The future of cable

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:33:48 -0700, in alt.internet.wireless , "Mr. X"
<greenbaboon1@cox.net> wrote:

>So I hear that Philadelphia is considering becoming completely
>wireless...
....
>Does this, more or less, pose the end of cable providers like Cox?

Ask yourself how the signal gets from the wireless APs, to the internet....
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html&gt;
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt&gt;


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:33:48 -0700, "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net>
wrote:

>So I hear that Philadelphia is considering becoming completely
>wireless...
>The mayor is thinking of installing transmitters on every block.
>Aside from the fact that wireless is slower than direct links...
>Does this, more or less, pose the end of cable providers like Cox?

http://www.phila.gov/wireless/

802.11 wireless does not have the bandwidth to deliver hundreds of
channels of video as in CATV. It also can't deliver the performance
of cable modems 3000/384 Kbits/sec at the distances required. You're
not going to watch Pay-per-View HDTV on your laptop via wireless in
the near future. If there is any threat, it's to cellular providers
as users are likely to deploy portable 802.11 VoIP phones.

Incidentally, the FAQ mumbles about 8-16 access points per square mile
which works out to one access point every 500ft or so. I guess
they've never heard of non-overlapping channels and mutual
interference with mesh networks. This and $60,000/sq mile are the
only numbers I can find on the web site, which leads me to guess(tm)
that there has been no engineering study, no site survey, no clue on
operating costs, and no hints on how this is going to interface to the
internet. (The cost of a T3 backhaul is about $10K-$15K/month).
Municipal wireless networks are being done, but not exactly on such a
grand scale with so few numbers.
http://www.muniwireless.com


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

* It's broadcast TV all over again. We'll have to watch commercials on WiFi
TV. ;-) Seriously I think there will be Cable and DSL (and FTTC, FTTH) for
quite some time to come.

The Internet is ending ... Film at 11.

--
---
Alan Spicer (a_spicer@bellsouth.net)
Systems, Networks, Telecommunications

"Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bXL0d.293588$Oi.271783@fed1read04...
> So I hear that Philadelphia is considering becoming completely
> wireless...
>
> The mayor is thinking of installing transmitters on every block.
>
> Aside from the fact that wireless is slower than direct links...
>
> Does this, more or less, pose the end of cable providers like Cox?
>
> T.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

* Right. And how many thousands homes passed in each of those 500 foot
or so access points, and who is going to pay for this?

Oh shoot! I see our taxes going up to support community wireless networks.
Wow ... the universal service fund from ****.

--
---
Alan Spicer (a_spicer@bellsouth.net)
Systems, Networks, Telecommunications


"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mau8k0lkc5d3ige1m3ahbtk238rockd5o0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:33:48 -0700, "Mr. X" <greenbaboon1@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>So I hear that Philadelphia is considering becoming completely
>>wireless...
>>The mayor is thinking of installing transmitters on every block.
>>Aside from the fact that wireless is slower than direct links...
>>Does this, more or less, pose the end of cable providers like Cox?
>
> http://www.phila.gov/wireless/
>
> 802.11 wireless does not have the bandwidth to deliver hundreds of
> channels of video as in CATV. It also can't deliver the performance
> of cable modems 3000/384 Kbits/sec at the distances required. You're
> not going to watch Pay-per-View HDTV on your laptop via wireless in
> the near future. If there is any threat, it's to cellular providers
> as users are likely to deploy portable 802.11 VoIP phones.
>
> Incidentally, the FAQ mumbles about 8-16 access points per square mile
> which works out to one access point every 500ft or so. I guess
> they've never heard of non-overlapping channels and mutual
> interference with mesh networks. This and $60,000/sq mile are the
> only numbers I can find on the web site, which leads me to guess(tm)
> that there has been no engineering study, no site survey, no clue on
> operating costs, and no hints on how this is going to interface to the
> internet. (The cost of a T3 backhaul is about $10K-$15K/month).
> Municipal wireless networks are being done, but not exactly on such a
> grand scale with so few numbers.
> http://www.muniwireless.com
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:06:23 -0400, "Alan Spicer"
<a_spicer@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>* Right. And how many thousands homes passed in each of those 500 foot
>or so access points, and who is going to pay for this?
>
>Oh shoot! I see our taxes going up to support community wireless networks.
>Wow ... the universal service fund from ****.

Let's play with the numbers.
http://www.phila.gov/wireless/

The web site declares that Philadelphia has 135 sq miles and that this
will cost $60,000 per sq mile or $7-10 million. Digging deeper, the
population of the city is 1.5 million with about 670,000 households.
So we have a cost of:
$10 million / 670K = $15 per household
That's really cheap. I wouldn't worry about your taxes, initially.

Of course, that doesn't include the cost of the backhaul, planning,
environmental impact studies, contract administration, installation,
maintenance, upgrades, administration, support, security, abuse
managment, insurance, shrinkage (theft), depreciation, and the
inevitable litigation from the tin foil hat crowd. It's a bit like
the government building the roads, but not providing for traffic
lights, lanes, street cleaning, and road maintenance. Of course, a
beaurocracy will be needed to run it.

At 8-16 access points per sq mile, that yields a cost of:
$60,000 / 16 access points = $3,750 per access point.
That's approximately the price from the Tropos Networks price
guestimator:
http://www.tropos.com/support/faq.shtml#faq10
which claims only $20,000 to $50,000 per sq mile. Presumeably, the
city will use it's own light poles for installations, so the cost
should be on the low end. Maybe Philadelphia padded the numbers to
include some of the missing items. Dunno.

I can't tell from here if the cost estimates are high or low. That's
because the greatest bulk of the expenses have nothing to do with the
hardware. The system should require:
16 AP's per sq mile * 135 sq miles = 2,160 access points.
These cost about $1,000ea so the approximate hardware cost will be
$2.2 million. Where the other $4.8 - $7.8 million are going is not
very clear.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558