), although this is improving. Satellites will always be slower than terrestrial copper and/fiber.Satellites do have specific applications, especially in difficult geographies. "Difficult" means that it is expensive, impractical or impossible to construct fiber and/or copper lines to a location. Examples might be islands, deep canyons, mountainous areas or extremely remote areas (northern Canada or Alaska for example).To run a wireless ISP using a satellite feed, an operator can deploy a normal terrestrial wireless multipoint system (Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, even cellular), and use the satellite link to connect back to 'the world'. The terrestrial systems will work normally except for data transmitted over the satellite link. The satellite traffic will be subject to the delays and speed restrictions of the satellite link. It is completely possible to extend from a satellite downlink to a 2nd or 3rd wireless hub using terrestrial microwave (licensed or unlicensed wireless point-to-point). Technically, this will work. However, due to cost, latency, speed, and possible usage limitations by the satellite provider, the use of satellite for backhaul is almost never preferred over terrestrial copper or fiber (if one of these options is available).There are stories of Wireless ISPs using satellite feeds to reach communities in the bottom of the Grand Canyon http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/21/technology/satellite-web-links-let-indian-tribes-take-a-technological-jump.html. One company actually promotes the use of satellite fed WISPs as a niche market http://www.ftionline.com/services/wireless.html. Satellite fed ISP is pretty common in remote villages in Alaska http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/108560688.html.Here's my priority list for broadband access: If you have fiber, use it. If you are mobile, wireless is your only option, and coverage is king. If you are not mobile, and don't have fiber, you might have a choice between copper and wireless - choose the one that gives you the best bang for your buck. If you have no terrestrial option, go for a satellite link. If you find a place where satellite doesn't reach, thank your lucky stars you have found peace, and find a good book to read (that's an old fashioned thing with ink markings on paper, ask an old guy how to use it).BBEng
Hmm. I have to let that one marinate a bit and prepare my response me think.
Posts
Not much in BBEng's post to quarrel with here. Most companies with viable broadband dreams already own plant, and naturally they're going to use the plant at their disposal.
ReplyDeleteThe thornier question is, in my opinion, how do policymakers decide between technologies? If faced with a rural ILEC looking for $30 Million to expand an existing FTTH project o another 1000, and a wireless broadband play that can serve 1,000,000 people with $150 Million, do you start to question the wisdom of the fiber play? And what happens when a satellite provider promises to cover everyone, but your $500 Million investment will be plagued with latency? And by the way, how would you like to be the dutiful government employee watching that half a bil on the launch pad, strapped to a tank of rocket fuel?
It's a heck of a balancing act. In the end, though, I don't see a technology that can serve truly rural/remote areas other than wireless. In one of the communities a client of mine serves, rural ILECs and institutional consumers are complaining that major fiber companies simply won't splice cable to provide service to them, EVEN THOUGH THEIR FIBER RUNS RIGHT PAST THEM! If it isn't cost-effective to splice existing fiber, how on earth can a greenfield fiber build be sustainable?
To be fair, the other side of the argument (that against wireless) is network congestion, unreliability, and related issues. These arguments don't hold up well in rural areas, however. As population density drops, a good wireless network can perform flawlessly. The major carriers who have underbuild their urban 3G networks (I won't name names) have done a major disservice to wireless broadband, because they've created the perception that wireless equals dropped calls and network congestion. These are issues that begin to fade, however, as you move into less populated areas to serve those targeted by ARRA.
I really do not think we should be subsidizing large satellite companies to build and launch expensive satellite. And we should definitely not pour money into the pockets of satellite companies that have not delivered what they promised using government dollars under other programs. (I too am not naming names)
ReplyDeleteSo ColoComLawyer, are you saying there in your last paragraph that a wireless solution may be better for less populated area because the absence of congestion? Is that the case for providers using the unlicensed spectrum or WiMax and WiFi?
And do you both think that perhaps slower speed, QOS problems, latency should be tolerated as a lower quality broadband solution? Because yes, a user may not be able to do gaming or engage with interactive apps using wireless and satellite middle mile solutions but is it better to have some broadband than none at all? Is the end game to give rural residents the same caliber and speed of broadband than those afforded to folks in metropolitan areas.
In answer to your question, do I "think that perhaps slower speed, QOS problems, latency should be tolerated as a lower quality broadband solution?" - I reject the premise partially, inasmuch as it suggests wireless is a solution that cannot deliver a quality, high-speed connection.
ReplyDeleteA non-congested HSPA network can deliver 20 Mbps down, 8Mbps up. Trials I've been involved with show consistent, dependable speed in this range on a contour similar to that of voice coverage. So, while at some level of population density, and at some level of speed demand, fiber may become a better choice, wireless is a no-brainer in rural areas. I've seen a trial of the technology that provided a video link (on a wireless handset non less) that had no latency or any other issues.
How many homes or businesses need more than 20 Mbps? Not many, especially if they are limping by with no broadband, or an overpriced T1 right now. And if LTE fulfills its promise, we'll be looking at 100 Mbps and higher.
The only problem I see for HSPA is network congestion, and that only becomes a problem in suburban/urban markets that aren't really being targeted by ARRA as last-mile projects. In truly rural and remote areas, this technology would deliver better speeds than cable and DSL do in urban markets today.
You make a good point. And please educate me on what frequency these wimax, wifi, mesh and so on wireless networks operate on and would that work in the long haul as a middle mile solution? I'mn not being difficult. I really am clueless and intrigued.
ReplyDelete