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

Fri Mar 2 13:46:25 PST 2018

Also, for Google, it is mission accomplished. Everyone else picked up the
gigabit thing. They are still deploying though, but being clever. In
Huntsville, they run a city-owned fiber network, for instance. They are
also pushing things that enable driverless vehicles. Wall Street says it
happens in 2040 or 2050. People close to it say 2025-2030 in many places.

Steve Ross
Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com)
201-456-5933 mobile
707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice
editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn)
editorsteve1 (Twitter)
steve at bbcmag.com
editorsteve at gmail.com

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Doug Orr <doug.orr at gmail.com> wrote:

> A couple of notes in response to comments long scrolled by:
>
> Watching from a relatively close distance (but not having intimate
> knowledge):
>
> Google Fiber probably wasn't hobbled by lack of big buck returns, exactly.
> I think they were naive about the target market -- everyone wants triple
> play and not having content is a big liability for an internet provider
> (witness ATT going after Time Warner and Verizon spinning off FIOS in a
> bunch of markets). Old people don't want to cut cords. So, I believe that
> sales were harder than expected.
>
> One of their expected wins was using new trenching technology that could
> quickly lay fiber in shallow trenches. I haven't ever validated this but I
> think there may have been a little California bias there and later, once
> they started going places that froze, being able to get up on poles became
> a priority. And that's a mess.
>
> As noted, just getting gig speeds is of limited use for most people. GF
> was started before Cloud computing had really taken off in a big way. Since
> it's taken off, running a little datacenter in your home doesn't make much
> sense. Owning a PC barely makes sense for most people at this point,
> really. Which reinforces the whole "entertainment drives everything" model.
> Industrial parks, hospitals, and tech neighborhoods will probably be the
> only active consumers of high speed networking in a few years. (My version
> of "the world will only ever need 5 computers" statement :)
>
> GF was intended to change the world. Most of this world is focused on
> watching TV (or using services on it phone). So, I'm guessing that there's
> a combination of the world being harder to change than was expected and the
> world changing out from under the original expectations...
>
> IOT might change network demand...so far seems like a solution in search
> of a problem. Or crazy mobile bandwidth needs coming from self driving cars
> or what not. But those also still seem like wealthy world problems that
> aren't going to induce changes places that are already not a valuable
> enough business prospect to warrant getting good cell phone coverage.
>
> Having shared fiber backbones seems like the only way to get better
> competition in denser areas (I like that honeycomb stuff!), and public
> mandate and subsidy seems like the only way to get better service in sparse
> areas. I'm sure the postal service knows a thing or two about this sort of
> thing...
>
>   Doug
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:27 AM Steve Ross <editorsteve at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a bit of a misconception on public broadband as well. Of the
>> 1100 systems in our Fiberville database, only about 200 (serving about 230
>> communities) are publicly owned. The history of almost all of them is that
>> national carriers refused to make even minimal improvements in service,
>> and/or there were no LECs willing or able to partner. Most of those
>> communities would have simply continued to die off. That also comes with a
>> cost.
>>
>> Public-private partnerships and service by tier3 LECs (often operating as
>> CLECs in the fiber footprint) are the norm in rural areas.
>>
>> We see a lot of nasty consequences of this patchwork. One first-rate
>> rural operator in New England will not be allowed to bid in CAF2 because on
>> paper it looks over-extended to the FCC. Yet it is the logical low-cost
>> operator for the CBGs at issue, and without this company, those CBGs
>> probably will not be served at all. I suspect many other situations like
>> this will soon come to light.
>>
>> We've seen many rural LECs that, given small loans, could bring their
>> services up to speed... and lose out to more heavily subsidized
>> (politically favored) new entrants.
>>
>> We see 20 states that don't even allow municipalities to threaten to
>> build their own systems ... and rural population loss in those states is
>> four times higher than in the "non-restriction" states even though the
>> restriction states overall have faster population growth even as their
>> rural populations dwindle. This requires more investment in urban
>> infrastructure! It is not cost-free or economically efficient!
>>
>> Also, car-to-car data communication in the looming driverless era MUST be
>> thru 5G microcells in all but the most rural areas. Where there are few
>> cars and trucks on the road, the communication can indeed be car-to-car.
>> The data traffic for driverless vehicles will be double the peak video
>> traffic. The networks we build now must take those things into account as
>> they evolve.
>>
>> Government even made a hash of the net neutrality thing. A few sentences
>> to patch the telecom act would have protected small carriers against
>> peering-point extortion, without subjecting them all to Title II. Same goes
>> for pole attachments (and the issue was made more complex as Title II at
>> least regulated them to some extent).
>>
>> And BTW, this is not a liberal-conservative thing. Bernie made a mess of
>> VT broadband expansion by pushing a wireless provider in the ARRA period
>> over a fiber provider run by a good guy he didn't like. It is a patchwork
>> thing.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Excellent – good point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* David Breecker [dba] [mailto:david at breeckerassociates.com]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 10:51 AM
>>> *To:* Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org>
>>> *Cc:* John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com>; Steve Ross <
>>> editorsteve at gmail.com>; Christopher Mitchell <christopher at ilsr.org>;
>>> rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>;
>>> masha at bbcmag.com
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Jane makes a good point.  In our work analyzing “energy poverty”
>>> in Africa and Asia, we see that one of the first things people use
>>> electricity for is television.  But that’s a stepping stone to developing
>>> energy infrastructure capable of supporting “productive use” in industry,
>>> agriculture, etc.
>>>
>>> db
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin <coffin at isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All –
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> May I play devil’s advocate.  I am not from NM (but love it there).  I
>>> come from a rural coastal town in Maine.  Local uptake can often start out
>>> with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the
>>> community realizes the value-add.  Note that we see this all over the
>>> world, and that entertainment content has been driving network
>>> infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East
>>> Asia, LAC, etc.  I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a
>>> good reason for public network infrastructure dev.  Why not subsidize the
>>> preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back
>>> or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev?  We build and maintain
>>> roads at the State and local level…
>>>
>>> 2/ With you.  We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast
>>> (cost was $2,600.00).  They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an
>>> existing mast.  With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were
>>> able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org
>>>
>>> Skype:  janercoffin
>>>
>>> Mobile/WhatsApp:  +1.202.247.8429 <(202)%20247-8429>
>>>
>>> *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of
>>> John Badal <JBadal at sacred-wind.com>
>>> *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM
>>> *To: *Steve Ross <editorsteve at gmail.com>, Christopher Mitchell <
>>> christopher at ilsr.org>
>>> *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg <rl at 1st-mile.org>, 1st-Mile-NM <
>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" <masha at bbcmag.com>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David Breecker,
>>>
>>> President
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * David Breecker Associates*
>>>
>>> *www.breeckerassociates.com <http://www.breeckerassociates.com>*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335>
>>>
>>> Abiquiu Office:   505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891>
>>>
>>> Skype:  dbreecker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/e726a4c4/attachment.html>