Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
2489 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 684


  Reply # 1526334 5-Apr-2016 13:39
Send private message

It was only about 5-8 years ago people on here were saying you'd never be able to get unlimited on a wired connection due to international capacity limits... All it took was a few brave/desperate companies to try it out at the same time and thus avoid the rush of 1% high users to one company... Now it's a common thing (even though the second international cable is still only in the horizon)

I thinks the same will apply to FIXED cellular connections. As the 'mobile' companies see the market need, and build the capacity to meet it in a financially viable way, those who can't get a good fixed line connection, or don't need oodles of data, will migrate to this option as a way to meet their 'needs' for connectivity.

27287 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6721

Moderator
Trusted
Biddle Corp
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1526338 5-Apr-2016 13:49
2 people support this post
Send private message

PhantomNVD: It was only about 5-8 years ago people on here were saying you'd never be able to get unlimited on a wired connection due to international capacity limits... All it took was a few brave/desperate companies to try it out at the same time and thus avoid the rush of 1% high users to one company... Now it's a common thing (even though the second international cable is still only in the horizon)

I thinks the same will apply to FIXED cellular connections. As the 'mobile' companies see the market need, and build the capacity to meet it in a financially viable way, those who can't get a good fixed line connection, or don't need oodles of data, will migrate to this option as a way to meet their 'needs' for connectivity.

 

International capacity was never a reason why flat rate didn't occur - it was simply price. With probably 30-40% of traffic now staying locally within NZ depending on the ISP the requirements for international capacity per user are stable (or even going backwards). In the US the reasons why so many providers have moved away from unlimited are capacity and price as well.

 

Wireless is a shared PHY layer unlike UFB and DSL which are dedicated. It's a very different scenario.

 

 


 
 
 
 


4025 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1076

Trusted

  Reply # 1526339 5-Apr-2016 13:49
Send private message

ajw:

 

sbiddle:

 

ajw:

 

Both companies will have to spend millions rolling out new transmission sites for this service to cover urban areas throughout the country.  

 

 

For most sites it'll be very cost effective enabling 2300, with the major work being additional panels required on some sites. Single RAN makes life very easy.

 

 

 

 

You still need the capacity and coverage and higher usage caps and competitive pricing to attract the punters. Would I be correct in saying that the single Ran infrastructure was added to spark transmission sites when sites were upgraded to 4G using Huawei networking equipment.

 

 

 

 

Anyone know what he status is of them decomming ALU gear for 3G and going full huawei stack? I recall this being announced but unsure how quickly they are pushing it through.


536 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154


  Reply # 1526342 5-Apr-2016 13:51
Send private message

sbiddle:

 

tangerz:

 

This really was a heist! Considering Spark paid $149 Million for 40MHz in the 700MHz spectrum auction (though, I admit, that is in the 'prime' sub 1000MHz range) it would be interesting to know what Spark paid Woosh/Craig Wireless for the 70MHz block of 2.3GHz spectrum. Bet it wouldn't have been much given there is less than a year to utilize it or they would lose it anyway.

 

 

 

The figure was public last week - $9 million

 

 

 

 

Wow that really was a steal.... now to see how they use it!


4164 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 760

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1526349 5-Apr-2016 14:13
Send private message

What will typical upstream speeds be like? My main pain point with ADSL is that the upstream is too slow for routine use of iCloud for backups and photo storage.

151 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 31


  Reply # 1526371 5-Apr-2016 14:38
Send private message

alasta: What will typical upstream speeds be like? My main pain point with ADSL is that the upstream is too slow for routine use of iCloud for backups and photo storage.

 

 

 

I recall from reviews of Skinny's service (using the same modem and network) people were getting 10Mbps+ - quite an improvement over ADSL!


3539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

  Reply # 1526388 5-Apr-2016 15:24
2 people support this post
Send private message

alasta: What will typical upstream speeds be like? My main pain point with ADSL is that the upstream is too slow for routine use of iCloud for backups and photo storage.

 

My upload speed on Vodafone RBI is consistently in the 31Mbps range:






ajw

1447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138


  Reply # 1526390 5-Apr-2016 15:25
Send private message

tangerz:

 

sbiddle:

 

Vodafone will be planning the same with their 2.6GHz and 3.5GHz spectrum. Their problem is 3.5GHz is not ready for mass market deployments yet due to lack of CPE support.

 

While I applaud Spark for what they're doing the bigger picture here is the heist of the century. While many regard this to be the Dick Smith selloff, it's actually the fact Spark managed to acquire a big block of spectrum for probably a minimum of 1/10th of what it was worth had this gone to auction. This is a big loss to the taxpayer.

 

 

 

 

This really was a heist! Considering Spark paid $149 Million for 40MHz in the 700MHz spectrum auction (though, I admit, that is in the 'prime' sub 1000MHz range) it would be interesting to know what Spark paid Woosh/Craig Wireless for the 70MHz block of 2.3GHz spectrum. Bet it wouldn't have been much given there is less than a year to utilize it or they would lose it anyway.

 

 

 

ajw:

 

sbiddle:

 

ajw:

 

Both companies will have to spend millions rolling out new transmission sites for this service to cover urban areas throughout the country.  

 

 

For most sites it'll be very cost effective enabling 2300, with the major work being additional panels required on some sites. Single RAN makes life very easy.

 

 

 

 

You still need the capacity and coverage and higher usage caps and competitive pricing to attract the punters. Would I be correct in saying that the single Ran infrastructure was added to spark transmission sites when sites were upgraded to 4G using Huawei networking equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

With their recently acquired 70MHz of 2.3GHz spectrum, (along with their two 20MHz blocks in the 2.5/2.6GHz spectrum) Spark now has 110MHz of bandwidth ideally suited for fixed wireless in a densely populated urban environment. That's more than they have in use for their entire 4G network currently (which is 90MHz made up of 40MHz @700MHz, 50MHz @ 1.8GHz plus a few sites on 2.6GHz) so they certainly now have the capacity.

 

And from sbiddle's comments about deployment, it doesn't seem this is going to take much in the way of $$$ or time, so there is the coverage.

 

Higher data caps may result from this, but fixed wireless (being a finite resource ultimately) should only ever be seen as a last resort for those unable to get a UFB connection (not as an alternative), and should be priced accordingly. What I mean by that is, so that you don't get users who can get UFB taking up the limited resource of those that can't get UFB.

 

 

 

Maybe pricing along the lines of:

 

$40/month for 30GB - Low use users

 

$80/month for 80GB - Average users who can't get UFB

 

$120/month for 150GB - Above average users who can't get UFB

 

$160/month for 250GB - Heavy users who can't get UFB

 

 

 

I would never expect to see an unlimited offering (nor do I think there should be) as that would potentially congest the network for everyone. But with reasonable data caps and pricing not too outrageous a fixed wireless service can be the perfect compliment to the UFB network. (But not a replacement!) 

 

 

 

Coverage is also part of the equation, remember there original wireless network was planned using 850MHZ. So they will still have to place sites close to urban areas to achieve 2300 and 2600 coverage which is going to cost millions and the resultant outcry from Nimby's and councils.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


536 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154


  Reply # 1526431 5-Apr-2016 16:24
One person supports this post
Send private message

ajw:

 

 

 

 Coverage is also part of the equation, remember there original wireless network was planned using 850MHZ. So they will still have to place sites close to urban areas to achieve 2300 and 2600 coverage which is going to cost millions and the resultant outcry from Nimby's and councils.

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily. I'm sure Spark will have this 4G service across multiple bands including 700MHz which has even better reach/penetration than 850MHz. Deployment of 2.3/2.6GHz on even just their current tower locations would no doubt see a large percentage of urban customers in coverage. Those who aren't could likely be serviced by either the 1.8GHz or 700MHz network in a kind of 'infill' situation.

 

This may (necessarily) involve external antennas pointed at certain towers and/or locking modems to certain towers/frequencies but even still I don't imagine deployment is going to be too difficult.


ajw

1447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138


  Reply # 1526434 5-Apr-2016 16:31
Send private message

tangerz:

 

ajw:

 

 

 

 Coverage is also part of the equation, remember there original wireless network was planned using 850MHZ. So they will still have to place sites close to urban areas to achieve 2300 and 2600 coverage which is going to cost millions and the resultant outcry from Nimby's and councils.

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily. I'm sure Spark will have this 4G service across multiple bands including 700MHz which has even better reach/penetration than 850MHz. Deployment of 2.3/2.6GHz on even just their current tower locations would no doubt see a large percentage of urban customers in coverage. Those who aren't could likely be serviced by either the 1.8GHz or 700MHz network in a kind of 'infill' situation.

 

This may (necessarily) involve external antennas pointed at certain towers and/or locking modems to certain towers/frequencies but even still I don't imagine deployment is going to be too difficult.

 

 

To get the best results using 2300 and 2600 you have to be line of site to the nearest cellsite. And these bands will hardly penetrate walls let alone having the same coverage as the 850MHZ band. Perhaps somebody can explain to you signal propagation and the effects of using different frequency bands and coverage.

 

This article explains what I mean.

 

http://hightechforum.org/low-versus-high-radio-spectrum/

 

 


4164 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 760

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1526468 5-Apr-2016 18:31
Send private message

staticnz:

 

alasta: What will typical upstream speeds be like? My main pain point with ADSL is that the upstream is too slow for routine use of iCloud for backups and photo storage.

 

I recall from reviews of Skinny's service (using the same modem and network) people were getting 10Mbps+ - quite an improvement over ADSL!

 

 

Wow! Currently I'm lucky if I can get 1Mbps.


4103 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 881


  Reply # 1526481 5-Apr-2016 19:00
Send private message

Wireless data will never be unlimited. Someone else on here tried to say the same thing a few months ago, comparing it to dialup, of all things.


536 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154


  Reply # 1526501 5-Apr-2016 20:06
Send private message

ajw:

 

tangerz:

 

ajw:

 

 

 

 Coverage is also part of the equation, remember there original wireless network was planned using 850MHZ. So they will still have to place sites close to urban areas to achieve 2300 and 2600 coverage which is going to cost millions and the resultant outcry from Nimby's and councils.

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily. I'm sure Spark will have this 4G service across multiple bands including 700MHz which has even better reach/penetration than 850MHz. Deployment of 2.3/2.6GHz on even just their current tower locations would no doubt see a large percentage of urban customers in coverage. Those who aren't could likely be serviced by either the 1.8GHz or 700MHz network in a kind of 'infill' situation.

 

This may (necessarily) involve external antennas pointed at certain towers and/or locking modems to certain towers/frequencies but even still I don't imagine deployment is going to be too difficult.

 

 

To get the best results using 2300 and 2600 you have to be line of site to the nearest cellsite. And these bands will hardly penetrate walls let alone having the same coverage as the 850MHZ band. Perhaps somebody can explain to you signal propagation and the effects of using different frequency bands and coverage.

 

This article explains what I mean.

 

http://hightechforum.org/low-versus-high-radio-spectrum/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah I know enough about signal propagation at higher frequencies to know it's not as easy as with the sub 1000MHz frequencies, hence my comments on the probable necessity of external antennas for service at these (2.3/2.6GHz) frequencies and the use of the lower 1.8GHz and (especially) 700MHz as 'infill'. It may be that it ends up less like the Skinny Broadband 'plug and play' model and more like the Vodafone RBI Wireless or Spark's own Rural Wireless Broadband with technician install, external antennas etc.

 

You must remember too that the Spark network has not been built out solely based on 850MHz, but on 1.8GHz and 2.1GHz as well, frequencies that have more in common with 2.3/2.6GHz than they do with 850MHz.

 

Anyway, not looking to argue on something that, (at this stage at least), is still just speculation on my part as to what Spark might be up to with this $9 million purchase.... guess we'll know by Christmas!


628 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 217


  Reply # 1526503 5-Apr-2016 20:21
Send private message

quickymart:

 

Wireless data will never be unlimited. Someone else on here tried to say the same thing a few months ago, comparing it to dialup, of all things.

 

 

The next step will be plans that come with a high speed data cap. Once you go over your cap your speed will be throttled. 





Amanon

1149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286


  Reply # 1526506 5-Apr-2016 20:22
One person supports this post
Send private message

In 5 years time 5G combined with fibre almost everywhere all sorts of things might evolve in this fixed wireless stuff.    We might be amazed by what it can do.

 

It might not be comparable, but look how the humble old dial-up modem gradually improved from say 2.4k to finally hit 56k.    That took years to happen.    There would have been

 

people using 14.4k modems who would have scoffed at the idea that modems would get to 56k.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.