[1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold

Fri Mar 2 09:43:06 PST 2018

John, I agree that this has been a good conversation and appreciate your
points.

I am researching abuse by pole owners (and attachers) that limit investment
in fiber networks. I know that John Brown has faced this as well. Perhaps
we can jump on a call we can arrange offline to share your experiences.

Regarding the point that the vast majority of the bandwidth being used is
for entertainment, I think you would find that much of the electricity, use
of our roads, etc is not for academic or job enhancing information. That is
not the appropriate test in my mind.

This is example that I think illustrates my point. I pay Comcast to be on
higher than the standard tier of service because I need faster upload
speeds somewhere around 5-10 times per month for something I am working on.
That is why I use Comcast - they are the fastest in my area. The vast
majority of bits that Comcast transmits for me are not that important.
Probably most are entertainment. But that is not why I have the connection.
We should not justify the need for a connection based on what uses the most
capacity but rather what is the highest value.

And as you are well aware, most Netflix streams use only 5ish Mbps pr less.
So that is not a justification for fiber. But being able to work from home
(even if that is not the biggest mover of bits through a month) requires
reliability and much more capacity than Netflix does.

I think the amount of bits used for entertainment is a distraction. But
even if we take it more seriously, whether or not a home can enjoy a good
Netflix connection moves the housing market significantly. And that is
important and must be paid attention to.

Christopher Mitchell
Director, Community Broadband Networks
Institute for Local Self-Reliance

MuniNetworks.org <http://www.muninetworks.org/>
@communitynets
612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185>

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:31 AM, John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com> wrote:

> Steve & Christopher,
>
>
>
> This has been a good discussion.  I agree that anyone daring or committed
> enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise.  My primary
> concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added
> investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a
> wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of
> bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job
> enhancing information.  A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in
> rural areas is hard to find.  And 2) where the owner of the only utility
> poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with
> those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only
> possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more
> partnerships – private and public/private – for the purpose of expanding
> rural broadband.  What we’ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of
> power.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM
> *To:* Christopher Mitchell <christopher at ilsr.org>
> *Cc:* John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com>; 1st-Mile-NM <
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold
>
>
>
> BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs.
> Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a
> year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have
> shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of
> broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss.
>
>
>
> I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers,
> including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case
> for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who
> think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians.
>
>
>
>
> Steve Ross
> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com)
> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile
> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice
> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn)
> editorsteve1 (Twitter)
> steve at bbcmag.com
> editorsteve at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross <editorsteve at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few
> electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and
> others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not
> FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case.
>
>
>
> We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile
> taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held
> hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles
> to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention.
>
>
>
>
> Steve Ross
> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com)
> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile
> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice
> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn)
> editorsteve1 (Twitter)
> steve at bbcmag.com
> editorsteve at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell <christopher at ilsr.org>
> wrote:
>
> Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could
> get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can
> be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in
> operation today.
>
>
>
> Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such
> rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money,
> rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be
> aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not
> offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small
> ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They
> aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a
> service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return.
> Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and
> who knows what. They have a different calculus.
>
>
>
> The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most
> sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore
> the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done.  We have documented
> where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize.
>
> https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page
>
>
>
>
> Christopher Mitchell
> Director, Community Broadband Networks
> Institute for Local Self-Reliance
>
>
> MuniNetworks.org <http://www.muninetworks.org/>
>
> @communitynets
>
> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com> wrote:
>
> Business case?  Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans
> in urban areas far more densely populated than NM’s rural areas.  The
> sizzle got ahead of the steak.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM
> *To:* John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com>
> *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr <doug.orr at gmail.com>; rl at 1st-mile.org;
> 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold
>
>
>
> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a
> highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it.
>
>
>
> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that
> too, but a gig resonates and is a standard.
>
>
>
> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow
> into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when
> that can unlock additional value.
>
>
>
> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality
> Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and
> wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much
> lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost
> effective than wireless over a period of decades.
>
>
>
> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for
> better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit
> applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide.
>
>
> Christopher Mitchell
> Director, Community Broadband Networks
> Institute for Local Self-Reliance
>
>
> MuniNetworks.org <http://www.muninetworks.org/>
>
> @communitynets
>
> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com>
> wrote:
>
> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home.  Rural
> communities are crying for both, afraid they’d fall deeper into the digital
> divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use
> gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual
> reality holodecks.    What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque
> to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to
> eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal
> systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Masha Zager
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM
> *To:* 'Doug Orr' <doug.orr at gmail.com>; rl at 1st-mile.org
> *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold
>
>
>
> It’s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags
> /Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities
> masha at bbcmag.com
> 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374>
> www.bbcmag.com
> www.twitter.com/bbcmag
>
>
>
> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org
> <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM
> *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org
> *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM
> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold
>
>
>
> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than
> fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired
> installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up
> a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot
> like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer
> faster aggregate speeds.
>
>
>
> What's the model here?
>
>
>
> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g.,
> netflix)?
>
>
>
>   Doug
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote:
>
> Following on recent postings.     RL
>
> -------
>
> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won’t fulfill all of
> its promises
>
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-
> of-being-oversold
>
> By Stacey Higginbotham
>
> Just like graphene or Elon Musk’s startups, 5G has become a technology
> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the
> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-⁠driving cars.
>
> But 5G is not a technology—it’s a buzzword unleashed by marketing
> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In
> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives
> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for
> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins.
>
> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A
> more stringent—and practical—definition is the use of high-frequency
> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on
> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes.
>
> If you’re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services
> aren’t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several
> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors’
> expectations around what 5G can deliver.
>
> (snip)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director
> 1st-Mile Institute     505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200>
> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504,
> rl at 1st-mile.org     www.1st-mile.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/1st-mile-nm/attachments/20180302/3d758aa8/attachment.html>